Sometimes my nominations get rejected and that’s okay. Sometimes I appeal, sometimes I make changes and resubmit, sometimes I just let them go.
But what am I supposed to do with a rejection that gives no reason, or even hint of a reason? I can imagine a couple of legitimate rejection causes, but can I get, like, ONE of them as feedback?
This is on a baseball diamond in a public park.
Please share full nomination.(photo, surrounding, loc,supporting information) if possible.
That rejection seems to happen when multiple reviewer pick multiple rejection reason
My immediate reaction is that a scoreboard is not eligible as a stand-alone wayspot. It can be the proxy for the entire baseball field. But if the field already has a wayspot, I would mark this as a duplicate.
3 Likes
Is this the correct park?
Some of the rejections could have been for school with that label. Since there are 3 fields here, some may have rejected as not distinct.
I would not accept a scoreboard except to represent the field, and would have to really check out that school property.
(i don’t have the location, so may just be an illustration of how there could be multiple reasons for rejection. along with some accepting.)
1 Like
You want to invent a rejection reason? I’ll give you a couple:
Potentially, duplicate submission, as there is already a POI for the diamond (it is improperly placed, on the pitcher’s mound).
Potentially, inaccessible, as there is no trail/sidewalk leading up to it, but there’s a half an acre of open grass behind it, because it’s a public park. (See supporting, below)
Potentially, low quality image; I got this reason on another submission recently where I had to zoom in; that one was overturned on appeal.
Potentially, private property; I have also gotten this rejection reason in a park recently, and there is a house at the far end of this park (gotta be 50+ meters away from the diamond, though)
There is no school nearby.
Valid.
But it doesn’t say that.
I understand how frustrating it is when a rejection isn’t clear but please remember that people here are trying to help, but they need more information if they are to offer some advice.
I’m not from the USA so I would not expect the score board to be a valid point and I can also see that with the review flow a number of choices might be made in order to reject it. And so you get the confusing no consensus response.
If the pitchers mound is already a wayspot but that is not appropriate you can use the help chat on the wayfarer site to move it to an appropriate location.
Is there a clubhouse that can be a wayspot? Or is that already one?
Was there a sign for the whole park?
If you’re telling us that there is already a wayspot on this field but it is on the pitchers mound in the middle of the field, then you can have that moved to an appropriate location along the edge of the field.
I’m not here to take shots at users, man.
I just want the review system to give a single useful piece of actionable information.
I used to be really active in the old forums, but that was 2-3 years ago and a bunch of things have changed in Wayfarer that I haven’t kept up with. I’m fine with my nomination not getting accepted. What I’m not fine with is not getting a reason.
A bunch of scattershot flawed reviews should not be able to create a rejection. Like, if 20% of reviewers said this was a duplicate, and 20% said it was PRP, and 20% said it’s inaccessible, and 20% said the photo is poor, then that’s 80% of reviewers who say it’s not a duplicate and it’s not PRP and it’s not inaccessible and it’s an adequate image, and so the submission should be approved. But the lack of cohesive single reason I’m not into.
My view is that everyone who gets a rejection should be clear about why it was not acceptable. You should be able to reflect on it so you can either choose to change something and resubmit or think ah thats a non-starter.
But unfortunately we have to work with what we have which usually comes up with something reasonable to understand but not always. And its useful to see the instances of the ones that dont.
However I find your logic is flawed.
just because no one reason dominates it doesnt mean that the submission then is eligible. In your example 80% in total have given it negative votes they dont agree on exactly why but the overall vote is negative so it fails.
Its is good to know that you are back and perhaps you stopped before the new review flow came in?? Have you been reviewing?
It took a bit of getting used to at the time so perhaps give it time and from using the review flow you can start to see on some instances why some mixed messages may occur.
3 Likes
This is true only from a default position of rejection. And I understand the importance of gatekeeping; I did over 10k reviews and saw overwhelming amounts of garbage.
But from the perspective of approving when possible, then rejections should form a majority opinion on the specific criterion why.
Wow, great logic…
I nominate something that has 5 reasons it should be rejected, only 1 rejection reason can be chosen so 5 x 20% reject each reason. That is 100% Reject but your logic states it should be Accepted?
Makes no sense at all.
I think the criteria says it could be accepted. The nomination is not for a sports field. So it is not a duplicate for the sports field
The Niantic Criteria Clarifications state
Sports fields and athletic fields encourage exercise and socialization and are often good places to explore. It is important to choose a pin placement that respects and does not interfere with the sporting activity. See the image below for guidance. For sports fields with multiple points of play, there should be one nomination to encapsulate the entire field.
**Note that each sports field nominated needs to be distinct from others at the facility and have a unique title."
Would I write it differently. Yes. I would remove Roosevelt Diamond from the name. Remove any hint similar to the sports field nomination. I know. Crazy
I will not get into why some people reject things. Our perceptions and beliefs all differ and some communities hate on some things. Rightly or wrongly the systems says enough people rejected it for it to be rejected.
Frustrating for sure. Been there. My reactions were vitrolic to say the least.
But I calmed down. And went to nomination support and asked how the nomination could be improved. From title to photo to test to support text. And most of the time people were right. Their help moved the dial. Sometimes it took more than one go. But hey. Since then my success rate is way way way higher.
So be real cool if you could share the nomination with Text, Title, photos, supporting in nomination support and lets have a look.
I am not in the USA so cannot really comment on community acceptance. I can only take a UK/AUS view of what is deemed acceptable. Over there people use scoreboards to say meet you under the scoreboard. So that makes this a waypoint in my view so if accessible that is a great valid criteria.
If you do put the whole thing up in Nomination Support @Xobai - let us know here and people can have a butchers and make possible suggestions that may improve the nomination. Note the large number of caveats I put in there 
1 Like
A scoreboard like this one is just infrastructure. It is not an interesting place to meet, it is not something cool to explore, and it does not facilitate exercising. If UK/AUS scoreboards are designed with intentional meeting space, I would be happy to accept them. But I can also say “Meet you at the third lamppost” or “Meet you at the big palm tree” and that doesn’t make those great Wayspots for being social. The only way I can see a scoreboard being acceptable is to represent the field, or as a unique work of art - if it is one.
There is one time i got this rejection clause. Its a mosque tower. So i am guessing some people pick duplicate while some other might pick ok. I am guessing your nomination also considered duplicate of another wayspot while there also some who accept hence the rejection clause.
1 Like
I would not nominate or vote to accept a scoreboard as a meeting point, as this does not meet criteria. It is not a reason I have read in any reviews in the U.K.
1 Like