Not sure what you’re on about, Casey just straight up confirmed that pubs and bars are not inherently that criteria. As they just wrotten it.
She actually said fences are not valid. But this one is given special credit because it's a local hotspot. Bars and pubs are local hotspots.
Fences is a wonderful play, how dare you put words about it in Casey's mouth that are anything but exemplary about it's nuanced and wonderful storytelling.
First time here in a while, and this really reiterates how much we need some help from bad reviewers if we're going to keep doing this and having it be worth our time. There's somebody repeatedly being difficult in this thread pretending that a sports site is invalid if it's not on the short list of cookie-cutter examples, missing the spirit of sport sites being acceptable entirely, and then for some reason picking a less accurate description of it to justify their position (as if a field isn't just grass and a court isn't just a concrete slab), showing that it's intentionally being difficult and looking for reasons to deny others. This is very typical bullying behaviour and they're out and proud in being an issue for the rest of us, and we need help because at this point they're causing enough damage that it's delaying the creation of the game network which should have been done years ago. By the time we get this done nobody is even going to be playing the games anymore, and we're still going to be trying to pass basic valid candidates for people to tap in these phone games which really shouldn't be this difficult.
I've literally included screenshots of AMA answers about candidates being valid such as coin operated play areas, and they still get rejected as invalid candidate criteria a dozen times in a row. We need help, I've given up on valid candidates in some of the most viable play areas because there's nothing I can do.
Special upgrades to get Niantic to review should be extremely, extremely limited. Like, 1 appeal every 6 or 12 months, and only for players with at least say 10 existing approved nominations. This keeps the level of requests smaller and thus manageable. You don’t need to get every poor decision reversed to scare people into proper reviewing habits. All it takes is a hint/spark of some accounts being banned/sanctioned for poor reviews to get most people to clean up their act.
I think the real question here is not if the nomination is good. The problem is the rejection reasons do not make sense. I thought the point of having reasons on the email is to help people improve their submissions. If the feedback does not make sense, it is only frustrating and discouraging. It helps no one and in some cases may actually hurt by encouraging weak candidates to be resubmitted.
I am sure we all know this is not an isolated case. It is a trend that seems to be increasing. I also had a nomination rejected for ridiculous reasons. It was a nomination on a college campus that came back rejected as k-12. It is obviously not. Was it a good nomination? No, but that is not the point. The point is reviewers need to be some how held accountable for their reviewing or this issue may become even more wide spread.
"Accountability" in general needs addressed. I had a nomination moved in voting in bad faith. My nomination was a mural and both primary and supporting photos make it obvious it is only maybe 1 or 2 meters inside the main entrance, yet it got moved nearly 20 meters inside the building. I have no way to report the people who moved it, and now I'll have to wait indefinitely for a location edit to maybe possibly get approved in the next 1 to 100 months.
12. I can guarantee I've seen over 100 rejections of coin operated machine play areas even with the criteria posted in the support picture for one mall that still has nothing in the mall. Had 8 world war 2 veteran memorial plaques rejected today. That's ridiculous. If it was a park in a different city it would all be approved.
People are ignorant and don't care.
Some purposely reject because they get a medal faster instead of approving because they feel they won't have enough things to submit to earn their medals.
Some target people and reject purposely in areas. Why because they chose too as some get their jollies off on it.
Abuse needs appeals. Niantic needs to address the chaos. Because it will never end and will only cause more people who are wanting to help to stop reviewing and playing.
Oh where were the memorial plaques have any examples of your submissions? Maybe the description needs more details, if you post them I wouldn’t mind helping with a good description.
No thanks. Wasn't the description. Solely people rejecting on purpose based on the rejection emails.
Well if you change your mind I’m here to help! I’m very good at descriptions and getting stuff approved. Well good luck to you.
Really good at descriptions? You vouched for a 50ft blank brick wall on the first page of this thread to be a portal and argue everything has to be unique on forums everyday on every other post. You seem to be slipping or burnt out. I suggest maybe taking a break for a little. Clear your head maybe?
Wow someone offers you help and this is how you treat them?
First off stop just calling it a wall, it’s part of the Tennis Court and would be the Waypoint for the entire court. The way finder nominated the solo play wall as something different than the same old same old, doesn’t change its function or use as part of tennis. So yes very valid, plus the nomination provided an excellent description and supporting details.
So a brick wall is a better submission than an actual tennis court. I guess you have to be a 5 star rated person on forums to see how this isn't coal and just a wall. I guess next you will want all your home walls too? Can't see any way possible that this wall would be abused in submissions. Is it the stripe that does it for you? Heck, I would submit a print of a painting in a business before wasting a submission on an empty wall like this. Guess that shows how you are way better than the rest of us. Blank walls for everyone instead!
@NianticCasey is it better to submit a print of a painting in a local business, that is locally unique to other prints or an empty blank wall like this in the original post of this thread? Which would you approve first casey?
