Are we still talking about the Saturn sidewalk sticker from the initial post? With supporting picture of a cinema with lots of stickers on the sidewalk in front of it? Saturn is not on streetview, and the closest photosphere does not have Saturn ? What's not to love??
Considering that people are having their fake’s accepted first time no questions asked with no streetview, supporting photo lacking context and surroundings I don’t see why yours would be rejected just because they can’t see it on streetview. Isn’t the question “could the waypoint be here?” If so accept/3*. Not can’t see it on out of date streetview or satellite view - reject.
I agree that this Wayspot should, most likely, have been approved with the information at hand. My issue is solely with Niantic doling out punishments for "incorrectly reviewing" when a Wayspot is rejected and that rejection is complained about here: Wayfarers have complained mightily about ineligible trash being accepted into games, and for the most part those reviewers aren't punished as Niantic defers to the public vote regularly. In my opinion, the only appropriate "punishment" for reviewing incorrectly, either pro- or con-, is subtraction of an agreement. Maybe direct the complainer to improve and resubmit. As for the reviewers: no threatening email about suspending game accounts, no condescending palaver about reviewing criteria, maybe just a helpful "Hey we overturned your vote for one of your past reviews, and have subtracted one agreement from your account as a result. Have you read our latest AMA? " type of mail. Threatening someone's account status, Wayfarer standing, and total review history based on one debatable decision while reviewing while still allowing those reviewers to reap their Agreement reward is just wrong, and bad, and other icky adjectives.
Point the First is that I don't think reviewers should be published for past "incorrect" rejections, because review conditions can change between the time of the original reviews and the time that an appeal or other "second look" happens. Street view or satellite view may have changed. Google Maps may have changed. Other external references may have changed. The time lag means that it's entirely possible for something to be correctly rejected by reviewers during the initial review and also for it to be correctly accepted on appeal.
Point the Second is that a lot of experienced reviewers have run into enough fakes that they have become more likely to reject things that don't have decent evidence to confirm that the candidate exists at the location. We are supposed to 3* the location if something is "likely to exist but is obscured", but after seeing hundreds of fakes my personal threshold for "likely to exist" is much higher than it used to be and I am more likely to 1*/location mismatch in cases where there is absolutely zero reliable evidence that I can use to confirm the location.
Bonus Point: Point the Second is why I desperately wish Niantic did a better job of coaching people on how to take high-quality supporting photos. At this point I've probably seen a few thousand supporting photos that were of the sidewalk, a parking lot, a field, or something else... supporting photos that didn't even show the thing being submitted. If the Supporting Information Education Faerie visited every single submitter and taught them how to provide good supporting info then I think the Wayfarer Frustration Index would drop by at least 10%. More submissions would be accepted on the first try, reviewers would waste less time trying to find info that the submitter could have easily provided, and everything would be rainbows and unicorns.
(If it's in italics I invented it as a rhetorical device.)
It is the job of the nominator to indicate that a POI is present.
The reviewer is only to judge it.
Therefore, the nominator needs to include photos that make it easy for reviewers to understand that the POI exists.
In this case, the nominator should have taken a photo of the surrounding information from the same angle as the 360° photo below and should have included the URL.
That way, the reviewer would have been able to give 3 stars for location information without having to take the 360° photo themselves.
However, in this case, it is better to take the photo yourself.
You will not find any stickers in this street view.
Therefore, in this case, many reviewers will conclude that it does not exist.
And in this nomination, Wayfinder is photographed from the opposite side of the street view where its presence can be confirmed.
This makes it even more difficult for reviewers to infer its existence from its position on the surrounding walls and stairs, and as a result, we can assume that it was rejected.
You may be thinking, "How could the reviewer not even know that? You would be outraged.
Let me be clear.
Most Wayfinders will not be able to confirm this existence.
Most reviewers are reviewing on the small screens of their smartphones.
And they don't zoom in on photos.
So you can understand why they can't confirm its existence.
Therefore, the nominator must indicate it so the reviewer can understand.
The comment from me you quoted was for the Swedish cinema nomination of natanael, not the Riverwalk one.
For the Riverwalk Saturn sidewalk sticker one they need to make a user submitted Photosphere and a better supporting photo, the latter one will be tricky.
I’ve done well from appeals. A couple have ended up duplicates because of the time lag, but most of the others have been accepted.
There are mixed reports in here, but there is a bias as people are more likely to post because they are disappointed at the outcome than will post if it went through.
And the nomination you are referring to would have been approved if there were 360° photos.
It would have received 3 stars if it could guarantee a certain level of accuracy in location information compared to 360° photos and the surrounding Street View and Google Maps. (within about 10 meters).
Reviewers cannot award a higher star if they cannot guarantee this.
If nothing else, reviewers will consider the possibility that the location might be off by more than a few tens of meters.
If that happens, the location score will inevitably go down.
And I understand the particular situation in Germany you mention (almost the only developed country without proper street view due to excessive privacy concerns).
However, the price of approving a location without a street view is the frequent occurrence of false waypoint clusters.
As a result, reviewers are now very sensitive to the accuracy of location information.
I don't know who was worse first, the nominators or the reviewers, but this current situation was not seen when nominations resumed as OPR in 2017 and is a phenomenon that has been seen since the opening of Wayfarer to Pokémon GO.
The current nominations need to take this into account.
Comments
Are we still talking about the Saturn sidewalk sticker from the initial post? With supporting picture of a cinema with lots of stickers on the sidewalk in front of it? Saturn is not on streetview, and the closest photosphere does not have Saturn ? What's not to love??
