There are reviewers that see any type of business and reject for being generic, even if there is additional info provided in the supporting info, such as a link, and these types of reviewers are all over the world, not just in certain locations.
It’s still up to submitters to prove that nominations meet eligibility criteria, not a reviewer, when submitting.
I also have a feeling that you may not be fluent in English from some of your posts. Do feel free to use any languange you’re most comfortable with there in the forums, as we do have a translator.
What I see in review, and what others are probably referring to, are submissions for resteraunts that are just:
Title: “Restaurant name”
Description: “Type of Restaurant”
Supporting Info: “Restaurant”
Obviously a very plain and simple example but thats exactly the level of effort we see in these low quality submissions. At that point Im assuming since you didnt care to talk about the restaurant any further than what a picture could tell me that it IS generic. Personally, half the time I do click the hyperlinked wayspot title (which tends to be the Restaurant name) and check to see how many locations google lists. Takes a handful of seconds and can easily prove something is generic even if the submitter says otherwise. Its not a shift. Its a pattern that can easily be seen when reviewing.
To add and to counter the whole “Reviewers dont spend as much time reviewing as Nominators do on their submissions” that I keep seeing passed around recently: I WISH that was true. I look at streetview, satellite, linked sites, I even search up the business MYSELF sometimes(depends on how much i like the nomination as far as the item itself), but most of the time Nominators dont even re-read their title or descriptions for spelling errors…let alone give me good info to go off of or supporting information like websites etc. Can barely get a supporting photo with the item in the picture and a good view of the surrounding area.
Yep, can’t stand reviewing these, as I have to put in so much extra work on a review that could take less than a minute to do if the submitter provided additional info.
For me, it’s a matter of human nature. Is it “review culture” to place the burden of proof on the submitter… maybe. Does Niantic (Scopely?) make this a policy… no. Is it correct for reviewers to act this way? Opinions will vary.
I know what has worked well for me in getting nominations approved, so I offer my advice. Personally if I want a nomination approved (and who doesn’t) I will do my best to make it easy for reviewers to approve. I don’t want them to have to research. I want them to just keep hitting that thumbs up button.
“Generic business” is a frustrating rejection reason. I suspect most of us commenting have been on the receiving end of that.
having no particularly distinctive quality or application
Everything is generic until you explain why it is distinctive.
It doesn’t always matter if something is generic for Wayfarer. Kids will be drawn to a playset, even if they have seen the same playset other places. Hikers will be drawn to the next trail marker, especially if that is the same marker they have been following along the route. But “Generic Business” is a rejection reason, and every business is generic until the submitter proves what makes it distinctive.
Another reviewer who spends time checking all those things especially when the nomination is weak in terms of what is presented but it looks as though it could be good.
Thank you friend, you are the only one that answered my question. There seems to have been miscommunication thus others have misunderstood me as asking for the definition of generic.
To the OP, I apologize if I have derailed your thread, I too have gotten a local one location family owned business rejected. It is demoralizing to say the least.
There are plenty of examples of Niantic saying that the submitter “should” prove the nomination:
I could keep going on and on through the Criteria Clarification Collection section if you like. The burden of proving the nomination is worthy falls to the submitter, and Niantic has clarified that again and again.
I don’t know why that formatting at the top of my post where I copied the links looks so weird. But Niantic has made it very clear that the submitter must present the information, and that the nomination may be rejected based on presentation.
I believe you are twisting @jojenreed64 's meaning and am tagging him so he can respond. It is correct that there is no policy that evidence must be given for the nomination to be accepted. I can choose to accept a church that only says “church” in each text box. But there is nothing that says a reviewer must do extra research on each nomination besides what is presented either.
I do extra research on most nominations I review, and a lot of that research leads me to third party photos and/or text, and misplaced pins.
I stand corrected. When I said that Niantic didn’t, I was thinking in a basic carte blanche, absolutely must prove, sense. Clearly there are many examples where one needs to do it if they want to see their nomination approved.
I should have known better as I’ve gotten plazas, architecture, and benches approved myself.
Fire hydrants in service, artistic or not, have been clarified as ineligible and to be rejected:
Great question. Please see our rejection criteria for clarification on this question.
“Location obstructs the driveways of emergency services or may interfere with the operations of fire stations, police stations, hospitals, military bases, industrial sites, power plants, or air traffic control towers”
Therefore, fire hydrants, regardless of their artistic aesthetic should be rejected.
There was absolutely no business in sight in any of the photos.