According with what we can find online, we can say that with more portals the L9 cells have, the longer it takes to have results while in voting. So, for example, the right blue L9 cell maybe has 100 portals but the left blue L9 cells has 200 portals, so the left one is slower...
So your guess is most likely wrong btw... I would estimate, that the left cell has more wayspots, but I don't know for sure - I don't have neither know about iitc scripts, that check these numbers. The wayspots in both cells together are way more than 100 ..... to much to count them manually....
In case it is of any use, I'll confirm the S6 cell geofence being clearly visible for me as well:
I'm actually fairly close to the border of the middle and left s6 cell so I may try a few in that left cell and see if there's a notable difference in wait times. (the few I have tried in there had been upgraded so not exactly helpful..)
Now this chart only shows what I've reviewed. Overall, that distribution seems to make sense. the numbers around my area are amongst the highest on that map, an for the other denser areas there's Paris, Brussels, Antwerp, Rotterdam... which are likely to have high enough player counts to warrant a good amount of portal submissions.
This seems to imply that what I get for review might actually match what's being submitted. Does that mean that the higher wait times are only a natural byproduct of the ratio reviewers to portal submissions?
It would be awesome of Wayfarer+ could aggregate data on submission date vs conclusion date.. (with or without upgrades, if with upgrade should likely count from when its upgraded to when decided)
My area itself is rural, so the results of the screening process are quick. However, even if the screening result comes late, I don't mind anything.
It is because the time it takes for Wayspot to grow depends on the number of applications we have processed. The more we work, the faster it will be. That's all there is to it. I am more interested in the act of improving the quality of Wayspot.
Well, what I think would be better to do is to have all the players in the world review regions that meet certain criteria, such as metropolitan areas where applications are stored, and conversely, regions such as Africa and Micronesia where there are not enough players to have them reviewed.
In this way, the speed of screening will be leveled out.
I don't think they strictly prioritize certain cells, but rather give equal priority to different cells which results in crowded cells with more players nominating being slower. For example, in @Raachermannl-ING idea, when you're assigned a L6 cell to review, you will be given a random L9 cell to review from inside that L6 cell. Only after this randomization has happened, you will be assigned the next thing to review in the L9 cell that was chosen for you.
I was going to post an update, but then I saw some rude comments about how this was inappropriate to post in a public forum. So I'll pass.
I really haven't been reviewing or posting much as I've used to, too many explicit activity rejections, so unfortunately my data is too fragmented and unreliable. Wayfarer really sucks the life out of you for people thinking it's fun to have lustful activities at a children's playground, or when a sign about the local flora of the area is rejected for... the flora (natural feature). Or just live animal rejections all around.
yes, those are true words. Niantic needs to punish trash reviewers. Sadly, as Wayfarer is broken, this is just something that is on the "to do list". Until then, everyone is free to reject everything.
Comments
If you want to discuss this matter in a closed place, you should do so as you wish.
However, it is very inappropriate to discuss this matter in this open forum.
Niantic has published very little about the S2 cell.
And they don't like it when players arbitrarily manipulate them.
So you are totally okay with the unjustified unprioritization of regions?
Damn, you must live in a very wayspot delicious region ....
I don't see any manipulation here. Understanding how the system works and manipulating it are two very different things.
i don't see what is your point.
According with what we can find online, we can say that with more portals the L9 cells have, the longer it takes to have results while in voting. So, for example, the right blue L9 cell maybe has 100 portals but the left blue L9 cells has 200 portals, so the left one is slower...
That's why I didn't ask you :P
So your guess is most likely wrong btw... I would estimate, that the left cell has more wayspots, but I don't know for sure - I don't have neither know about iitc scripts, that check these numbers. The wayspots in both cells together are way more than 100 ..... to much to count them manually....
i dont see where my guess is wrong but okay... in this link maybe you get to see why there are differences in the L9 cell https://www.reddit.com/r/NianticWayfarer/comments/l4evpe/i_counted_every_wayspot_in_each_s2z9_cell_in_the/
Interesting research.
In case it is of any use, I'll confirm the S6 cell geofence being clearly visible for me as well:
I'm actually fairly close to the border of the middle and left s6 cell so I may try a few in that left cell and see if there's a notable difference in wait times. (the few I have tried in there had been upgraded so not exactly helpful..)
Now this chart only shows what I've reviewed. Overall, that distribution seems to make sense. the numbers around my area are amongst the highest on that map, an for the other denser areas there's Paris, Brussels, Antwerp, Rotterdam... which are likely to have high enough player counts to warrant a good amount of portal submissions.
This seems to imply that what I get for review might actually match what's being submitted. Does that mean that the higher wait times are only a natural byproduct of the ratio reviewers to portal submissions?
It would be awesome of Wayfarer+ could aggregate data on submission date vs conclusion date.. (with or without upgrades, if with upgrade should likely count from when its upgraded to when decided)
My area itself is rural, so the results of the screening process are quick. However, even if the screening result comes late, I don't mind anything.
It is because the time it takes for Wayspot to grow depends on the number of applications we have processed. The more we work, the faster it will be. That's all there is to it. I am more interested in the act of improving the quality of Wayspot.
Well, what I think would be better to do is to have all the players in the world review regions that meet certain criteria, such as metropolitan areas where applications are stored, and conversely, regions such as Africa and Micronesia where there are not enough players to have them reviewed.
In this way, the speed of screening will be leveled out.
I don't think they strictly prioritize certain cells, but rather give equal priority to different cells which results in crowded cells with more players nominating being slower. For example, in @Raachermannl-ING idea, when you're assigned a L6 cell to review, you will be given a random L9 cell to review from inside that L6 cell. Only after this randomization has happened, you will be assigned the next thing to review in the L9 cell that was chosen for you.
The problem with the quality is directly related to the timescales, but that's a point for my second thread to this topic ;)
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/12017/the-big-failures-of-niantics-prioritization-algorithm#latest
I was going to post an update, but then I saw some rude comments about how this was inappropriate to post in a public forum. So I'll pass.
I really haven't been reviewing or posting much as I've used to, too many explicit activity rejections, so unfortunately my data is too fragmented and unreliable. Wayfarer really sucks the life out of you for people thinking it's fun to have lustful activities at a children's playground, or when a sign about the local flora of the area is rejected for... the flora (natural feature). Or just live animal rejections all around.
yes, those are true words. Niantic needs to punish trash reviewers. Sadly, as Wayfarer is broken, this is just something that is on the "to do list". Until then, everyone is free to reject everything.