Are there new texts of mails about reject?

a1mirra1mirr ✭✭
edited September 11 in OPR

Hi all! I've got mail about reject with following text:


Your Portal nomination has been reviewed, and we have decided not to accept this candidate.

Your nomination is rejected due to the following reason(s): 

Insufficient evidence that the Candidate accurately reflects the submitted real-world location based on comparison of the submitted photo and map views, The real-world location of the Candidate appears to represent a generic store or restaurant.

Note that we will not be overturning this decision. If you believe your New Portal nomination should have been accepted, we suggest re-submitting the Portal candidate after improving the photo.

-NianticOps


Did anybody get something similar? Never saw that before


Comments

  • that's new to me and more helpful then the current rejections

  • Krug mentioned this on the last AMA that rejection mails will provide reason soon™. So apparently it is now.

  • sweet, I'm expecting at least 2 rejections, though I already know one is because it's to close to an existing portal. Was my first time nominating, forgot to check the distance. Will be good to "officially" know why the second since there's plenty like it in the community already. I already know the "unofficial" reason.

  • Sweet! Hopefully this'll help cut down on poor submissions, and hopefully cut down on people asking why their submission was rejected.


    Not expecting either of those though. Could see a lot of people asking "what does this rejection reason mean??"

  • AgentB0ssAgentB0ss ✭✭✭
    edited September 12

    Got a rejection that said abuse and now im more confused as to why someone would mark a park entrance sign as abuse (NOT A DUPLICATE)

  • Here's the rejection I was waiting on. Like I said above, I knew it would be, I've had similar rejections, but this gives me a good idea why now.

    I understand generic, it's a park sign, but the thing is, Niantic doesn't allow Natural Scenery. For parks, I have to use generic signs. As for low quality, I think that's an excuse to many players abuse. You can see in the example what constitutes low quality. But in this case, after looking at my picture again, it is blurry. The sign is anyway, I tried to get more of the park in the picture for visual appeal, because, again, generic sign, but oh well. Need to keep in mind as well, these signs are a part of the park system here, and they've been approved numerous times before. Again, yes, generic, but the rules say I have to use a sign. Well, technically a man made structure, but if I'm going to take a picture of the playground in a park, I'm going to nominate it as a playground.


    I'll try again later (much later) with a better picture and a better explanation as to why it should be in. The main reason is that it shows the park bylaws, including the hours it's open, and with the new rules for parks coming into play, having that knowledge can help players decide if they have enough time to go there or not.

  • Those generic signs are on the 1 start category. To submmit parks you should try the entrances in case there are, or playgrounds, fountains.

  • That does seems like a generic sign from the photo you provided. Even if it contains something like park laws, I can see some people think of them as generic signs, particularly when there are multiple of them in a park.

    That being said, I just got a mosque rejected with the reason of being a generic store or restaurant. I want to laugh, really. Seems like this update is going to display the ugliness of local OPR reviewers into the world. As a reviewer, I'm just wondering if this would have repercussions and if it may affect me.

  • But, why link of the photo missed?

  • i work with what I got, these signs are already in the game, it's just a shame people get to uppity over what is and is not allowable when they don't even live in the area. The sign indicates park property, a park sign is allowable by the rules set place by Ingress.

    But as for playgrounds and fountains, if I have a playground or fountain, I'm submitting it as a playground or fountain, not as the park.

  • Its not the people, it is niantic. Unitl they change the OPR guideline it will be the same.


    I could not find evidence only on OPR but i am not sure if you have access to it so i found a link for pogo users.


    https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/pokemon-go/?l=en&s=pokestops&f=what-makes-a-high-quality-pokestop&p=web

  • It's debatable, really. The guide on OPR website only mentions survey marker and trail marker, for reasons as mentioned below:

    -----

    Candidate: Survey Marker

    Policy: Accept

    ACCEPT if on a trail or helps you explore the location. Falls under the criteria of off-the-beaten-path tourist attractions.

    -----

    Candidate: Trail Marker

    Policy: Accept

    ACCEPT. Falls under the criteria of adventurous tourist attractions and encourages walk and exercise.

    -----

    Which I'd argue park law signs is not. I don't feel like park law sign is an off the beaten path tourist attraction nor it is adventurous tourist attractions and encourages walk and exercise.

    If anything, they seem to be similar to city signs, which should be rejected as the OPR guide stated:

    -----

    Candidate: City/Street Sign

    Policy: Reject

    REJECT regular street signs/city signs that have no historical significance

    -----

    Park laws sign feels to me as something with no historical significance and can be found anywhere. Just because you see some got approved doesn't mean you'd get yours approved, it just means the majority of previous park laws sign reviewers agree that it is portal worthy according to their subjective opinions.

    But... That is another matter entirely. There are various resources you can find in the forum or reddit about whether something is a good portal candidate or not, sourced from OPR guide and previous AMAs. If you can't find any, you can always ask about it on the next AMA, which should happen soon. There was another guy who would like to ask about stuff like poop station and toilet in parks eligibility as a portal too somewhere in the forum.

  • True, I looked again and didn't see Park specific, but like you have above, there's also this qualification

    "Falls under the criteria of adventurous tourist attractions and encourages walk and exercise."

    Parks encourage walk and exercise. Parks also make good tourist attractions, and depending upon the park itself, even adventurous.

    A "trail marker" as you mentioned above is just the thing, the photo needed, the actual rule is the criteria itself. So a park bylaw sign is the "thing" but the criteria remains the same "encourages walk and exercise"

    The problem lies with people's expectations of what makes a good picture, and not what makes a good portal candidate. The candidate is the criteria, the picture is just the thing.

  • I was under the impression the only time we are supposed to approve a park rules sign if that is the park sign. If a sign with the park name exists as well is the agent supposed to only submit the actual park sign and not the rules? I thought that would make the rules sign a generic sign?

    Also with the city sign rules I believe there is an exception if you have welcome sign that is artistic that is accessible via walking on a sidewalk and it is not on or in front of private residential property. I have gotten 3 city welcome signs approved.

  • I'd like to ask we end this debate on park signs, it went a bit further then I intended and is deviating away from the original topic which was the new rejection e-mails and how they can help us with resubmissions and understand why things got denied. Like I said at the start, I knew mine was going to get rejected, I'm just happy to know the official reasons as to why and how I can improve upon my nominations for them.

  • I've recently received some rejections, some in the old style but also one in the new:

    "Your nomination is rejected due to the following reason(s):

    Candidate does not meet acceptance criteria, or is on the list of low quality candidates, The real-world location of the Candidate appears to be on private residential property or farm."

    This tells me reviewers chose "Location - private residence or farm" in OPR. Very clear, quite useful.

Sign In or Register to comment.