Are reviewers following new guidelines?
Liksgurd-PGO Posts: 15 ✭✭
I have been seeing a lot of questions regarding POI eligibility especially in regards to the November update. I had to adjust how I was reviewing after going over all the new updates, but I feel like a lot of reviewers including older (been reviewing for awhile) that may be stuck in the past and not adjusting. I have had a lot rejected and I see other people have as well.
I thought the whole point of the update was to make things easier and let rural areas get more POI's...
Just seeing if we can get a conversation started on this?
You cant really Tell. The System has Submissions that are in it since maybe 3 years, and Those have Made their rounds. If Something geht's rejected today, it could have Had its majority of Nays in 2020.
There is no evidence one way or the other. But one thing I have noticed is an uptick in crappy nomination where the submitter makes some big logical leaps in how the updated criteria apply to a random object. For example, I've seen one person argue that all footbridges were eligible (regardless of whether they were part of a trail or not) because they were places where people could gather to socialize, that they are also great places for exercise since you must walk on them to cross, and they are places to explore since they were man-made architectural features. When I pointed out that their reasoning would justify any random point on a sidewalk or a lamppost, they immediately resorting to personal attacks. I've seen similar arguments made for random benches, various businesses, street signs, graffiti tags, etc. all with the same presumption that reviewers must accept the nomination and that the reviewers are "BAD" if they don't make the same logical leaps and presume that the nomination is acceptable.
It's impossible to say if that's true or not.
But it's certain there is a problem in the reviewing AND in the submitting process. Too many nominations are rejected for bad reasons.
Plenty of reviewers are't even following old guidelines. "Private residential property" is routinely misunderstood and/or badly applied, which leads to perfectly eligible candidates located in multi-family residential areas getting rejected, while others that actually are on PRP according to the guidelines (on fences/walls of single-family homes) are often accepted. Lots of people fail to understand the concept of k12 (I've just had a university sports hall rejected for K12 for the second time). And don't even get me started on things like restaurants/local businesses and "bad quality photo".
The thing is, these criteria have been in place for a long time, and people still don't follow them. So no, I'd assume that new criteria are also not properly followed. And as long as there is no pressure on reviewers to regularly re-read the criteria and update their approach, they will never be.
Any new guidance takes a while to settle so people are likely following their best efforts or interpretations of the guidance.
HaHa. I am not doubting that nominations are also getting more creative (to be nice) with the updates. I would love to see this process be more consistent. Unfortunately I am not sure how...
I thought the whole point of the update was to make things easier and let rural areas get more POI's...
Nowhere in any of the "updated" 3.1+ criteria has there been any suggestion that the idea was to "let rural stops get more stops" as far as I can see. It is a fact of life that all the Niantic games are better suited for more urban that rural areas in terms of Waypoints, purely because there are more potential submissions available. We have to rate all submissions in the same way no matter where they are from.
I live in the sticks. A rual area. We play by car. There is one gym and one stop about a 20 minute drive from here. After that it's another 20 minutes to the next. We don't have sidewalks in the rual areas. Or public playgrounds. We have the occasional church and sub divisions. There is a category for condos and apartments, but not sub divisions. Ours is not a gated community, so anyone can drive down it. It's a dead end street. People walk with their kids to the community mailbox. It's a very active street, kids ride their bikes, people walk there dogs, teenagers walk after dark. And yes people play pokemon. I think as long as it isn't a gated community, sub division signs should be eligible. I nominated ours. I fully expect it to be rejected. But change has to start somewhere.
I still think the guidance is unclear. A change/revision log would be nice. I've had people say things like "benches are eligible now" as a blanket statement, numerous subdivision/complex signs, mailboxes, fire hydrants....and I cannot find supporting information to show that these things should even be considered.
To me other than not having to mow the lawn, an apartment complex or a condo complex would fall into the same criteria as a sub division. I think that this is our choice to make. We have the guidelines. It's up to us to interrupt is this thing similar to another thing, apartment/condos vs sub divisions. Is there really that big of a difference. Pokemon Go has grown from being a city game to an everywhere game.
I have a question about trail marker posts...I am seeing 30% of nominations being such pegs. My view is that they are ok. They encourage exercise and exploration. There is a definition in the drop down list for "trail marker". Yet I see very many are rejected.
Any thoughts folks ?
There's an entry also for pre-schools. That list is not a list of eligible things.
Fair point, but encouraging exercise and exploration is.
Would you say they count or not ?
Every kind of trail marker, if it has the name of the trail in it, is a 5* in my book.
Trail marker - named trail, accept. Markers for public footpaths, public bridleways, permissive paths etc are not named trails. Reject as generic.
Next question - location. Far too many are just dots in the middle of nowhere or under trees - no chance to get any sort of indication if the marker is at that point, so they can get rejected for that.
Very helpful insight, thank you.
To be fair that's what the three star location accuracy rating is for. It's not a submitter's fault necessarily if google hasn't mapped that area perfectly. I'm confident there are tons of cool wayspots hidden from above by trees. In that case the supporting photo matters a lot. I agree, dots under trees suck, but a wayspot shouldn't be rejected just for that.
The footbridges thing gets me. I have a trail near me by a local park. But because the bridges on them look old and don't have handrails I can't get them approved. Any other bridge anywhere else that looks new or is good looking gets approved if on a trail or not. They come back for rejection so fast I don't even bother with them anymore.
not a lot of players pay attention to the guidelines , if they did and not just go off what they think, these signposts would have been accepted once they’re not duplicated , poor in quality and or mismatch location.
retraining is the suggested answer but even if they do the test and see the question about signposts what you think they going to select?
Yeah, their own guideline.
