I feel that part of the reason we have too many rejections is greed, hear me out:

We want agreements, it improves our wayfarer rating and gives us upgrades.

We want as many as possible in as short a time as possible.

We know that there is currently a problem within the community and it is rejecting too many good waypoints.

Combine all of this with the fact it only takes 3 clicks on a computer to reject a waypoint versus 10 or more clicks to accept a nomination and you can see where the problem comes from.

The system needs fundamentally changed so that reviewers must put the same effort into rejecting a wayspot ac accepting one, explaining why it doesn't meet the criteria.


  • Ecto89-PGOEcto89-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited April 2022

    To prove that it is indeed a 1* trash review. It is currently 4x quicker to reject a nomination than accept one which is no doubt contributing to the incorrect rejections problem we're having.

    Perhaps an option could be included for "Low quality submission" 3-click rejection, so long as it needed strong correlation among the community to stand.

    Also, you're wording further highlights the problem "Lots of effort" - Showing that you think it is indeed more taxing to accept than reject.

  • VladDraco-PGOVladDraco-PGO Posts: 560 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2022

    More than half of what I review deserve to be rejected, and given that, I think I spent more time on rejectable things than on good nominations. I don't always type something if the rejection reasons are obvious.

    A good example of waste of time due to bad nominators is all the things that are not on the sup picture, cannot be found on street view or satellite view.

    I takes a lot of time to try to find the thing and finally reject or time out.

    And I know I'm fast, as I work with 2 screens, 1 for Wayfarer, 1 for Google and sometimes a phone too. ^^°

    I will try to measure that tonight.

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 941 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2022

    There are multiple reasons for rejections, which when combined leads to a lot of bad rejections. Other than bad Submission we have:

    * People tactically voting by area/their team

    * People voting for agreements (more likely to get rejecting everything)

    * People voting for upgrades (gained quicker rejecting all like above)

    * Troll / abusive voters

    * Voters ignoring Niantics guidance and voting to reject stuff based on what they think should go through

    * Such voters in large groups who can persuade many others to reject good nominations bases on bad arguments

    * Bot voting as a service (again rejecting as quickest way)

    * Voters voting 1* for location meaning it can't exist there, instead of 3* for it might exist but can't prove it from supplied info and streetview

    Probably more reasons including what you gave. All rolled together it causes so many problems. More so in some areas than others. Everyone assumes every other area is the same as theirs when the differences can be huge

    Edit: The sad people who downvote/disagree with every post I make are the same petty people you can't trust to vote based on merit and they hate being called out for it. The downvotes show what sort of people they are, so keep itt up, it's entertaining ;)

    Post edited by RandomExploit-ING on
  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't think it's possible to slow down rejections by x4 unless you add some sort of timer to each review. That would definitely lead to longer queue times for submissions and probably fewer reviewers. Identifying rejection bots and areas which have a lot of abusive reviewers spamming rejects for upgrades and then removing them would be more productive. Hopefully when Niantic finishes analyzing their appeals data they'll finally feel up to taking action on those issues.

  • MelodyS88Chi-PGOMelodyS88Chi-PGO Posts: 627 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not just probably. If I had to spend 4x as long on each total coal nomination, I would review a lot less, if at all.

  • SeaprincessHNB-PGOSeaprincessHNB-PGO Posts: 1,538 Ambassador

    I would actually remind you that we received guidance from Niantic about nominations that are difficult to find on street or satellite view - if they are likely to be there, they should be rated a 3 for location. You may be rating with too high of an expectation to have 100% proof of location for every POI.

  • VladDraco-PGOVladDraco-PGO Posts: 560 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2022

    @SeaprincessHNB-PGO I was specifically talking about :

    "A good example of waste of time due to bad nominators is all the things that are not on the sup picture, cannot be found on street view or satellite view."

    (Edit : just realized I missed an "and" in the previous sentence. I wanted to say "Not in the picture and not on Street view and not on satellite)

    Not on Street view or satellite is a separate problem. Not on the picture is way more problematic !

    A lot of people here think the sup picture should show the ground in front of the object. Or the surroundings but with the object on your back.

    I just had to do 2 nomination to find one : a nature panel. Where is it ?

