When is the next Criteria Clarification update on the Help section?
GearGlider-ING
Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭✭✭
Question for @NianticCasey-ING @NianticKN-ING @NIAPooja or whoever might be able to answer this.
The last Criteria Log update was in Feb 2020 (even though it's labelled as Jan 2020). When can we expect to see the next one?
The help page and criteria updates still don't have all the criteria clarifications from the Ingress AMAs, and many clarifications interpreted by @NianticCasey-ING on this forum and the Ingress Forum.
Many people across multiple Wayfarer groups on Facebook, Reddit, Telegram, Discord, etc debate the validity of some of the criteria clarifications because they're not on the Wayfarer site (or because these people don't want people to follow the criteria and just want to have ineligible stops approved/eligible ones denied).
Why is it taking to long to get all the criteria clarifications on the wayfarer site when, and why can't it be a scheduled thing like the Ingress AMAs were?
Best Answer
-
Gendgi-PGO
Posts: 3,274 Ambassador
Pulling in few updates I'm personally looking forward to...
What constitutes a "low quality photo." I've been hit with this a few times. I'm not a professional photographer, and nobody I have shown some of my rejected photos understands how somebody could have rejected them for simple overcast conditions.
Speaking of photos, watermarks will make their way in,
Playgrounds in businesses get discussed and many that are open in shopping malls or nearby any business get rejected. Even RedSoloCup flip-flopped on whether or not one in a McDonald's is eligible. Lively discussion in this thread discussing their merits.
This one should be obvious for most US based reviewers (yet I still see them nominated), but UK reviewers may benefit from additional clarification that tertiary (16-18 aged) schools are ineligible. Similarly, solid clarification that it depends on the primary use of a building or location.
Speaking of UK & US (although obviously everything I'm bringing up applies worldwide), post offices and post boxes get brought up frequently, and in this post we're told what's acceptable, but in a rare @NIAPooja comment we're given a slightly different clarification.
I think many of us have different opinions on submitter abuse, but is "submitter identifiable" in supporting information acceptable? Does that extend to submitting a selfie in the supporting photo?
Notice boards are common in parks and communities. AMAs (and a few Casey clarifications) have concluded they are eligible, but they still get debated and sometimes denied here.
Cemeteries and grave sites have been over discussed, but there's a reason. Conflicting clarifications here and possible loopholes in the guides leave to abuse like this, and in that very thread we are told to expect an update to guidelines that we still don't have.
I'm sure there's more, but simple clarification that a hospital is not a valid candidate but things typically eligible that do not interfere with emergency operations may be eligible would help things out.
That goes double with neighborhood and suburb signs. A very common nomination is apartment signs, and some still get accepted.
That's not to say things in apartment complexes are ineligible, yet people confuse apartment complexes with private residential property.
Disc golf courses are common in parks and many people nominate individual holes and consider them eligible. AMA clarification explained them as only being eligible "in areas where agents can sit and socialize."
Next up on things in the AMAs not explicit in current guidelines are military bases, confirmed as still ineligible as long ago as November '19 when it was still mostly Ingress here, reaffirmed as ineligible here, but still nominated and accepted here.
Yes, many reviewers & people making nominations are unaware the AMAs even exist with limited clarifications they exist. There have been Facebook posts & Reddit posts, but even Resources for new Reviewers page doesn't mention them. I've never seen the candidate action guide in its entirety, yet that's still apparently meant to be followed.
Not all of the clarifications given I've agreed with, but we need more published. It's a disservice to allow reviewers to think they are following guidelines and be unaware that there are ones they've never seen. It hurts those making nominations and those getting disagreements for failing to follow majority.
We're overdue for a clarification, @NianticCasey-ING. And can a better push notification be provided?
Answers
There are multiple Facebook posts, Reddit posts, and posts in here from @NianticCasey-ING that validate those updated criteria, however you cannot assume everyone checks all those sources to be aware.
It's frankly unfair to all reviewers as everyone will think they're doing the right thing and the team that maintains the guidelines is actively causing disagreements in reviewer's ratings.
Hopefully they make one soon, theres far too much needing updated and clarified
Pulling in few updates I'm personally looking forward to...
What constitutes a "low quality photo." I've been hit with this a few times. I'm not a professional photographer, and nobody I have shown some of my rejected photos understands how somebody could have rejected them for simple overcast conditions.
Speaking of photos, watermarks will make their way in,
Playgrounds in businesses get discussed and many that are open in shopping malls or nearby any business get rejected. Even RedSoloCup flip-flopped on whether or not one in a McDonald's is eligible. Lively discussion in this thread discussing their merits.
This one should be obvious for most US based reviewers (yet I still see them nominated), but UK reviewers may benefit from additional clarification that tertiary (16-18 aged) schools are ineligible. Similarly, solid clarification that it depends on the primary use of a building or location.
