Clear the queue
adler391-PGO
Posts: 61 ✭✭✭
What’s your suggestion how the queue of waiting poi‘s can be cleared?
Should Niantic stop the nomination of new locations?
Concentrate all reviewers to the oldest waiting poi’s?
adler391-PGO
Posts: 61 ✭✭✭
What’s your suggestion how the queue of waiting poi‘s can be cleared?
Should Niantic stop the nomination of new locations?
Concentrate all reviewers to the oldest waiting poi’s?
Comments
They could start reviewing themselves, like they did in india.
fix prioritization...
A nomination in Hamburg (Germany) needs over two years or even longer without an upgrade and three days with an upgrade (if newly submitted, otherwise around 12 hours)
A nomination at the north sea/baltic sea needs three days without an upgrade
You can easily change this system to make it more equal.
priorization is utter broken. we are RURAL here, and still things need a year.
until there is a new better wayfarer:
a) turn off priorizing S2-LVL9 cells that have "less" wayspots.
b) priorize everything that is older than 9 month
c) turn off new submissions
The best systemic thing Niantic could change is to cut down on the number of submissions. Disabling submissions certainly is one way to do that, and there's a history of that, but it's a bandaid at best. It doesn't address the underlying problem of there being more stuff to review than review capacity.
My personal statistics show that I've approved just over 41% of the things I've reviewed since January 1 2020. Even if I'm more critical than average, and I probably am, that means half of the stuff in the queue is complete and utter garbage. That garbage burns through reviewer capacity. (It also probably reduces capacity over time because reviewers burn out on looking at junk.) If Niantic could cut garbage submissions in half then that would mean a 25% reduction in the amount of stuff that reviewers had to look at, and this would make the queue move that much faster.
How could they achieve this? My recommendation, which I've made elsewhere, is to update the submission process to give submitters more guidance during the process. Imagine the workflow went like this:
I think that just giving submitters simple guidance during the submission process would cut down on a lot of garbage. That would be a net win for everyone.
Why is this a better solution than asking submitters to take a test? It means the information they get during the submission process will be accurate and up-to-date, not what they learned five years ago. It means that submitters aren't expected to know all of the criteria ahead of time, or for their memory to be accurate.
My newer POIs are being transitioned faster than others.
And, I think newer POIs can be removed as I have more older POIs waiting for a transition.
Yep. Niantic should take notes. I feel like they aren't even aware of how extreme the problem of garbage submissions has become.
This will be an unpopular suggestion, but I think Niantic should also consider reducing the number of submissions each player gets. Bear with me... it's not all bad.
I completely understand the value of going to an underserved area and working to fill it in... that's a good and useful thing. I would also like to reward quality submissions. Imagine that if, for PoGo players, you started with 10 submissions rather than 7 and they grew back every 28 days rather than the current 14. That grants you 10 submissions rather than 14 per 28-day period. That's the bad part.
Here's the good part. For each of your submissions that gets accepted you also get a bonus submission, up to say 7 bonus submissions. Thus, someone who did a good job of submissions and got more than 50% accepted would get 17 submissions per month. They could also bank them and use all of them in one trip if they wanted to visit a new area.
(Note: I haven't fully thought through the math/thresholds on this. It was kind of a quick inspiration.)
I've seen people propose (and I've suggested it myself a few times) to to number of submissions to your recon/wayfarer badge.
Like, you start out with 1 submission per two weeks, then as you get Bronze, Silver, Gold, etc the number you can submit grows.
Or have a "recent agreements" badge or counter that ties submissions you can make to your recent agreement count.
Problem with tying it to a badge is that not everyone enjoys everything and getting agreements or something accepted is not always the easiest thing even for a top quality candidate.
You'd be unfairly penalizing people for either not doing both games, or putting them at the mercy of others doing and hoping that the reviewers did their job correctly.
Why "either/or" and not "all of the above"
Start with a low baseline. Let's say 1 per week. Then start adding more as you either get more approved wayspots or agreements in wayfarer.
I'm not sure how this penalizes people for not playing both games?