The TENNIS wall would be equivalent to the court. Now if the court already was a waypoint the wall wouldn't qualify as it would be a duplicate.
Honestly it wouldn't be different then someone arguing for submitting a scoreboard at lets say the Ravens Football Stadium. As long as the field wasn't already a waypoint then one of the scoreboards could be eligible. I wouldn't recommend someone submit multiple scoreboards or the field and scoreboards but certainly the scoreboard would be eligible if the stadium itself wasnt submitted.
Easy response. I am jumping at the chance at this one. If the Blank wall had a scoreboard on it than I would say it should be approved. A scoreboard is a informational sign at a stadium. Multiple signs for an existing wayspot additional example and guideline in wayfarer help.
In the potentially confusing nominations section under additional examples and guidelines section.
Signs for locations/objects that are already existing Wayspots - Eligible, if they are a significant distance from the object or location. For example, a sign for a monument could be a separate Wayspot than the monument itself. If a sign for Wayspot is nearby the Wayspot itself, it can be used as a supplementary photo for the existing Wayspot.
Conclusion. Stadium is allow signs for an already existing wayspot. A scoreboard is a sign for an athletic field that already exists. Same would apply to bars, parks, churches and colleges.
You are right a scoreboard is an informational sign but at the same time it represents the sports field so it would be a duplicate of the field. Yes significant distance rule you can argue this for sure. This is where we could debate all day about what would be considered significant distance. I would personally argue since the scoreboard is PART of the field it could never be significant distance away. However, a sign for the sports field outside and away from the sports field could be.
Also you mention multiple signs for a waypoint would be eligible nowhere in the help does it say MULTIPLE signs for a waypoint would be eligible.
As far as the Tennis Wall goes it encourages exercise just like the tennis court does so that would make it eligible.
Significant distance rule is what niantic allows between different wayspots. If it is too close and not eligible to be a portal Niantic will deem that based on the approval. It is only a duplicate if the real world distance is too close. Have you read the FAQ on Help? I would suggest this question. "Should I take nearby Wayspot density into account when analyzing a nomination?" If it is named and titled differently, maybe a different picture or different information on the different scoreboards, I would consider them all differently.
Did you not read the "Signs for locations/objects that are already existing wayspots"? If only one sign was allowed, it would be defined as A Sign.
A Blank Wall, is not that interesting and could be easily abused with how quickly reviewers go through reviewing submissions. People speeding through reviews could easily mistaken a Blank Wall at a Tennis court for a Blank Wall at PRP. Would you approve a blank wall at a business? No because it is a blank wall and not interesting. At least a scoreboard is interesting and has informational to read on it. It is easy to identify a scoreboard versus a blank wall at a tennis court. It could be hard to identify a Blank wall at a Tennis Court versus a Blank Wall at someone's home.
Okay then define significant distance. How can something INSIDE something else be significant distance form that object? So how can a scoreboard within a stadium be significant distance from the stadium?
I am not taking density into account, I am taking DUPLICATES into account. Two signs for the same object would be a duplicate. They use signs plural because they are talking about multiple waypoints not saying that duplicate signs for the same object are allowed. Now obviously if the sign(s) are more than a half kilometer apart there would be no way to know its a duplicate so would be hard to judge that.
So you are saying a TENNIS WALL should be denied because people might start to accept walls at businesses and PRP? Thats now how this works. Also IN the photo of the TENNIS WALL you can clearly see the court too so your logic doesnt hold up there. I am sorry you are admitting to being a fast/poor reviewer.
Edit: I think you need to go back and look at the photos provided by @kholman1 you can clearly tell its at a tennis court form the original photo, from the supplemental photo, from the satellite, from his photosphere but all of this should be overlooked your saying?
Sure. A mall is allowed indoor submissions. Businesses are allowed indoor submissions. It is in the January 2020 update. A mall is allowed things indoors. A stadium is no different as it is also a public place for the community to enjoy that is a business. Disney World would be similar that Attractions could also have indoor submissions. Distance is based on Niantic with the approval letter. Something too close for niantic would be responded with it is approved but the spacing is too close that they used the photo as a duplicate on the nearby portal. A duplicate by people is if the image or title is exactly the same with no differences during the review. If there is clear differences than they should be reviewed separately, and if Niantic deems them too close that is your answer.
You are taking density into account, A scoreboard versus a athletic field are nowhere near identical.
At times, you might come across a nomination that is a duplicate of a live Wayspot. In these cases, follow these steps to look for and mark duplicate Wayspots.
The Check Duplicates section will display a list of live Wayspots in the real-world area around the nomination. Scan through the photos and if you find a live Wayspot for the nomination you are reviewing, follow these steps:
The duplicate is 2 of the exact same hands. A scoreboard and a athletic field are totally different submissions. It would be like comparing an Apple Mural to Orange Mural. Both are different in appearance and not the same fruit. Does that help with a clarification?
@NianticCasey Chime in any time please to confirm or correct.
