Reviewing seems weird now

So i was making some reviews, and i will give some examples, before we could reject a private property but now i dont seem to find an option for that, normal street plaques? If i answer just the questions then it should be accepted, but i think that they shouldnt, so what option i should pick in this case? Many times i see things that i know that there shouldnt be a stop but dont know how to reject it, i could give a ton of new examples but i think u guys get the point

1 Like

Rejecting for private property is :-1: on this option

Followed by this option.

I’d advise to check the tooltips on each one. If you see something that you don’t think meets criteria but there’s no option for why you think that, you can select :-1: on this option

Followed by the free text box.

Hope that helps.


ho yeah didnt saw it, anyway thanks, so if i see something i feel is off i just enter another reason there, thank you

On the old forum, we were told NOT to use this box this way. Is it now to be used for “Other rejection criteria”? Or did I misunderstand @Gendgi 's post? That is entirely possible.

I guess it’s open to interpretation? I’ve seen others use it that way previously, so just sharing what I have seen happening. But you don’t have to follow what I say. I’m just a person.

I want to review the way Niantic wants us to review.


same as me, just want to understand how can i do it the intended way, but sometimes i dont know how to reject something


I wonder how hard it would have been for Niantic to include a disclaimer under the Other box that revealed either what was supposed to go there or what wasn’t?

Couldn’t they have even provided a matrix of active links there that would take the reviewers to each of the other proper rejection reasons?

It’s pretty weird that they have created this bunch of questions about which we are expected to use our best judgement, if they are then going to say ‘but not like that!


You’re clearly asking for too much. :rofl:

The “new” review flow is still extremely low-quality. It’s too difficult to reject things which don’t meet criteria as if it’s hell-bent on wasting reviewers’ time. Descriptions like “schools” are vague and low-effort, when the criteria say to reject nominations on pre-K-12 schools. Nominations on university campuses have been rejected, and others are accepting POIs on school property because the POI isn’t of the school itself.

A little effort would have gone a long way.


The tooltip :information_source: on “Appropriate” does provide details about Schools.

This is an improvement me to me, as “K-12” means nothing in regards to schools in the UK, and I don’t think many places outside of the US.


This, reviewers can’t be expected to know or understand what K-12 is. It means absolutely nothing to the majority of the world.


I tried to feed that back to them years ago. Note how even the latest language still uses idiom that has no meaning for most people, and fails to be inclusive of Scout camps and other instructional activity centers that Niantic has previously clarified were not supposed to be acceptable.

They seem to always want fuzzy gray areas that differ from one language or culture to another, fail to match up between the Criteria section, Tool Tips, Criteria Clarification Collection, forum ‘guidance’, etc. You’ll even find the same staffer arguing opposite sides of the same issue in various threads. They have no consistency.


Immediately after writing that I remembered that “K-12” means jack diddly in the rest of the world. I think that the issue here is that a great deal of reviewers, even ones with thousands of reviews, don’t know / bother with the tooltips. “Schools” can both be interpreted too broadly and too narrowly. There really ought to be something that says “see tooltip” or something to get a better idea of what it is meant to say.

EDIT: And shortly after this, I had one of my nominations declined at a University for being a “School.” This is what happens when you poorly design a system.

It did not need to be this complicated. It could just say something like “Location focused on minors” or "“Place for parents leave children with hired caregivers”.


I’ve been working on arguments for why my single-family PRP actually isn’t and one of the arguments I’ve been working on is that the nanny makes it a multi-family residence (I still need to acquire both the kids and the nanny though).

If Niantic used this wording I’d have a much harder time with that argument though, because people might interpret my home as a place that children are left with hired caregivers :thinking:

1 Like

Just home school your kids, and call your house a church with young parishioners.


I just wanted to add my 2 cents on the whole reviewing situation. My first time posting on these forums, so if this is the wrong spot I apologize.

I like many joined wayfarer a long time ago when it became an official means of creating waypoints to be nominated as pokestops. Me and my local group used to play that other game that allowed you to eventually create new stops when you reach level 10 based on data that was imported into Pokemon go. So I’ve been around a while playing this.

My 2 cents on this…it’s an absolute joke. There are pokestops that are manhole covers, bike posts, fountains on private property, graffiti that’s not existent anymore…yet anytime I try to nominate a stop for adjusting something due to the placement being wrong or the image/content being wrong it gets denied for modifications. I nominate a new stop that has the exact same criteria as another stop and it gets denied. Could be 30ft away and a separate item…

My point being that it seems to me that people have a choke hold on their preferences on how and where they personally want stops. I live in a suburban area. I’ve tried getting nature spots added, community gathering spots added, memorial spots and charity spots/conservation spots added and maybe 6 out of 10 are denied, while others exist that are the same thing just submitted by others.

Make it make sense. The whole nomination/approval system is busted. Makes me feel like why should I even bother trying to add new slots if the local people within a county or city are dictating what they want in their area.

We need more spots. Not spots that are 10 minutes apart and single spots. It’s a joke.

Suburban and rural players need more spots. 2 spots where I am vs places I’ve visited in Miami and New York where they’re on every street corner and it’s visually congested. I just want more stops for community days and spotlight hours. But I guess I’m not cool enough for some of these people.


@Neddy I second this!!!

Good observations.

Were your rejections from the community (“the community has decided”) or AI (“our team has decided”)? I recommend setting up an email filter to label/tag your email results. Then you be sure who/what to rail about, lol.