Process of Review

Are there other wayfarers out there who don't do the review in the given order of the review page?

<TL;DR Should the order of review process be changed?>

I'm looking to find others' opinions on this topic, but when I begin the review process, I rarely start with the question "Should this be a waypoint?" Assuming there aren't any immediate reason for rejections [e.g. inappropriate location, ineligible photo, etc.], I never feel like I know if a nomination should be a waypoint until after reviewing the full submission.

Personally, I start with the review-duplicate section; I don't want to waste my time trying to decide if any information input seems agreeable or not if the nomination is already a waypoint. After that I review all the following information and give a generalized average of all other factors as my final decision on the initial question of "Should this be a waypoint?"

Once in a while, I may alter my "final" grade of a waypoint based on personal experience and mild personal bias. The only example I can think of at the moment is when I see a very good waypoint nomination, but it's literally less than a meter away from another waypoint. Even though it's not a duplicate, I would lower my decision to two stars on whether it should be a waypoint, and give a brief explanation that while the rest of the submission may have been given four to five stars I gave it two stars because it seems too close to another waypoint to consider it worth making a waypoint in Ingress or Pokemon Go.

I wonder sometimes if certain locations are nominated because the other waypoint isn't visible to someone who plays one game over the other. I don't expect my comments to be read on every review that I've left them on, but it would be nice to know that it's taken into consideration to put the already-existing waypoint into the other game.

Is there anyone who thinks the review process can be streamlined or optimized just by changing the order in which we review nominations? It's my opinion that the first question should be moved to the end, but only if an additional question is put at the beginning: "Does this waypoint meet any immediate rejection criteria?"

I'm sure a lot of other wayfarers will have better ideas than mine, and many more may even disagree with me, but that's ok. I'd still like to hear other thoughts on it.


  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,193 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2022

    The question is really what problem you're trying to solve, and what tradeoffs you're willing to make to solve it.

    I review in different orders depending on what it is. I often rate "Should this be a Wayspot?" first then scroll down to the maps to check for duplicates and verify the location then work my way back up from there. Sometimes I go top to bottom. Sometimes I start by verifying the location, and often wind up with multiple windows strewn across the screen. It's not uncommon for me to revise my original decision based on what I learn.

    The flip side is that when someone submits a stop sign, a Taco Bell drive-thru, or a block of mailboxes I want to do as little work as possible to get past the coal and on to something more interesting (hopefully). "Does this meet any immediate rejection criteria?" would have to be the second question. The first is, "Does this meet any acceptance criteria?"

  • deeqwellyou-INGdeeqwellyou-ING Posts: 2 ✭✭

    I figured Niantic would automatically notice that. I've seen things about waypoint locations and how the map is sectored in posts on PoGo community forums. The validity of those posts could be called into question, but I can't speak to that topic.

    Though, if the Wayfarer site asks me if I think a nomination "should be a waypoint," I believe there are many things that we consciously and subconsciously think about when we answer that question.

    In the instance that I was remembering, the nomination was very literally right next to the other waypoint. You could not take a picture of one without the other in it. For perspective purposes, think of a memorial statue that's already a waypoint, then someone submits the bench that sits up against the statue. I understand that we cannot deny the nomination entirely, but when someone is asked if they think it should be a waypoint when we are shown another on top of the same location, the question seems open ended enough to leave it to the reader's interpretation. I don't know any game scenario where having two waypoints directly on top of each other would be beneficial to the game when Niantic's underlying goal is to make players move.

    Two stars also doesn't seem like a huge hit in my opinion. We are given a rating scale in the help section stating:

    • If you strongly agree, choose 5 stars
    • If you are unsure or have no opinion, choose 3 stars
    • If the answer is definitely no, choose 1 star and select a rejection reason

    I choose two stars because, I agree that I shouldn't try to reject a nomination outright and there is no listed reason for rejection, but I'm not unsure and I definitely have an opinion. Logically, that would tell me that it's not a three star.

    Sometimes I wonder if I take guidelines too seriously and I may not have many agreements because I'm much more strict on my own judging principles than other people. So the majority will vote that a nomination would be a waypoint, but due to the way the guidelines can be read, I vote on the lower side.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 4,360 Ambassador

    This pretty much how I review, including multiple open windows 😂

    I’m glad we don’t have to review in a set order.

    I definitely think that the questions need improvement and clearer as to what is being assessed. Part of that overall should include a way to allow an improvement of the feedback - at the moment it seems to be an afterthought when it should be a more holistic part.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,377 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Personally I don't think we should be raring anything till reading the whole submission, so see the photo, title, description, Supporting I fo/photo, see it on google maps. Then whe it's done, we give the score or rejection reason

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,193 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Gazzas89-PGO I can see where you're coming from with that but I can usually make a pretty good "Should this be a Wayspot?" assessment from the initial view, and if I'm unsure I scroll down and go back up later to finish. I think I change my original assessment less than 5% of the time and that's usually because I figure out it's in a no-fly zone like PRP.

