When reviewing mistakes are made
What follows are ideas feel free to rip apart and offer alternatives. It is an attempt to be constructive about a system that is failing wayfinders and I have seen no sign of attempts to change.
The current tone seems to be - sharp, accusatory, and baffling.
Mistakes get made and we need feedback, proper feedback.
A principle should be that you are seeking to retain and motivate whilst trying to improve quality. There should also be a recognition that there is scope for interpretation.
To achieve this feedback should be constructive and assist the wayfinder.
The current message provides no (zero, zilch ) context for the wayfinder due to a policy (details also unknown). So this fails to achieve any of the learning outcomes
So is it a case of whatever it is, anything is better?
Clearly it will need system improvements, but I can’t see why it should be so hard to do ( hopelessly naive🙄) but then I have little idea of what the system is.
I will take it as read that the ideal of being specific would be out of the question. 🙁
Presumably when the case is identified it has a date and the divergence from the guidelines.
It should be possible to identify a timeframe that gives a vague idea eg
6 months, 12 months, 24 months
I would have thought that that in most cases there was one of the categories that was causing the issue. It should be possible to have standard phrases to match.
I do feel this is in danger of becoming the new reasons for rejections nonsense, but it should be feasible to do something better.
The standard educational practice is to put the feedback across in the form of “a sh1t sandwich”
Good points - bad news - good points.
So how could it look……
Thank you for the reviews that you have doing. It’s great that you are wanting to help assess wayspots.
Although you are mostly doing well we have noticed that <over the past 6 months> there are several occasions when you have been consistently interpreting the guideline regarding <PRP> wrongly. Please go to <exact link> and refresh your understanding of this guideline. If you would like to discuss the guideline and it’s interpretation further go to the community forum <link> for further help and support.
Currently you have a wayfinder rating of <great>. By reflecting and improving your reviewing as suggested you should be able to maintain or improve this rating. This will aid you to gain more agreements and the whole community will benefit as these become part of the Lightship database ready for use.
I realise some of this is a pipe dream and the above is a quick draft, but even if you took the current bad part
We have confirmed that you have been incorrectly reviewing nominations. We suggest you to take your time to check our Niantic Wayfarer support article (https://niantic.helpshift.com/hc/en/21-wayfarer/).
And wrapped that inside two good parts it would be a start.
All ideas, edits etc welcome, the discussion may be ignored but it means we have tried to find a solution to an identified problem.
That's rich, coming from the same Niantic reviewers who allowed this object to remain: https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/31946/invalid-wayspot-appeal-lfl-in-front-yard#latest
Literally ANY Wayspot anyone reports as a PRP object hanging on a house, shed or inside a front yard gets a 'this Wayspot should remain'-rejection back.
The most frustrating part is that the Niantic reviewers (not the ones with the best reputation of following their own rules) only tell you they 'confirmed' something's wrong, but not inform you what went wrong, nor give you the chance to defend yourself. Considering the work some people put in -trying- to maintain Niantic's playing field, it's frustrating and doesn't offer room for improvement.
However, I do recognize it's not easy for a company to offer this kind of humane response for the entire world, there has to be some sort of standardized procedure I guess.
but that isn't prp. it's a [rental?] housing community.
this is really no different than a basketball court or playground inside a gated community.
sure it's a little close to their front door, but awkward placement doesn't qualify as rejection criteria. [legal/physical] inaccessibility or obstruction of emergency services does. this is neither.
the poi should simply be positioned away from blocking nearby entryways.
access may be limited to other residents and their guests, but that's fine.
Look again at the photo. It is house number 14 on a street. No community: a house. If a single person or family is renting it or has bought it: doesn't make a slight bit of difference in regard of the PRP rule. If this was an apartment building it would be public space, but it's clearly not.
You are suggesting we should all accept any personal statues, paintings, etc on residential houses... as long as the houses are rental?
That example POI is literally positioned INSIDE a front yard of a single family house, and "simply positioning the objects away" in the game is against the rules.
Back to topic: if Niantic is punishing people for 'reviewing wrongly' they should at least follow their own rules.
PS: checked: it's not a rental house but private property, but that is a mute point as I'm convinced it doesn't make a slight bit of difference when it comes to the PRP rule.
that's a unit number, is it not?
the supporting image makes it clear this is a series of multi-unit buildings.
if this isn't the case, the site is doing a one heII of a job masquerading as such.
*edit; worth noting that i'm american, and to me the visuals here strongly represent that of rental units. if that isn't the case, then maybe the party who rejected the removal is also american, or has similar preconceived perceptions, triggered by the imagery provided*
Yeah, I’ll defend the interpretation that an American eye could interpret this as a multifamily complex. When I was a delivery driver I visited many developments similar to this, where even separate buildings would hold 2-4 residences.
In my country, the vast majority of houses look like that. They're called 'rijtjeshuizen' (houses in a row, the English term is 'terraced houses') and are always built adjacent to each other along an entire street. Throughout Europe I see the same though. The clue is the house number: if a building has multiple numbers at one front door, it's a multi-residence and no one owns the front lawn (the city does).