Best Of
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
After some more thought about this, Aaron’s statement can be read as a paraphrase of Tintino’s previous clarification about their eligibility. The underlying premise of both seems to be asking for more information from the submitter and presenting guidance on how to do that. I.e., trail markers are generic unless you tell the explorer interacting with them something about them, which is just good practice in general for Wayfarer. I’m not upset about that at all, and I doubt anyone would be.
We are getting bogged down in the minutia of whether trail markers are eligible, or “good” nominations, because of course we are. People are getting warning emails and the markers are being removed from the game. But realistically, as Seasprincess and Eli have pointed out, these markers are literally used as one of the easy-to-understand examples of a what a good nomination is in the brand new, painstakingly constructed new onboarding. The thing that was meant to make Wayfarer more accessible and easier to participate in. If they want to throw away all that time, money, and effort to say these are not eligible, I mean, go ahead, but that seems like a real waste of effort. That's why I don’t think that’s what is going on here.
I think the issue at hand isn’t if trail markers are eligible or good, but what the perceived consequences of submitting them might be. Those perceived consequences are a direct result of the last line of every email Wayfarer seems to send out. The dreaded “Note that any further violations can lead to permanent suspension of your Wayfarer and [game] accounts.”
How educational and not at all terrifying.
If an educational email is supposed to truly educate Wayfinders, y’all have GOT to figure out a way not to end on a punitive note. If the point is truly to get people to stop submitting every single generic trail marker with no description or effort, then the focus should be on what Tintino and Aaron’s statement’s both highlight. Quality over quantity.
Every single supposedly educational email that goes out with the final word being a kind of warning will always lead to this kind of reactionary response from the community.
I am a new Ambassador and I am still learning (a LOT), but it seems to me that writing some new educational emails would be a much simpler, more helpful, and less destructive way to interact with the community that would only improve the map quality.
If you suspect someone is submitting dozens of generic trail markers to stack the gameboard, and you have removed some of them for being generic and overrepresented in an area, that’s a different email. Or at least it should be.
Re: Is it considered abuse to use another player's account for extra appeals?
That's account sharing and it violates the Niantic Terms - https://nianticlabs.com/terms?hl=en
Personally I rarely use appeals, if the submission gets rejected then I'll tweak it and resubmit (if I think it has a hope). I think appeals are useful if the AI is being stubborn, else I'd sooner put some polish on the submission and try again.
I don't think it's against the terms of service to bribe your sisters to do some submissions though...
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
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.
Bravo. I agree completely. As I interpret criteria (using my best judgement), signs can be eligible if they:
- Are artistic, visually interesting, hand-crafted, unique (eligible as signs, on a standalone basis) or serve as a landmark item like the Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas sign.
- Represent a physical location pin for an object, like a trail, that's eligible under explore/exercise/social criteria. In the second case, the artistic quality of the signs themselves should not be weighted heavily in judgement, because the sign is not the candidate: we nominate the object which the sign represents.
Guidance on signs was muddied in the past with the guidance that church signs can be nominated as well as the church itself "if the sign is a significant distance from the church." We never learned the definition of "significant distance", so many quite visually bland church signs made it into the game board because these signs were defined as eligible by Niantic. I confess I never saw the logic in that ruling: what acceptance criteria do church signs satisfy if the church is already on the map?
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
Communicating poorly is a Niantic tradition. After a while, you just get used to it.
If they ever provide clear, concise, and correct information, you need to start searching for the nearest nuclear bunker to hide in because clearly some kind of alien invader has taken over the Niantic staff's bodies.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
The comment by Aaron is just wrong in so many ways. People here have probably already said everything that is needed to be said.
The statement fails to consider culture and context. In some countries or regions trails and trail markers are part of the culture and history, such as Norway. There are long historic trails marked with similar/same markers, and there are alot of them. The reason there are alot of them is the trails are hundreds of kilometers long and they go through towns and cities which have alot of trail forks and crossing roads, so markers are needed. They help hikers to find the trail and hence, explore and exercise further.
For sticker trail markers, a whole county has implemented these to create urban trails that go through parks, hiking areas and interesting locations in the cities. Those for sure encourage exercise and exploration. The stickers are really strong and you just cant take them off, if they somehow get removed, they will be replaced. These are also official, have multiple articles and websites proving the trails exist, and show a map of where they go. They cant be easily faked thanks to this. Niantic should not punish countries that did absolutely nothing wrong.
Sorry for rant. I really like hiking and trail markers, they take up half my nominations.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
As well as the issues around definitions and guidance this mess highlights another much more concerning and fundamental issue.
The Wayfarer system of review is crowd sourced. Wayfinders already know that key approaches of
Guidelines
Let the community decide
Use your best judgement
envitably leads to a range of interpretations otherwise known as inconsistency.
This forum is a vehicle for discussion around interpretations to allow for a consensus of views to develop. That is what the Giffard scale grew out of, and the community could read and see the logic and arguments. Although there will never be 100% agreement the community could feel valued and have buy in, and a clear way forward.
We appear to have in this response under discussion some change. It is not set out as such, but it is obviously interpreted that way. The community at large has not been involved or been part of that process.
In effect the community have been following guidance and gone along in one direction but now without saying why or providing any logic the Wayfarer Team has suddenly broken off and headed in a new direction. They are on their own as the community didn’t know to follow and the community is now left bemused and frustrated as to what is happening.
This hits motivation hard. Motivation is essential for a healthy wayfarer system.
The state that this leaves the community in is a great concern to me.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
Putting an informational sign on a trail marker costs money - money that parks and municipalities don't tend to spend on informational signs on trails. Based on Aaron's comment above, I would say there is more nuance to this that you're implying: "The information provided by the submitter also plays a role. We would also love to see what is interesting about this trail. Was it the first trail in the area, does it highlight specific wildlife local to this region? All of this would help make it much easier to rate higher."
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a well-researched/worded description for a permanent but seemingly not visually interesting trail marker could serve as a digital informational sign in a sense. Until they say "not good" means "ineligible," I'm just going to keep using my best judgement.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
Here's how I approach trailmarkers..
Give each one a unique title. Don't just call it the "Such-and-such trail marker" but describe where it is.. for example, south of a wood, near a farm, between two points of interest or in some locality. Having a unique description helps in collaborative play, for example "meet me at the raid at X" or "please upgrade the resonators at Y" rather than having to say "Trail 37, no not that one or that one, the one over there."
Secondly, give a good description. Where does this part of the trail go between? How long is the trail? What is the significance of the trail? What can you see from the wayspot?
Thirdly the supporting text should show that the trail actually exists, include some supporting URLs or links to maps.
Not every trail marker needs to be a wayspot. Sometimes they are clustered together, I would recommend about 200-300 metres minimum spacing. If you think about the "exploration" criteria, the most useful wayspots guide players along the route. It can be more useful to have a wayspot where the route turns or converges with other routes rather than a close series of almost identical markers in a straight line.
Remember, you don't need to do all of this in the field. If you upload the new submissions in a batch, place them on hold and then work on the text when ready you can polish everything up to give more meaningful titles and descriptions.
Re: Trailmarkers - warning received
I am very pleased to see a Niantic employee reminding people that wayspots are supposed to be interesting.
Far too many people submit (and vote) for the lamest common denominator wayspots. Nominating every boring trailmarker is easy, but (especially for urban bike trails) can block the submission of more interesting portals.
Trailmarkers should be everyone's last choice for a wayspots, but they've become the first choice for lazy nominators.
Re: Is it considered abuse to use another player's account for extra appeals?
signing into anyone else's account is against terms of service. if that is your question, then don't do it. invite them to visit you and submit themselves.