Wayspot Wrong reasons for rejection
WayfarerMSE-PGO
Posts: 889 ✭✭✭✭✭
First of all, sorry for the bad English.
I ask myself the following questions and would like to discuss the topic with you - and with Niantic.
1. Why do reviewers decline for wrong or completely pointless reasons?
If you don't know the right reason to reject it, why not at least use "Other Rejection Criteria"?
The player who submitted the wayspots receives completely wrong reasons in the rejection email and does not know what he can do better or what was done wrong.
2. Unfortunately, such cases are currently increasing in the groups in which I am active. Today I saw an example where a playground was rejected on the grounds that it was offensive or the proposal trolled other players. But that was a completely normal playground in the correct place. Today I had a case like this with myself. An information board in the forest with high local importance - which can even be researched on the Internet - was rejected on the grounds that it was a fake ?! The information board is permanent and has been there for many years. I am now concerned that I may. being wrongly flagged and possibly drawing consequences from it.
3. Now I wonder if there will be consequences in the future for people who deliberately choose the wrong reasons?
4. And I also ask myself whether there is a penalty for the submitter from a certain number of rejections with the reason "abuse". Because in my case it was a legitimate wayspot and I don't want to be wrongly flagged or punished.
What are your opinions on this?
Comments
"The player who submitted the wayspots receives completely wrong reasons in the rejection email and does not know what he can do better or what was done wrong."
I think when you get funny rejection, it sometime just means that reviewers dont really care what they are watching in that moment, and they just want to pass it fast and go for the next one, to get an upgrade. For example, I got a not valid nomination the other day. It was the tipical "monument" in name of someone wellknown in the área (sometimes is a plaque, sometimes is a big stone, sometimes is a sculpture,... well, you know). It was in a open garden, by the road. Reason?..... they thought it was a tumb.
When you really dont know what are you voting, and you really dont care you have 2 options: you think it´s valid for sure, and you vote like that, or you are not sure about, and you just regret it. Because wait 20 minutes for a free skip, is never an option, ofc.
I am having similar issues. The reasons for rejection look like a person didn't bother to review.
A motor bookstore is private property? When it is ground floor store or a mixed use apartment?
An office building that's major business inside is the national parks fails because EMT access issue and explicit content? Like what?
It is well documented that the rejection reasons aren't always accurate. This may come simply from misclicks from reviewers when they select the rejection reason. In the past reviewers often selected wrong reasons because the "Doesn't meet criteria" reason required people to type in additional text. That's no longer the case but some people may still be selecting a random reason because they don't know the requirement is gone.
In general, when you get a pile of random-looking rejection reasons the real reason is that reviewers generally didn't think it met any acceptance criteria.
many players who always ask for false proposals until now were never punished
I don't believe in the "misclick" theory, this issue is much, much too common and widespread for that to be the case.
Recently I've read both here and on local forums that people seem to think that the reason behind cooldowns is "voting patterns", and so they advise each other to avoid picking the same rejection reason twice in a row, even if that would be the correct thing to do. As an extreme example, I've even seen people say thay you must alternate between rejecting and accepting nominations to avoid cooldowns, regardless of the eligibility of the PoIs.
People will believe the weirdest things.
@Nadiwereb-PGO It's called Cargo Culting. Someone saw something work one time and they assume it's a general pattern.
Very much this.
Explain the system clearly and people will game the rules. Don't explain it and some people will try to reverse engineer the system to game it or resort to cargo culting. There's no way for us to win on this.
Review coal? Whaaat? I ain't got no idea what you're talking about... °L°
Post Office (in a Kiosk, as it's almost standard in germany, standalone offices are mostly in larger cities) with pointing at criterias in the supplementary info. Refused 3 times now. Even though it has an entry on Google Maps and a Photosphere. Yeah there go my Upgrades...
Wait a second, can we even skip?
Reading this stories is brutal, it's such a shame that our only real option is to keep nominating until we get lucky enough to be paired with reviewers that care a little or untill we get reported for spamming, It's an impossible situation we sometimes have to deal with, hopefully one day soon we'll be able to appeal rejected nominations similarly as we can appeal pretty much every other form of data manipulation. In the meantime I suggest you to keep voicing this issues to raise awareness in the community.
