The point being that Gazebo's have no significant cultural or historical content, so rating them a 1 in that is valid. But they're still portals because they are Gazebo's which Niantic specifically said are valid.
Everyone rating a 1 on Historical/Cultural for a Gazebo or a Playing Field should not result in it's rejection.
What makes a cement ramp portalworthy though? It's more likely the agents knew it was a bad submission but just had trouble explaining why they knew it was bad.
All the boat launches I've seen as portals have been of the signboard next to the launch with advisories from the fish and wildlife office on it.
Like, after years of being condescendingly talked down to by reviewers of the old G+ page and reddit, people with a ratio of 1:7 approval to reject agreements, talking about HOW HARD it was on their mental health to have to reject so many 'bad candidates' and want tools to punish people with too many rejected submissions.
And then we finally get reject reasons in our emails and it turns out, the reject reasons are just plain wrong.
When I got to start reviewing, I was wondering where the heck all those people were reviewing to make it like how they described. Turns out they were just full of something.
Just got a rejection for a trail marker (outdoors exercise track), with rejection reason of: `Photo appears to include a recognizable license plate'.
It is in woods. No license plates whatsoever, let alone recognizable ones.
Some of the rejection reasons might be explained by the close proximity to the border. At least half of the reviewers are probably from a different country, and likely don't understand a word of the description / support info. ...maybe I'll try resubmitting in English, and see what happens. Doesn't explain this one, though: anyone can see there's no license plates, even if they can't read.
I know OP talks about "fake" reasons, but I can some reasons why the reason is wrong without specific ill intent:
1) Reviewer doesn't care, or know, that reasons are live and just selects something.
I guess Wayfarer has better info now, but what we do not see is warnings if you select same reason multiple times in a row (i presume)
2) Reviewer has a specific idea, but the pre-selects match poorly. He/she has read that text input is not read by the submitter, so he/she picks something as similar as possible.
The reject reasons on site are old, and way . There should be a clear update path between rules->reasons. I'm sure we all have reasons we wish would be there. It would also work in reverse: Disappointed reviewer can look up rejections "oh so I cant be "submitter identifiable" but what other things should I avoid?"
Wayfarer is getting a lot of attention but in reality there is lots more to be updated in the reviews part IMHO
If they have trouble explaining why it's bad, maybe it's not really bad. And it wasn't necessarily the "cement ramp" I was alluding to - public boat ramps tend to, at least in my area, have a cement ramp going down into the water, and also a wooden pier for smaller boats, or for standing on to help launch. Absolutely nothing about that is a natural feature, except the lake.
I had another portal denied - it was a memorial bench in a park. I figured a bench was a hard sell, but would still try since there's not much in the park.
One of the reasons was because "portal appears to be on private property or a farm".
In a park.
Where the nearest residence/farm is a mile away.
Again, I pose that a lot of people reviewing are dumb (or, giving them the benefit of the doubt, either ignorant, lazy, or deathly afraid to think for themselves in regard to criteria). I'm sure they're nice people, but they're as sharp as a sack of wet mice
So, this goes on and on and will go on and on. A couple of days ago I've had a pretty unique, even slightly artistic map of a village and the surrounding area, the likes of which are portals all over the place, rejected as "Nomination title or description is not relevant, Insufficient evidence that the nomination accurately reflects the submitted real-world location based on comparison of the submitted photo and map views."
The name was "*name of the village* Map". So definitely not true. The description was that it's a map of the local area. So also not true. Insufficient evidence blah blah - also not true, there's street view and one can easily see that it's the same building in question both from the photo and the supporting photo.
So, basically pure abuse and lies or extreme laziness. And the pure essence of what I'm talking about, only this time brought to the forefront.
Maybe we should be having a discussion about the word "cultural". In my opinion, gazebos have cultural significance because they are focal points for gathering.
The boat launch, not it and of itself. But often, they are part of a larger marina or designated public access point with would fall under adventurous locations.
I've had 1 boat launch and 2 piers approved. The boat launch had a nice sign with nice history of the site. The 2 piers both had been named after people so it wasn't just xyz town pier. I could write a nice description. With town boat launches it's best to actually take a picture of a close dock and emphasize exercise activities such as kayaking if it's used for that. A lot of the reactional boat launches have docks that are used to launch kayaks.
