I do like a good reasoned rejection
When I submitted it I had the feeling it would be rejected, possibly as it represents a council sign ("road sign") or possibly because I didn't do any homework on whether Google maps would have a photosphere & therefore rejected due to location inconsistency.
I'm not surprised it was rejected but I do like a well-reasoned argument against which this is anything but:
Gotta love reviewers. 😍🤣
4


Comments
Exhibit A when people talk about PoGO reviewers accepting everything. In fairness, I don't think it is a worthy candidate, but none of those reasons apply, so that should be three or more people kicked out of Wayfarer.
We have discussed quite a few similarly bad rejection reasons in our Wayfarer chat, and our assumption is that choosing something like "generic store or restaurant" is easier for lazy reviewers than selecting "does not meet criteria" and having to explain why...
I think it's pure laziness, but it isn't helpful. On the other hand, I don't know what sort of rejection you would get if enough reviewers did enter their own reason - would you get every reason listed or not?
I believe if a thousand people makes 1 star and doesn't meet any criteria, or gave it 2*, and just one guy marked bad photo (maybe he couldn't read the writing) you're gonna get this results.
I've seen the reason "doesn't meet criteria" before, so if most people had selected that then it would have been in the email.
I got you beat on that, I also figured this would get rejected, despite there being so many of them in the game already in the area. But rejected for "Nomination appears to be a natural feature (waterfall, mountain, lake, etc.) that is not connected to a man-made object, Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, The real-world location of the nomination could not be confirmed to have an acceptable pedestrian pathway leading up to it."
Even accepted criteria is bs because it does meet the criteria of being a park sign. But that's a long debate.
I had another one rejected for similar reasons, a bike repair stop for when bicyclists get a flat, rejected as natural features. It's alongside a parking area, not even a tree in the pic. I've had an indoor basketball court inside a community centre rejected for not having pedestrian access. An artistic lighting display inside a food court of a mall being rejected for residential property and no pedestrian access. These voters are just moronic.
@PsychoX23 I know the feeling, man.
This nomination has been rejected due to the following reason(s):
The real-world location of the nomination appears to represent a generic store or restaurant, Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, Nomination appears to be a natural feature (waterfall, mountain, lake, etc.) that is not connected to a man-made object.
Invalid for me, at least in the way it is presented.
So many reviewers are too lazy to select "Doesn't meet criteria" and actually write an explanation
Which leads to comedy rejections like this.
Supporting statement:
”The submission is for the park itself, not the sign. Parks are explicitly listed as high quality candidates. The sign confirms this is a public reserve managed by City of Gosnells, and is a man made object which acts as an anchor point for the park wayspot.”
That's just a sign showing what is prohibited. that's not even close to a valid submission.
The main object in the picture is the sign and it isn't a valid thing. On the background there is just trees. I was told once that the park itself isn't a valid portal, because is nature, but the things usually found inside it are.
If you want to submit the park, look out for it's entrance, it probably got some arcs, gazebo, or a sign with his name (not a cation one).
My guess is that people are so fed up with reviewing low quality submits that they aren't bothered to type any text anymore, and choose a random reason. Heard it happing often in TG chats as well.
That sign is not representative of the park, though. While man-made objects are required for submitting parks, the object still has to be representative of the park, which is why signs with the park's name and amenities are needed.
It's an Ingress/OPR thing that has been going on for a long time but only became so clear after the rejection reasons were added to the emails. It has nothing to do with submissions being made possible from PoGO accounts, if that's what you're implying.
@FuzzySun I just re-read my text, and I can't for the life of me discover how any implication about any game could have been made. I see you brought PoGo into the thread on your first reaction to the original post, but I can't see any reference to that game in the OP's post as well. I think the post was about the strange rejection reasons, not from which app the submits were made.
I'm just telling what I'm seeing happening regarding reject reasons. The reason for the low quality submits could be various, the most important one being that the best ones are already online, and what's left are low quality attempts to put POIs on maps. But that would be a different discussion altogether.
You may disagree, but I really think (as @Svizac28 said) it's due to laziness.
It is laziness, I was just saying it's not a new thing (didn't coincide with you know what). People have been doing it and getting away with it for years (including people who would consider themselves reviewing experts). My answer is: if their time is so precious, stop reviewing. Do it properly or do one.
Does it really matter that much being denied for one reason or another? It's not like a valid thing is being denied for a weird reason, but a invalid being denied one way or another.
The 3 pictures provided here are from mass production sign, with no cultural value and bad photography.
The overall point is rejection reasons matter. Lets say I am submitting a community noticeboard and its denied as Generic Business. Well that gives me ZERO feedback. However, if its denied as no pedestrian access, maybe next time I resubmit it I get a better shot of the sidewalk leading up to it. Or its denied as PRP, then I explain in the submitting details that its an apartment complex and per the AMA an apartment complex is not PRP.