Can we please have a “No longer meets criteria” as a rejection reason added to the reporting option?

There’s so much coal that slips through the system and then it’s impossible to get removed.

62
62 votes

Active · Last Updated

Comments

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This sets a super heavy precedent. We know the Wayfarer team doesn't always get it right. We see that accepted appeals become the gospel of eligibility and vice-versa. But what happens when something that we thought met criteria gets removed for "no longer/never meets criteria"? But their removal criteria is just as flimsy now, so maybe some things could be changed.

    i.e. we would probably see an upheaval of MANY wayspots that we like to call, grandfathered wayspots, that were all approved during the portal monḱey era.

  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,625 Ambassador

    To get this rejection reason to work, you would need to be active in Wayfarer/OPR for quite a long time. It's not really compatible with new wayfarers. Therefore, I don't think its really needed/useful

  • tehstone-INGtehstone-ING Posts: 1,122 Ambassador

    the only way I see this having even a chance of working is if new wayspots had a 6 month probationary period during which this kind of removal could apply. just far too many problems trying to apply it to the entire 10 year history of wayspots. but believe me, I have a list of local stuff I'd get removed in an instant given the chance.

  • HINABITAMEU-INGHINABITAMEU-ING Posts: 154 ✭✭✭

    Once a wayspot that does not meet the criteria is approved and created as a wayspot, players around it look at the wayspot and apply for a similar or the same candidate, which is achieved by mass approval of an unsuitable wayspot.

    To prevent this, I think we need a device to some extent (for a candidate who has never met the criteria in my opinion).

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 2,728 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2022

    Niantic could programatically draw off a set of wayspots that it suspects is neighborhood entrance signs. Then have a quick-review process for Trusted Wayfarers - where they see the original nomination info (including maps), and have one question: Is this valid, or is it invalid?

    Repeat with programitally-defined potential golf course holes, survey markers, etc.

    Post edited by MargariteDVille-ING on
  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not all neighbourhood entrance signs are ineligible. There are some fantastic, sculptural and artistic ones that are quite designed.

    This is not going to happen. Wait until someone gets the "no longer eligible" for a park sign or something like a cafe that one reviewer strongly thought met the criteria and then they go to the forum to complain and get swamped by "ineligible, 1*".

  • Duiomar-PGODuiomar-PGO Posts: 458 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't think the problems with wayfarer are going to be fixed by adding another type of review, at this point it's like adding another lane to a congested highway

  • niktero-PGOniktero-PGO Posts: 369 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Ok, so what would be a better solution when coal goes live? Currently we have the issue of Schrodinger waypoints which are coal that got accepted but can not be removed. What removal reason would allow these to be removed but not cause too much infighting and abusive reporting? How do we fix these when we see them approved locally? Yes I agree that there is going to be some strife with older reviewers who are not up to date with clarifications, reporting things that are now acceptable, but we still need some kind of option for when the community review system fails.

  • Duiomar-PGODuiomar-PGO Posts: 458 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree with these concerns, this would be wielded as a cudgel by players with an axe to grind. A gym is occupied by someone who keeps healing their pokemon? It's gone. A portal is being used to make a big triangle (or whatever happens in ingress idk)? It's gone. This could also be used to manipulate which pokestops became gyms as they could be spam added/removed.

    Even if it only went through infrequently it would only have to work once and we know how random those reviews are.

    Making removals harder than additions is one of the few insightful design choices Niantic has made in regard to wayfarer and changing that would immediately turn it into a battleground

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 5,049 Ambassador

    After this…I don’t even know what to call it…comment, I wanted to highlight this thread again


  • "Doesn't meet criteria", "never met criteria", "no longer meets criteria"... I'm all for them, even for things I submitted in the past. Just today, I've seen a barn behind someone's house, a new GameStop, and a Little Free Library with the person's house in the background. Multi-accounting PoGo players are voting on theirs and each other's submissions just to get a stop at their work or home. We need to have these options to report this garbage.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 768 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is exactly why we don't need this. The understanding of the criteria is very poor. Both among wayfarers and internal reviewers. Instead of adding new interesting places, all our and Niantics efforts would go to appealing wrongfully removed wayspots.

    A new Gamestop is not categorically ineligible. A little free library is a great wayspot, even if it is in front of someones house. As long as it is not on their property.

    This can only work if Niantic have the manpower to handle this alongside their other activities, and they can't even handle their other activities. The quality of their internal reviewers is also way to low for this. And if they do decide to do this, it should only be for wayspots that are 103% not eligible.

    Anyone remember NianticDanbocats dog poop station remark? People who don't understand that, don't understand the criteria.

  • auntergoaf-PGOauntergoaf-PGO Posts: 159 ✭✭✭✭

    If the Wayfarer team won't remove the Wayspots that don't meet the criteria, what good is adding "No longer meets criteria"?

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 2,728 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think Niantic believes that the criteria hasn't changed from Day One - they just issue clarifications on what they've wanted all along.

    In which case, we'd need "Wayspot doesn't meet criteria" - not "No longer meets criteria".

  • Shilfiell-INGShilfiell-ING Posts: 1,542 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'd love to see a removal reason for "has never met criteria and has had Niantic state that this specific type of object is not eligible" - the minute that functionality goes live, I'm off to every disc golf course in my area, including the individual holes and tees that Niantic has approved on appeal, going against their own corporate statements.

Sign In or Register to comment.