Need penalties for people who continuously reject existent and fully eligible nominations
aceariel2016-PGO Posts: 59 ✭✭✭
edited April 2021 in Misc Appeals Discussion
I request niantic and fellow reviewers to start giving penalties for people who reject legitimate and completely eligible nominations as per the current new criteria with illogical reasons. Because I have seen many people getting legitimate nominations rejected at legit and eligible places and instead fake non existent nominations are getting installed at those legit places. I have seen actions being taken for those fake non existent installations but need to have actions for people as well who reject legitimate nominations at legit locations as well with illogical and bad reasons.
Yes I feel the same
Yes we need mass awareness of the criteria and correct use of the system along with proper use of the rating system to improve the functionality and help the players.
I strongly agree with you. It is very necessary to take an action on these people or else this won't stop.
Many of the so called "legit nominations" that were "wrongly rejected" that have been posted as examples end up being extremely week if not ineligible. All too often, the complainer focuses in on a random nonsensical rejection reason when the primary reason is "doesn't meet criteria". And it is hard to separate when a reviewer miss-clicked, pick a random reason in the belief that in helps avoid a cooldown, is trying to message the nominator that the nomination is "bad", or just being spiteful. Only the last group are legitimately subject to any form of penalties.
While I agree with your general sentiment, this is much easier said than done. After all, how do you (or Niantic, for that matter) decide whether something is "definitely legitimate" that's better than the current system of community voting? And how do you decide whether a rejection reason is "illogical" or "bad" without making the process even longer and more complicated than it already is?
I'll also add that a nomination cannot be rejected by just one person. Decisions on whether to accept or reject a nomination is based on a community consensus of reviewers that looked at the nomination. If a nomination is rejected, it is because the majority of reviewers thought it didn't meet the eligibility or acceptance criteria or that it met one or more of the rejection criteria.
@Nadiwereb-PGO yes i agree to you the process is challenging but by making awareness matching the nomination location from the maps in sattelite view helps a little bit and rejection reasons aligned to the criteria only apart from extra reasons different from the criteria and rest we all need to think upon
I agree with you for the most part. However, I don't believe in the theory of "misclicks". I've reviewed quite a few nominations and I've never misclicked once, mostly because you have to confirm the rejection after you choose your reason. Completely and objectively wrong rejection reasons are a much more widespread issue than anything "misclicks" can account for. And while I agree that in most cases, the rejection itself is probably correct, rejection reasons in emails are practically the only feedback towards the nominator, which makes them a very, very important feature. And currently, this feature is not working properly at all.
@TheFarix-PGO I agree to you little bit but cooldown is a result of quick reviews and pre canned ratings like giving 1 or 5 stars exact for particular question instead of rating it as it should be on the scale of 1 to 5 stars and how can you say a so called legitimate nomination for example real park existing in the real world and getting rejected due to someone saying it as location doesn't match while the maps having its location most accurate and having people ratings as well in the sattelite views and is meeting the exercise, social and explore criteria completely.
@TheFarix-PGO I don't agree to you on your second comment because i have seen one person in my nearby locality that have a group of friends just to ensure his nearby full area doesn't get wayspots that aren't of his choice and submissions and rejected many and instead filled many legit places of his area with fake non existent nominations at all eligible and good places as he has full control over whole area of the locality.
I also agree with this agreement n settlements
I have to say @Prideofvalor1-PGO that I do not feel convinced by your claim. I am relatively new to the Wayfarer system, but from what I have seen there would be no way to guarantee that a set of friends get to review the exact way spots in a given area. There is no way to ensure that people you know will vote how you want them to. There is no way to guarantee that your friends will review your nominations or you theirs.
So I fail to see how a single person can have full control over a whole area. Happy to be proven wrong.
Upgrades have completely lost value to me as they cause my nominations to be rejected for clearly wrong reasons.
Have some grass in the foreground of a statue? Ineligible, natural feature.
Any art or indoor permanent fixtures? Ineligible, location not found and temporary seasonal.
I had a memorial plaque located within a public library rejected for; sensitive location (maybe because it's a memorial plaque?), private residence (maybe because it's a building?), and doesn't meet criteria.
Nominators just casually nominating things and using upgrades won't learn from these reasons as these make no sense. Worst of all, the reviewers who just spam one stars get an agreement from all this.
