The PROBLEM and the SOLUTION
Ecto89-PGO
Posts: 6 ✭✭
Hi,
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.
Tagged:
Comments
Why should I have to put lots of effort into rejecting 1* trash when the submitter put zero effort into the submission ?
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.
Last night amongst the ones to review I got a school, a self storage unit and someones hand.
You're seriously telling me I need to prove they are trash? Thats ridiculous.
Im not wanting to be putting any more effort than necessary or waste my time jumping through hoops to reject things that should never have been submitted in the first place
I type something in for all of my rejections even though it's not mandatory and I know it's going to /dev/null. I still reject more than half of what I review, because more than half of what I review deserves to be rejected.
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.
I reject a lot because most of what I get is junk. Examples of recent ones: a couple vape shops, several schools (K-12), many duplicates, many apartment building signs (not historic or architecturally significant buildinds), a Jimmy John's restaurant, generic office buildings with supporting information saying that many employees play Pokémon Go and need a stop to be able to play while at work), fire stations, people's dog or kid, and many nominations on PRP (single family homes). For the borderline nominations I spend more time reading supporting information and occasionally doing some Google searches to verify information or location.
I don't care about upgrades at this point. I have over 100 banked and am not likely to ever use them all as I am very selective about what I nominate.
Especially for nominations that clearly meet exclusion criteria (such as schools, PRP, blocking emergency services), there is no reason to make it take more than a couple clicks to reject. It is on elementary school grounds, it is ineligible. There is nothing else to have to explain to justify the rejection.
It really doesn't take me much longer to accept. I am a fast reader and other than some cases where I have to spend more time to verify or research, it only takes me around 30-60 seconds to accept.
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 ;)
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.
(Separate comment because it's a separate thought that I know will attract the disagrees.)
Improving overall submission quality by improving submitter education would also help prevent disagree spammers. Where I used to review, 90% of the submissions were easy accepts. Anyone spamming rejects would have quickly had their rating drop. Where I review now, 50% are easy rejects. Bad faith reviewers can spam rejects without getting a ratings drop. Of course, bots and collusion change the equation, but improving submitter education would go a long way to preventing individual reject spammers from hiding amongst the honest rejects.
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.
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.
Sorry but no. Many of the nominations I reject are for "other rejection criteria" aka "doesn't meet criteria." These simply don't meet any of the 3 main eligibility criteria or the person who nominated didn't make an effort to convince me that they did. I will take time to verify claims made, check location accuracy, etc but I will not spend extra time trying to see if a nomination somehow meets criteria when there's no starting point provided by the nominator. Not only that, any comments given in the rejection are not seen by the person who nominated so it is usually a waste of time.
As for "explaining why it doesn't meet the criteria." I hope that niantic can find new and better ways to get this feedback to nominators but there are many reasons it is difficult to provide specific enough feedback to be truly useful.
I don’t think this is the issue as much as where the rejection option is. Having it at the top causes people to reject based off of photo without looking at the supporting information. So they see a restaurant and don’t even read about the rewards or proof of its popularity. They see a building that looks like a school and reject it as such without seeing what it actually is.
the rejection should be at the bottom of the process so at the most it has to be scrolled through to be rejected
This is not the PROBLEM.
Coal and abuse are the top two problems in Wayfarer (not coincidentally, both on the submitter end). Clear those and then we can reassess where improper rejections stand.
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.
@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 ?
if people are rejecting everything out of laziness then their rating would probably go down, they won't get as many agreements, and then they won't have as much sway over the voting process. that is how it ideally should happen, anyway.
the problem is that most nominations are coal.
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
I believe that there is a fundamental mistake being made with your assumptions. You are indeed correct that many are motivated by getting upgrades and would like to speed up the process of obtaining them. That being said, the most efficient way to do this is to be CORRECT in the acceptances/rejections. Spam rejecting gets you through more nominations, but at the same time, you're going to be missing many very easy acceptances and likely tanking your rating. I don't believe many on the platform are going to be taking that approach.
tl;dr I don't think many are spam rejecting posts to get quick upgrades
I suspect that it APPEARS that the community rejects a huge number of good waypoints, but that the number is actually far lower than it appears. Many of the complaint posts I see focusing on this subject have glaring deficiencies in the nominations that they show, or do not show the nomination at all. I believe that many nominations are more "okay" than "good" and have leeway as to whether or not they qualify. And of course, there are definitely mistakes where "good" nominations are rejected when they should be, but I believe that this number is dwarfed by the ones that are accepted.
tl;dr I believe that some good stops get rejected, but that the number is far lower than it appears due to selection bias.
I'm like many others, unfortunately these days I have to reject far more than I accept because most of the "good stuff" you would obviously expect to have been nominated as a Waypoint is already a Waypoint. This means you end up with a lot of two things.
"Duplicate" nominations because players with nominations to burn never check what those funny dots on the location map mean when they nominate something
Coal / invalid/ do not meet any criteria nominations by players who complain they have to walk 200m to their nearest stop or who have obviously never taken on board the criteria where something like a School or a Fire Station are explicitly listed as "No" by Niantic.
These days, it's unusual I get to see a "quality" nomination, something that makes me say "Yes - that really should be a Waypoint". I get a fair amount of the regular everyday stuff "Niantic say accept" stuff like noticeboards ("important hub for the community) or yet another Playground, but very little "quality". Even in some of the most densely Waypoint populated urban areas, I continue to see people trying to squeeze in yet another Waypoint into a part of town where you know from experience it will be too close to an existing stop or the cell already has a stop or gym, so it's never going to appear in game. Review - accept as per criteria - reviewer time wasted - nominator time wasted. I think that people have to accept some parts of the gameboard are "full" already, clogging up the nomination queue with pointless or low quality nominations is not helping.
As for the "community rejects good Waypoints", Niantic have promised us some stats on the appeals process at some point. Those I will be interested to see, I suspect far more appeals will be rejected than some parts of the community are expecting.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
The same sentiment applies to cells and Pogo.
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.