What is your opinion about double-dipping nominations?
HaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,499 ✭✭✭✭✭
This practice is much more common than we think. A wayfinder will often use their large reserves of nominations to submit each of their nominations twice, so they think they're effectively doubling their chances of getting their nomination through. This is even more evident when the first instance is approved and right after, you're reviewing the second instance of the nomination, which is an exact replica of the first nomination, already in-game, now an exact duplicate on the Wayfarer map.
There are cases where a nomination has even been submitted more than thrice. Some Wayfinders will try to defend this behaviour based on long-as waiting times, but at what point does it become spamming the system?
It seems so simple to solve.
When you make a new nomination, Lightship could compare its photos to all your still-outstanding (in queue or in voting) nominations, made in the past three months. If the photo is exactly the same, don't allow the new one.
This way, if your nomination has been waiting three months, you could repeat it - once.
This could be entirely innocent.
Have you ever nominated a POI, only to have POGO say the upload failed, so you press the upload button again. Then on checking Wayfarer you see two identical nominations? I have.
Not happened to me for a while ... but a possible explanation for the behaviour described above.
i don't have a problem with it, in fact i do it personally for things i suspect upgrade reviewers will reject once or twice. most of the time i'm able to withdraw the second copy before it goes into voting if the first is accepted but occasionally i slip up. i don't really see much harm in this, clear dupes are the easiest reviews to complete and don't add much to the overall time required.
I don't agree with it and I think it contributes to the problem, but at the same time I get it. The current broken down state of reviewing encourages this sort of thing by having a very high rate of random rejections. I don't really blame the individual submitters who are having a bad time trying to submit for the flaws of the system as a whole.
I think a large reason why this occurs is due to people submitting nominations at places that they normally do not visit or a nomination going into voting before the player had the chance to edit with a proper title or description. One of the Top 15 questions currently is about withdrawing nominations from voting, so I feel if they give us that option, that should help get rid of this issue. They mentioned about adding a Hold button before, so that is another way to prevent this issue from occurring.
In lieu of a hold button, storing a nomination using ‘Upload Later’ achieves the same job. If the nomination is not needed because it was approved, you can delete the nomination without uploading it.
That is true. However for me, my phone is constantly giving me issues with my internal storage despite deleting basically every other app other than Pokemon Go, and sometimes I am focused to delete and reinstall the game to get it to work. I learned the hard that your Upload Later are deleted when you delete the app. Lost 10 good nominations.
I have seen a few nominations locally that I reviewed at least a half dozen times, mostly after they were already approved: same text, same images, everything. This is not an innocent issue with the upload button, nor a “I think this could get improperly rejected once” backup plan, this is flooding. I was told that this practice is an effort to make a particular POI into a gym in PoGo, but I don’t see how to not call that abusive.
If that's the case, then the simple solution is to not add a photo to the way spot if it's identical to any existing photo. This can still be worked around but then so can any measure.
It really is more reasonable to issue a warning to anyone submitting the same POI more than once at the same time.
Sorry that pinches your methodology, but the practice makes a couple of assumptions - first about reviewers, second about eligibility no matter what reviewers think - that seem to be contrary to the spirit of Wayfarer.
why is that a better solution? you've only mentioned one possible reason that this method could even be problematic and I've mentioned a reason why it's beneficial. sure it makes some assumptions but for myself I only do this on certain types of nominations which I know reviewers have a tendency to not handle well. the two main types are 1) a particular style of trail marker used in my area. something about the appearance of the signs leads to a lot of rejections but they mark trails that are great for exercise and exploration. 2) art installations at bus stops. these are sometimes painted but often photographs. the photographs are curated by a local photographic arts association. they're a neat way to put art into communities in a way that encourages people to explore and find them. I stand fully behind both of these types of nominations as meeting eligibility criteria but I know that they face a high chance of rejection so I double or triple nominate to save myself the time later. I don't see how that's worth putting an end to because a few people are trying to force certain gyms by doing the same when in that case you're guaranteed to end up with duplicate photos which actually is a problem.
It is not fair to issue warnings to players about this issue, since there is not an ability to withdraw a nomination in voting or hold the nomination. After those abilities are added, a warning is absolutely fair.