Absolutely a mall could have multiple submissions just like a stadium could. They would have to be different things though. Great example at a Stadium you could have wonderful Murals Inside those would all be unique and different murals. However the Scoreboard is just a sign for the stadium essentially so it would be a duplicate of the stadium, plus they are not that interesting.
A apples mural and an oranges mural both sound wonderful. A scoreboard at an athletic field is just PART of the athletic field. Whats next do you want to submit the bleachers too? what about the home plate? Or every 10th yard line? THOSE ARE PARTS of the athletic field no different than the scoreboard.
A playplace at a mall and a mural at a mall would be vastly different as would a mural at a stadium and the stadium itself.
As far as the TENNIS wall goes, its not like the user is trying to submit the court, the wall, the net, the stripes. NO he is submitting 1 thing at the court to represent the entire court.
A scoreboard is informational and educational information. An athletic field is an athletic field. They would be different visually and used by the community differently.
Tennis court/Tennis Wall in your comparison is more like is a Stadium and Athletic field different? Instead of a scoreboard and a athletic field. Can we agree on that?
A scoreboard is more in comparison to that of like a college directory / Mall Directory / Lighting Display. Interesting is they are informational /educational. Information and Education is not always pretty but meets criteria.
But there is a clear difference from a Scoreboard and Blank Wall Visually.
There is a clear difference from a Scoreboard and Athletic Field Visually.
There is a clear difference from a Stadium and Athletic Field Visually.
Visually plays a big part in Duplicates. Which is what you are trying to get too.
The issue is A Tennis Court Back wall is not portal worthly, if it had art or a sign it would be. The tennis court has criteria being an Athletic field.
Signs for an existing wayspot has criteria allowing. A blank wall at a tennis court has no criteria to accept. Unless a clarification from Niantic is issued that the Tennis Back Wall could be accepted in lieu of the Tennis court to create a Visual Distinction to allow multiple tennis courts of the same structure allowed. Have you submitted this question through Wayfarer Update Criteria Form? If not, than I suggest you and your friends do it. As "Most commonly asked questions are referenced in that Form page".
No one is saying the Tennis Wall should be submitted along side a court. It would represent the court not be a duplicate submission at all. The court is also clearly visible.
Now as far as the scoreboard, until Niantic chimes in and clarifies a scoreboard is acceptable ALONG side a athletic field/stadium than it is still just a duplicate of that item because its an extension of it. While its informational its still just a PART of the athletic field, just like the lines on the field or the goal post. Its PART of it.
Niantic has already clarified scoreboards as they are a sign of an existing wayspot that has criteria to accept in wayfarer. You are looking for an answer is a scoreboard a sign?
Yes scoreboards are signs for athletic fields.
So you are admitting a scoreboard is a sign for an existing waypoint? My Point is proven, so it would be a duplicate of the waypoint. As a scoreboard could never be a significant distance from the field it represents as it is PART of the field.
No you are not correct. The placement for the athletic field wayspot is typically for the baseball field is near home plate or one of the other bases. Typically the scoreboard is out in homerun territory past the end of the field and not actually on the field itself. Typically 300 feet away on a baseball diamond. A football field it is not on the athletic field itself either, it is located off the field by plenty of feet to not disrupt the game. You are ignoring the physical real world distance between the 2 submissions. I have seen plenty of wayspots that are closer together than the distance for a scoreboard and a athletic field. The distance is literally further than what the OP is suggesting for this submission with multiple athletic fields with the same photo appearance of a tennis court. It's only a duplicate if the picture or title are identical. If the picture and title are not identical than it is different submissions due to distance. But would be confirmed by Niantic during the approval response not a rejection by players because you can visually see the difference between an athletic field and a scoreboard.
Duplicate is same photo/title per wayfarer help.
What your assuming is density because you feel the sign is to close to be allowed. Eventhough it's hundreds of feet away and allowed per the rules of signs of an existing wayspot as it is a significant distance for niantic to approve between 2 portals. Niantic deems the distance not the reviewers. Reviewers deem if the photo and title are a duplicate.
So let me break it down for you. Its not saying the distance between where the "WAYPOINT" is placed but the actual realword objects so if A Baseball field for example while the Waypoint is usually placed by the home plate or behind it the actual field extends all the way to the fence which usually where the scoreboard is so the field in proximity to the scoreboard is actually only a couple of feet. Also the standard view range in game is roughly half a kilometer which converts to 1640.42 feet, so even if it was 300 feet away 300 feet isnt not a significant distance at all.
@NianticCasey please confirm if that is correct on significant distance for a wayspot. Niantic is to determine it not the reviewers. Duplicates are exactly that duplicate photos / titles of the same thing already in wayfarer during the review. A scoreboard and a athletic field are different visually, title wise and typically significant distance away from each other being the scoreboard is not on the actual field. Other example is a church and a church sign, if they are significant distance apart then niantic will decide, not the reviewers on a duplicate based on distance.
an* athletic field