Remember it's not the reviewer's job to prove that the POI location is correct
Beeeeeees-ING
Posts: 16 ✭✭
There's nothing more frustrating than having a correct submission rejected for being in the wrong location when it isn't. As a reviewer, the guidelines for locations are very clear. You should only vote below 3 stars if you can think of a reason why the location is not correct. If it seems plausible that it's really there, but you can't find it on the map/street view, you are supposed to rate it 3 stars. For example if it's a trail marker, and you can see that the location is in a forest where it's plausible there are trails, that should be at least 3 stars. If the trail is listed on the map, and the POI is somewhere along that trail, that should be at least 4 stars. If you can see the trail marker on the map or street view, that's 5 stars.
Comments
The problem is that, far too often, submitters have placed a Wayspot in the midst of a forest, when they don’t exist anywhere near there at all, just to get another Wayspot.
So it’s not surprising that reviewers don’t always trust them. I submit a lot of trailmarkers and am used to doing photospheres for them now if I want them to be accepted.
From the Wayfarer help pages
Rating Location Accuracy
* Rate 5 stars if you can find the Wayspot nomination on the map and the marker is on or within a few feet of the object’s real-world location
* Rate 3 stars if the Wayspot nomination is likely to exist in the real-world location if obscured by trees, or if you are unsure of the real-world location
* Rate 1 star if the Wayspot nomination cannot be found on the map
Note: At times, you may not be able to view the Wayspot nomination in maps or street views if the real-world location of the nomination is inside a park or under a tree. For these cases, use your best judgement to decide whether the nomination could exist at the real-world location. You can use the submission photo and look for clues in the background to help you decide.
If a reviewer cannot find the object on the map or street view and they don't think it is likely to exist at the location given by the submitter because of lack of evidence, they would be well within their right to location accuracy as 1 star. After all, the guideline states "is likely to" and not "can plausibly".
When I read the title, I thought I was going to be reading a post about how submitters should always provide photospheres with the Google Street View app or other evidence of location. I definitely agree it is the submitter's job to prove the location.
I think submitters who have this mindset think, "I'm an honest person. If I say something is there, it is likely to be there." However, reviewers don't know you, or who is doing the submitting at all, so they require more proof than the submitter's word. There's a hiking trail of fake nature signs near me, so I can't trust the word of anonymous submitters, unfortunately. In my area, it's likely they are being dishonest.
Same thing in my area. This morning I started reviewing, first 5 nomination were fake or abuses !!!
So no, if a nomination should be likely to exist at this place, you have to show it, then 3* to 5*. If I cannot found your nomination anywhere, it's likely you are just another of the many abuser trying to manipulate, "I put the pin under the trees, so you have to give me 3*"
NO !
Sad but experienced proofed. I cherish the (too few) nominaters which includes links to the trail on supplementary and take pictures showing where the marker actually is !
The key is that you have a reason to think it doesn't exist. It's not that you're not sure whether it exists - you think it's likely that it doesn't exist. Merely not being able to see it on the map isn't a reason to think it doesn't exist. And of course you've ignored the "or" statement - "or if you are unsure of the real-world location". So those guidelines are clearly saying "If you're unsure of the real-world location" you should vote 3 stars.
It's pretty clear that it should be 1* if it "cannot be found on the map".
People can endlessly debate the meaning of "likely to exist", but if it's not visible on the satellite photos, and there is no streetview, no photosphere, and no marking on the Google map it's 1* because it "cannot be found on the map". That statement is unambiguous.
Note: At times, you may not be able to view the Wayspot nomination in maps or street views if the real-world location of the nomination is inside a park or under a tree. For these cases, use your best judgement to decide whether the nomination could exist at the real-world location. You can use the submission photo and look for clues in the background to help you decide.
As you said, @Beeeeeees-ING
@Beeeeeees-ING, The key is that you have a reason to think it doesn't exist. It's not that you're not sure whether it exists - you think it's likely that it doesn't exist.
If you are reviewing nominations of your area, and you know it's likely it doesn't exist, 1* is logical. If you know people are honest in your area, 3* is more logical.
