Missing Sanctions for Abuse by Reviewers
simonderregger-PGO
Posts: 4 ✭✭
This post is not about a technical bug, but a missing feature, which is desperately needed by the community. Please address this to the people, which design the fundamentals of the reviewing system.
Imagine someone creating a new waypoint nomination spents reasonable effort and time to make it perfect. Maybe he/she even spents many hours of reviewing in wayfarer to achieve an "upgrade" to promote this nomination.
Finally, the player receives an E-mail that the waypoint is ineligible and lists some reasons. Now comes the problem:
Meanwhile, the reasons selected by the reviewers are often totally senseless and wrong. But there is no mechanisms or possibility to react on this abuse in any way. This is very frustrating after all. More and more players in my community stop nominating new waypoints due to this.
Our wish for 2021 is a way to report any totally stupid rejections reasons for our nominations. Niantic should review the case and a) sanction the reviewers and b) put the nomination back into the review process somehow without forcing the player to create a new nomination.
Please add something to the process that can help to stop this growing abuse by reviewers. Maybe they do it, because they think to reach faster an "upgrade" when rejecting everything or they are simply drunken...
Happy New Year to the Niantic team ☺.
Simonderregger
Here is a typical example of such an abuse case:
This is the foto of a "Welcome to Town" sign at the side of the street.
This nomination has been rejected due to the following reason(s):
Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, The real-world location of the nomination appears to represent a generic store or restaurant.
Both reasons are obviously totally wrong.
Nomination ID: 3CRxZrTDxWAs/4AuFUDZMXZbKlSVZ7ppMa1ZyUn1uGQ=
Comments
This happens more than you think.
While I agree with your post, your example is not good. It obviously is not a generic store or restaurant, and people who selected that should be punished. But I don't see which eligibility criteria it meets. So "nomination does not meet acceptance criteria" is not wrong. "Welcome to town" signs are only eligible if they have some artistic quality to them.
Both reasons are obviously totally wrong.
No, the first reason is correct.
That kind of signs doesn't meet criteria and requesting to sanction anyone for using the proper rejection reason isn't right.
doesnt meet criteria?
No need to discuss about "doesn't meet criteria". This selection for reviewers has already been removed by Niantic anyway. The case is just an example and you can limit it to the other rejection reason "restaurant chain"...
If you are going to complain about nominations rejected for the "wrong reasons" and that there should be sanctions against reviewers for it, you should first start with a nomination that actually means criteria. This one clearly does not.
Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria
This is, frankly, the correct rejection reason.
The real-world location of the nomination appears to represent a generic store or restaurant.
Well, this reason is no longer avalible to reviewers after Niantic did an audit of nominations that were rejected under this reason. But a lot of reviewers did use this for anything they deemed "Generic" regardless of whether it was a business or not. And your "welcome" sign is on the generic side.
The other reason states "generic store or restaurant" there's no "chain" that you've added in your quote, and most of the people that choose this is because they want to tell you that it's "generic".