Why don't we implement a POI re-review function?

In areas where there are numerous POIs, stores that have been closed, K12s, and those that are completely on private property may remain without being removed.


Why not implement a function to review these again when multiple accounts apply for deletion? In practice, deletion requests from terminals rarely work. Almost 90% of the time, when you file a removal request, you just get an email back saying "We reject your request."


Some people are reluctant to submit a deletion request outwardly. There have been cases where people have actually been harmed trying to remove POIs proposed by dangerous people in the community.


However, I believe that if a certain number of removal petitions result in immediate removal, it can be abused. I think it would be a good idea to introduce a re-examination system, so that unauthorized material can be removed through the eyes of many people.

9
9 votes

New · Last Updated

Comments

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2021

    Niantic recently implemented a chat within Wayfarer where these cases can be appealed anonymously and with evidence the game doesnt allow you to use.

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

    Can you describe and/or link to the procedure for this? I've got some local weirdnesses that need removal, but I've already been doxxed and harassed by local players for daring to report and have removed FAKE spots. I'd really like to be able to explain and/or provide such evidence to Niantic anonymously, for fake or invalid or physically removed things.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Green chat button on bottom right in wayfarer... it's still a bit buggy but should pop up at least in the "settings" page if it doesn't in all the pages.

  • JSteve0-INGJSteve0-ING Posts: 484 ✭✭✭✭

    Just to clarify, it is on the Wayfarer help page. It doesn't appear on the review page, profile page, etc. until you have visited the help page (at least that is how it works for me). It is a teal circle with a white chat bubble in it.

  • SturmRugerLCR-PGOSturmRugerLCR-PGO Posts: 297 ✭✭✭

    The chat feature itself is indeed great. It is an attempt to respond to what many judges have requested in the past.


    However, I have some concerns. The "declaration form" that we have had so far has been unstable in its effectiveness. There is no guarantee that the chat function will have any direct effect in the future.


    I believe that the "re-examination function" proposed this time will increase the certainty. We think it is worthy of consideration.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Re-examination just puts an extra toll on the already horrendous 2.5+ year backlog in a lot of areas. I dont think that worth it for a system that should handle that internally.

  • SturmRugerLCR-PGOSturmRugerLCR-PGO Posts: 297 ✭✭✭

    I understand what you mean.


    However, as I mentioned at the beginning of this article, I don't think it will be that large a quantity, since I am assuming K12, closed stores, and obviously POIs on private property.

    For the ones that are not clearly identified, I think they will be rejected even if we use the re-review function.


    Rather, the Wayfarer team will no longer have to deal with simple matters, which will greatly reduce the amount of paperwork and allow us to spend more time on complex issues.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 2,879 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Niantic want to generate as large a database of POIs as possible, which is one of the reasons it is so had to get clearly ineligible / unacceptable POIs that get approved removed from the games, even if they got approved yesterday.

    In practical terms, as mentioned the extra load on an already creaking system by doing "auto-reviews" would probably be the thing that breaks the camels back. Could it be done inhouse by Niantic. Possibly, but only with significant investment in personnel and training of in-house reviewers. Recent experiences seem to suggest the Wayfarer community has a fairly low opinion of the current inhouse standards. Add to that the immediate massive amount of entitled grizzling that would fill all the forums - "Why did this stop get removed, it's been on that house for years and we can reach it from the pavement". Niantic caved in over the "But we need an 80m PoGo interaction distance" in about 10 minutes when they tried to put their temporary pandemic measures back to the "default".

    Unless Niantic move to "turning off" Waypoints, ie they stay in Lightship but are removed from all games, this is not the way they want to go. I think the existing "Report a Waypoint" needs improvement - ie some response from Niantic to individual reports - but is the best way at the moment.

  • SturmRugerLCR-PGOSturmRugerLCR-PGO Posts: 297 ✭✭✭

    I'm sorry. I don't really understand what you mean.

    I'm not a native English speaker, so if there's another meaning, could you break it down for me?

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 2,879 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I will do my best.

    Niantic want to use their Lightship database to be used as the basis for other games. They have just launched a "Developer Kit" as part of this, so that other companies can build games that use / need the Lightship database.

    Niantic will get a fee for this. The more Waypoints in Lighship, the more Niantic will be able to charge. It is in their best interests as a business to keep as many Waypoints in the sysyem as possible, even if they do not meet the acceptance criteria currently in operation.

  • SturmRugerLCR-PGOSturmRugerLCR-PGO Posts: 297 ✭✭✭

    Isn't that a bit of a leap? I realize that our discussion is not about NIA revenue, but about keeping Wayspots eligible.

    Even if that is the case, it seems to me that there is a risk that the proliferation of low-quality POIs will eventually make it impossible for the business to function.


    This proposal is to reduce the number of obviously inappropriate POIs by making it so that when a terminal receives multiple requests for removal, it will be sent back for review.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 673 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I generally agree.

    The removal of the obvious fake and K-12 facilities is what is taking away from Niantic's efforts.

    I'd also like to see Niantic put more effort into dealing with the massive abuse that needs to be dealt with.


    So, while the details need to be worked out, I think the re-review feature is necessary in the future and will help improve the quality of wayspot.

    Also, the backlog of concerns has been largely resolved, and even in Tokyo, which is probably the densest city in the world, most past wayspot applications have been resolved.

    (However, there are certainly some candidates that are not reviewed on an individual basis for some reason. (However, it is clear that there are some candidates that are not reviewed for some reason, and we believe these can be resolved by improving the program.)

    Most of the current backlog is from the last year or so, and most of them are low-quality spam nominations.

    We believe that by improving the system to control spam, we can reduce the backlog and get more quality wayspot reviews done faster.


    And I don't agree with the idea that even low quality wayspots should be kept.

    If our game field becomes low quality, players will leave.

    Also, fewer companies will be interested in such a database.

    You have ongoing complaints about the quality and accuracy of location data imported from the Foursquare database.

    It's the same thing.

    Our game is not a game to be played in the Smoky Mountains.

  • TowelMage-PGOTowelMage-PGO Posts: 23 ✭✭
    edited December 2021

    Much as I'd rather not disparage Niantic - they've mostly been helpful for me! - I think the most practical solution here would be... and I'm sorry to say this... for them to take a more comprehensive and/or less outwardly dismissive approach to reviewing invalid portal nominations.

    My limited but unimpressed experience:

    A Walmart in Murfreesboro, TN is a stop. I don't like to be a party pooper, and I will never make a point of reporting every questionable stop, but my corporate disdain is such that I felt compelled to remove something obviously not aligned with nomination guidelines. Report rejected. (Or never responded to, I don't recall ever getting an email.) 35.8318180, -86.3468930 if you wanna take a look for yourself.

    I recently submitted enough stops in an area to roughly double its in-game content downtown. Included in this general area is something I see a lot when combing through older POIs: an Ingress-only "fire station" POI with a blank/static photo, situated at an incomprehensible and irrelevant place. (I see a lot of these as "post offices" too.) Reporting this was met with such a swift rejection - two or three days, maybe - that I wasn't left with the impression that any critical thinking had been offered. It seems either someone didn't feel it was worth the investigative effort or they disavowed the loss of content. Which I sympathize with for incredibly small areas, but I digress.

    In closing: I don't think the proposed solution here is as necessary as the reports being investigated thoroughly and taken seriously. I'll spare you additional commentary on how I feel about having reported a multi-accounting in-game antagonist (whose friend threatened to blast me lol) to no avail...

Sign In or Register to comment.