I’m wondering if anyone else has experienced this, because I’m getting really frustrated with the same issue.
I’ve had around 7 Wayfarer nominations rejected for being on “private property”, even though they are actually located in community areas that are shared and accessible to residents for example, a communal pool, BBQ area, sports courts, and other shared recreational spaces.
What makes this especially frustrating is that when I appeal these nominations, they are accepted, which seems to confirm that the original rejection reason was incorrect.
The problem is that I only have a limited number of appeals, so I’m constantly having to waste appeals correcting the same misunderstanding instead of using them for genuinely questionable nominations.
Is there anything I can do to prevent this from happening? Is there a better way to explain in the nomination that something is a community/shared area rather than private residential property, or is this simply an issue with reviewers misunderstanding the eligibility criteria?
I’d really appreciate any advice from experienced reviewers or Niantic staff, because having to use an appeal almost every time for the same incorrect rejection is getting pretty frustrating.
Hello and welcome @jorisje0
This is a very frustrating area of understanding criteria in the first place and applying it correctly when in review.
My personal view is that this is all down to communication, and that it is an area that needs improvement.
I dont believe that reviewers are for the most part rejecting in a malicious way but rather through ignorance.
For the record I have recently had rejections for exactly this reason.
Personally I think the wording in review that simply says private property is at the heart of some of those mistakes. Different people will have a different understanding from normal life as to what that phrase may mean.
That it actually means something very specific in Wayfarer terms needs to be conveyed in a much clearer way. It would go a long way to helping with the issue.
Another is that there is no easy feedback mechanism that allows a reviewer to realise that they are potentially making repeated mistakes. Its a systemic problem that does not facilitate the overall learning feedback cycle that should enable a cycle of reflection and improvement.
These are fundamentals that in my view need some attention.
There is a tool tip explaining what “private property” means for wayfarer in the review flow, but who would think they need to look up an explanation for private property when they already know what private property means in regular usage? This issue was brought up by the community from the moment this new review flow was introduced, and I feel certain the ambassadors brought it up before the rest of us saw it, but has never been addressed.
One thing you can do is to use help chat to “Report Wayfarer Abuse” and hopefully the team will send out educational emails that are actually educational. I can’t confirm it does any good, but I do get a reply about action taken. And they usually also include instructions on how to appeal unless I tell them I have already appealed. So it does not get the rejection overturned. But at least someone who used that rejection reason incorrectly may review differently if they see my resubmit.
Just a note that you can resubmit instead of waiting to get back an appeal to use. But I don’t have a formula to suggest. Possibly a statement like, “Please note this is a common area for the community, which is an appropriate location per the reviewing tool tip, and is not a single family private residential property.” But I am not sure reviewers who use this rejection reason this way are actually looking at the entire nomination before rejecting.
I ran into this in April and May - had two apartment complex swimming pools and a hotel swimming pool rejected. All three overturned on appeal. But that consumed six weeks worth of my appeals just because the criteria are badly explained.
I would say out of the dozens of private property rejections I have gotten, a grand total of 2 were actually private single-family residential property (they were my first two nominations)
I have faced this too and I shared my personal opinions in this thread: The Review Rejection workflow needs change
It feels like many people agree on change being necessary. After I heard Cyndie sending out abuse reports, I also started sending abuse reports for every single rejection I got appealed, in hopes of educating reviewers. So far, I’ve also gotten feedback that they “have taken action on the abusers”. I hope that it this “action” helps the community.
I’d love regular feedback on my reviews even in an automated monthly email.
“You rejected these Wayspot submissions that the majority of reviewers accepted” or vice versa, or something like that.
Updated wording and tooltip on private property rejection would be great in the workflow.