I once needed about 6 or 7 edits on one item, where there were 2 within about 50 metres of each other, different shapes, and although I submitted it in the correct place, “helpful” reviewers had moved it to the other one, despite the shape of the item and the backgrounds being completely different (road vs riverside path as the backdrop)
You can see why people end up submitting description or title edits with their location edits to try to explain, which then gets them risking an abuse flag! An optional supporting information box would be excellent for these edits.
My pet peeve overall is ridiculous rejection reasons.
No, I don’t care for the “excuse” that they just picked anything/the first thing/etc.
That rejection reason is the sole way you’re able to communicate with the submitter to tell them why its not a good nomination. At least do your job and choose something helpful to explain the issue, so they can either not submit it again, or know what to change to be better next time!
And this is also why “does not meet criteria” should be a reason we get to select.
Wayspots with tree cover over them and no supporting evidence that they exist, trail markers for example. Not entirely the submitter’s fault because Google hates photospheres now, but submitters should work a bit harder on these to prove they exist.
Thanks for your feedback, Trollfarer, your examples do shed light on the situation to some extent. Still, I’m frustrated because I vote based on what’s interesting to me, and you said that we should vote based on what is artistic, worth exploring, or informational, of which at least the first two are as subjective as the term I used. So there’s still the question of “how interesting” and “interesting to whom.” I’m not easily bored, I walk by a couple factory signs every day and one “Welcome to the neighbourhood” sign and I think these signs are interesting, both because of the products they make and how they contribute to the neighborhood, city, and beyond. You don’t, and I have absolutely no problem with you having that opinion, but as long as such a situation exists and is not spelled out by Niantic, nominators and reviewers are going to continue to waste each other’s time, and that’s something even I find boring!
While some things are pet peeves they are also an interesting topic. My kids enjoy asking me about the various “funny reviews” I have seen. From stop signs, to a rock aka “Trailhead Rock”, or a pipe with googly eyes. Everytime I sit down to do reviews I get at least one funny nomination that can entertain others when I talk about it.
These are my top three:
Supporting photo that is just facing away from the wayspot (this has been mentioned in other posts!) I would like to see where it is, especially if satellite or streetview cannot help.
Nominations for wayspots still under construction. These are not safe and I mark them as such, but to be honest, I have not got that agreement all the time.
One park opening this summer I marked something as unsafe and later in the week I had a second wayspot show up and boom the first was approved. I just reviewed one today where you can see the orange cones and the heavy machinery. Looked it up and the wayspot nomination object was installed earlier in the week. The park won’t be open until “later this year” and the site I found from the city says it reminds residents that the park remains closed until the project is finished… It isn’t from my local community or bonus. So it was likely either an upgrade or considered “too rural”.
I desperately would like to have a comment box for edits. I do a lot of edits and they take so long. It would be nice to put a link etc. Probably help the reviewers. As restaurants change or murals do etc.
People suggesting you nominate a sign. Typically this advise is both useless (since there isn’t one) and treats the nominator as a noob who doesn’t know what they are doing.
Urgh, and people who will only accept a sign. Its not called signfarer. Sometimes it would be nice to get pictures into the games of the actual cool things, rather than just their signs
Unfortunately I can see why the advice happens. Signs get accepted much easier than the cool thing, sadly.
I would like to be able to report a wayspot I cannot get to. Such as when I am doing reviews and see ones on school property. I have explained to my kids the purpose of not having them on school property since they like their games. It bothers me when I get nominations on school property and see other wayspots already there. It is probably why the nomination is coming up since someone else did it.
On that note wayspots that no longer meet criteria should be reported and I wish there was an option for that. A boring apartment sign submitted so long ago that influences other uses to post theirs. When perhaps there is another object close by to highlight.
You can do title/description/photo/location edits in the Niantic Wayfarer app, but when that goes it will be frustrating. When I see a duplicate show up in the right spot, I often put a location edit for the original wayspot in. However, you cannot report wayspots.
Some people just don’t know about the appeal process and/or don’t want to deal with it since you cannot do larger location edits in games.
There is a section at the top here that links to the form for Wayspot Removals.
@seaprincesshnb recently instructed me on how to use it as other than the property owner. You will get an email that says you must be the property owner, but ignore that one. Then they will process the report.
Getting a rejection for a hilariously bad reason. For example, an England Coastal Path trail path (the living coast trail) rejected for being a generic business.
Lazy or overlay detailed discriptions and supporting evidence. No one’a to read through an essay of why a sports club is an acceptable location. But you also need to see more than “it does sports”!
Oh, I found named trail markers get rejected for the most bizarre reasons - to the point where I was pretty sure there was abuse going on, although “pedestrian access” seemed to be common theme…
I am excited about the new changes to the contribution management page, although not about the edit appeals being disbanded as of May 15…
While I was visiting a forested park on the weekend I was having the most difficult time trying to edit a location. I know it is within the 10m. Knowing I have to do the edit then submit an appeal via chat because it isn’t visible from satellite and there is no streetview. I cannot even be sure my marker was accurate since i was just “hoping” it was in the correct spot. It is best for me to use gps coordinates of my location plus my geotagged photos/video I always collect when I am out for appeals. While I was standing on a trail I was just thinking. Wow… haveing a box to enter coordinates, or something showing where the current wayspot is and where I am would be great.
Just a little rant.
Oh cool, I hadn’t seen that. Funnily enough, that’s exactly the sort of tree-covered wayspot I hate, but I backed it up with a photosphere (which Google makes hard to do these days) but more usefully a link to a map of the forest.
Certainly in the UK I find there’s usually some sort of supporting evidence for a trail, like the LDWA, OpenStreetMap, local council or in this case Forestry England. Submitters are much more likely to get a thumbs up if they provide some evidence…
The trails usually show on the google map part of the review screen in some way anyway either as a path marked, or a dashed green line, often labelled if its a bigger trail.
Generally speaking I dont disbelieve trails that are submitted unless something doesnt look right. Funnily enough, trails are often in more rural areas and they, wow, HAVE TREES! Strange isnt it. Back in the old star system for voting we had guidance on how to vote if we couldnt definitely see the item, and we were instructed to vote by whether we thought it was likely to be there. That’s how I’ve always treated trail markers. If it looks likely then I’m okay with approving it. Particularly when I’m presented with a blank/sparse “check for duplicates” map.
One less agreement for me.