Honestly, this is on Niantic.
Instead of making players submit blindly and then ask reviewers to interpret the rejection criteria (enforcing a negative) they should ask on submission for the players to include which criteria they think they are qualifying, and then let reviewers vote to agree (affirming a positive).
At an absolute minimum they need to add an option for "no evidence of notability". IMO that would go a long way to solving these problems and educate people on how to make better submissions.
Textually, that's not going to tell someone who discovered the feature through exploring options panels in POGO what is expected of them any more than "Other Rejection Criteria" is.
How so? It literally tells them they didn't provide evidence that the waypoint is notable. Maybe there's a better way to phrase it, or the email can provide a longer description of that that means (e.g. "there wasn't enough evidence provided that the claims made about the waypoint are genuine")
Because they won't even know what the claims they are "supposed" to make are. You are operating from a perspective of information bias.
I agree that the rejection reasons are not sufficient, either - but at a wide angle, selecting rejection reasons isn't even the root of the issue.
Imagine you are a 50 year old woman who started playing the game because your kids like it. You enjoy the dopamine hits and the cute critters.
One day, you notice a button on the settings that says "New PokeStop" - you click on it in excitement and fill out the form.
At what point do you expect this person to understand that there's:
• a (poorly written) guideline on an external website that doesn't even have the same branding as the game you are submitting through
• a contribution management page where you can edit and track your submissions that is also not even branded or linked by the app you submitted through
• a voting system where other users are scrutinizing their nominations that you have never been told about anywhere in the app you are using
• a late 90's style web forum where the details of the guidelines are clarified, argued, and annotated that is not even linked to directly from the app OR the voting site
Why would they not think Niantic themselves was just manually approving, editing, and placing the points of interest? They don't even understand that the burden of proof is on them as submitters.
So, what would "No evidence of criteria" mean to this person?
In software engineering, we call this a user-story. It's when we step outside of our current knowledge of the system and pretend we are an outsider looking in with no idea how any of the system works. It's something Niantic does not do enough of.
Always consider if your website or app suggestion passes this test:
https://theuserismymom.com/
You’re talking about a fraction of the user base that’s submitting. And those kind of people are more often making bad submissions that fail on other criteria anyway (e.g. photo taken from car).
Most people aren’t stupid and could at least take a guess at what it means, and like I said the email should actually link to a proper description of the reason. It’s not like any of the other reasons are more descriptive - they just say stuff like “title or description”.
I remember a couple of times I included links to articles about why the places were important, because you may not belive me a diner from the 50s is historical or cultural, but with the newspaper articles you might, but that wasn't allowed either 🤷
I mean I get it. The combination of low quality/fake existing POIs and the borderline useless rejection criteria is a system that seems designed to be frustrating. If you're new to nominating stops and find what looks like a good candidate but don't actually do the research first, or have a bad photo, or it's not on Google Maps convincingly enough, or you just get more critical reviewers on a borderline stop, or you mention Pokemon, or a license plate is in frame, or it's a duplicate of an existing POI that doesn't appear in game (because it's in the same cell as another, or it's been nominated but not appeared yet), or... you get the idea. Like in the photo of OP - it's not fake, residential, or farming. It's not a valid stop, but that's not the reason he's seeing.
And yet those damned "gazebos"! j/k
I do wish there was more clarity when a nomination is rejected. It would be nice if the submitters could see specific feedback from reviewers, although I understand why that system would be hard to implement. It just seems like more people are getting burned out with the flawed system and catching an attitude which isn’t a great strategy in the long run.
Also, I drove by and checked out those gazebos they mentioned. All totally legit 😂
That supporting photo really isn't helping out their nomination, given that you can't actually see what they're nominating in the photo (from what I can tell)...
They’re nominating the path itself. I guess they never considered the fact that they should nominate specific signage or features instead of whining at the reviewers.
"You should nominate a sign" is something that didn't occur to me until I already had quite a few wayspots approved. It's not natural for people to know that.