Considering that people are having their fake’s accepted first time no questions asked with no streetview, supporting photo lacking context and surroundings I don’t see why yours would be rejected just because they can’t see it on streetview. Isn’t the question “could the waypoint be here?” If so accept/3*. Not can’t see it on out of date streetview or satellite view - reject.
I agree that this Wayspot should, most likely, have been approved with the information at hand. My issue is solely with Niantic doling out punishments for "incorrectly reviewing" when a Wayspot is rejected and that rejection is complained about here: Wayfarers have complained mightily about ineligible trash being accepted into games, and for the most part those reviewers aren't punished as Niantic defers to the public vote regularly. In my opinion, the only appropriate "punishment" for reviewing incorrectly, either pro- or con-, is subtraction of an agreement. Maybe direct the complainer to improve and resubmit. As for the reviewers: no threatening email about suspending game accounts, no condescending palaver about reviewing criteria, maybe just a helpful "Hey we overturned your vote for one of your past reviews, and have subtracted one agreement from your account as a result. Have you read our latest AMA? " type of mail. Threatening someone's account status, Wayfarer standing, and total review history based on one debatable decision while reviewing while still allowing those reviewers to reap their Agreement reward is just wrong, and bad, and other icky adjectives.
I agree completely @Shilfiell-ING
@MargariteDVille-ING no we are not talking about Saturn
Two points:
Point the First is that I don't think reviewers should be published for past "incorrect" rejections, because review conditions can change between the time of the original reviews and the time that an appeal or other "second look" happens. Street view or satellite view may have changed. Google Maps may have changed. Other external references may have changed. The time lag means that it's entirely possible for something to be correctly rejected by reviewers during the initial review and also for it to be correctly accepted on appeal.
Point the Second is that a lot of experienced reviewers have run into enough fakes that they have become more likely to reject things that don't have decent evidence to confirm that the candidate exists at the location. We are supposed to 3* the location if something is "likely to exist but is obscured", but after seeing hundreds of fakes my personal threshold for "likely to exist" is much higher than it used to be and I am more likely to 1*/location mismatch in cases where there is absolutely zero reliable evidence that I can use to confirm the location.
Bonus Point: Point the Second is why I desperately wish Niantic did a better job of coaching people on how to take high-quality supporting photos. At this point I've probably seen a few thousand supporting photos that were of the sidewalk, a parking lot, a field, or something else... supporting photos that didn't even show the thing being submitted. If the Supporting Information Education Faerie visited every single submitter and taught them how to provide good supporting info then I think the Wayfarer Frustration Index would drop by at least 10%. More submissions would be accepted on the first try, reviewers would waste less time trying to find info that the submitter could have easily provided, and everything would be rainbows and unicorns.
(If it's in italics I invented it as a rhetorical device.)
It is the job of the nominator to indicate that a POI is present.
The reviewer is only to judge it.
Therefore, the nominator needs to include photos that make it easy for reviewers to understand that the POI exists.
In this case, the nominator should have taken a photo of the surrounding information from the same angle as the 360° photo below and should have included the URL.
That way, the reviewer would have been able to give 3 stars for location information without having to take the 360° photo themselves.
However, in this case, it is better to take the photo yourself.
However, given the nominator's location, the reviewer would probably have seen this personally taken street view, not the 360° photo above.
You will not find any stickers in this street view.
Therefore, in this case, many reviewers will conclude that it does not exist.
And in this nomination, Wayfinder is photographed from the opposite side of the street view where its presence can be confirmed.
This makes it even more difficult for reviewers to infer its existence from its position on the surrounding walls and stairs, and as a result, we can assume that it was rejected.
You may be thinking, "How could the reviewer not even know that? You would be outraged.
Let me be clear.
Most Wayfinders will not be able to confirm this existence.
Most reviewers are reviewing on the small screens of their smartphones.
And they don't zoom in on photos.
So you can understand why they can't confirm its existence.
Therefore, the nominator must indicate it so the reviewer can understand.
The comment from me you quoted was for the Swedish cinema nomination of natanael, not the Riverwalk one.
For the Riverwalk Saturn sidewalk sticker one they need to make a user submitted Photosphere and a better supporting photo, the latter one will be tricky.
I have a question. Is the appeal rarely accepted? And who got the appeal accepted?
I’ve done well from appeals. A couple have ended up duplicates because of the time lag, but most of the others have been accepted.
There are mixed reports in here, but there is a bias as people are more likely to post because they are disappointed at the outcome than will post if it went through.
To begin with, I didn't mentions you in my post, did I?
You just misunderstood it to be the one you were talking about, and sent me a mention, didn't you?
You did quote me
quote????
Where in my post do I quote you?
Just my post under your post?
You just misunderstood.
And the nomination you are referring to would have been approved if there were 360° photos.
It would have received 3 stars if it could guarantee a certain level of accuracy in location information compared to 360° photos and the surrounding Street View and Google Maps. (within about 10 meters).
Reviewers cannot award a higher star if they cannot guarantee this.
If nothing else, reviewers will consider the possibility that the location might be off by more than a few tens of meters.
If that happens, the location score will inevitably go down.
And I understand the particular situation in Germany you mention (almost the only developed country without proper street view due to excessive privacy concerns).
However, the price of approving a location without a street view is the frequent occurrence of false waypoint clusters.
As a result, reviewers are now very sensitive to the accuracy of location information.
I don't know who was worse first, the nominators or the reviewers, but this current situation was not seen when nominations resumed as OPR in 2017 and is a phenomenon that has been seen since the opening of Wayfarer to Pokémon GO.
The current nominations need to take this into account.