Thumbs Down - Review Feedback
NianticTintino-ING
Posts: 1,065Niantic › admin
Hello Explorers,
Here's where you can post constructive feedback about the reviewing process. What is confusing to you? What's not working for you? What's making it difficult for you to enjoy reviewing?
Thanks again! Looking forward to sharing your feedback with the team.
Tagged:
Comments
Negative: The ‘other rejection criteria’ rejection reason has been removed. This was used to indicate that a nomination did not meet any of the eligibility criteria (exercise, socialising, exploration). From my experience, it was probably the most used rejection reason as a lot of nominations were things that existed but were simply ineligible.
Removing this requires users to complete an entire review, including evaluating accuracy, etc. for a nomination which should never be accepted into Lightship. This is a workload issue (Wayfarers are spending more time to review coal) as well as a database issue (if you are now letting this coal into the Lightship database).
It now asks criteria questions, but selecting ‘no‘ to all three does NOT end the review. It does not state publicly what happens to these reviews (i.e. whether this means they are rejected, they are accepted in Lightship but not games, or they are accepted into Lightship and games) Options 2 and 3 would each have massive negative ramifications which I can expand on if a public statement is made about what happens to these.
Constructive feedback for how to improve:
* Allow users to reject nominations which clearly do not meet criteria without needing to do the entire review.
* Ensure that all nominations which have been identified by reviewers as not meeting eligibility criteria (i.e. ‘no’ for all three questions) are not accepted into the Lightship database.
* Communicate clearly with users about how their votes contribute to overall acceptance or rejection.
This is the first thing I looked at once I got to the review page:
These locations are not appropriate:
Private property - A private residential property (even if historical), farmland
This is part of the pop-up information on the review page under the "Appropriate" question. The phrase "single-family" needs to be added into the above.
Thank you for your feedback, I'll be sure to send it to our team.
Re: Info tip
“These locations are not appropriate:
Regarding this text:
Adjustments to this text may reduce confusion about which locations are eligible / not eligible.
Thank you. I've taken not of your feedback and will be sure to share it with the team.
@NianticTintino you need to give better definitions for Appropriate and Safe points. I can see that some reviewers might mistakenly 'thumbs down' on both options for locations they can't access such as private apartments, industrial zones, publicly accessible areas on military bases, etc.
There is limited ability to place comments when rejecting or accepting a nomination.
This box could previously be used by reviewers to add supplemental information when rejecting. Example:
* Proof that a nomination was a fake or temporary
* A URL showing it was a third party photo
* An explanation for why they rejected
This information could presumably be used by Niantic if a nomination was later reviewed because it was reported or appealed.
It is possible for reviewers to get warning emails for incorrectly reviewing. This comment box could also provide context for why a user reviewed in a certain way. Perhaps something that a NIA staff considers to b. ‘incorrect reviewing’ was actually correct reviewing as there was additional context that NIA is unaware of. The comment box can provide this context.
Please consider reimplementing the optional comments box so that users can clarify their votes and potentially protect themselves from incorrect warning emails.
Bring back the 5 star for poi impressions with 1 star be fake or abuse or not oublic accessible , 3 stars be neutral & 5 star being amazing or deserved
I've been put on cool down already, I think it's a little too easy to get caught when the only options are thumbs up or thumbs down. I put a lot of thought into reviewing and 90% of what I reviewed since the new system went live were genuinely good submissions worthy of the thumbs up.
This might change my reviewing behaviour but I wish there was a way to show my workings or thoughts behind why I'm giving thumbs up (this is an actual walkway that people will actually use to explore the area and I think its worthy etc)
So how am I to indicate that I am unable the verify the location of a nomination because the main and supplemental photos are the same and both street view and satellite are inconclusive?
Since a report button has been added, isn't the abuse option of Accurate and High Quality unnecessary?
