A Very Bad Appeal Rejection
Daemare-PGO Posts: 79 ✭✭✭
Educational, encourages exercise, visually unique, being part of a project by multiple community organizations, supporting photo and photosphere show location... and appeal denied.
How exactly are those doing appeal reviews educated? This is the second time I've have a "cannot verify existence" when there is a photosphere clearly showing its location if the supporting photo was not enough.
Side note: These are a permanent edition to the RiverWalk. The only one to get removed was due to someone driving a backhoe over it and it was replaced.
You’re arguing criteria and permanence, but the rejection reason is there wasn’t enough information to support your pin location. There’s no pin information here, but assuming it’s accurate, maybe resubmit but include some recognizable landmarks in the supporting image, so reviewers have a point of reference? I see a staircase back there but it seems it’s probably covered by trees, so maybe take the supporting from a different angle and get something in the background that will be visible from satellite view.
Over half my submissions have gotten similarly nonsensical rejections.
My latest submission that got rejected doesn't even offer an appeal option. I submitted a theater located in a pedestrian square and got a rejection over it "not being accessible to pedestrians".
Other rejections claim public objects are on private ground or that very obviously incredibly permanent installations are "seasonal".
Why are such bad rejections allowed to persist? Why is there no penalty for obvious wrong rejections? Are people just rejecting everything to get their "wayfarer agreements" up cheaply because they bet on others rejecting everything for similar reasons? If there's people doing that systematically, how is that allowed to persist?
@Daemare-PGO can you give the location place. I was trying to find this on google and was struggling….but I might be at the wrong spot.
But there could be a google issue.
can you give details such as name of wayspot and exact location.
it sounds like the odd mix that can happen with duplicates….. and you might not be able to see what people think it’s duplicating, but we can look.
It doesn't look like my reply to @Elijustrying-ING is showing, did it get caught in a spam queue or something?
@Elijustrying-ING, attaching screenshots here of one bad rejection. It originally showed the rejection criteria as "walkable", as if a square only available to pedestrians and bikes isn't walkable?
If you posted a picture uploaded directly instead of using the paperclip icon it can take from 1 to 24 hours to appear.
Welcome to the interweb circa 1998 courtesy of Niantic.
[edit, this became a duplicate, removed images since the same ones are attached in my other comment above]
Here's one of the rejections, originally it displayed the walkable criteria but it no longer shows any rejection criteria at all. This is in a square of a shopping mall accessible by foot. No traffic other than bikes allowed in there.
I can't get the streetview app to open, but here is an aerial view. The stairs and tree are visible.
I think I've found your problem. There are two photospheres near to your nomination that do not show it on the ground.
This photosphere does show that the object exists, though not very clearly. However, reviewers would never have been looking at it as it is further away from the nomination than the other two photospheres, which will have been what Street View defaulted to:
Here's a link to this same spot that shows the context fairly well, I think. Obviously don't use this image.
Can you lay on the ground and get a photo that includes the circle on the ground and a view of the stairs and the big water tower at the top of the stairs?
Yep it’s a google problem.
I think you need to explain it to the reviewers.
plus links to the webpages /Facebook that features it.
Your reviewers are bad
The satellite imagery shows that the plaza in front of the cinema is under construction, which is why they did brain gymnastics and rejected for Pedestrian Access
I'd report reviewers in help chat for that, that's unbelievably stupid
I can't say anything definitive because I don't know the exact location of your nomination, but it is unclear whether it exists when comparing the photos in the vicinity information with the Street View.
Therefore, it would be a good idea to clearly state in the vicinity information the URL of the 360° photo or street view that clearly shows the presence of this POI.
I clearly state this in nominations for POIs whose existence is difficult to determine, while the photos in the vicinity information are taken from the same angle as Street View as much as possible to provide reviewers with easy-to-understand information.
@Natanael-PGO Thanks for the info
There is indeed an issue in confirming where this is.
Street and satellite view are out of date. You didn’t show the supplementary photo but if that wasn’t able to provide evidence of something that could be clearly seen then that is a significant issue.
The image @kawin240-ING shows has the label of the cinema but when I view from wayfarer (as if reviewing) I don’t see those tags and the screenshot you show doesn’t have the cinema tag.