Is there a caretaker's house on premisis? I can think of three Wilderness areas I frequent that have houses on premisis for full time caretakers that are private residences and could be mistaken for In satellite view.
Bad explanation on my part, I was trying to figure out why others were marking 1* for the history/culture section on playgrounds. I give that section 3* for most playgrounds.
Totally agree with you I have had an opr suspension due to portals not meeting opr criteria. Trust me I dont submit things I dont think will get in many churches in my area are still to be added.
Some of the fake reasons was a church blocked an emergency services entrance (not true). The list goes on.
No I'm suspended from reviewing portals due to these fake reasons.
And what does niantic say? We cant give you the reason but they agree with the decision. But wont tell me anything about the submissions. Total missus of opr and niantic do nothing.
No idea when my suspended account will be back on and again niantic offers no help.
I really don't see the point of doing this anymore.
Pedestrian bridges are terrible submissions. They don't "encourage walking". They are there out of necessity. Unless the bridge is unique looking, it's a 1* until Niantic clearly says it is eligible.
The single pedestrian bridge I submitted, was actually a trail juncture complete with the appropriate trail signage. Without the trail marker, I wouldn't have bothered.
@grendelwulf Can you give me a reason as to why you believe its reject worthy?
@0X00FF00 Yea I can agree the picture is rather ehhh, unfortunately due to the parking log being right behind it the picture has to be at a less than ideal angle.
For everyone else here is how the green looks year round (photo from google maps). The whole area behind the office is an events area, they often also set up Cornhole on the Putting Green.
Edit: Another Angle from street view, honestly might try this angle next time.
Comments
The point being that Gazebo's have no significant cultural or historical content, so rating them a 1 in that is valid. But they're still portals because they are Gazebo's which Niantic specifically said are valid.
Everyone rating a 1 on Historical/Cultural for a Gazebo or a Playing Field should not result in it's rejection.
What makes a cement ramp portalworthy though? It's more likely the agents knew it was a bad submission but just had trouble explaining why they knew it was bad.
All the boat launches I've seen as portals have been of the signboard next to the launch with advisories from the fish and wildlife office on it.
Had a trail map rejected today for "Being located on a private residence"
I took the photosphere that showed the map. It's very obviously on trail
Like, after years of being condescendingly talked down to by reviewers of the old G+ page and reddit, people with a ratio of 1:7 approval to reject agreements, talking about HOW HARD it was on their mental health to have to reject so many 'bad candidates' and want tools to punish people with too many rejected submissions.
And then we finally get reject reasons in our emails and it turns out, the reject reasons are just plain wrong.
When I got to start reviewing, I was wondering where the heck all those people were reviewing to make it like how they described. Turns out they were just full of something.
Just got a rejection for a trail marker (outdoors exercise track), with rejection reason of: `Photo appears to include a recognizable license plate'.
It is in woods. No license plates whatsoever, let alone recognizable ones.
Some of the rejection reasons might be explained by the close proximity to the border. At least half of the reviewers are probably from a different country, and likely don't understand a word of the description / support info. ...maybe I'll try resubmitting in English, and see what happens. Doesn't explain this one, though: anyone can see there's no license plates, even if they can't read.
I know OP talks about "fake" reasons, but I can some reasons why the reason is wrong without specific ill intent:
1) Reviewer doesn't care, or know, that reasons are live and just selects something.
I guess Wayfarer has better info now, but what we do not see is warnings if you select same reason multiple times in a row (i presume)
2) Reviewer has a specific idea, but the pre-selects match poorly. He/she has read that text input is not read by the submitter, so he/she picks something as similar as possible.
The reject reasons on site are old, and way . There should be a clear update path between rules->reasons. I'm sure we all have reasons we wish would be there. It would also work in reverse: Disappointed reviewer can look up rejections "oh so I cant be "submitter identifiable" but what other things should I avoid?"
Wayfarer is getting a lot of attention but in reality there is lots more to be updated in the reviews part IMHO
If they have trouble explaining why it's bad, maybe it's not really bad. And it wasn't necessarily the "cement ramp" I was alluding to - public boat ramps tend to, at least in my area, have a cement ramp going down into the water, and also a wooden pier for smaller boats, or for standing on to help launch. Absolutely nothing about that is a natural feature, except the lake.
