It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
Does "reject.reason.XXX.short" mean that the rating of the review item was a little short?
I’d like to know why one of mine has only one rejection reason. If there are supposed to be two…where is the other one?
And the one reason is reject.reason.opr_uniqueness.short
@NianticTintino-ING do you know why there would only be one reason given? Bug or a feature?
Looks like I've a nomination taken by Niantic for internal review. It has the Niantic balloon beside it. Will wait for them to continue their streak of rejections before resubmitting for people in Japan to decide.
I had one of those, too.
I wonder if it had a mix of Wayfarer reviewers who rejected it and Nia reviewers.
lets hope all people put the real reason of rejection insteand of anything
This is very interesting. Would you happen to remember if this submission was "in voting" or "in queue" before it got pulled out by Niantic?
@Gendgi-PGO What's interesting about those two criteria in particular is that the question associated to their evaluation doesn't appear to influence the final decision on the eligibility, or at least that's the way it should be according to the September AMAs... Which honestly doesn't make too much sense considering the evidence.
I was trying to publish a report analyzing one instance of this behaviour in particular but apparently the post is still pending for approval lol
At this point it does seem that most people do believe that the votes on cultural, uniqueness, etc. not affecting the final decision is likely a mistake, the very least. It was possibly coded way before the current people were involved so perhaps they simply misunderstood the algorithm behind it.
I understand that might be the case, but it's still rather unfortunate that some reviewers might have misinterpreted this notion while they may have started to review in a more restrictive way as a direct consequence of what had been officially disclaimed... After all we're not demanding a lot besides some clarity in communication, especially regarding such a sensible aspect stemming from sources that who knows when they can be deemed authoritative enough.
I know for one to have been personally afflicted by this, as I started to be more varied in my reviews for the cultural and visual significance of nominations such as parks and playgrounds... But knowing that some of these candidates that I had the intention to approve might have been rejected because of those reasons is still pretty disappointing, without even considering the potential loss of the agreements.
And in fact I've heard from a lot of people in our local community that started seeing a more widespread issue for this rejection reason in particular. Until we receive further clarifications it would seem to be helpful if everyone started evaluating stuff in a more uniform way...
This is my favourite one yet...
Interestingly enough, when I reloaded the page it went back being classified as a Generic Business... Obviously. At least it wasn't rejected to the lack of pedestrian access 🤔
Slightly Ridiculous reason for rejection is that this is a person.
Clearly if they read the whole thing or even looked at the submission, it is not a person but a restaurant. Are there no appeals to these type of abuse by reviewers?
I believe this phenomena you described is real and is happening everywhere.
However, people should remember also that the criteria cultural and historical significance also include other things that aren't specifically mentioned, such as exercise and social significance (and in some cases, educational significance) etc. So even if historical or cultural significance per se weren't that high, these other significances would rise the review up to 4* or even 5* in most cases.
Also, visually unique just means if you can distinguish the target from it's environment, so it should in most cases be 5* anyway, even with targets like playgrounds and trail markers (unless there were several identical ones right next to it, that might be different).
I guess we simply need to spread awareness about these.
Well, I went back through my rejected nominations just to see what reasons were given. If I were the exciteable sort one or two of them would have me posting in here about "lazy reviewers" or "local players forming a cabal to reject a valid nomination" etc, but I'm not. A couple of mine had to go through the submission process 2 or 3 times before they were accepted after being refused for "unusual" reasons (Happy to post them in here is anyone wants to see them / decide if they really are valid or not). Then again, looking at one or two I can spot that they were "correctly" rejected for valid reasons, but then again I understand the criteria much better now.
Oddest rejection reason I could find was:
No idea what that means.
As we are talking about rejection reasons, can I once again make my regular plea to Niantic for some sort of feedback to reviewers for those nominations we reviewed that did not "agree" with the overall community vote. If we don't know where we are going wrong, how can we improve out reviewing?
To be fair, I'm not sure I've ever seen a candidate pass or fail that I voted differently on that I feel I voted incorrectly, even after seeing the outcome. And I don't think it's strictly me refusing to change, enough do fall under "bad reviewers" that I would hate to see more people convinced of intelligibility of candidates that should pass, or eligibility of genetic benches that should have failed.
Man, I just browsed through old rejections, and 90% of the reasons are pure BS. Old, historical railway bridges rejected as natural objects or generic business, a number of "mismatched location" despite new Street view photos, playgrounds rejected as generic businesses, old railway car displayed at the local museum rejected as natural object...
Now, I wish I hadn't looked at them.
Agreed, and ug. So so so many “natural features” for manmade objects, and the like.
It probably hurts more because on the website they’re ALL there at the same time, rather than the slow trickle from the live emailed updates though umm lol