Is it time to get rid of rejection reasons?

SiIverLyra-PGOSiIverLyra-PGO Posts: 572 ✭✭✭✭✭

To clarify off the bat: my opinion is a firm "no". But I think a lot of people would go for "yes", even if they don't really realize it.

I don't think anyone didn't notice the influx of false/unrelated rejection reasons for nominations as of late, whether via discussions/complaints here on the forum, or via personal experience with recent rejections.

A very common comment on these posts is "the reason was wrong but the rejection itself is right, figure out what was wrong in your nomination and resubmit".

One would think that the whole point of choosing a rejection reason, and displaying it in the rejection email, is to help submitters understand what was wrong in their nomination.

But considering the recent, popular combination of false reasons + "figure it out yourself" attitude, maybe it's time to get rid of reasons altogether. Either a nominations gets accepted or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, good luck figuring out why. Or just keep submitting it without any clues or help as to how to improve it (especially as there's a considerable chance it might get rejected with random reasons anyway).

I'm being hyperbolic on purpose. I want to bring more attention to how problematic this phenomenon is. Especially since more experienced Wayfarers, especially those with existing knowledge of criteria, tend to see it as a non-issue. But imagine how frustrating this is for beginners or casual submitters. No wonder people don't have the motivation to submit or review more, and a lot of those who do submit coal anyway.

It's just another piece in a puzzle that gives Wayfarer an image of a low effort, "nobody really cares" operation.

Comments

  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,029 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would more likely run a "yes/no system" where you need to say why you voted like this.

    Example:

    Tree = no -> natural

    Soccer field = yes -> great place for exercise

  • SiIverLyra-PGOSiIverLyra-PGO Posts: 572 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A simpler system would be great, agreed on that.

    But it wouldn't stop people from (to use your own example) choosing "no, natural" to reject anything that isn't natural.

    It's already happening with the "natural feature" rejection - I've gotten it a few times for things that are obviously manmade.

  • silverkali-INGsilverkali-ING Posts: 92 ✭✭✭

    I think it would be better if the rejection emails were completely overhauled. As it stands, they are the only form of feedback to a submitter and the information they provide is vague or missing, especially when it comes to waypoints that are accepted but don't make it into a game because they're either proxied or share the same cell as another waypoint.

    Providing more accurate feedback would (hopefully) reduce the number of awful submissions that pass through the review stream over and over again, whilst educating submitters to improve their nominations.

Sign In or Register to comment.