Alors, vous touchez déjà a quelque chose d’intéressant
J’ai tendance a mettre dans la dernière description (celle avant d’envoyer, où on décrit aux évaluateurs) que là où je suis ça manque de POI sur tout les jeux etc, est ce que ça jouerais dans les refus ?
Par ailleurs en revenant au contexte de base, c’est un hôtel a insectes communautaire, il y a plusieurs hôtels sur un arbuste et ce dernier fait guise de grand hôtel. Il est au “bord de la route” dans l’herbe et au “bord” de chez quelqu’un, car l’arbre est sur la voie publique mais touche son muret. Voila pourquoi je pense qu’il y a un petit accroc sur le processus automatique.
(Pour mes autres demandes depuis que je parle ici j’ai moins de problèmes, je passe les 3/4 du temps le processus automatisé mais des fois les gens eux même ne sont pas d’accord (comme un panneau d’hommage qui est un panneau de route, quelques fois refusé ou des choses que l’on pourrait confondre comme sur des propriétés privées, je me suis malheureusement fait avoir )
I think you’re taking a risk by pleading (begging) in the supporting information for extra wayspots because you don’t have enough. If a submission is borderline, that pleading can turn it into a rejection, but I suspect will rarely turn it into an acceptance.
I understand why you are putting that in there - but ultimately a lack of POI’s in an area doesn’t make it any more eligible. If you live in a tiny village, reviewers tend to be more lenient in applying the criteria - but if you live in a town or city you likely have hundreds of stops, just not many in the residential areas.
Consider it was used for a game that you don’t play. How would you feel if every day you had lots of people turn up and loiter outside your house? You might start to get very annoyed with it - especially if it’s unsociable hours, they’re coming in groups or dropping litter! You say the bug hotel is on the edge of the private property - that to me still sounds like private property.
I’ve spent hours and hours over lots of different days and months walking around all the residential areas of my home town. And each time I see things that I consider nominating. But then I ask myself how I’d argue for it to be added and realise there’s no way on earth I’d accept that as a reviewer so I don’t bother. That said, I’ve managed to get loads of new stops and gyms in my area of town (within a 10-15 minutes loop walk we went from 4 stops and 2 gyms to 20 stops and 4 gyms all through my nominations - and I should have 2 new stops going in at tonight’s update with 1 stop turning into a new gym top). Across my whole town I’ve managed to get 150-200 stops and gyms added. But when I first started, I was getting lots of rejections. Now I will say I’ve been lucky on a couple - they were things I looked at and thought “it’s not that interesting… but I’ll give it a try anyway” and with the right research and using those links in my supporting text it went in anyway (honestly, I’m still gobsmacked but I’m taking the win).
Go for a walk and do it with the idea of looking for things to nominate. Look for community notice boards, community halls, listed buildings, playgrounds, walking trails, interesting features on housing estates (a new housing estate near me had a seating area with a pergola over it and that was accepted), in care homes look for artwork/statues or community gardens. A local care home near me have these AMAZING carved bird statues - I manage to get all 4 accepted after 1 was initially rejected as SFPR. I explained why it wasn’t that and all went through then. One even appeared on the featured page on the Wayfarer home page which made me so proud lol! Research what walking trails you have in the area, cycling trails too, then walk them looking for markers. It’s amazing the amount of these I’ve found that I never noticed before. Do you have a local museum or farm park? There might be exhibits or information boards in those that might be eligible. A recent tip someone gave me, that I haven’t tried yet, is to describe a public seating area as a “plaza” - so think about your terminology when nominating. Definitely use the appeals when they come back round - I’ve had loads accepted by Niantic that were originally rejected by the community!
En y repensant, j’ai une dernière question qui me reste dans la gorge.
Il y a proche de chez moi un chemin privé, cependant une chose bloque beaucoup du côté de la vérification automatique, c’est que le chemin est privé seulement pour les véhicules, c’est un chemin ou il y a des habitations, un petit côté de forêt, mais c’est simplement que le chemin à été mis privé récemment car des gens le prenait pour se garer ou quoi.
Tout ça pour dire que j’ai l’impression que le processus automatisé n’aimait pas beaucoup cela, c’est un chemin utilisé a pied par beaucoup, pour de la promenade, de l’exploration, du footing… Et il peut y avoir des choses intéressantes du point de vue de POI. Mais lorsque j’ai essayé j’ai l’impression que cet endroit n’est pas très “apprécié”.
Auriez vous une idée de comment je pourrais faire ? Comme dit précédemment c’est un endroit relativement utilisé par le voisinage et du monde pour marcher et se promener (même si j’oublie des exemples en fonction des POI)
Il y a un nom en effet, dans un seul sens seulement car l’autre débouche sur un sorte de sortie de forêt, mais merci ! Je vais tenter du coup si le fait que ce soit un chemin privé n’empêche pas la chose !
On m’a déjà répondu une fois mais j’aime avoir l’avis de plusieurs personnes.
Cependant est-ce bien / mal si je met les différents critères touches sur les points que je propose ?
J’ai tendance à mettre si un point est permanent, distinct dans son environnement, aimé par le voisinage et autre, s’il peut y avoir du sport, des rencontres sociales ou des explorateurs venant ici.
I agree with the previous poster, the private road won’t affect it if it’s an eligible nomination.
