I am writing to you in hopes of resolving an issue that has been affecting my experience as a contributor. In recent weeks, all the Wayspots I have reported have been placed on hold for a day and then rejected the next day with the reason: “Wayfarer criteria.”
I find this very frustrating as I have meticulously followed the guidelines and criteria established by Wayfarer for each of my submissions. I have invested time and effort to ensure that each Wayspot meets the necessary requirements, yet my proposals continue to be rejected without detailed explanations.
I understand that the criteria are strict and the review process is rigorous, but I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide clearer guidance or specific feedback on why my Wayspots are not being accepted. This would not only help me improve future submissions but also contribute to the quality and accuracy of Wayspots in our community.
I hope you can consider my complaint and provide the necessary assistance to resolve this issue. I am willing to collaborate and learn so that my future contributions can be successfully validated.
Ie: Rejected, I don’t even have the option to appeal, just like all my contributions have been systematically rejected by the Wayfarer AI.
Welcome sign to San Antonio neighborhood
(39.5585550, -0.5098628)
You get two appeals, each with a 20 day timer, so you will get the ability to appeal back. But from the screenshot you shared, it appears to me that the example you posted was correctly rejected. Can you explain why you feel that this sign meets the criteria of a GREAT place to exercise, explore, or be social?
I think the sign is just a neighbourhood sign isnt it? For me, its quite a pretty one, so if you really wanted to try it again I would focus on the decorative nature - if its a unique flower design etc then mention that. If its hand painted, or locally designed, thatd help a lot
But I do think its not a strong item to nominate and wouldn’t be surprised if it were rejected again
How though? It’s just a generic neighbourhood sign. You don’t go to the sign specifically to exercise or explore.
Again, how? You don’t go to a generic neighbourhood sign to socialise. It’s not like the sign is a park or a café. It’s not a place specifically designed for socialising.
Given that it’s not designed to be a great place to socialise, exercise or explore, it doesn’t meet the wayfarer criteria, hence why the Machine Learning gave you the rejection reason of “wayfarer criteria”.
For this one, I would say that Bar Lorena would make a good waypoint, but it doesnt mean this sign would.
I don’t think a neighbourhood sign encourages exercise or socialising, but if its artistic, unusual, or otherwise cool then it could be considered as a good place to explore ie if people would be interested in the sign itself. I can’t tell that from here, but you would know that.
Agreed, I’ve just been looking at that on Google maps and the food there looks really good! I am a bit biased as I love my food, but it seems like a decent candidate as a local hot-spot that’s worthy of exploration and also looks like it would be a great place to socialise.
Your nominations might be getting rejected by ML, if your nominations meet the criteria. If ML doesn’t see anything eligible, it will reject it. For example, earlier someone posted that their nomination was rejected by ML, it was bird art, but it was realistic enough that ML thought it was real birds.
In addition to this proposal, I have other rejections. One of them is for gardens along a pedestrian walkway where neighbors walk their dogs daily, people go for walks and runs, and parents take their children to the nearby playgrounds. I also have a rejected proposal for a sign put up by the town council that rejects gender violence. It is not generic and is located on a corner of a park.
This is much larger than I could tell from the picture before. It seems like a lovely parkway area. I can’t read/translate your name/description/supporting statements. Could you cut and paste them into the discussion? Then I can translate them.
Thank you for your comment. I’d like to clarify a few points about the area I mentioned.
It is not simply a garden but an extensive pedestrian zone with trees, parks, and walkways, stretching along several meters and parallel to various residential areas. It’s a space where people go jogging, walking, and enjoy playgrounds.
This place is highly utilized by the community for socializing, exercising, and exploring. I believe this type of space perfectly meets the Wayfarer criteria for great places to socialize, exercise, or explore.
However, I understand there might have been some issues with my nomination, such as an incorrect name or a photo that is too dark. I’ll make sure to address these issues to better highlight the value of this location.
Is this a nomination for a park or for a bench? I don’t think that this bench meets criteria, but this park could. You have to keep in mind that you really need to take the clearest photo possible focused on the thing you are submitting so that the ai can tell what it is. You can check this section Criteria Clarification Collection for clarifications on parks and benches that may help you.
Oh wow just checked 39.5657422, -0.5072684 and that is going to be difficult to get a photo of if there isn’t a sign anywhere.
Hola buenas! Te comento como persona local (mismo país para darte un poco de feedback según mi opinión.
Tu primera nominación “San Agustín” parece tratarse de un “cartel” hecho con azulejos fabricados en masa (no son nada distinguibles de muchos otros que existen, no destacan por su arte) para mostrar el nombre del vecindario/comunidad. A no ser que esa zona destaque por algo en concreto se puede rechazar por no cumplir ningún criterio (la gente no acude allí a socializar o ejercitarse y no creo que llevases allí a la gente no local para observar el cartel). Este es un tema muy discutido en EEUU pero aquí en España es muy raro que alguno de ellos cumpla criterios.
En cuanto a tu segunda nominación “Bar Lorena” puedo observar en Google Maps que parece un sitio apropiado para socializar en la zona. La foto es decente pero la descripción es bastante deficiente, no explica la importancia del negocio en la zona, se limita a repetir el nombre del negocio y a decir que es un lugar de reunión. Como nominador debes saber explicar por qué cosas destaca el bar o por qué es un buen lugar para socializar.
Por último, para tu nominación “Banco Parque San Antonio Este” el propio nombre indica que estás pidiendo el banco, no el parque. La foto parece demasiado de baja calidad, tomar una foto de día podría incrementar las posibilidades. Observando la zona realmente no llamaría eso un parque, son más bien unos jardines de los cuales, personalmente, no creo que diese eso por válido porque, para mí, no parecen cumplir ningún criterio. En este caso, si de verdad crees que cumple alguno, deberías mejorar tu descripción para explicar de mejor manera de qué se trata.
En cuanto a las 3 nominaciones, la información complementaria puede ser tu amiga, deberás aprovecharla para explicar más detalles de tus nominaciones si lo requieres. Espero que algo de lo que te haya comentado te sirva de algo!