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 941 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2022

    Bad Submissions aside, people need to realise that submission percentage of high quality POI is going to go down over time anyway as many of the obvious POI have already been submitted. This leaves people submitting POI that they might not be 100% sure on but give it a go just in case.

    Lumping these in with abuse / bad Submissions just confuses the debate and stats

    I have had bespoke restaurants and a community specific cafe rejected which should have gone through under old guidelines and clarified guidelines but im sure the people rejecting those were calling those coal at the time they were wrongly rejecting them

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 941 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Unfortunately the 20m rule is stopping some good things from being nominated. No one wants to submit stuff that doesn't appear in the games they play, even if it's nowhere near where they play. Often someone has submitted a postbox or something benign next to the good interested one.....but this happens everywhere because people get so many rejections they just submit the mundane things that will likely go through like signs and postbox. It's a catch 22 ,/ self fulfilling road to the worst option being submitted because ..they usually go through

    edited April 2022

    And by wayfarer reducing the cool downs this problem will only get worse. People will be clicking as fast as possible.Bad move. Granted I did the math and every month my acceptance rate of noms reviewed drops not because I am voting different or faster but because the quality has gone waaaaay down.

  • VladDraco-PGOVladDraco-PGO Posts: 560 ✭✭✭✭

    The 20m rule only apply to Ingress.

    So it only "stop" Ingress-only player for some nomination.

    But there is so much more Pokémon players than Ingress players nominating that it doesn't really matter.

  • ZinkyZonk-INGZinkyZonk-ING Posts: 300 ✭✭✭✭

    I agree with the original submitter.

    My reviewing style is: Every rejection gets a written explanation as to why it's rejected. As @Hosette-ING says it's going dev/null but every decision requires documentation. It doesn't matter if the submission is poorly done. My review will be the best I can make it. I will consider sat view and I will evaluate the text .... And write documentation no one will read. Hahaha . But it's kinda being professional.

    Wayfarer needs an overhall ... But how to do it? It's not a simple thing .... Yet....

    Clicks to reject vs clicks to accept is relevant. And I bet the team is already considering that.

  • ZinkyZonk-INGZinkyZonk-ING Posts: 300 ✭✭✭✭

    Lol but the ratio of submitters in each game is very different.

    Niantic knows this. Ingress has a rich vain of map nerds. And nominating is a long time aspect of our game culture.

    I've nominated 2 percent of the new portals (260) in my region(13000 portals ). A friend (500) that's percent ... That's 6 percent. From just 2 ingress players

  • rodensteiner-INGrodensteiner-ING Posts: 1,686 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This varies from country to country. You can have voters and submitters that are on an equal level.

    here in germany there is a huge discrepancy between the 10 people that play Ingress and the 100.000 that play Pokemon Go per Area.

    While many Players submit piles of doh, there are still alot of the older Ingress buffs that review with 5+ accounts and are on a personal crusade vs the rest of the world.

    Niantic needs to get rid of the people that submit doh, and also needs to get rid of the people that think they are the top of the food chain.

  • ZinkyZonk-INGZinkyZonk-ING Posts: 300 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2022

    Of course I speak from my myopic viewpoint informed from the data available to me and reflections on my community.

    You are right @rodensteiner-ING there must be variance in different places.

    My team has many people from geospatial information systems backgrounds.

    Yet there's a quality about ingress game play. Obvious things like having to use a map to play; portals requiring satellite phones, hard to reach places, ... If you aren't already working in or interested in GIS you get respect for GIS after being in your ingress community. What is wayfarer but a GIS project?

    I would agree with you that a few ingress folk are more strict with poi. The game play of those players doesn't need so many easily reached POIs

    Yet you have many ingress people in the "more portals please!" camp. Game play styles including microfielding for example would benefit from more portals.

  • VladDraco-PGOVladDraco-PGO Posts: 560 ✭✭✭✭

    You are partially right but Pokémon Go have different mechanism that makes Lightship-only interesting.

    1) A theory say POI in Lightship-only can help increasing the number of Pokémon in the cell.

    2) The most important stuff for PoGo is Gyms, which number is triggered by the number of POI. So it's important to have "backup" POI, Lightship-only, to protect them if a POI diseappear or is moved out of the cell.

Sign In or Register to comment.