Re spelling out the criteria etc, I do this because there are a LOT of reviewers that don’t use this forum, don’t refresh themselves of the criteria or aren’t sure how to apply it - so I literally say things like “this is a great place to explore the history of x” or “this is a popular spot to socialise with others” or “this is a great way to get some exercise”. If I think they might think it’s a SFPR I spell out exactly why it isn’t that (eg “this is an apartment building which doesn’t fall under the single family private residence rule and is there eligible for consideration under the current Wayfarer guidelines”).
En fait je me demande si les évaluateurs lise forcément les description, je le fait pas ce n’est peut être pas le cas de tout le monde
Mais ces précisions était aussi dans le but d’identifier les passages que comportent mes demandes pour le tri automatique des demandes de POI, je me disait qu’en précisant bien nous même les critères que remplissent notre point et ce qu’on voit dedans ça peut faire “passer” au tri automatique, non pas dans un sens de la perturber, mais bien pour dire qu’il n’y a pas de problèmes dans les critères qu’à la demande
When reviewing you (and all other reviewers) really should read everything - at the very least to make certain there’s nothing been included that would make it ineligible! But to truly assess a nomination you need to take your time - read all the text, check the map, follow links or research yourself to make sure everything is true. Not just blindly accepting based off a title and photo because there are people that put fake nominations in and when you check the map you find that what they’ve nominated doesn’t even exist or it’s been taken elsewhere and they’ve put it next to their house to try to get a stop there.
Sometimes I merely scan the description. This is for things that are 100% eligible - having checked the title is OK and the location is correct, the description and supporting text aren’t really helpful, but there’s always the chance of something hideously wrong with them. A recent example is an old Anglican church, which is about as solid a submission as you can get.
je vois, par chance je prends mine de rien les évaluations au serieux, mais cette question de description m’avait mine de rien interpelé. Car il arrive des fois ou le tri automatique retire une demande sans grande raison, enfin pour un probleme qu’elle pense etre mais qui n’existe pas (c’est dommage que pour les refus automatique ont ait pas le pourquoi du comment, ceci dit ça permettrait au fraudeurs d’éssayer de passer entre les mailles du filet), approfondir la descirption avec les bons points touché me fait me dire que ça “prouve” les choses interessantes, même si c’est mon côté de la vision
Maybe it’s just me and that I don’t like authority but I hate when people actually just state “This Meets Criteria”, as @SweetnSassy37 stated above you can do this with his examples such as “this is a great way to get some exercise” without sounding like you are telling the reviewers how to do there job.
You also need to state why such as…
Several Picnic benches encouraging people to be social.
The trails flat paths make it a great way to exercise and get your 10,000 steps"
I would personally makes sure the description explained this. “An apartment block that…" @SweetnSassy37 full quote again sounds like telling the reviewer his job.
Most will only check the supplemental when it is not obvious.
When image / Title & maps make it obvious then scouring the description is fine but I tend to read to make sure it makes sense.
Most posts discussing the AI (ML / eMiLy / Machine Learning) find problems with the images. If for example of your path, if it just looks like a path then that is what the ML will see and Reject. You need to find something to anchor it such as a Trail Sign or Information Board which will usually get you through to the Reviewers.
I get what you are saying - i definitely try to word it in a way that’s not telling the reviewers what to do, but I find that having in there WHY it fits one if the 3 criteria puts it at front of mind when the reviewer is saying yes, no or don’t know to the criteria questions! It can turn an “I don’t know” to a “yes” if you d explained it (eg I had allotments rejected - I resubmitted and said how allotments encourage gardening which is a great way to exercise, as well as being a great way to socialise due to communal nature of allotments… it was accepted within a few hours of going into voting just by spelling it out a bit in the supplemental information). The apartment block/care home ones I have had to spell out because literally every time I nominated something at one, it came back rejected as a private residence. It was only when I started adding in a line to say why it wasn’t classed as that did it suddenly start getting accepted. There are a good number of reviewers that don’t need this - the majority of them read through this forum I find. A lot doing the reviewing don’t do that, are new so never did the test a lot of us had to do and go in with a basic understanding that doesn’t understand the nuances. So to the OP if you can do that, you’re also confirming to yourself why it should be accepted - if you can’t even articulate why it’s a great place to do one of the 3 criteria, how would you expect a reviewer to see that? I hope that makes sense!
Re the descriptions, I always read them to make sure there’s no references to any games in there, or any of the other forbidden things - it’s the supplemental information that I mostly pay attention to as that’s the persons chance to sell the nomination and tell the reviewer why it deserves to get added to the database.
“This meets criteria” is just a wasted opportunity to provide me with anything useful. If that’s all that’s in the supporting information, there’s nothing there and the nomination will have to stand on its own.
See if still check it in case there’s actually a reason to reject it - in your example if the supplemental information said this church has been recently converted to a primary school that would be an auto rejection from me because the submitter clearly didn’t realise schools are banned - but if you only read the title, description and photo you would risk missing that! I appreciate that’s an extreme and unlikely example, but it’s always worth reading just in case there is anything in it that gives a red flag.
I am definitely not going to knock anybody that does check every supplemental text and in lots of cases it is required, just saying IMO that some reviews are obvious without it.
but I hate when people actually just state “This Meets Criteria”, as