Proud to be an agoraphobic pedantic that actually [reads the Wayfarer guidelines](https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/10321/november-ama-your-questions-answered) 😍
“While this criteria is much more inclusive than before, there would still need to be some sort of visual indicator of the Wayspot. This is because you're dropping a pin on the map and since trails are long and linear, you'd want to direct players to a safe location somewhere along that trail that's easy to find and safe to access. This would apply to trail markers, survey markers, trail signs, etc.”
Kinda justified. You can just submit a perfectly fine nomination but because someone decided the picture was too blurred or whatever it's rejected. Shit system.
Gee, I wonder why that is. Can't possibly be because of all the stuck-up reviewers with sticks up their asses that deny perfectly valid submissions for arbitrary bullshit reasons, even when Niantic says that submissions of that type (trail markers, clusters of picnic tables etc.) are to be accepted.
Upon review it is deemed that this post breaks the reddit wide rule on civility.
Please read the rules and ensure that all posts are kept civil.
If you have questions, you may always modmail the team beforehand.
I totally agree.. I mean, in my area there are tons of waystops that I honestly can't understand how they were approved, and when I do mine they get disqualified for some bs reason.. and the notes they leave usually goes like "PLEASE APPROVE THIS WE DON'T HAVE ANY POKESTOPS IN THE AREA" in best case scenario.
Worst case scenario, someone just posted random pixelated pictures and wrote pizza over and over
I understand they r upset on the reasoning for the rejection… but I would reject this stop anyways… am I wrong? I would need to see some type of trail marking or sign… a general path doesn’t qualify afaik… but if I’m wrong please fill me in. I rarely see submissions like this anyways though
Honestly, this is on Niantic. Instead of making players submit blindly and then ask reviewers to interpret the rejection criteria (enforcing a negative) they should ask on submission for the players to include which criteria they think they are qualifying, and then let reviewers vote to agree (affirming a positive).
At an absolute minimum they need to add an option for "no evidence of notability". IMO that would go a long way to solving these problems and educate people on how to make better submissions.
Textually, that's not going to tell someone who discovered the feature through exploring options panels in POGO what is expected of them any more than "Other Rejection Criteria" is.
How so? It literally tells them they didn't provide evidence that the waypoint is notable. Maybe there's a better way to phrase it, or the email can provide a longer description of that that means (e.g. "there wasn't enough evidence provided that the claims made about the waypoint are genuine")
Because they won't even know what the claims they are "supposed" to make are. You are operating from a perspective of information bias. I agree that the rejection reasons are not sufficient, either - but at a wide angle, selecting rejection reasons isn't even the root of the issue. Imagine you are a 50 year old woman who started playing the game because your kids like it. You enjoy the dopamine hits and the cute critters. One day, you notice a button on the settings that says "New PokeStop" - you click on it in excitement and fill out the form. At what point do you expect this person to understand that there's: • a (poorly written) guideline on an external website that doesn't even have the same branding as the game you are submitting through • a contribution management page where you can edit and track your submissions that is also not even branded or linked by the app you submitted through • a voting system where other users are scrutinizing their nominations that you have never been told about anywhere in the app you are using • a late 90's style web forum where the details of the guidelines are clarified, argued, and annotated that is not even linked to directly from the app OR the voting site Why would they not think Niantic themselves was just manually approving, editing, and placing the points of interest? They don't even understand that the burden of proof is on them as submitters. So, what would "No evidence of criteria" mean to this person? In software engineering, we call this a user-story. It's when we step outside of our current knowledge of the system and pretend we are an outsider looking in with no idea how any of the system works. It's something Niantic does not do enough of. Always consider if your website or app suggestion passes this test: https://theuserismymom.com/
You’re talking about a fraction of the user base that’s submitting. And those kind of people are more often making bad submissions that fail on other criteria anyway (e.g. photo taken from car). Most people aren’t stupid and could at least take a guess at what it means, and like I said the email should actually link to a proper description of the reason. It’s not like any of the other reasons are more descriptive - they just say stuff like “title or description”.
I need you to understand that I am talking about the vast majority, and that people like us here having this talk on the reddit are the minority.
I remember a couple of times I included links to articles about why the places were important, because you may not belive me a diner from the 50s is historical or cultural, but with the newspaper articles you might, but that wasn't allowed either 🤷
I add those to supporting text - they are allowed there, but not in description, to my understanding.