That's how I understand "Use your best judgement". We cannot have a definitive answer worldwide about this topic, only local answers.
"Likely to exist" means that there are enough clues in the main and supporting photo that establish that the location is correct. For example, identifying the same landmarks in both the main photo and Google Maps or street view. If the supporting photo also includes the object in its context, then I can include any landmarks seen in it as well. If however, neither the main nor supporting photos show any landmarks and the object is in the middle of the woods, then I am going to 1* on location because I cannot reasonably ascertain that the object is likely at that location.
No, it is not unambiguous. You are assuming "the map" is "the" Google map that is shown to you in the review (nevermind you have TWO maps to look at there!). Why do you think this?
As someone who has added hundreds of new locations to Google maps, I would never trust a Google map to verify the location of anything.
If I get a nomination that isn't immediately visible on Google, I don't reject it straight away; I consult the on-line mapping service for my local area, which shows the location of pretty well much every building down to shacks, and does so for buildings under trees. It also shows all sorts of footpaths that are also not on Google for that matter.
True, I am a much more careful reviewer and submitter than most, and take a lot longer than most doing these tasks, so my number of reviews is low (yes, I sometimes do bump into the 20 minute timeout period). But your statement is simply false. There is plenty of ambiguity there.
If I can't find something on a map then I am forced to make a judgement call about whether or not something is likely to exist at the location. If it's something like "State and Main Trail Marker", and I have a Google map or other map showing that there's an intersection of the State Trail and the Main Trail very close to the pin then that's an easy 3*. If I can't find any information about whether there's even a hiking trail nearby then I'm going to 1* it because it's not "likely to exist" there.
I go by the rest of the nomination. Is the title detailed and unique? Is the description good, and relevant to that specific wayspot? Does the supporting information give a link to an official site with information on this trail or whatever? If it's a trail, is it marked on Google maps?
If the answer to all those is Yes, 3* for location. If the rest of the nomination is sloppy and lazy, then I'm hardly going to trust their location.
There must be another set of rules or clarification somewhere because I remember reading that you only 1 star if it could not possibly be at that location or you are 100% sure it is not there.
Otherwise 3* it as possible but not confirmed.
Submitters who submit often remote trail markers in places they rarely go so can't re-submit should not be punished by voters who might have seen someone somewhere fake a trail marker in the past. Each submission should be taken on its own merit.
But to show the stupidity of 1*, below is one of my rejections for a trail marker. There are no other trail markers there submitted, only a board/info sign about the trail but it's easy to see from the map and surrounding POI that the area is called Deepdene so of there is a trail post that says Deepdene trail on it, it's likely to be in that area. So it should get a 3* at least because it's going to exist in that area even if you can't confirm the exact location. To 1* it to say it can't possible exist is silly but that's what happened and it was rejected
Your marker is likely to exist in that area, but that's not the same as "likely to exist in the real-world location". The fake nature signs os see exist in the area, but not a the real-world locations where they are.
I hope Niantic accepts your appeal because you seem like an honest person. You're directing your anger at the wrong people, though. The people submitting fake stops broke the trust of reviewers.
In the meantime, just install the Google Street View app and make photospheres when you submit trail markers. It takes a lot less time than coming on Wayfarer to post about trail marker rejections, and you won't have to wait for appeals either. For trail markers you can make them without wifi and upload later.
That's part of the point in making though, reviewers are coming in with the attitude that because someone somewhere has faked one before, every one else has to have undeniable triple proven trail marker submissions to be accepted. This shouldn't be the case and Niantic have said so themselves.
If a 5* is yes, we can 100% confirm its there, either through gmaps or a linked map (while you might check supporting links, im fairly sure the majority of people don't, just that everyone assumes everyone else reviews how they themselve do) and a 1* is it 100% can't exist in that location for whatever reason, we have 2 to 4 to use for it's possible it exists there but we can't prove it by gmaps or supporting information. So it's common sense to use 3* as we can't know either way. But people are 1*'ing because someone unrelated submitted a fake wayspot whenever which they shouldn't be using to judge other trail markers.