If you search the websites then you can be placed to this area but it may not be where you pinned it.
So I don’t blame the reviewers for not accepting as they probably had a lot of doubts about accepting. The pedestrian access could just have been one person and it’s what the algorithm finds to give reasons.
I think you need to work on making it easier for reviewers to confirm.
which leads to the question what do we do once photospheres go?
@Elijustrying-ING the other photo shows businesses just next to it, which are easy to confirm the location of. It will also show on Google maps. So I take it the reviewers were lazy, then?
@Natanael-PGO I don't think rejections should be blamed on "lazy reviewers".
The submitter is the subject matter expert for the thing they're submitting, and they know more about the submission than any of the reviewers will. I think it's the submitter's job to ensure that reviewers have the information that they need in order to understand and verify a submission-- they shouldn't expect reviewers to do a bunch of work to figure things out. It will always be harder for reviewers to find key information than it will be for the submitter to provide it, and expecting reviewers to do a lot of work means dozens of people have to duplicate the effort rather than one person providing the information to all of them.
But the information *was* there, as mentioned you could easily confirm the location of the other businesses from the photo to confirm this one is just next to them. The reviewers apparently didn't look at that.
@Natanael-PGO can we see the supplementary photo please.
I’m genuinely interested in seeing if all the info is there. On the supplementary photo are the businesses viewable on street view?
I presume the supplementary is a night view which may not be straightforward to match with what you see in daytime google view.
I think this is probably the view that a reviewer got.
So it will be interesting to see the supplementary.
If this is where the google view defaults to then you would need to move the view up to see the corner with Taco Bell on it. Something you could draw to the attention of reviewers.
I started looking at the construction hoarding for clues as they often have artists impressions or other info and I found this
This references the cinema. So I would draw attention to that in the supplementary as part of an explanation of the difficulties.
Personally I have no problem with night photos, but some reviewers are not keen and will not score highly because of that and although I think it’s acceptable but you might want to consider a sharper photo to make the submission better.
Getting a wayspot accepted into Lightship needs both the submitter and the reviewer to do there parts. That means the submitter needs to provide information that clarifies various points and provides links. The reviewer needs to read that info.
The bottom line is that the place is something that is eligible and was not considered by majority of reviewers as acceptable. So something went wrong. It’s possible that they all made a mistake, but the submitter should ask why they made a mistake. People don’t set out to make mistakes. So following a non acceptance the submitter should look again more critically and through the eyes of someone who knows nothing about the area, and change things.
Of course all of the above might have been in your supplementary info - explaining the redevelopment and pointing out the key location references, in which case it is a mystery
But make the changes and it should be ok.
The correct procedure with that street view sphere as a way to check the location would have been to 3 star the location - it's definitely around there, but the reviewers can't pin point it exactly, that is right and that's why the 3 star option is good for this. There was no reason to reject for location or access issues. That's why I went ahead and reported the reviewers, and Niantic acted against some.
@Natanael-PGO I would still recommend the advice the others have given you, even if it doesn't seem to make sense or feels a bit over the top - your reviewers need to be convinced for an acceptance, they decide.
@tp235-ING @Elijustrying-ING Hwy are you both arguing that this was hard or not confirmable at all? Are you from countries that have the luxury of having a broad coverage of street view? I think you are relying on it too much. Since I review mostly Germany, I'm used to reviewing without it and give a lot more 3 stars for location rating than anything else - 100 % location confirmation often enough is not possible, but also not needed. If you are whatever 80% sure, you shouldn't try to reject or raise doubts
Here's the supplementary photo, the map alone confirms one shop is present and if you Google it for two seconds you'll find the other two next to it.
How would I edit after the fact? Do you mean resubmit with these extra details?
I guess I have to manually check street view in advance for every submission so I can instruct on how to confirm the location
Yes resubmit with extra details, a new supporting photo which still has the cinema visible while having more of the street leading to it, so people are able to compare it better to street and satellite view. In your supporting information, you can point out how street view is old from 2020 (I believe?) and the consrtuction has finished. If you have a we source about the cinemas opening after the construction you can out it too in supporting information just to be sure.
Thanks for the supplementary photo.