    My initial view of the candidate is the "Should this be..." "Title and Description" and "Supporting Information" boxes at the top, the entirety of "Check for Duplicates" below that on the left, and the other three star categories on the right. The only information I can't see is Location Accuracy.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 4,360 Ambassador

    I suspect a lot depends on the device you are using to review.

    The experience will look and feel very different from a large monitor - iPad like device if different sizes- phone large to small screen.

    I couldn’t review on a small screen, but I presume there would be a lot of s rolling up and down which must get tiresome.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,377 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The problem is, while you review rhat way, a lot of people will snap judge off a picture and go no further, whereas If the only decision to make is at the end, it may stop a lot of these snap.judgements

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,377 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I only use my phone, so there is a bit of up and down, but mostly between supporting photos and the map lol

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Hosette-ING clarified she reviews on a computer, where everything she needs to judge "Should it be a wayspot?" fairly is visible immediately. The problem is on smartphones where reviewers can only see the photo when answering "Should it be a wayspot?" without even having to see the submitter's description of what they're nominating.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I review on my phone, and I scroll all the way to the location at the bottom before clicking anything, even on the obvious decisions. This is my own habit to keep myself from reviewing too fast, and it does change some of my outcomes. Once in a very rare while I’ll discover supporting text that catches my eye and sells me on something that I would have missed based on image/title alone, but more often I find location rejection reasons of submissions that I would have otherwise voted for.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 4,360 Ambassador

    There is a tension between allowing people to review a lot if they have time, to try and keep the decision time down and on the other hand wanting people to spend time fully reviewing each submission. Yes there is some very obvious ones that are a nonsense but there are some that when fully read might end up as a maybe.

    Does anyone have any ideas how we can have quick reviews sometimes but ensure that people take time to do a full review?

  • The26thDoctor-PGOThe26thDoctor-PGO Posts: 3,599 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I have automatic scrolling turned on and rate as I go. Sometimes I have to scroll back up to change a rating but I don't find it to be too much trouble doing that.

  • deeqwellyou-INGdeeqwellyou-ING Posts: 2 ✭✭

    In reference to your question, my best suggestion was shot down earlier, but I think improvements could be made on it. I left the idea that the initial question of "Should this be a wayspot?" get moved to the end of the review process so you can make educated decisions after reviewing all information provided, but also I would add a question at the beginning asking the reviewer if they can see any immediate-rejection criteria. This would allow reviewers to quickly move on to the next review, but also encourage full reviews in the event no immediate rejection is warranted.

    I think the problem with my earlier suggestion is that I need to specify what warrants an immediate rejection. Certain criteria listed for rejection can be seen within the initial photo. Such as: "Location is an adult-oriented store or service, such as a liquor store, **** range, firearm store, or provides **** and/or pornographic content," "A generic business, chain, or franchise that is not locally unique," or "Ineligible photo." Most if not all of my immediate rejections fell into these categories. [I'm sure a debate could be made to what should be on the list for immediate rejection...] If these and possibly other criteria were listed at the beginning question for immediate rejection, a reviewer could move on quickly and if someone abused that capability of immediate rejection, it might be easier for it to be appealed. All other rejection criteria like "Locations that are intentionally and strategically placed to provide advantage to a single player or collective group" that would require some level of reviewing, would be moved with the initial question to the end of the review process. Allowing reviewers to still have that capability of rejecting a waypoint in their arsenal, but giving the nomination a fair review process.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,193 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Elijustrying-ING I was just about to say something similar. Forcing people to do more work in situations that don't justify the additional effort will slow down the review process and also increase the frustration level of reviewers-- I don't like having my time wasted, and I'm sure I'm not alone on that.

    It actually might be useful to include "Should this be a Wayspot?" at both the bottom and the top, although they'd have to keep them in sync. Probably that would fall below their cut line for investment, though.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 4,360 Ambassador

    To keep a positive attitude in the process maybe instead of, does it come under rejection criteria, an early question would be does it meet eligibility criteria. So in effect you could reject total nonsense at that stage. So in effect this is COULD this be a waypoint.

    This might enable feedback to be structured back to say that the POI might be a way point…. But and then send reasons why it failed. This would allow them to improve photo or location etc.

    Would that help.

    You have then assess if this submission is acceptable.

    For me I try to look for positives to accept rather than negatives to reject. Perhaps better questions?

    I think emphasising the difference between eligibility and acceptance is critical.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,377 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The issue might be though, some things might not look lime they meet an eligibility criteria until you read the description/supporting info. Listed buildings would fall under this

Sign In or Register to comment.