You can see rejection reasons of your nominations in Wayfarer now

2»

Comments

  • auntergoaf-PGOauntergoaf-PGO Posts: 132 ✭✭✭

    Does "reject.reason.XXX.short" mean that the rating of the review item was a little short?

  • kaireky001-PGOkaireky001-PGO Posts: 54 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2021

    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?

  • 1253mi-PGO1253mi-PGO Posts: 49 ✭✭

    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.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 2,715 Ambassador

    I had one of those, too.


    I wonder if it had a mix of Wayfarer reviewers who rejected it and Nia reviewers.

  • ZeroZeroZiete-INGZeroZeroZiete-ING Posts: 56 ✭✭

    lets hope all people put the real reason of rejection insteand of anything

  • feliscybernicus-PGOfeliscybernicus-PGO Posts: 90 ✭✭✭

    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?

  • feliscybernicus-PGOfeliscybernicus-PGO Posts: 90 ✭✭✭

    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.

  • Whiteo00-INGWhiteo00-ING Posts: 10 ✭✭

    This is my favourite one yet...

    reject.reason.animals.short 😂

    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 🤔

  • Jaxson10-PGOJaxson10-PGO Posts: 3 ✭✭

    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?

  • feliscybernicus-PGOfeliscybernicus-PGO Posts: 90 ✭✭✭

    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.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 2,861 ✭✭✭✭✭

    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:

    reject.reason.opr_uniqueness.short

    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?

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 2,715 Ambassador

    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.

  • Mormegil71-INGMormegil71-ING Posts: 166 ✭✭✭

    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.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 690 ✭✭✭✭✭

    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

Sign In or Register to comment.