There has always been a report button
I would change the wording g of this header
High quality suggests that a picture that isn't high quality, or a mistake in the title or description, is grounds for a thumbs down. A couple of mistakes, or a slightly darker picture, are not ground for a rejection imo
Honestly, I think the other rejection criteria shouldn't have been there in the first place, of it didn't meet any of the rejection criteria, but also didn't meet acceptance criteria, it should have given "does not meet any eligibility (exercise, socialise, explore) criteria", that made more sense
Also not a fan of this
Sometimes socialising can be 2 people on a date. And for somethings, like a community its notice board, I'd say that encourages socialising, but I wouldn't have more than a few people around it. Other things like the ncn can arguably meet the socialising aspect if cycling or walking groups go along it (or again, 2 friends walking along) but I'd not be able to pick a number on that as arguably thousands of people could go along that route in one day
That's not a required field. If you don't have a good answer for it, feel free to skip it.
Oh right, my bad, my screen brightness was low so didn't notice the optional bit lol
Yeah I was worried about that too. Because there is WAY TOO MANY people that I see here, Reddit, etc that constantly argue that gated areas are not eligible or fair. And they refuse to see it any other way. Like not even just military bases or apartment/housing complexes, but even parks that have gates and times they are open, they'll argue are ineligible.
I think the change is good, it is way more guiding and granular as to the different acceptance criteria, but also give you a hard yes or no when it comes to the explicit rejection reasons. Wording could be a bit clearer though, and I'm glad "generic business" is back since theres way too many of those submitted.
The other rejection criteria missing is definitely odd, that wording was never straight forward and confuses the hell out of many new submitters, but as it stands with the new system, I dont understand how something that would fit under "other" would be rejected?
For example, reviewing a flagpole (people love to submit them...)
Appropriate: Is the location appropriate to be visited by pedestrians?
Yes
Safe: Is the location safe and publicly accessible by pedestrians?
Yes
Accurate and High Quality: Is the submitted photo, title, location, and description (if exists) accurate and informative?
Yes
Permanent and Distinct: Is the location a permanent, physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object that placemarks an area?
Yes
Socialize: Is this a good place for people to meet and socialize?
No
Exercise: Is this a good place for light physical activity?
No
Explore: Do you think this location is significant to the local community?
No
Would answer "no" to the 3 general criteria, but yes to everything else result in a rejection for the nomination? I think if you select all 3 of the criteria as "no" then it should pop up and ask is this eligible or would you like to reject it? Or something.
Thanks for soliciting such direct feedback. I want to avoid 'hot takes' and appreciate that we can clearly see the logic behind much of these overhauls.
The UX has been improved in several ways, but there have been a number of unintended consequences. Certain criteria clarifications which have previously been made would now qualify, and vice versa.
Only 3% of my resolved nominations have been duplicates. If we presume I or others have missed some, that might be only 4-5%. Why should there be a 'No Duplicates' button for an insignificant minority of reviews, when nothing necessitated such a change?
The map won't default to and stay on satellite view.
The additional "Add New Categories" feature is nice, but should be converted to a button rather than a space waster. That's only going to be used a small percentage of the time as well.
Most importantly, the UI on desktop leads to a poor user experience. I have seen Niantic employees be over-reliant on mobile before, and I've frankly been completely flabbergasted by Niantic employees posting screenshots of them using mobile rather than a computer for basic tasks to convey information that doesn't display properly. The forum user experience is horrible on mobile, and the review experience is completely different. It's clear that this has been designed with mobile and mind and not tested on a PC web browser, and that's just completely broken and amateur design. The layout is completely different on desktop vs. mobile. This is an entirely unacceptable oversight.
On desktop, layout makes it too difficult to see what the POI is. Why not have the old layout of Photo, Title, Supporting Documentation? Being able to clearly see the POI photo and supporting documentation side-by-side is critical to reviewers. This is difficult to overstate.
Arguably the flagpole could be important for locals, just depends where it is. Like, in the UK flagpoles aren't rhat common. There's o e that's already a poi in a park near me, but it's cool to go to because it's at the highest point in the park and the bit it's at gives an amazing view of the surrounding area, so I would have submitted and accepted based on that
Well like, in the US, every other business has a flagpole or multiple with the American Flag. 90% of the time they are just generic mass produced objects. Sometimes you will have some sort of memorial or display that could be eligible, but my example here was just something i thought up on the top of my head. A nomination where you could say yes to all the first questions, but no to the general 3 criteria.