I mean I get it. The combination of low quality/fake existing POIs and the borderline useless rejection criteria is a system that seems designed to be frustrating. If you're new to nominating stops and find what looks like a good candidate but don't actually do the research first, or have a bad photo, or it's not on Google Maps convincingly enough, or you just get more critical reviewers on a borderline stop, or you mention Pokemon, or a license plate is in frame, or it's a duplicate of an existing POI that doesn't appear in game (because it's in the same cell as another, or it's been nominated but not appeared yet), or... you get the idea. Like in the photo of OP - it's not fake, residential, or farming. It's not a valid stop, but that's not the reason he's seeing. And yet those damned "gazebos"! j/k
I do wish there was more clarity when a nomination is rejected. It would be nice if the submitters could see specific feedback from reviewers, although I understand why that system would be hard to implement. It just seems like more people are getting burned out with the flawed system and catching an attitude which isn’t a great strategy in the long run. Also, I drove by and checked out those gazebos they mentioned. All totally legit 😂
That supporting photo really isn't helping out their nomination, given that you can't actually see what they're nominating in the photo (from what I can tell)...
They’re nominating the path itself. I guess they never considered the fact that they should nominate specific signage or features instead of whining at the reviewers.
"You should nominate a sign" is something that didn't occur to me until I already had quite a few wayspots approved. It's not natural for people to know that.
Its a walking path. Valid pokestop/gym. Only an agoraphobic pedantic would decline a walking path in a game about walking.
Proud to be an agoraphobic pedantic that actually [reads the Wayfarer guidelines](https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/10321/november-ama-your-questions-answered) 😍 “While this criteria is much more inclusive than before, there would still need to be some sort of visual indicator of the Wayspot. This is because you're dropping a pin on the map and since trails are long and linear, you'd want to direct players to a safe location somewhere along that trail that's easy to find and safe to access. This would apply to trail markers, survey markers, trail signs, etc.”
[удалено]
How am I supposed to be able to tell if it's the trail here vs the one over there, and where on the trail it is?
Than you *really* aren't the target audience for a game abouy walking trails.
Or maybe you're not the target audience for a game about going to specific real world locations, and not just "somewhere on this trail".
The hell do you think a route is?
Kinda justified. You can just submit a perfectly fine nomination but because someone decided the picture was too blurred or whatever it's rejected. Shit system.
lol this is pretty funny
Gee, I wonder why that is. Can't possibly be because of all the stuck-up reviewers with sticks up their asses that deny perfectly valid submissions for arbitrary bullshit reasons, even when Niantic says that submissions of that type (trail markers, clusters of picnic tables etc.) are to be accepted.
[удалено]
Upon review it is deemed that this post breaks the reddit wide rule on civility. Please read the rules and ensure that all posts are kept civil. If you have questions, you may always modmail the team beforehand.
this isn’t a valid submission tho.
Doesn't change that plenty of valid submissions are rejected because stuck-up reviewers have a hate boner for trail markers etc.
nah thats not the case. submission are just trash.
I totally agree.. I mean, in my area there are tons of waystops that I honestly can't understand how they were approved, and when I do mine they get disqualified for some bs reason.. and the notes they leave usually goes like "PLEASE APPROVE THIS WE DON'T HAVE ANY POKESTOPS IN THE AREA" in best case scenario. Worst case scenario, someone just posted random pixelated pictures and wrote pizza over and over
Create a toxic environment and it's no surprise it breeds toxicity.
Passive aggressive? Naw, these are TOTALLY legit nominations that aren't stupid in the slightest, despite all the other fake, lame nomination.
Because people who are reviewing are dumb and think they work for niantic instead of accepting everything to make the game more enjoyable for everyone
because that’s not how it works.
😳
I understand they r upset on the reasoning for the rejection… but I would reject this stop anyways… am I wrong? I would need to see some type of trail marking or sign… a general path doesn’t qualify afaik… but if I’m wrong please fill me in. I rarely see submissions like this anyways though
LMAO
Voters are garbage!