Clarification you mean can be found from here.
Quoting a fellow forumer as this is not the first nor the last time topic is discussed.
I've learned that regardless of rules or clarifications, there are certain things I need to do to guarantee that my trail markers get accepted. I'm up to about 70 acceptances in a row (not counting the one that was a duplicate because I forgot to check Ingress). Would you like to know how I achieve 100% acceptance rate?
@Kellerrys-ING @RanCaio-PGO
Unfortunately, I have a detailed reply that addresses these issues that's stuck in moderation for some reason. The summary point is "1* cannot be found on the map" is clear. Not "1* cannot possibly exist" or "1* only if it cannot be found on the map and is definitely fake" or "1* only if cannot be found on the map, but if the reviewer says it's there, give them the benefit of the doubt and make it 3*."
It's not like I'm saying trail markers should never be approved because you can never see them in satellite photos. Just provide evidence of location (most reliable is a photosphere) when you submit them. Done. It's so simple. Much simpler than trying to convince people on forums to reinterpret "1* cannot be found on the map". Not to mention all the reviewers who just read the criteria in Wayfarer and will never visit a forum.
A quick glance at various sources reveals:
1) This is not a trail marker. It is the trail head. The title should be "The Deepdene Trail" (but see 3 below).
2) This location is very easily verifiable and appears to be correct.
3) The Deepdene Trail is already a wayspot. This is a duplicate.
Presumably, there isn't actually a waymarked trail. The official map suggests it's just the name given to the paths on this estate that you can wander about on at will.
The summary point is "1* cannot be found on the map" is clear. Not "1* cannot possibly exist" or "1* only if it cannot be found on the map and is definitely fake" or "1* only if cannot be found on the map, but if the reviewer says it's there, give them the benefit of the doubt and make it 3*."
vs. Niantic clarification.
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.
The link can be found from above.
Nominator needs to put in effort to convince reviewers that it's possible/likely that there is a trail/trailmarker/something else in the forest. But that can happen also with description and support texts. Photosphere is not a requirement and can be faked as well.
One problem here is that the Street View is broken.
"Possibly can not exist" is an even a lower standard for 1* than "cannot be found on a map". I can find a trail marker on the map, but it "possibly can not exist" because the map could be wrong or old. I don't think you want reviewers following that clarification.
But, I think you have mistaken my purpose. I'm not trying to tell reviewers how they *should* vote. I'm trying to tell submitters how they *do* vote. 99.9% of reviewers will never see any of Niantic's "clarifications" or forum discussions. They will go by what is written in the Wayfarer criteria: "cannot be found on the map".
Submitters have to help reviewers find the location on the map. It can be photospheres. It can be supporting photos that include a unique object that is identifiable on satellite photos and nearby the submission. It can be a link to a website about the trail that lists locations of the trail markers. Etc. If my previous post ever makes it out of moderation, you'll see a detailed example of what I mean.
Anyway, the point is I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about how they should vote, just showing how they can get things accepted more easily.
"Possibly can not exist" is an even a lower standard for 1* than "cannot be found on a map". I can find a trail marker on the map, but it "possibly can not exist" because the map could be wrong or old. I don't think you want reviewers following that clarification.
Someone else with English as their mother language care to give their interpretation of the clarification?
Serious, not sarcastic question. :)
Note: This is my old post that finally came out of moderation. It is not a reply to @Kellerrys-ING's post above. My reply to that is the post after this one.
"Cannot be found" is pretty clear. I gave examples of sources of info you could use to find where something is located. I'm not assuming "map" means Google Map. @Hosette-ING gave a general example of how this works.
I can give one from a trail marker I recently reviewed: it was a marker at a T-intersection with the names of two destinations in opposite directions. It was not visible on satellite and there was no photosphere. However, the submitter provided a good supporting info photo, so I could clearly see the sign was at a T-intersection. In addition, the place names on the sign matched the locations of those places on the trail. That was, as @Hosette-ING said, an easy 3*. Actually, I don't remember exactly but I may even have given 5*s, but at least 3*s.