I had another portal denied - it was a memorial bench in a park. I figured a bench was a hard sell, but would still try since there's not much in the park.
One of the reasons was because "portal appears to be on private property or a farm".
In a park.
Where the nearest residence/farm is a mile away.
Again, I pose that a lot of people reviewing are dumb (or, giving them the benefit of the doubt, either ignorant, lazy, or deathly afraid to think for themselves in regard to criteria). I'm sure they're nice people, but they're as sharp as a sack of wet mice
So, this goes on and on and will go on and on. A couple of days ago I've had a pretty unique, even slightly artistic map of a village and the surrounding area, the likes of which are portals all over the place, rejected as "Nomination title or description is not relevant, Insufficient evidence that the nomination accurately reflects the submitted real-world location based on comparison of the submitted photo and map views."
The name was "*name of the village* Map". So definitely not true. The description was that it's a map of the local area. So also not true. Insufficient evidence blah blah - also not true, there's street view and one can easily see that it's the same building in question both from the photo and the supporting photo.
So, basically pure abuse and lies or extreme laziness. And the pure essence of what I'm talking about, only this time brought to the forefront.
Badge-hounds only willing to spend two seconds per review.
I 3* nearly all playground submissions. Culturally, they do allow a space for people to gather and recreate which has some value.
Out of curiosity, what makes a boat launch portal worthy?
Maybe we should be having a discussion about the word "cultural". In my opinion, gazebos have cultural significance because they are focal points for gathering.
The boat launch, not it and of itself. But often, they are part of a larger marina or designated public access point with would fall under adventurous locations.
I've had 1 boat launch and 2 piers approved. The boat launch had a nice sign with nice history of the site. The 2 piers both had been named after people so it wasn't just xyz town pier. I could write a nice description. With town boat launches it's best to actually take a picture of a close dock and emphasize exercise activities such as kayaking if it's used for that. A lot of the reactional boat launches have docks that are used to launch kayaks.
Why in the world are you only 3*ing playgrounds when they were recommended 4-5* in OPR?
He means in the Cultural/Historical category.
Ah that makes sense
Is there a caretaker's house on premisis? I can think of three Wilderness areas I frequent that have houses on premisis for full time caretakers that are private residences and could be mistaken for In satellite view.
Bad explanation on my part, I was trying to figure out why others were marking 1* for the history/culture section on playgrounds. I give that section 3* for most playgrounds.
Yeah Perringaiden@Perringaiden set me right. I skimmed too fast lol
Totally agree with you I have had an opr suspension due to portals not meeting opr criteria. Trust me I dont submit things I dont think will get in many churches in my area are still to be added.
Some of the fake reasons was a church blocked an emergency services entrance (not true). The list goes on.
No I'm suspended from reviewing portals due to these fake reasons.
And what does niantic say? We cant give you the reason but they agree with the decision. But wont tell me anything about the submissions. Total missus of opr and niantic do nothing.
No idea when my suspended account will be back on and again niantic offers no help.
I really don't see the point of doing this anymore.
Pedestrian bridges are terrible submissions. They don't "encourage walking". They are there out of necessity. Unless the bridge is unique looking, it's a 1* until Niantic clearly says it is eligible.
The single pedestrian bridge I submitted, was actually a trail juncture complete with the appropriate trail signage. Without the trail marker, I wouldn't have bothered.
No
Had a putting green at my office denied as "Seasonal" at least deny it with something that makes sense....
A right decision for the wrong reasons is still a right decision.
Is denying a putting green at an office really the right decision though?
I saw the submission pic/etc via PM. I can confirm that it's valid, and that the pic didn't quiiiite do the thing justice @AgentB0ss
@grendelwulf Can you give me a reason as to why you believe its reject worthy?
@0X00FF00 Yea I can agree the picture is rather ehhh, unfortunately due to the parking log being right behind it the picture has to be at a less than ideal angle.
For everyone else here is how the green looks year round (photo from google maps). The whole area behind the office is an events area, they often also set up Cornhole on the Putting Green.
Edit: Another Angle from street view, honestly might try this angle next time.
If this is a putting green, shouldn't there be a hole or something to put into? One is not visible from either of these photos