The problem here is the system, I know people with nominations that have been in queue or voting for months. even I do the double nomination myself, there are many reviewers who only seek to assess nominations from their area and reject others that are valid and in some cases necessary for the game, and while a nomination is resolved or not weeks or months can pass. Not to mention the upgraded nominations (very expensive to get), 80% or more are rejected even though they meet all the eligibility criteria. The system must change to be optimized and give quick and correct responses to nominations. If necessary, a good way to get people to value nominations is an exchange, that is, if you want your nomination to be valued, first value one or two nominations, so the system would create a kind of feedback so as not to be saturated with people asking for nominations but without evaluating any.
I’ve double dipped a few times by accident, I hit the submit button and the system glitches and I get kicked out. So I redo the nomination only then to get emails for both. I pulled the duplicate and left one copy in.
recently I’ve been doing it intentionally, I’ve been submitting restaurants and the reviewers are hitting them with a wide array of rejection reasons.
To be clear I do let the original nomination get into voting and sit there past the typical return window that I’ve noticed for nominations to come back accepted. I don’t just throw multiples in at the same time.
thankfully the hold button is out now so I’ll be using that to hold one in the queue while the other goes through voting. If the one in voting gets approved I’ll release the hold and withdraw the second nomination.
Since we're brainstorming, here's another idea for a completely different workflow which could solve two problems at the same time:
1- you make a submission
2- submission is rejected
3- instead of the "appeal" button, have a "resubmit" button, which does just that, it resubmits a verbatim copy of the nomination if you believe it's been wrongfully rejected, but it only works once, and it's maybe limited to one resubmission per month (or one resubmission every N rejections)
4- after a double rejection of the same nomination, then give the option to appeal to Niantic
The cost of an upgrade is not "very expensive to get" as they represent the cost of only one to two nominations. That's why I partially not agree with you on "if you want your nomination to be valued, first value
one or two20 or 30 nomination"
And it's very concerning if 80% of your upgraded nomination are rejected. For must people I know here, it's the opposite.
Feel free to send some of the in the #NominationImprovement if you struggle.
Gosh this discusssion can go down so many paths. My response is less about double dipping but more how a reviewer may feel they are experiencing double dipping.
OK I have nominated a couple of spots more than once. Not at the same time. Only after failure. I would address the rejection reason and nominate again. And get rejected for another reason. For example. Rejection 1. Blocking Emergency access..Rejection 2. Seasonal object. Rejection 3. Sensitive Spot. Each time I prove why it is none of those things. So now the latest rejection was I am abusing the system. To be fair - I re-nominate within a day of the rejection if I feel I have a valid POV.
And to address the rejections I will modify title, text and supporting information. I never re-use a image as I always take a new one.
Now if you are a reviewer. You may get that nomination sequence in short order. And if you have selected to only get nominations from one area then you will keep getting the nomination. And no matter how much I change the text etc - you will still see enough to go I just reveiwed that. Frustrating all round. And I think that is why I end up with getting an abuse reason for rejection.
By the way I only ever nominate again if I think it is valid. I do have rejections that I never and will never nominate again.:-)
I do think that a nominator should have the ability to withdraw a nomination from any stage. From Voting, Appeal and so on not just while it is waiting to go into voting.
But to the actual double / triple dipping. If it is deliberate and often - I think a warning is fair enough. But I agree if you double dip by mistake there must be an ability to withdraw.
To the person with art installation at bus stops. Problem is - valid art - temporary display. I know County Durham had them. The art was on big posters where the advertising normally went on the side of the bus stops. Hence temporary nature. But you if go to Stroud. Ten bus shelters were physically altered making the change permanent.
I’ve experienced an issue recently involving nominations I know the history of as being voted as duplications. When pokestop nomination 1st became available 2 separate people in my community made multiple nominations of the same separate locations and those locations have been dead in the water ever since. It’s been multiple years now.
My issue is that it takes so long to get a nom in voting that it is frustrating. Then a perfectly good nom in voted down yet a doggie poop bag dispenser get approved. But double dipping only slows the process down, it may seem like it doesn't take that much time but everyone adds up. On top of that all the bogus noms that I review, people, animals, items on private property, spoofing location, etc. All of this part of the same problem this is what takes the process so long.