Speaking of UK & US (although obviously everything I'm bringing up applies worldwide), post offices and post boxes get brought up frequently, and in this post we're told what's acceptable, but in a rare @NIAPooja comment we're given a slightly different clarification.
I think many of us have different opinions on submitter abuse, but is "submitter identifiable" in supporting information acceptable? Does that extend to submitting a selfie in the supporting photo?
Notice boards are common in parks and communities. AMAs (and a few Casey clarifications) have concluded they are eligible, but they still get debated and sometimes denied here.
Cemeteries and grave sites have been over discussed, but there's a reason. Conflicting clarifications here and possible loopholes in the guides leave to abuse like this, and in that very thread we are told to expect an update to guidelines that we still don't have.
I'm sure there's more, but simple clarification that a hospital is not a valid candidate but things typically eligible that do not interfere with emergency operations may be eligible would help things out.
That goes double with neighborhood and suburb signs. A very common nomination is apartment signs, and some still get accepted.
That's not to say things in apartment complexes are ineligible, yet people confuse apartment complexes with private residential property.
Disc golf courses are common in parks and many people nominate individual holes and consider them eligible. AMA clarification explained them as only being eligible "in areas where agents can sit and socialize."
Next up on things in the AMAs not explicit in current guidelines are military bases, confirmed as still ineligible as long ago as November '19 when it was still mostly Ingress here, reaffirmed as ineligible here, but still nominated and accepted here.
Yes, many reviewers & people making nominations are unaware the AMAs even exist with limited clarifications they exist. There have been Facebook posts & Reddit posts, but even Resources for new Reviewers page doesn't mention them. I've never seen the candidate action guide in its entirety, yet that's still apparently meant to be followed.
Not all of the clarifications given I've agreed with, but we need more published. It's a disservice to allow reviewers to think they are following guidelines and be unaware that there are ones they've never seen. It hurts those making nominations and those getting disagreements for failing to follow majority.
We're overdue for a clarification, @NianticCasey-ING. And can a better push notification be provided?
Whew. That was a lot.
I love having the chance to talk to other reviewers not in my immediate region, and I've learned a lot over the last year of reviewing and know I made mistakes early on (probably still do).
I had hoped, with the launch of this site, that we'd see more involvement with the Niantic Wayfarer team, but I'm honestly not sure who that even consists of. I'd hoped to see more comprehensive guidelines, but those have been slow to get updated.
Anyways, those were just some of the ones I'm especially wanting to see, based only on things that have already been discussed in here. Anyone want to share some I've missed?
If I may add:
Clearer definition of PRP (and 40 m rule) for non-US residents,
Pedestrian access — both safe and legal concern,
Temples, little free libraries, etc. on the sidewalks,
Arts on electric poles, electrical boxes and fire hydrants,
Trail markers, whether it depends on its material and permanency, or not,
Bridges, if they're part of a trail or just connecting two points,
And many others, I guess.
Thanks for putting all that together, when you add it all up like that, wow is it a lot.
Just jumping in to say I agree we need an update. Some things have been decided but they're scattered around different resources which is incredibly confusing. @Gendgi did an awesome job summarizing a lot of the frequently debated guidelines.
Somewhat related- Seeing repeat posts here in the forum also makes me wish there was a FAQ pinned to the top of this forum.
"Why did my nomination get approved but is not appearing in PoGo/why did it get marked duplicate?"
"How many times can I take the test to review?"
"My nomination was wrongly rejected, what can I do?"
And... wow theres many others but I'm blanking on them at the moment.
In closing- I had hoped for more communication from niantic as well. I say they should invest more money into this aspect of their business. @NianticCasey-ING should get a raise plus 1-2 staffers to help with this, or at the very least an intern lol
I guess one of the things should be address is the viewpoint that certain rules only apply in the US, such as the rules prohibiting Wayspots anywhere on private residential properties, Wayspots must have pedestrian access, trail markers must have the trail's name, etc.
Thank you for making this post, and thank you @Gendgi for compiling that list. These are the kinds of things we really need from @NianticCasey-ING on an ongoing basis. It often seems that we're promised this kind of follow up but then it gets delayed or never happens.
If I may add:
You may! I updated with some links to some of the discussions to the guides you mentioned.
Clearer definition of PRP (and 40 m rule) for non-US residents,
Pedestrian access — both safe and legal concern,
Temples, little free libraries, etc. on the sidewalks,
Arts on electric poles, electrical boxes and fire hydrants,
Trail markers, whether it depends on its material and permanency, or not,
Bridges, if they're part of a trail or just connecting two points,
And many others, I guess.
Can't agree more! Last week, 85% of my posts were copying & pasting @NianticCasey-ING comments about nominations syncing and other bug posts.
