“Visually Distinct”
2 Likes
Welcome to the forum! And @RoIi112 's advice is what I do as well. The November 2023 AMA said to pick one of these four to reject a nomination:
The “Not Distinct” reason makes the most sense to me as it is just a bench and nothing significant.
Do you have a question about these kinds of picnic area benches? They can be great Wayspots. The last person was asking about memorial benches with generic plaques:
They brought this exact photo over into a separate clarification here:
I’ve got those kind of picnic sets rejected also. 100% of recent nominations exactly like that 2 bench with a table in the middle.
Had written even a story for a couple in description about how they are usually been used since I’ve grown here and seen from childhood what people usually do there…
Idk why you make it so hard to “sell” those places. Feels like I’m failing job interview
Hey, just to be sure you understand.
Wayfarer submissions are voted on by people who live in your local area or maybe even further away in your country/region. So when it is “hard to sell” a particular submission, that often means those locals either don’t understand the criteria or don’t agree that it meets the criteria.
It’s really difficult to update reviewers when we get clarifications on criteria. Most reviewers don’t come to these forums. Most think they know the criteria, even if they just learned it from some random person, rather than from official sources.
1 Like
Hey, just to be sure you understand.
ML rejections are not voted by people who live in an area
Yes, but I thought we were discussing community reviews here? ML doesn’t seem to be previously mentioned in this thread, after all. To cater to ML’s review style, in case your nomination ends up traveling that route, be sure your photo features the object as a clear focal point, your text is accurate and not dependent on buzzwords, and there are no outright rejection issues present in your nomination.
Listen, you were the one who used the word “sell.” That indicates convincing a comminity of people. I don’t understand the point of being sarcastic to someone who is just trying to help you. Keep that up and see how many people are eager to answer your questions.
I don’t know what you are trying to say, people can’t read or what, when I’ve written long descriptions. We barely have any reviewers at all here so votings take longer than 2 months we are in contact with each other local community. So I don’t know who decides to reject our nominations. Appeal didn’t help either so I have no idea what is the point of your comment. People were gathering at those locations even before the internet or phones were invented and still are, so it made them good locations to “socialize” at least. I don’t get the point of those rejections by any side ML, some hidden solo community, Niantic staff
We’re only limited to the two photos you provided to give advice to; I don’t see the texts, supporting photo, or location of said benches. The information from the contribution page also includes the rejection reasons which may also help us advice what you can improve upon or if it is a reviewer problem (and how to possibly combat that).
Additionally, the rejection email may indicate if it was ML or community decision. We’re not shown those too.
As for “selling” the nomination, the reviewers will need details and possible verification that it exists as presented. Communication and detail is essential; difficulty may depend on how obscure or precise reviewers relate eligibility with your nomination.
tldr. We’re grasping at straws. Please provide more details for more precise advice.
You asked, “How do i sell this?” What you write is how you sell it. The people who review your nomination could be located anywhere in your country, sometimes even in bordering countries in Europe (though i don’t think that applies to you).
I’m trying to explain to you that even though there’s a criteria clarification about picnic tables on the forum, the vast majority of reviewers haven’t read that information. So, if you are trying to “sell” or convince them, you have to write something very compelling.
But in reality, you also need to be aware that these types of submissions often just never pass. Just because there’s been a clarification saying that picnic tables can be eligible, that doesn’t mean that every picnic table is eligible by default.
There is no such thing as eligibility for anything, there is only eligibility for Socialize/Gather + Exercise + Explore. So the question is how could a bench fit those 3. And all voting on sites is convincing the reviewers how that particular bench fit those 3. There is no “Precise” answer, and various reviewers will vote differently and Subjectivity is part of wayfarer
Here’s a small list of possibilities
-
Memorial Bench dedicated to someone famous. (Explore) Subjectivity: How famous.
-
Memorial Bench that is Artistically Designed (Explore) Subjectivity: Art is always subjective
-
Memorial Bench on a Trail (Explore/Exercise) Subjectivity: It’s trail that meets criteria and not everyone will accept a bench as representing a piece of a trail.
-
Memorial Bench in a Park (Socialize/Gather) Subjectivity: you have to make the case based on location that its a spot people gather and socialize. I usually find when there are 2+ of these close together and they are facing playground equipment you make the case its where parents can socialize while the kids play
-
Memorial Bench as Anchor for a view. (Explore) It’s the view that is eligible. Not everyone realizes you can nominate views and use man-made things like benches as anchor. Subjectivity: Convince people the view is worth exploring and the bench is a good place to take it in.
-
Memorial Bench as Anchor for a No-Signed Park. (Gather/Socialize). Parks without signs are eligible but you generally need an anchor and this would work.
There’s probably more possibilities, all submissions are up to you to make voters see how they fit those 3.
4 Likes
This is a fantastic post! I am bookmarking this. How you present the poi matters!
[Edited this response to add that I recommend getting as much of that convincing argument into the title and description as possible. It doesn’t do any good to have a great supporting statement if reviewers have already rejected before getting all the way down there to read it.]
This is exactly why I want OP to post the full nomination.
People here can zero in on which of the possibilities listed that that specific object may fall into given the nomination as presented during review. The “preciseness” I’m talking about is how would reviewers view the possibility (in their head) vs what is actually shown during review. From there, what can be workshopped will be.
2 Likes
oh i thought that post was agreeing with you, and extra information for the submitter about how it works.
I was… I hit reply at end, it wasn’t meant to be a reply to his post, but to the thread and the pushback from the other person.
I’ve had some minor issues on these new forums with a reply being to a post rather than thread
1 Like
I think i hit the wrong “reply” in my response as well. We will get this sorted one day XD
That’s how I see it too. Looking back at my reply though, the part about “precision” can be read imprecisely.
1 Like