I concur my nomination was rejected for being a blurry photo? It was taken with an iPhone 12 Pro, the photo is so clear you and zoom in and see insects on the sidewalk. Also most already made up their minds about certain items such as “man holes” (even though they are unique, i.e. Japan) historic or memorial benches. I think a lot of people are missing the point about having poke stops. They should be placed to motivate everyone to go out get some exercise and have fun. You take that away from the game when you have “old school” people make decisions based on their opinions and not the guidelines. In my neighborhood we don’t have any poke stops so I bought the neighborhood iTunes cards so they could remotely raid during Covid. Unfortunately all of our neighborhood submissions were not approved even though they meet 100% of the guidelines. Consequently many of the kids including my own quit playing. I’m about to quit as well and many people will soon follow, maybe Niantic doesn’t realize that some people are resentful, misinformed, or just don’t care and are rushing through nominations just to upgrade their own, but it will hit Niantic in the pocketbook that’s for sure. Sorry done with my rant 🤣
I believe it is a combination of laziness and lack of knowledge, with a dash of not giving a care about what they are reviewing. I think that the most applicable solution is the following: when a reviewer rejects a nominaiton, it is then sent to reviewers that have been tagged by Niantic as verified and dependable for rejection review. For that panel of verified reviewers, the rejected nomination should say something like this: x nomination was rejected for x, y, z reason (s) with the actual eligibility for each rejection included. The verified reviewers are then asked if they agree or disagree with the rejection. if they agree the nomination is obveoulsy rejected, with it being sent to the nominator as a legitimate rejection, letting them know that it also went through a panel of verified dependable reviewers. If the panel of reviewers dissagree with the rejection reasons, then the rejection reasons are removed and the nomination goes back into review, with the system making sure that it doesn't go back to the original reviewer(s). If the verified panel disagrees with the rejection reason then a cooldown is then sent to the reviewer who gave a bogus or incorrect rejection reason. a small training is also initiated for the reviewer that says something like: "you rejected a nomination based on x criteria, but the panel of verified reviewers have decided that this was incorrect. please review the definition of x." the reviewer(s) that rejected incorrectly hopefully should learn what the criteria is, and become annoyed that they cannot reject for nonsense reasons for fear of a cooldown. Hopefully this would cut down on indiviudals using multiple accounts to control an area. as well as multiple people controlling a region with their own critera. Verified reviewrs that constantly go against the consensus of the other verified reviewers will loose their verified reviewer status.
this is just a thought that has been floating around for a while and I wanted to share it with the community.
@Y33tusmaximus-PGO very well said I agree to you this would encourage people to learn the new criteria and submit nominations by believing their work and efforts for nominations are getting approved. And that would also in turn reduce the load on system for pending nominations that were pending due to earlier getting rejected and would make the system little bit more efficient and in turn make more players to play the game.
So, you propose to have things automatically reviewed twice to avoid rejection. Do you honestly believe that there is enough reviewing resources when many nominations languish for months without a decision?
not reviewed twice, but the the rejections reviewed. if the panel of verified reviewers agree with the original rejection reasons, then its rejected. if not, then the rejections are removed and its put back into review, picking up with however many positive reviews it was originally given. I agree, there is a problem with things languishing, but this is only a suggestion on how to reduce or eliminate poor review practices, as well as educate reviewers.
If you went down this route, then you would also need the opposite - some "penalties" for people who continually submit ineligible spam nominations - particularly for things like schools. Far too many people seem to thing it is just one person "refusing" their nomination and getting hung up on some odd comment. As discussed, a lot of the time some "fully eligible" nomination gets posted in here and the community says "actually, no it's not". It does seem there are a lot of people out there who feel they are entitled to a submisission at their chosesn spot and have no interest in the criteria.
This whole system is broken. I don’t feel compelled to evaluate anything anymore. It’s no rewarding. 🤡
The penalty for poor reviewing is a poor rating.
The penalty for poor submitting is a rejection.
The penalty for poor communication of eligibility, acceptability and rejectability is that Niantic doesn't get the wayspots they want and that wayfarers get upset about poor reviews, poor rejections, poor contributions.
The reward for participating in wayfarer is a more complete and accurate gameboard for your preferred flavors of Niantic games. But this is contingent on the above being addressed.
I think the way to address these issues is not through penalties, but rather through better communication and better education coming from Niantic. They have talked about addressing education/communication. The newest updates with the reviewer test and the onboarding revamp are an attempts to do this. It is a bit early to say if these measures will make a difference, but I don't think that punishing reviewers does any good without there being a better guidance from Niantic, especially on the difference between eligibility and acceptability.
Yes agreed totally, niantic is doing significant improvements hopefully the people understand their efforts and follow them