It's not so much that they don't apply to other countries, it's that they can be looked at differently, for example, the prp 40m rule, playparks have to be rejected if they are within 40m in the us, but in the uk, playpatks get put up in schemes and culdesacs when a certain amount of houses are built, so of course they would be within 40m, but they will be for public use at all times. Another would be the post offices, the ruling is free standing ones and none in businesses, which is fine in the us where they would be mostly free standing, but in the uk there is almost no free standing one anymore, maybe less than 2% the test are either incorporated into businesses or are themselves a shop/business, but both of these will display the post office sign out front for all to see
It's about time that the old AMAs that are no longer directly available are pulled together and a line drawn under them. It's ridiculous that people can refer to an AMA as binding, that is no longer available on a Niantic hosted site but might be inaccurately summarised on a third party excel sheet.
Agreed! I've found several local reviewers who have reviewed since November that had no idea the AMAs existed, much less how to find them. When I show people the ingressama.com website, I get hit with "well that's not a Niantic website" and "that's only for Ingress." It's a pain for those of us who are trying to do things correctly, especially when I end up seeing things go live that violate those sources that have cost me agreements.
Especially with Niantic confirming that the old AMAs still apply, but in random places like the Ingress Forum and the large Facebook group that bans people to correct the admins, both places where the majority of Wayfinders would not be prone to check.
That reminds me, I need to find the Ingress forum source stating the AMAs apply, but I've still heard people say they don't apply anymore since that was an Ingress forum comment and only a few comments from the AMA were selectively included in the Niantic Wayfarer Clarifications: October 2019.
This is the only comment I was able to find saying they still apply, and it's locked behind a private Facebook group that has actively banned friends of mine for sharing AMA sources and telling people to review per the guidelines.
I'll edit in a screenshot so this can post immediately (done). It's simply not enough to convince people of the validity of the AMAs. I don't think it's even been stated in here to follow them, not like most reviewers know about here.
@Gendgi Here is the link you are looking fore
I had to go back through my own post history since it was a response to one of my questions. And I do have to admire the junglegym logic some have to go through to dismiss guidelines and clarifications they don't like. And no, just because it wasn't posted here doesn't mean it is no longer true.
Then why not make this a separate forum post? Would probably be good to get the amas onto a forum post as well so that people can see them
Yes, there are some extreme acrobatics that take place to avoid admitting that all Niantic criteria should be followed, however there will always be people who are simply unaware that the AMAs or CAG exist. Using this forum is a place to help encourage it, but honestly it wouldn't be the first place I would probably look as a new reviewer. Periodic updates to address common questions would help vastly.
Because that alone won't make it to the whole intended audience. Why not make it all actually on the main Wayfarer criteria pages?
Urgh! That global group is absolutely toxic.
I've heard concerning things since I was banned from it, such as the head admin (Jamie Kay?) saying that scout huts are acceptable and then turning off commenting the moment someone disagrees with him and that he's been encouraging people to make fake trail markers and other eligible wayspots to get more wayspots.
I'm half tempted to make a new Facebook to get back in there and tell them all how wrong they are. 😂
Anyway, sorry for going off topic, and I'll shush now.
@Gendgi well that would be easier but given how little niantic and the wayfarer team seem to actually care, baby steps is the best we can manage
I sincerely hope that isn't the case, but I really would appreciate feedback that @NianticCasey-ING, @NIAPooja or whomever is seeing these and knows it needs to be updated.
Yeah, the fact that so many of the same questions shows up in this section that WE THE USERS are answering for Niantic (with many cases of these questions never being answered by NIA) is nuts. Painted boxes, painted fire hydrants, which gov't buildings and restaurants count, neighborhood signs, the list goes on.
I agree @Gendgi-PGO, Casey keeps saying its one of their priorities but nothing gets done, meanwhile portal scanning came up with a full guide already. Who do we need to get involved to get something expedited?
@NIAPooja @NianticKN-ING @NianticBrian-ING @NianticCasey-ING.
As I said in a church clarification thread (where we had been given conflicting Casey clarifications that were later contradicted), personal insight, as accurate as it may be, causes more harm to the community than good by encouraging following of unpublished guidelines and not providing the entire base with quality instructions.
The most recent opinion that is creating quite the stir is now whether or not a fire hydrant conflicts with emergency services that @Hosette-ING makes an amazing counter to.
To be frank, Casey's comment about reviewer education being a priority, sincere as it may be, makes clarification requests sting all the more as many of these have been asked for months or years and continue to be left unanswered for the reviewing masses, hurting the reviewers, nominators, and the integrity of the system and database in general.
Any words on priority of the Wayfarer system remain falling flat.
Great points are made here. I especially see the military POI approved in my region quite a bit and would like to see clarification on where bases fall.