I recently appealed a POI nomination that was rejected for location because there was a really old photosphere that didn’t feature an Information board. The board was about a seal colony which was really informative about seals in general and also the specifics about the colony on this part of the UK coastline.
I have submitted many information boards and also reviewed 100s on wayfarer and everyone agrees that they make some of the better POIs to add to the LightShip database.
The Appeals staff took a look and obviously didn’t agree with the original rejection criteria as they didn’t mention this in the rejection response. I do value the human input into the appeals system, but sometimes you have to question the reasoning and where they are getting their information as I received this rejection response.
“A normal information board” what exactly do they mean?? An information board like this makes a really good POI to encourage people to explore and learn about their local environment…what other kind of information board is there?
I also really don’t like the “We recommend that you review the wayfarer criteria before submitting your next wayfarer contribution”, they could check your account before pasting that in…I have successfully submitted over 1300 nominations if they care to look, maybe they should take some of their own advice
I can’t get my head around this rejection reason…Normal information board? This is a great information board about a seal colony, and is quite educational. It would be something I’d be interested in looking at.
So, does that mean any educational signs, like this one, are no longer valid? Really think the @admins need to look into this one.
Also, just wondering what your description and supporting info were.
Oh dear
Nothing wrong with a normal information board, as it has information.
And this is definitely an abnormal one as it’s got some great information.
In fact I don’t see anything wrong with @26thDoctor one either.
Grasping at straws for a reason this could conceivably be rejected
Was there enough context for the location in the supporting?
I have found that information boards both normal and abnormal can be agreed by Emily.
Yes. Soon the rejection reasons will be “this is a normal (insert object)” This is what is happening with information boards, signage for sport fields, trail markers, etc.
Eventually it will include “this is a normal sculpture” and you will need to prove that it is indeed one of a kind by a well-known, but now deceased artist who managed to sculpt it while undergoing recovery from an injury after fighting for those in a war torn country.
I cannot believe your appeal was denied.
I wrote "Please accept this hyper dimensional 4d information conduit, with brain patch technology to instantly upload all the information about Norfolk seals, seal colony dynamic and and additional language pack to enable you to communicate with the colony elders while you visit, just $9.99 (matrix style brain port requited!! "
Real description:
Description
New Information board at Horsey Gap Norfolk, this is the site of an extensive seal colony that brings visitors to the area. This information board gives detail on the species and information on their behaviour and the ecology of the area.
Hi @thundercracker1
If you plan to resubmit your nomination I would try to avoid the word “new” at the beginning of your description.
In 10 years and many vandalism later, “new” is the last thought of it
P.S. @wayfarer_team thanks for enlarging my comment field. That’s sooo much more comfortable
I had a decorative threshold carving rejected on appeal with “The object in question does not meet the Wayfarer criteria as it is a normal decorative item which has no significance” so we’re pretty much already there. This despite explaining the history of neighborhood and explaining that the buildings surrounding it were destroyed in WWII so for that area it’s unique. It’s wild. It honestly came across like whoever did the appeal didn’t even read anything I wrote. Yeah, I couldn’t learn the artist’s name despite searching as best as I could, but I found it truly disheartening to see that a carving that’s been in it’s spot overlooking the city for a century, surviving to this day, is reduced to a “normal decorative item which has no significance”. Old doesn’t equal eligible, of course, but I have to admit I was put off by the dismissive rejection of something I found beautiful and meaningful and truly thought was important to document and share.
Thats so sad!!! Feels like appeals are flipping a coin as to whether they actually look at the item or not.
The appeals when they first began used to be super useful and I had a perfect success rate initially.
Nowadays I do eventually get the appealed items accepted but it takes more than 1 attempt and it’s like the appeals are no longer applying to an expert in the criteria for a fair judgement where they read all the evidence
Might explain why appeals are dealt with so quickly now - they’re just being rushed through…. Or is it an AI reviewing the appeal? My last 2 appeals were approved in under 24 hours - yet only last year I was waiting over 6 months. Something’s certainly changed.
It kind of makes me not want to appeal anything that is eligible, and especially title/description edits. I have some edits in queue right now, and what’s weird is Google Maps actually has the park name listed incorrectly, but there’s no way to change it for some odd reason. I just had 4 Wayspots approved by ML with the correct name, and 1 other Wayspot name corrected, all by ML, so it sometimes seems like 50/50 with ML, 50/50 with community, and even worse odds with the appeals team.
It’s been happening to me as well. If there was some policy change for internal reviewing, we as a community weren’t made aware of it. I submitted a unique and artistic seating area (a painted metal silo you can sit in) and it was called a “regular seating area.”
When i brought up that the assessment didn’t seem fair, and asked for the policy for seating areas, they just said:
It really does seem that whoever is doing these appeals has no idea of what the criteria actually are and don’t seem to read any of the supporting information that they are provided with. On top of that, these generic, incredibly vague replies and reasons are exceptionally unhelpful.
Do these people receive adequate training, are they provided sufficient time to do a proper review and check all of the information? It seems not as we have increasing numbers of these frustrating examples that are so clearly wrong and unhelpful. It all feels a bit futile.
“We are unable to share any further information,” oh dear. I guess I’m not surprised, and it seems pretty par for the Niantic course, but I do wish there was more clarity and transparency with things. It would make the way easier for better accuracy and higher quality. I would say Niantic wants to have their cake and eat it too, but maybe they don’t even know what kind of cake they want. (Or maybe “the cake is a lie!” )
I once worked for a large, international corporation at one of their former US locations. We found out very quickly about what call centers in different countries had well-trained staff, and the ones where people might just work there for a few weeks, then move on to another company. Many times, we in the US ended up fixing any mistakes made by the poorly trained centers, so not only did it effect our customers, it also caused us to be upset for having to do extra work, even if the issue was an easy fix.
Seriously, some of us are better at reviewing appeals at this point than the appeals team…
