Tired of toxic and bad reviewers..
Zipfe1328-PGO Posts: 3 ✭✭
I got two portals declined, wich is not the problem..
But i am tired of stupid and wrong reasons like live animal or private property where clearly are no animals and prove that its on public ground.
This system needs a change and a punishment for choosing wrong rejection reasons..
Is there any proof that your nominations were on public property? Additionally if there was an animal nearby in your photo (say your dog), some reviewers may choose “Live Animal” to not get a cooldown for choosing the same rejection reason.
Feel free to share your nominations, but as fed up as nominators are of “bad reviewers”, reviewers are fed up of garbage submissions.
So one justifies the other? That's the attitude that stinks!
I get the frustration when someone submits a tree, a rock a McDonald's. It ticks me off as well. But if we are truly doing our jobs as reviewers, we must honestly critique a "valid type" submission to give the submitter feedback. People can read the guidelines all they want, but feedback from us in voting one down is crucial to improving submissions from people who actually do care. You basically have to take 20-30 seconds on a review even if it's garbage to you so why not at least make the effort....
Honestly, I'd like to see a temporary ban if someone abuses the submittal with a tree, rock, etc multiple times (say 5)... I'd like to see the same ban on the reviewers for false reasons for denial. It'll never happen, but I'd like to see it.
@johnd131313-PGO That wasn’t my point, so sorry if you took it that way.
Just saying it’s not always the fault of reviewers if rubbish stuff is submitted.
My reviews are running at about a 1:10 accept:reject at the moment because there is so much ineligible stuff in the system. A couple of years back it was more like 1:1. I've not changed my reviewing over this time except to take on board the revised criteria. Overall rate of "correct" reviews is still around the 65% mark, where it has been for years.
It is a shame when legit submissions get rejected. I also think it is a shame when people instantly call for punishments.
It is all very well calling for persistent offenders to be banned etc, but it does not solve the underlying problem. It has to be tackled in a balanced way. A system of rewards, streamlining processes, and education is what is required.
It also needs to be applied to both submissions and reviews. No point removing reviewers when it already appears there aren't enough.
For me I think it starts with the submissions. In P-Go I hit level 38 and was able to instantly submit 5 or so nominations, which I can do every 14 days I believe? I submitted 4 nominations and heard nothing. Many months later I can now do reviews. I have since made a few other submissions, and the ones I have upgraded have all been accepted (so far), but I have submissions still in the queue for nearly a year. So what is the point of having the ability to make so many submissions if they can't be processed?
Personally I think that (again I speak from a P-Go perspective) possibly level 38 is too early, but hey ****. Perhaps a better approach is to give people a max of 1 submission every two weeks, and enable them to earn more when they are approved. So if a submission is approved as A* throughout then they get an extra submission per 14 days so now can make 2 every 14 days and so on. You could have a different cadence for marginal submission that are accepted. It would mean people have to think more carefully about their submissions and effectively could not spam the system with empty crisp packets and stones etc.
However, that would not work in isolation, as if a review is stuck in a queue for a year then that person can only submit 1 nomination every two weeks for that year through no fault of their own. Not the end of the world, but not great. So then the review system needs overhauling, with a more streamlined process, perhaps with different criteria for rural and urban areas. Perhaps you could have reviewers specialising in one or the other and so on.
The system probably only needs to be a 3 star review as well.
I actually could write so much on this, but my ultimate point is we should not rush to punish one group of people, but rather have an improved system for both the submission and review process. Rewards for nominating and reviewing should be earned, and yes the bad nominators AND the bad reviewers should be challenged, and removed if necessary. However, it needs balance.
It may be rubbish. Ineligible and I don’t care if people don’t like it and it gets rejected. But I get frustrated when there is clearly a problem with rejecting it for wrong reasons..
i just don’t get why..
right now I’m done reviewing because there is no point for me left doing it with the current system..
For the first year of crowd-sourced reviewing, there were no rejection reasons (and no slow-down for quick reviews). 1* and on to the next. It was brutal!
After a year, Niantic introduced rejection reasons, so they could rank reviewers, to weight their reviews.
For a full year, reviewers begged for those rejection reasons to go in the email to the nominators. Niantic didn't want to, for fear it could be used "to game the system". People said, how about return the top 3 reasons? But, what if there aren't 3 reasons? What if, when there are less than 3 reasons, Niantic fills out the 3 randomly? It would prevent "gaming the system" based on rejection emails. And nominators would have a teensy bit of education, helpful for future submits. Finally, Niantic agreed.
Now another year has passed, and the random reasons from Niantic have sowed outrage and hatred against reviewers.
Maybe they'll try something else for year four.
There is plenty of rejection e-mails with fewer than 3 reasons. There are also people who brag in local chats that they reject stuff as "live animal", just to annoy submitters. This is another of those "reviewers do nothing wrong" theories that don't make sense.
Anybody use Slashdot? They have both moderation and meta-moderation of comments. Why not throw meta-reviews into the mix with the edits and photos now? Show the review screen pre-filled in with 1-5 stars and/or rejection reason that some other user picked, and you get just two choices - Acceptable or Unacceptable. If too many of your reviews get flagged as Unacceptable, you should lose your reviewing privileges.
Thank you for clarifying. I agree, there is a LOT of junk submitted.... Have a good day.
Same here, gazebo in park declined for Living animal..