Another trail marker I reviewed immediately after for a different trail was just a small sign with the trail name. It had no landmarks, directions, or distances. It was in a straight section of trail under unremarkable trees with no photosphere or streetview. I could not locate it on the map with so little information, so easy 1*.
No offense taken. :-) I'm an English teacher, actually, so I completely understand how much a small change in adverb position can completely alter the sentence meaning. Also, I'm American, so maybe it has a different meaning in English spoken in another area like the UK or India, for example. I don't mind other perspectives on the meaning.
I still hope you're not getting hung-up on the clarification and missing my main point: most reviewers won't see clarifications. Submitters should try to meet the "find on a map" standard from the Wayfarer criteria. Helping reviewers find the wayspot is the best way to get something passed quickly.
Unrelated: The post just above is my post from several hours ago that finally came through. That's why it seems like a side-track.
For non-native speakers, here's a guide to some of the linguistic subtleties in this discussion:
"Cannot possibly exist" means that it is impossible for the thing to exist. Imagine, for example, someone submitting a Starbucks on the peak of Mt. Everest. There is absolutely no way that this could exist. I have seen real-world examples of this in my reviewing, including things in lush tropical locations with the pin in a dense urban part of San Francisco. That 100% cannot exist at the location.
"Possibly cannot exist" is a weird thing to say in English. The "cannot exist" portion suggests that it is impossible for it to exist, so the phrase essentially means, "It's possible that it is impossible for it to exist." When I see this phrase I assume that it is a non-native speaker who meant the same thing as "cannot possibly exist."
"Cannot be found" means that the reviewer has inspected the data available to them (street view, satellite view, the supporting photo) and could not confirm the location based on the available information. In this case it is still possible that the thing exists at the location but there is not enough information available for the reviewer to verify its existence. A common example is something that is under tree cover and for which there is no street view available.
One thing to keep in mind is that Niantic is rarely precise in their language, except when you are dealing directly with their lawyers. This is especially true for forum posts, which I suspect are written by one person and not reviewed before posting. It's easy to fall into the trap of treating everything written by someone at Niantic as a truth to be studied by scholars, but sometimes it's just someone being careless in their language.
A common misconception from someone who gets a lot of accepted nominations in a row is that people who get rejections are doing Something wrong. You need to understand that the area and cells you are in determines who gets to vote on your nominations and some cells have problems with voters who reject everything for variousreasons other than genuine reviewing reasons.
There are loads of bad Rejections in my cell for a long time but about a month ago I started to get 9 out of 10 submissions accepted and the ones that were rejected I could agree with the reasons to some extent. Then last week the majority started coming back as rejected again.
Im not submitting anything in a different way or less acceptable things, it's the abusive voters causing it. Many people in different cells see the same patterns but just because your cell is fine, don't assume it's the submitters. I have 300+ accepted POI to my name and I submit on average 1 a day. Im Not a newbie at this.
Thank you for that!
No matter how many bad reviewers disagree with me, it's there in black and white from Niantic
Great reply. It shows how someone can honestly look at a submission in depth to review and with good intentions but still make unintentional mistakes.
1. Im not sure why this wouldn't be called a trail marker. It marks the trail and says on it...Deepdene trail. It's not the start of the trail, that is marked by an info board with the name Deepdene Trail as you quite rightly noticed. So it had to be named to differentiate it from the info board already there.
3. It's not a duplicate because I didn't name it Deepdene trail but Deepdene Trail Marker, so it's not a duplicate in name but it's also not a duplicate POI because it's a trail marker and not an Information board and map like the other stop you assumed was a duplicate. I attach a picture of that for you to see
The few markers there are so you know you are on the trail and not accidentally wandered on to the golf course (incidentally the golf club pub got wrongly rejected too) so even without arrows, they should be considered markers.
There is an android app for the area and you can clearly see there is a route on the play store entry pictures for it, without having to install it
It's hard to know if it's reviewer's voting 1* when they should be voting 3* or just the rejection wave problem some of us have in some cells.
Here is the rejection for the golf pub I submitted nearby around the same time and mentioned in a post above...how the location is inappropriate is beyond me