And a lot of reviewers don't enjoy reviewing. But it gets wayspots through our local area faster and gets us upgrades.
Number of Wayspots submitted is tied directly to how long the Wayspot backlog is, so it makes sense that people who clear the backlog, understand the criteria, and know the review process would get more submissions.
I have no idea what "refactoring code and tackling tech debt" is, but I hope Niantic does make improvements to the overall process. Like developing cell-wise or country trends. Or being able to actually analyse voting patterns of specific users or certain categories. i.e. why would a Playground in, say Russia have an average rating of 4.6 stars, while a similar sort of playground in say, Zimbabwe only have a 2.3 star average rating? Why has this particular user selecting "live animal" for a reject reason where what they've rated as such has a 92% approval rate? Where exactly is the live animal? Why is the variance for ratings of a particular wayspot so high (i.e. say for 10 reviews, it is 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5 for a variance of 4.01 whereas for for a regular nomination, it has reviews of 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5 for a variance of 0.71?) Why are reviewers so split in the middle? Are the people voting 5 stars for a particular wayspot right, or is it the 1-star people that are actually right?
i.e. Niantic would easily be able to figure out the contentious areas and wayspots between areas/cells, between particular users, and between the much-needed categories.
Ok, this is actually really off topic, but I tried to find my proposal where I awarded an amount of nominations based on Trekker/Explorer/Pioneer/Recon/Successful Nominations but I couldn't find it. I agree with Theisman, for so long as there are those who are not reviewing correctly without any sort of accountability or punishment, voting up ineligible candidates and rejecting top quality candidates in an area, such figures would hurt and people would just try to further game the system for agreements/acceptances just so they can nominate their cat and live baby several more times.
@HaramDingo-ING I can explain refactoring code and technical debt in layperson's terms.
Think about a house. The house starts with a design, and all of its systems and functions laid out in a reasonably clean and logical manner. Then the house gets built based on that design, when it's done everything is in good shape and works well.
Over time, though, things break in the house. Maybe they get repaired in a sound, structural way but not always. Sometimes someone just wraps duct tape around a leak and says they'll fix it later. Sometimes a fuse blows and someone sticks a coin into the fuse box instead of replacing the fuse. Sometimes a gutter comes lose and ends up being held in place with a wire. The loose tile gets a rug thrown over it rather than being repaired. Someone removed a broken light fixture and they left the wires dangling from the ceiling. Someone installs a new appliance but instead of properly leveling it and bolting it into place they just sort of set it where it belongs and stick whatever is handy under a leg to make it mostly level. Those things, the haphazard repairs and changes... those are technical debt. Over time these shoddy repairs make it hard to work on the house and you need to just take some time to go through the whole house and fix all of those things properly.
Now, let's imagine that there's a home theatre in the house. It's a pretty spiffy one and it was professionally installed with the hardware shelved in an orderly way the cables organized and labeled, and it all makes perfect sense. But then, a year later, somebody buys a new FooBar Signal Processor. Instead of installing it properly they just set it on top of the Frobnicator, and they run a big long cable from one end to the other to hook it up. And then another piece of equipment gets added and it's kind of dangled off the back of a shelf and the cabling is messy. And then someone replaces the Whoozits with the Whoozat and they plug a power **** into a power **** into a power **** to get it working. And then they disconnect the Mumbletything but leave all the loose cables dangling. A couple more things get added or changed in a sloppy, unorganized way.
One day someone needs to fix something but they can't because it's a complete and utter mess. They remove the old Whoozits and all of the stuff that's sitting there not being used anymore. They unplug all of the cables, every single one of them, and make nice neat piles of neatly-coiled cables separated by type. Instead of all of the power strips that are dangling everywhere they install a new central power distribution system and plug everything into it. They carefully re-cable everything in a neat and logical manner, making sure everything is labeled properly and all of the cables are neatly routed through cable holders. They do this so that the system is maintainable for the next time someone needs to make a change. This process of cleaning out old stuff and making sure everything is organized and maintainable is called refactoring.