Unfair judgement

I'm just a month in this Wayfarer community.

I've seen many of unfair judgement from many nominations.

not just mine but many people in some facebook group also complain.

some should be rejected but they were accept and in the other hand reject some eligible.

The review system is not good enough so please consider to do something.

I feel less fun with Pogo from this matter.



  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Reviewers are human beings and they make mistakes.

    Do you have any specific recommendations for how to reduce human error in Wayfarer?

  • purplepopple-INGpurplepopple-ING Posts: 185 ✭✭✭


    On the issue of access for emergency services or k12 as a reason to 1*, I would like an option to pin drop require exactly where these are so they can be made into black spots. Forcing the reviewer to do this as a step to reject for this reason would also stop random reason to reject. Unlike explicit content where there could be an issue with the picture itself and not the place, these are fixed places.

  • MessiPy-INGMessiPy-ING Posts: 119 ✭✭✭

    The best thing would be to be able to appeal requests that were unfairly rejected and that have a street view that shows the correct location and that the waypost request meets the acceptance criteria

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 1,057 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Hosette-ING Now that there's a "Fake nomination" rejection reason, I'd like nominations that have been rejected for that reason to be manually reviewed. If the nomination is indeed fake, the faker should be reprimanded (warnings first, bans later). If the nomination wasn't fake, the reviewers who tagged them as such should be reprimanded instead.

    I know that this would be a lot of work for Niantic, at least initially, but otherwise I can't see the point in including "Fake" as a rejection reason.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,101 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nominations submitted by accounts with a history of spamming inappropriate nominations

    If we believe you are spamming nominations inappropriately, you will receive a warning and may lose nomination privileges for repeat offenses.

    I've always wondered how Niantic would do this, and whether they actually take action at all.

    We have some new rejection criteria under the "Abuse" dropdown, including "Fake Nomination". I'd love to see some sort of "Fake Nomination - Spam" criteria to cope with all the deliberate "home stops / generic speed limit signs / grit bins" and the rest of the coal we have to plough through.

    I'm seeing a lot of K-12 nominations coming through. If a sub is rejected under K-12 guidelines, perhaps Niantic could include some more information in the rejection e-mail suggesting the submitter review the submission guidelines, as clearly those submitting "Local school, safe location, great place for a stop" have not read or understood them.

  • patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If we can offer a solution, I think it would be weighted rejection reason.

    I mean, reviewers who pick wrong rejection reasons for every nominations probably suffer at fair/poor rating (and facing too many cooldowns) so why would we listen to illegitimate reasons they choose? If a nomination should be rejected, then the reasons given mostly should be based from reviewers with good/great rating (or those who most likely choose the correct rejection reasons).

  • purplepopple-INGpurplepopple-ING Posts: 185 ✭✭✭


    Except you can have a group of local reviewers coordinating together to get POIs passed and rejecting everything else they see in order to get their spoofer area set up.

    Heck, I am 50/50 leaning more towards 10/90 that any sort of fountain should automatically merit a stop. If I go, "meh. Can't see the historic or cultural value so will 1* that", I know my Great rating will go down. It is just a fact.

    Great only means that I have figured out how the reviewing criteria work and how others have applied them. It doesn't mean I am actually doing a good job.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Care to provide examples? Because in my experiance, when most people complain about "unfair rejections", it turns out that what they are nominating doesn't' actually meet the criteria or has other problems.

  • SeaprincessHNB-PGOSeaprincessHNB-PGO Posts: 251 ✭✭✭✭

    I understand your concern, but maps change. I don't like the idea of blacklisting a location because the reason for it may move. Especially if we are talking about Day Care businesses, those might open and close quite frequently.

  • SeaprincessHNB-PGOSeaprincessHNB-PGO Posts: 251 ✭✭✭✭

    Is a generic speed limit sign really a fake nomination? It's a BAD nomination but I don't think it is fake. It typically does exist.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Rejection reasons are kind of a secondary thing anyway. If something is legitimately rejected then I don't care what reasons were chosen by people. The underlying message is that enough reviewers failed the submission so it was ultimately rejected.

  • SiIverLyra-PGOSiIverLyra-PGO Posts: 812 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I must disagree with that.

    1. One of the biggest complaints in the community is the lack of education for amateur submitters. With Niantic refusing to implement a test for submitters, the best - only, really - way we currently have to communicate with bad submitters is via the rejection reasons. Inaccurate rejection reasons only harm the effort to spread information and educate submitters.
    2. "Legitimately rejected" is a bigger assumption than you probably realize. While the majority of the rejections shared on this forum are legitimate, a concerning amount of rejections in my local community are entirely false (experienced both by me personally and by other community members who have shared their rejections with me). It might be a problem specific to only some communities worldwide, but it IS a real and recurring problem.
  • Lechu1730-PGOLechu1730-PGO Posts: 537 ✭✭✭✭

    I second this. Good rejection reasons are needed to educate the submitters, otherwise they'll perceive a broken system that unfairly rejects nominations and not the faults in them.

Sign In or Register to comment.