In general a flagpole (at least in the US) is a boring mass produced object and not eligible.
There's no clear rejection for something that is just flat out ineligible because its not a great place to explore, exercise, or socialize at. Because it could be appropriate, safe, accurate and high quality, permanent and distinct, but not fit the 3. I'd just like some clarification if that actually does reject it, shouldn't it pop up saying you are rejecting it for not meeting the criteria? Right now you just submit it kinda like you're approving it.
I NEED to be able to see what has been submitted across the top of the review. Then I can answer the boxes down below.
I am so frustrated. You appear to have thrown out all the clarifications, but say "criteria has not changed." But we can't reject a flagpole as mass-produced now, so it has changed. Or if we can, I have not found the way to do it.
Earlier I received one of those "education emails" which I posted about here, so I am very leery of this undefined criteria. I make comments on the majority of the reviews I do, explaining my thinking to protect myself, often including links I used in deciding, but now I don't have a place I can make comments on all reviews.
The inclusion of eligibility criteria in the review flow is good. However, I would like to see an improvement by combining the three questions into one.
Does this meet the eligibility criteria?
👍Check one or more of the following: Explore, Exercise, and Socialize
👎End the review flow
If you thumbs down the "is the nomination high quality" its there
While I did say that there should be anything in regards to the "SEE" criteria, do I simply put "yes" to a great place to exercise and a "no" to the other two (socialise, explore) or the other mix? I'm concerned that I would start getting these weird rejections where it starts to state "Not a good place to exercise" when I submitted a statue. Or "not a good place to socialise" when I submitted a National Park. Furthermore, legacy wayspots (such as post offices) have far sketchier stretches of meeting the three (yeah, sure post offices might just fit into the socialise aspect but have you ever seen people socialise like crazy at a regional town's supermarket?) instead of just being outright eligible.
I very much believe you should drop the word "business" in the "generic business" reject reason because everyday regular objects start to be rejected for a generic business when they weren't even businesses in the first place. "What, my park was rejected due to being a restaurant? WŢF?!" Avoid that.
You've gotten rid of the old questions in favor of new ones that, in my opinion, allow you to nominate trash (literally).
For example, a letterbox, a parcel locker or a park bench, which are in no way unique, will receive a "yes" in 4 out of 7 questions, and a bench even 5 out of 7. Previously, there was a possibility of rejection of such a nomination, because it did not meet the criterion of nomination, let alone acceptance.
At the moment, it looks like if something is not an obvious fake or is not on school grounds, it is acceptable.
Personally, I think the older rating system was much better. And getting rid of the test instead of doing a new one that is more difficult is a mistake. Those who ignored the criteria will continue to ignore them and nominate ****, and you have only made it easier for them.
I had a hard time finding how to reject a middle school. I had to ask the discord as it was not intuitive at all.
In French half the criteria on the little information bubbles isn't translated.
In French the appropriate question says "Adapté aux piétons" (safe pedestrian access).
A school is safe for pedestrians. But it is not appropriate for a POI. The wording needs rethinking in French I think...
I am liking much of the new system so far; it's definitely a step in the right direction. The thumbs up/down is much better than stars. However, I think the review should end when you mark thumbs down to explore, exercise, and socialize. Otherwise, we're spending too much time on bad nominations.
Also, if you mark all three down, it should allow you to leave an optional comment to explain why you are rejecting the submission based on not meeting the criteria.
Another thought: default to satellite mode instead of map mode for displaying the location of the submission. Satellite mode is much more useful and almost all of us click over to that anyway. Streamline the process for us, please.
Last thought: you guys should clarify whether a thumbs down on explore, exercise, and socialize means the review is rejected. It should be rejected but that hasn't been clarified.
In Italian these two boxes mean the same thing! The first one is about the properties but asks in the question if the access is safe for the pedestrians, the second one is correct but written in English.