Hi, I have some questions regarding the wayspot creation process and the best method in describing the wayspot. I have been having trouble lately with the automated process that looks at the nomination before it goes into voting.
So far it has removed 3 of my nominations before real people could see them. Do you have any tips on how to avoid the bot from removing the nomination or was it valid in removing it?
Some context: I live in a small town with around 300 population , and there is a popular hiking trail near by, a ski trail during the winter. The trail is quite long and mostly in the woods. There are informational signs at each end to tell about the ski trail and not to walk there during winter, but the other seasons it is for hiking. It be great to get some pokestops in the trail for people that do play, and there are some already there. Near the middle of the trail there is a cross roads and a bench and sign post next to it. I saw this as a clear landmark in a hiking trail and thought it would make a great spot for a pokestop. The bench gives a scenic view and its a good spot for a break from hiking and I’d assume the same for skiers. Why was it declined? I double checked the criteria for a nomination and it checks the exploration and exercise boxes for a wayspot. If it was declined for being too generic as a wooden bench or too ugly it’s still a clear landmark in a hiking trail, and would encourage players to play more in the trail. Was it a miscalculation by the bot to flag it wrong or is it actually not a good nomination? What do you guys think? I’ll provide more info on what I wrote out. Some of it was written in Finnish so I’ll give a translated version too. The title: Saukko-ojan lepopaikka (Saukko-oja’s rest spot). The description: Penkki hiihtoladun risteyksessä. (A bench in a ski trails crossroads.). The description for the reviewer: A cross-country ski track rest spot and a place to change your gear. (This part was in English for extra convenience). Any thoughts on how I could improve? And was there something obvious that the bot saw as a bad thing? If it was a good nomination, is there a way for me to retry again so that it gets to voting? Or is it a lost cause? I am new to making wayspots so any tips and tricks would be greatly appreciated!
What we do know about the “automated process” is that it is a machine learning model. What we don’t know is exactly how it works. I didn’t even know what this photo was of until you explained, so I doubt it will have been taught that this looks like something eligible.
Even if the automated process rejected your nomination, you can still appeal the rejection and humans will review the appeal. You get 2 appeals, each on a 15 day counter before you can use them again.
I do not know how this bench would do in appeal. It isn’t clear to me that it is significant to be a wayspot.
If that is a trail marker in the background, I would submit the trail marker. Even in broken condition like it is, the model is more likely (imo) to recognize a trail marker as something eligible. If that is just a sign pointing the way to the next town, that would probably be considered just a directional sign.
I will link you a couple of clarifications that may help.
Going to leave this with people who have more knowledge about areas where people ski than I do now. Glad you are here and hope we can help!
With regards to the bench, I just want to mention (as we have realized that it isn’t obvious) that it is important to emphasize what it is you are submitting throughout the submission: in the title, description, and photos.
In the case of a scenic view anchored by a bench, the photo should emphasize the view. It does need to include the bench, of course, but it should show what the person sitting there would see. That’s why the demonstration photos show the bench from behind.
I just approved several wayspots for a ski area that clearly doubles as hiking in summer. They used wooden piste markers at piste intersections as trail markers in their submissions. I chuckled at the red, black, etc, diamonds on the markers while approving. Hope that helps.
Thank you all so much for the help and advice on my nomination! I’m glad to see such a friendly and helpful community here! Unfortunately the sign in the background is not a trail marker, it’s a directional sign. So I don’t think that can be used for the wayspot. It seems that benches can be very tricky to get right in the nominations so could it be wiser to step back a bit and look at the spot at its entirety? So instead of describing just the bench in the area it should be the halfway checkpoint for the hiking trail that doubles as a rest point and directional signs for the next section of the trail. Is that a better way of describing the possible waystop? It takes a lot of focus into the trail itself than the bench. I have a question about the appeal system as well. I’d like to rewrite the nominations description and title for this new outlook on the spot, and if I appealed it, I assume I can’t edit it at this point. Is the best approach to make a fresh nomination for the spot with my new description in mind? Or is there a better way of doing it? Also is the new focus on the trail itself in the nomination make for a better chance to get through to actual revivers and not get flagged by the bot?
The bench does not meet Exercise or Exploration, it could meet Socialise if it was the sort of place where groups of people may stop for lunch during an hike.
If you are thinking of appealing, but realise the information you provided could be improved, then you are best resubmitting. You cannot edit anything after it goes into voting, although you can provide extra information in the appeal.
