Best Of
Re: Is it considered abuse to use another player's account for extra appeals?
The user has created a lot of posts asking for feedback. It's obvious they're interested in learning and contributing.
Incidentally, you can double your nominations by playing Ingress!
This is certainly enticing but it also will help the user slow down and appreciate another game and maybe learn a little more about the POI and gain new perspective. I learned a lot when I took that route, especially doing Missions.
@11Pekoe-PGO Ingress is a lot of fun and had its own lore that you can get into or play as just a "capture the flag" sort of PvP with the community. As frustrating as local Frogs/Smurfs may be, it's more fun than in an area run by AI 😉
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
This comment makes no sense.
Trails are interesting. The markers just help with following the trail and making sure you get to see all the interesting things that the trail has to offer, many of which might not be eligible to submit by themselves due to being unsigned natural features like meadows or woodlands. This means that they definitely do promote exercise and exploration.
There are two trails in my area that are both a similar length. I've submitted markers along nearly the full length of one of them (after Giffard clarified their eligibility), and I've submitted markers along part of the other one. The comments made by @NianticAaron make me not want to finish what I've started, which is doing the exact opposite of promoting exploration and exercise. I'm glad that the ambassadors all seem to recognise this and that they're speaking up about it.
Sure, a trail marker might not be the Mona Lisa, the Sphinx, or the Tower of London, but it doesn't need to be those things to still promote the core values of wayfarer and still be interesting.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
Never have I seen a company that has this much contempt for their users on which they rely so very much. If they keep this up, they're going to have to invest in more Indian callcenters and awful AI's to do their reviews for them. My local community has completely abandoned Wayfarer. They're done with Niantic's nonsense and aren't willing to put their game accounts at risk because some clowns in San Francisco can't make up their minds.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
And you—and many NL Ingress players in this forum—aren't being helpful. If you folks did care about the whole review abuse and not caused dramas for reporting anchor Portals contolled by opposing faction, then this whole menace shouldn't happen.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
Also, considering how messed up this situation is, @NianticAaron , I would like an apology for you stating that I created fear and mistrust in the system, or I would like you to at least recognize that you also create fear and mistrust in the system.
29andCounting-PGO
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
This thread has been quite elucidative on how Niantic works. Not only do they champion awful emails that help nobody and just scare users while raising more questions than they answer, but they even contradict themselves on Wayfarer specifics.
Aaron's comment basically turns marker eligibility into an aesthetic evaluation, which is ridiculous - and this to be polite.
I do not nominate trail markers because of the marker. People do not visit trails to see the markers. That is something Monty Python would write. It is equivalent to say that people drive to follow road signs. The most backwards logic a human being can come up with.
I submit markers because they depict sections of a trail. The trail itself is the POI, but since Niantic has this obsession with signs (so much so that signs are what make parks eligible, since as we all know, you can't socialize, explore or exercise in parks that have no signs), we submit the markers rather than images of the trail. I get why, it is easier to review a marker than a trail section.
It is absolutely irrelevant to the eligibility criteria if the marker is made out of metal, plastic, vinyl, wood, rocks or masonry. As long as it has a degree of permanency, it serves the exact same purpose. The trail itself is not affected by the marker.
I'll give a more detailed example. According to our good Aaron, this marker is ineligible:
This is a marker found in Portugal and Spain for the Caminos de Santiago, the most popular pilgrimage trails of the Iberian peninsula, based of the Santiago Pilgrimages started in the 9th century. They pass through historical towns, the oldest churches and monasteries of the peninsula, and are linked to networks that support pilgrims. Not only are they great ways to explore and interact, but they are highly religious and cultural.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camino_de_Santiago
Now I dare anyone from Niantic to come say these trail markers should be removed. Then I'll organize a boycott of the few wayfarers left in my region and country due to Niantic outright disrespecting our work, our culture and our heritage.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
I have to agree here. I think many people who nominate POIs for games don't even know that Wayfarer forums exist. They are just reading the guidelines set out by Niantic to pass the quiz and can move forward with nominating stops. Many see other trail markers being accepted and then think, "Oh, indeed these are really good POIs because it fits the mission statement by Niantic and it is on the list of acceptable criteria and there are some already accepted, so I shall do it too because it must be ok!" and then they have no clue what is going on here in these forums buried in random threads. If changes to criteria are made on these they need to be updated on the appropriate websites and players who can nominate need to be informed in some official way or, at the very least, people who are not blatantly abusing the system and nominating trail markers in good faith based on the common knowledge they have been presented with on the criteria page (where it says trail markers are good POIs) not given warnings and bans!!!
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
Hello '@NianticAaron '.
I am a human being, and am intrigued to actually encounter a near-sentient AI in the wild. As a human, I find that I cannot accept re-direction in a complex task from any single new input unsupported by a top-down structure.
Please provide more information, to whit:
Where does 'NianticAaron' stand in the hierarchy of decision-making and direction?
Is 'NianticAaron' authorized to re-write the criteria and content guidelines that Wayfarers work from? If yes, please do so. Are you able to modify the review flow and tool tips to bring them into line with your 'thoughts' and 'opinions'? By all means, please do.
This is just a throw-away account you all use to mock us, right?
Frankly, this latest comment seems more designed to kick the anthill, though I haven't learned to find amusement in such acts.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
This hits motivation hard. Motivation is essential for a healthy wayfarer system.
I couldn't agree more with this statement and will take it a step further. Both submitters, and reviewers need to know and understand the criteria. It's not only the clarifications here on the forum that matter. But also the wording of criteria in the review flow itself, the Wayfarer web site, along with the criteria being displayed to reviewers especially so that they are aware of it.
The changes at the end of October last year have caused reviewers to be less aware of the criteria due to the test being removed in favor of a unhelpful onboarding process. Worst of all, the generic business rejection option being brought back. This change especially has led to the overwhelming majority of my nominations being rejected for generic business. Even those where I was not nominating the business itself, but things inside the business.
This has single handily demotivated me to the point where I have quit submitting and reviewer altogether. For years many of us have been begging for improved Wayfarer education. But in reality, educating Wayfarers has only gone backwards.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
If I nominate a section of trail how does whether the marker used as the placeholder has the trail name on it or not have any impact on whether the trail is a great place to exercise or explore? Is a path down the side of a a bit of waste ground eligible if it has a name on the trail marker but a path through an area of natural beauty that doesn't ineligible. Is there any logic to this unannounced decision?
Niantic got rid of the requirement to have a trail name on trail markers year's back because they realised it was a nonsense requirement not based on any logic. What has changed?
Do goal posts how have to display the football pitch name to be valid placeholders for a football pitch? Yes it's an absurd idea, but no less absurd than trail markers having to display the trail name.
Did whichever group that came up with this new criteria consider the differing budgets and customs of local and national authorities across the world or just look at the norm around their local area?
Why was there no consultation with users either directly or through ambassadors?
Why wasn't the tool tips, eligibility and acceptance criteria guidance updated to reflect what is a major change?
Why when this is a change to the published criteria are wayspots being removed retroactively and people given warnings about not having met an unpublished requirement.
This is a complete mess and shows a complete lack of consideration for customers.