There are so many VALID portals being rejected for random reasons who do we report to for this?
Niantic support themselves has nothing to do with this and won't even discuss issue
a portal is usually removed for a reason, no pedestrian access, near a school etc etc... it doesnt matter if portal meets criteria..
I want to know this also, i sibmitted so many portals and they got rejected by the most ridiculous criteria ehich was not the issue
Having the same issue. Ever since a certain group of reviewers joined Wayfarer there have been many more incorrect rejections.
I have submitted quite a few great nominations (and some iffy ones as well) on my universities grounds. However these have ALL been rejected for being "School (K-12)" and "Private Residential Property". It's demotivating when clearly good nominations get rejected, but before it would usually be an issue with some nominations not this many. Also the reasons given are simply not true, which is an indication that some reviewers don't know what those rejection reasons are actually for...
Thats not what this discussion is about
I am talking about when you submit a new portal candidate and it gets not approved for obvious false reasons
eg I have a Park that was rejected for being on "private residential property" ???
I have a Community Map that was rejected for "wrong location"
I have a Bridge that was rejected for "not meeting criteria" (and this is a VERY unique bridge too... visually alone it should have been a portal but then in AMA Niantic actually confirmed a bridge on pedestrian trails should always be acceptable)
Yes but many times i get up good candidates but cant verify the location due to no street map or 360 view on the current position.. so its hard to judge many times if the portal is really there or not.
That's what the 3* Location Accuracy rating is for: cases where you say to yourself "it might be there, it might not be there, I can't tell because there's things in the way on the overhead view and there's no Street View available".
Anything below that is "I'm pretty sure it's not there, and I can't figure out where it might be instead".
Many reviewers are lazy
From the 3 above examples I was referring to:
Park - easily confirmable on Google Maps (huge green section of map; this park is over 15 years old and has multiple street view images)
Bridge - easily confirmable on Google Maps (and is large enough it is even visible from high satellite views)
Map - hard to verify exact location in the park area, but the NAME is written right on the sign itself + physical address so baffles me anyone could reject as unable to locate
I'm noticing the same sort of thing. Seemingly perfect candidates getting rejected with random reasons.
It almost makes it seem not worth attempting to continue submitting good candidates if everything is just going to get rejected for invalid/lazy reasons.
I got one today rejected for:
Your nomination is rejected due to the following reason(s):
Photo is low quality (e.g., pitch black/blurry photos or photos taken from a car), The real-world location of the nomination appears to be on private residential property or farm, Nomination title or description is not relevant
The photo was as clear as could be without getting a professional photographer to take the photo, the location is obviously within the park and the title and description was as clear and descriptive as could be without making something up. 360 photos were even submitted to google street maps even tho the structure and POI are clearly visible within the street view nearby the park.
#niantic. If you want people to continue submitting quality POI's and add serious candidates to the network you should look into this problem seriously.
Same thing has been happening to me.
Reject 1 (supp info) https://imgur.com/a/5V0OWHV (https://imgur.com/a/nZgVevb)
Reject 2 https://imgur.com/a/5HSNNr6
Reject 3 https://imgur.com/a/IkFL6RT
For the most part I try not to complain about things getting rejected, but these really should have gone through. And the rejections straight up don't make sense. We have no way of 'defending' against bad faith reviewers. An appeals process could work, but general appeals would be a disaster. At least let us see the comments or stats from our rejections. Make the process more transparent so people can't abuse it. These 3 rejects came all in 24 hours. All were on the university campus. An acceptance I submitted 10 miles away got accepted same day (and was in voting for a shorter amount of time). That's not a coincidence.
There should be a way to report reviewers that clearly reject for wrong reasons.
I just got a upgrade rejected it was a Footbridge. It was rejected for these reasons:
Photo is low quality (e.g., pitch black/blurry photos or photos taken from a car), The real-world location of the nomination appears to represent a generic store or restaurant, Photo of the nomination appears to be of a body part instead of a valid object.
I believe the photo is ok. But I can accept that others might think it’s low quality, But the other reasons have no merit at all.