It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
Thank you. Hopefully that answer helps with future nominations located in the woods. :)
So I guess this means we normally "1 star if the Wayspot nomination cannot be found on the map", and we definitely "1 star if the Wayspot nomination cannot possibly exist at the location." ?
If so, that would resolve the seeming contradiction and not change the way we've been doing things.
That's exactly the thought that comes to mind. It'd be tempting to make it a 1* since the map has a trail listed, but this would be one of those where I'd photosphere the area just so I can show people "yes, this does exist as it shows", just to avoid those people who would be temped to 1* it for "mismatched location".
It's just a clearer instruction when to use 1* or 3* for location in "scenario wherein the object is obscured by trees and the correct location can not be verified".
Doesn't change how I review, because I've already used 3* in most cases.
The casual player, which is the overwhelming majority of them, aren't going to know that reviewers see ANYTHING more than is shown or that some reviews expect things that only those who are in the forum or subreddit would know is expected. The people who submit photospheres and links are those most likely to know how to game the system. Aunt Mathilda submitting an old statue out in the country where the last Streetview was 8 years ago when it was obscured by bushes, or Grandpa Joe in his nursing him submitting a mural in the dining room, or 17-year-old Kimmy who thinks a water fountain outside a store in a new shopping plaza that was still a field in the last Streetview, are absolutely unlikely to have any idea that these things are expected. Keep in mind that there are many millions of players who don't even know this forum exists. It was only by chance that I found out about Wayfarer in the first place. Expecting players to do things above and beyond the criteria, with NO REASONABLE WAY of knowing that there are reviewers with god-complexes who get off on calling submitters liars because those self-deemed gods think they know better than people who live in those places, is cruel.
A photosphere should be, at most, a nice little bonus, but a lack of one shouldn't be getting submissions 1*'d as they very apparently are by the people who expect all submitters to have no lives. Chances are d@mned good that real-world players are submitting while on the go, and aren't going to stand there for 20 minutes looking up links on their phones, taking videos and photospheres, etc. Expecting that is insanely beyond reason, and players who know to do that are forum-people. You shouldn't have to be a member of some made-up club to have much of a chance of something getting approved.
Please have the text in the reviews changed to reflect this.
It honestly p*sses me off seeing how areas with new development are likely to be rejected because freaking GOOGLE hasn't updated recently enough, and in some cases, that's a decade or longer. or where things are rejected because, while the satellite imagery shows some kind of building now, the last Streetview was too long ago to show that that awning really does have a public picnic area under it that the submitter couldn't know that overly-critical reviewers would demand photospheres to prove.
If there's a reasonable chance that a water fountain COULD exist in a place that was an old field a couple years ago when Google last sent a card down there, and the submitted supporting photo shows probable new development around it now, that should definitely be a 3*. A water fountain in the middle of Wrigley Field obviously won't be there, for absolute certain, and should be a 1*.
I already can not, in any good conscience, 1* a submission just because it was a field the last time Streetview was done. Only if something is literally impossible or obviously faked will I 1*. If there's ANY question, but it's POSSIBLE, not probable, but POSSIBLE, I'll 3* it. If a 3* ends up not being there, someone will report it as invalid, and THEN reviewers can be a lot more critical about it. Better to be a spot in the first place and end up being invalid than to be a legitimate spot denied because people who don't live there think they know more than residents and put too much stock into Google.
Sad how Google is ultimately given the power over people who live places.
@NoelleXandria-PGO Countless fake submissions have gotten through by people assuming good faith on the part of submitters in exactly the way you describe. If I can find no evidence of it in Street View, no evidence in Satellite View, and the submitter has not provided any information to convince me that it's there then I am going to 1* for location mismatch. There are lots of ways to use supporting information to help show the reviewer that it's actually there.
If it's actually there and they aren't willing to make enough of an effort to show that it is then hey can resubmit once satellite or street view has caught up.
Hence why I said I would personally 3* in this situation not 1*.
I have said elsewhere, so I will reiterate, a photosphere is not required and I would never reject for lack of a photosphere. Without a photosphere though, I have to use other clues to determine if it is definitely there. If you give me a news article about how the thing is located where the pin is or if it is next to a distinguishing feature (so if the buildings either side are there and I can see in supporting photo for example) then I will be confident to 5* else I cannot.
In this example it is something in the middle of the forest, how exactly are we meant to determine what tree something sits next to? Unless it’s in a clearing, all I see are treetops so I 3*. If my 3* is the tipping point that means a yes is turned into a no then sobeit. It is up to the people who submit to convince me it’s is an accurate and legitimate nomination not for me to 5* anyway just in case Grandpa Joe isn’t too good at phones.
The way j would see it, at keast for this case, its in the middle of a bloody forest, why would anyone want to fake it? It wouldn't benefit anyone like home portals do, so the "cannot possibly exist" is going to be exceptionally unlikely. Now, what could be thrown into question is how accurate the position is, at which point we have to hope the person got it right, but if right or not, we can only really give 3 stars
Thats assuming of course its not a fake duplicate, I.e. its not a sign from the edge then put in the middle, but then the duplicates map would show that