Just because there is a category for it does not make it eligible. If it fits the criteria then it can be rligible. Condos and apartments on there own are not eligiblep
I think Niantic goal is for each community to design its own wayspots according to guidelines but with flexibility and creativity, especially when it comes to issues like culture and language. There are not many absolute prohibitions (like k-12 schools), the goal is to create points of interest that each community has seen as appropriate according to Niantic guidelines.
Niantic is very clear on how you should be applying 1-5 stars. If you are unsure or have no opinion their guidance calls for you to mark it as a three. If the answer is obviously no then you should be selecting one star. Just because the chosen Map view is a satellite image with tree cover does not mean location is a 1*, nor should one ever look to reject an entire nomination because of it. Per the guidance those should be given three star on that one criteria, assuming nothing else about the nomination looks suspicious. In my experience those examples are few and far between and I usually look to give the submitter the benefit of the doubt.
If I can plainly see a nomination on satellite views, that's a 5*. If there's a lot of tree cover but a published trail map, distinguishable features in the supporting photo like a bend or intersection in the trail, unique backdrop, anything that makes it LIKELY that the waypoint is correctly located, then sure I'll 3* it. I've even measured trail markers by distance from other accepted trail markers. But if it's a rather plain trail marker, with no mileage marking, under thick tree cover, no trail seen on any map, no link to a trail map provided....I will assume that the location is inaccurate or falsified. When I'm out in the field I always publish a photosphere at least to show that the location is likely to be correct., or provide a trail map link. This is a lesson I've learned from my own submissions that were rejected for location issues, and I hope that anyone submitting in an obscured location but getting the same rejection reason learns the same lesson. Rate 1* if the location cannot be found....that's the Niantic guidance.
I'm with @Shilfiell-ING on this one. If there is anything on the Satallite view and / or the supporting photo that can give me any sort of hints as to the placement of a Waypoint - eg paths / buildings / groupings of trees etc, then I will look for anything that will suggest that the Waypoint "Is likely to exist but obscured", the 3* score. However, if there is nothing in the submission or the supporting photos that gives any clues as to the location them then "the nomination cannot be found" and it gets a 1*. I want at least some clue from the submitter as to the probable location of the Waypoint. Something like a trail marker on a 3 x 3 inch post that casts no visible shadow and is only shown as a post with some grass in the background is not locatable and you cannot say "probably". I've seen too many fake nominations to automatically assume that any "hidden" POI is where it is supposed to be.
Unfortunately @sogNinjaman-ING purposefully continues to spread false information about location criteria for objects under trees. With full knowledge they are acting against criteria.
@NianticCasey-ING What is your stance on such action?
A link to the old thread and cut & paste from my reply to them from another thread.
This discussion has been done already before.
It's obvious you like the Mismatched Location option and don't like that nominations are getting accepted despite you using that option.
You asked about your interpretation in an earlier thread.
Note. All the quoted messages below this can be found from that thread.
After back and forth with other Wayfarers, @NianticAaron replied to the thread. (Emphasis mine.)
"Hi folks! If you're not able to view the Wayspot candidate in maps/street views or if the real-world location or the nomination is inside a park or under a tree, like in this case, you should use your best judgment to decide whether the candidate could exist at the real-world location. You can also use the submission photo and look for clues in the background to help you decide.
You can rate 3 stars if the Wayspot candidate is likely to exist in the real-world location, if obscured by trees, or if you are unsure of the real-world location. You should rate 1 star if the Wayspot nomination cannot possibly exist at the location. Hope this helps!"
Rostwold-ING noticed the difference in wording. And asked for clarification.
"1 star if the Wayspot nomination cannot possibly exist at the location." is very different to "1 star if the Wayspot nomination cannot be found on the map".
Which is correct, @NianticAndres ? If it's the first one then the text in wayfarer needs to be changed to say that too.
And so did you.
I picked up on this change of wording as well. "Cannot possibly exist at the location" is a very very different assessment criteria than "Wayspot nomination cannot be found on the map". If taken to the extreme, as I'm sure it will be by someone, then it moves the requirements a long way towards being unable to reject any nomination "because it could (could) possibly exist there - you have no proof it does not". Which is correct please @NianticAndres ? Is this now the new "Niantic Official" position on waypoint location? If it is then it needs to have the definitions updated in the next AMA and all the assessment criteria on the review pages and help screen updated.
Going back to the original intent of this thread, it seems to be drifting towards the almost inevitable argument between the "more waypoints / accept everything / why are you trying to spoil the game for everybody" views and those who take a more subjective or perhaps criteria led view of submissions.
Nowhere in the OP did I suggest that the person submitting the nomination was lying or faking a waypoint location. What I was interested in was how other reviewers would handle this if they were asked to review the same Waypoint, purely from the point of trying to improve my own ratings scores. At what point does "1* - unable to locate the POI" come into play? Unfortunately, the comments from Niantic have possibly muddied the waters even more as a result, though the gist of the posting from NianticAndres was a repeat of the existing text, with one major chage.
For which @NianticAaron confirmed that the difference in wording was intentional.
Hi @Rostwold-ING and @sogNinjaman-ING, that response from @NianticAndres was for this particular question and should not be generalised. In a scenario wherein the object is obscured by trees and the correct location can not be verified, you should use your best judgment to decide whether the candidate could exist at the real-world location. And, if the object possibly can not exist at the location, you should rate it 1 star.
After that you decided not to reply to thread anymore.
Instead you're here claiming, again, that Mismatched Location 1* is "quite valid" with objects obscured by trees.
you can forget trying to inform correctly the users with the biggest numers of posts. they have their guidelines. a 3* is a maybe, for those users its a 1* or a 5* if you can see it using a photoshpere.. lol
too bad i can only put 10 users on my ignore list.