I am interpreting “if you google it” as an expectation that reviewers should go do a google search. I don’t think it’s a reasonable expectation of someone who is doing this for free. As the submitter it’s something you can do. A reviewer should be presented with enough visual and written info and direct links to make their case.
The supplementary photo is not strong. It’s not substantially helping the reviewer by showing some of what might be on street view - I think getting a good angle might be tricky as it looks set back. It’s also a poor photo with details hard to discern. Remember quite a number of reviewers do the reviews on their phone with a small screen - I prefer a bigger screen.
if I’m frank from what I have seen it looks as though you submitted this quite quickly and didn’t take into consideration what the reviewer will see. I have made the mistake of not checking google, accepted I hadn’t done my best and had to redo a submission.
Yes resubmit it’s a good candidate, I would have accepted it. This one was resolved in less than a month so with improvements it should be good.
First I think this is an interesting thread because we can discuss the subject.
@kawin240-ING This is what I said….
So I don’t blame the reviewers for not accepting as they probably had a lot of doubts about accepting.
I didn’t say they would not be confirmable at all but I do think the submission made it not an easy task. I always spend far too long when I review because I will start trying to fill in any “gaps”. It is slightly irritating when I have to dig around but I like to give the benefit of the doubt.
I feel really sorry for the reviewers that have now been punished in some way.
There was no evidence of malicious behaviour.
They may have just been over-cautious, having a sub-par submission to review.
Or because the submission had issues, they made a mistake.
Reviewers are doing this for free, with little education or development.
Everyone makes mistakes.
As wayfinders submitting and reviewing we will all be less than perfect because we are human and reviewing is inherently subjective. No reviewer has a 100% record.
Should every reviewer expect a sanction every time they get a disagreement?
The likely outcome is that somewhere in that area, some reviewers will have received a notification that has left them flummoxed, it won’t say what it was for and who knows what the punishment is and it certainly won’t help them reflect and improve at all. It may be the last straw and they walk away. And if anyone asks them for advice as they are interested in reviewing, they are likely to be told to forget it. So wayfarer loses out.
Punishing them will achieve nothing.
I am deeply concerned as to what standard is being expected in this activity, as I am not perfect.
I think we all need to be more understanding of all our fellow wayfarers.
I've said before, reviewers shouldn't be reporting other reviewers otherwise we all end up in a hellhole in-fighting with each other. Some will quit, others may (will) lash out in return fire, what's good for the goose is good for the gander right? unless people want a forever backlog because everyone has quit.
The thing they probably get is an email telling them to revisit criteria. Which they would need to not make such a bad decision again.
I refuse to believe this is a true error. The rejection reasons have descriptions, you can read them and notice "oh, that doesn't fit". Is this nomination not ideal? Yes. Was it enough to warrant a rejection? No, not at all. And that's where the report is deserved.
I would prefer if Niantic would do more between the wayfarer test and the other end, being reported. There is next to nothing in-between, it would be a lot better for example if such a rejection is reported, the email would contain the last 10 rejections the reviewer did, including the reported one, and be like "we have seen incorrect decisions from you, please take a look at these recent ones and revisit the criteria". It would of course be a lot better to just flat out say which was the incorrect rejection but, submitter privacy and similar stuff and too much needed work (looking at pre canned responses in appeals) make it impossible unfortunately.
Until then I keep on reporting, especially for something blatant like this.
There's no way for reviewers to get a full reviewer look at any list of recents: this list would be meaningful only if one could see those rejection reasons and where they diverged from the "true" voting value. And anything that's been voted out, then been reported, and then actioned by Niantic, would likely not be in the 10 most recent reviews done anyway.
So to clarify a few things:
-recent reviews AROUND THE REPORTED nomination, not the very last review that was done!
-the list could have the rejection reason that was wrong, it would make sense, but the thought behind it was, that Niantic hates to disclose too much information, so every proposal here is already unlikely, but doing that makes it even unlikelier which I didn't want. And then it should be the 10 recent ones around that rejected one where the same rejection reasons was used
-I don't see the problem with "true voting value". If the message is "think about if this rejection reason really fits" then it has to be wrong, so no true value is needed.
The problem is this really only works with short review times.
There are things being resolved now which I reviewed over 2 years ago. I’d like to think I’d improved.
Things change google can update things can be removed, criteria change.