Looking for some reviewing tips
iCat08-PGO
Posts: 2 ✭✭
Hello,
I started reviewing recently and I am a bit unsure about how to review, on some points. I have read the guidelines and criteria but can't find clear answers.
For instance: if I rate a nominations 3-5 stars on everything, and then find out there is no safe pedestrian access, do I give it 1 star and proceed, or do I go back to the first question to immediately reject it on the grounds of no pedestrian access?
And I see a lot of nominations where Google maps/streetview has not yet been updated. Does that mean I have to rank 1 star? Or can I still give it 3 stars if I find it kind of plausible the waystop is now there? How do you decide?
Because of my stats (I don't have many agreements yet) I thought I was being too soft, so I started being more strict, but soon after I got a cooldown and my rating immediately dropped from 'great' to 'fair'. But it has made me a bit insecure because I'm afraid I'll get another cooldown if I'm doing it wrong..
Hope someone can give me some pointers :)
Comments
For something with no obvious pedestrian access, I would rate it 1* on the first question and click on the "no access" dropdown as the reason.
I have createa a little structure how to review
hpoe this helps you :)
Each reviewing will have their own set of guidelines? The issue I find is that there is a big difference between City/Urban/Rural reviewers. I live in a large town , that has both a budding downtown district, but also a lot of "rural" area. I find the "guidelines", which some folks use as hard and fast rules are fairly restrictive to rural players. I'd love to see some direction from Niantic on that front.
In terms of cooldowns be activated, from my observations it is only about how quickly you are reviewing. It has little to nothing to do with you actual answers. I suggest reviewing less than one submission a minute. You should be good.
Here's how I review:
1) Look at the photo and the title / description
Is there a reason for instant rejection based on the rejection criteria? If yes, 1* selecting the reason for rejection.
Is there a reason for instant rejection based on elegibility? If yes, 1* selecting "Other rejection criteria".
Otherwise, provisionally rate the submission and rate the title / description.
2) Look for duplicates
3) Check location and pedestrian access. For this I use both pictures and the map.
If the PoI isn't visible in GSV, how much effort I put into this depends on how much context the photos give me. Photos without context get 1* "Mismatched Location" in the overall rating immediately. Otherwise, I attempt to find the location based on what is seen, sometimes doing Google searches if the PoI might be found there.
Murals and "Street Art" are notorious sources of fakes, so if they don't show up in GSV I carefully check the pictures for evidence that they might have been manipulated, unless supporting information points to evidence of their existence. Murals on areas without GSV are almost impossible to evaluate so they almost always get 1* "Mismatched Location" unless there's supporting information or a good use of context in the supporting picture.
If i find evidence that the photos were manipulated or the location is blatantly wrong, then I'll give 1* "Fake nomination" on the overall rating.
I might correct the location of it's misplaced, unless the supporting text asks not to move it because of (insert cell-related reason). In that case it's 1* "Mismatched Location". Hey, I didn't move it!
3) Rate Pedestrian Access, Uniqueness and Relevance.
Pedestrian Access will never get 1*, as in that case it will go as a rejection reason in the Overall rating.
4) Final rating
At this stage I might already be convinced of the rating, but for nominations that rely heavily on the supporting information for acceptance, this is when I will evaluate and make a decision.
5*: Great Nominations that are explicitly named by Niantic as examples of elegibility and rate highly on Uniqueness and/or Relevance. Very convincing nominations that aren't examples of elegibility.
4*: Good nominations that are explicitly named by Niantic as examples of elegibility but don't rate highly on Uniqueness nor Relevance. Well supported nominations that aren't examples of elegibility.
3*: Mediocre nominations that are explicitly named by Niantic as examples of elegibility but rate poorly on Uniqueness and Relevance. Otherwise good nominations with poor title / description.
2*: Nominations that meet elegibility but fail acceptance.
5) A note in Street Art a.k.a. Graffiti
Street Art is a controversial subject as a PoI because it straddles the boundaries of vandalism (1*, "Temporary") and true art which might even reach 5*.
My general rule of thumb is think what I would do if the wall were mine. If I'd paint it over immediately, then it's vandalism. Otherwise, rate it as if it were a mural.
Thank you very much! Very helpful! :)
I think to a degree, you have to understand the local reviewing culture and what is and is not acceptable, irrespective of the stated rules. In Spain, you are in for a world of hurt if you 1* fountains. Pretty much any fountain will pass, from a newly installed modern water fountain at a park to a currently non-functioning fountain that people used before running water was a thing in people's houses. If you don't at least 3* those, you will never be great. My understanding is Mexico is the same when it comes to alters to the Virgin Mary, even if they otherwise should be failed for being on private property.
I think it is reviewer's choice where they 1* on some things. I struggle on this issue in Spain when presented with a restaurant that doesn't appear notable, culturally important or a good place to explore food and socialize. I feel like there are three options if trying to give a nominator useful feedback. They are:
* 1* title and description. Repeating back Niantic criteria doesn't make it so. If instead or, "X is a great place to explore new foods and socialize with your friends" and instead said, "X is the only Mexican restaurant in this town of 40,000 people. This independently owned by Mexican immigrant taquería serves ten different types of tacos, most originating from Mexico City. The place also serves as a gathering place for Mexican immigrants and locals who participate in weekly intercambios." Yep, 4*. The first, 1*. Could be the same place.
* 1* other rejection criteria. The place is a tapas place. I have three on my street and this one is not special from the looks of it.
* Evaluate everything else but 1* the historical and cultural value. It is a generic bar. Those exist all over Spain. No clue why special.
This is also the type of feedback I would like as a nominator instead of the random tapa place I nominated as I want a pokeparada where my in-laws live because sobremesa takes forever.
I hate getting hit with timeouts and colldowns and bot checks. A thing like does it actually exist? If it appears to be an edge case and not likely fake POI, I will take a few extra seconds to poke around Google Maps, Open Street Maps, or use search in general. This is particularly true in rural areas where there are fewer stops (as opposed to few stops/portals/taverns on my particular block in a major city). If it can be verified that way, 3*.
You have to read the rules more and not qualify quickly to avoid falling into cold