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/63765#Comment_63765
Tbh if i saw that when reviewing I would reject it based off the fact its dark i. The picture. Take it during day time and you probably wont have a problem
Push
Still waiting for an answer from Niantic on this. Reviewers who pick completely wrong rejection reasons should have their rating drop. Probably the same people who accept all those fakes so a win win situation.
I believe that Niantic needs to rethink this system entirely. A nominator has to spend significant time and effort to obtain one Upgrade, and must locate, research, and travel to create a Wayfarer submission.
Reviewers can get away with collaborating to approve fakes or to reject legitimate nominations for any reason merely as a power-trip or to achieve advantage in their chosen game.
Rejected submissions cannot be edited for resubmission because (???), so Nominator must travel back and respend the time and effort, trying to be mindful of the reviewer’s considerations. There are real-world issues such as weather, lighting, season, and time of day that may impact photo quality. The reviewer may even need to pay for parking, or arrange admission to reshoot. Reviewers have no cost or penalty for capriciously or knowingly entering false information.
If someone mis-clicks they should take a moment to go back and fix their answer. That they so frequently submit false rejection criteria is no accident.
I suspect the biggest issue with reporting invalid rejection reasons is who checks. Niantic certainly won't have the staff so it would fall back to us reviewers, and there would be the next problem.
I'd be happy with an edit and resubmit option, especially if there was an option to see the average category voting scores to give me a hint on what to improve.
There are A LOT of false rejection, the past month I've been looking around to see what people say and the most common thing is bots and speed runners for the upgrades. Just today I got another rejection for the same community center I tried to nominate for the 5th time and literally I got 5 different rejection reasons (low quality photos, fake nomination, nature features, private residence and k-12) best part is that I go and take the same photos everytime. It's a shame that a huge number of legit pokestop get rejected and niantic does nothing about it even their support in-game is an automated system. Not only that I also got a 7 days ban from doing reviews and I still wait from them a response from the support to learn why I got it...
I believe this is important post. I started as new reviewer and put effort to read forums and take time to inspect the nominations and tried to follow guidelines the best I can in rewieving. Despite all efforts, my rating decreases. Also eligible nominations keep being rejected for clearly false reasons. Very demotivating so I basically stopped reviewing after some time.
When still doing it more actively I just came up with some improvement ideas:
1. Unlimited skips
Also research agrees widely that first doing fast and simple taaks (=clear nominations) would reduce the queues fastest. This would probably lead to better nominations as very clear ones would get processed faster.
Also it could be useful to give extra points or some other incentives for more experienced reviewers who also review more difficult ones.
2. Some kind of review "room"
The reviews for one POI would be shared with other reviewers of the same POI (after finishing review) and clear false reviews could be pointed out / argued among the reviewers themselves / other reviewers rated. This could improve the quality when bots and other "no-carers" could be reported/rated down.
I or other less experienced could also learn from others if when seeing their point of view for the same POI.
This is getting retarded, we just basically quit nominating a possible waypoint because everyone of us is getting rejected for various reasons including the kitchen sink.
Every reason dictates it should be a waypoint since its a community hall , and every single community hall in my city is a waypoint except this one. Multiple players tried multiple times to nominate this one but got rejected with different reasons each time.
My last nomination was rejected due to "a vehicle liscense plate is visible" and "no visible pathway", there is no vehicles on my photo and there is literally a bench made of concrete on the pathway.
The misclick theory definitely holds weight.
There's been a number of occasions where I've gone too fast, thought I selected "doesn't meet criteria" but had actually clicked "live animal" instead as one example.
However, the voting pattern theory holds weight as well, so it could be a combination of the two.
EDIT: Assumed this was a new thread, didn't realise I was responding to an old comment.
If this is an example of what you are nominating, then of course they were rejected, and correctly so.
What i am only trying to say is that the rejection reason ranges from vastly inconsistent to does not exist. The pharmacy rejection would be acceptable if the reason provided was valid but i was given a reason that cannot be proven.
My other post pertains to a single location that multiple players nominated multiple times got different reasons for rejection each time, there was no consistency and most of the time the reason was made up and didnt make sense.
Sorry for making another post since i do not know how to reply on a comment here.
@UltraCovid23-PGO you do not know how to reply to a comment?