Thumbs Up - Review Feedback

Hello Explorers,

Here you can post all of the positive feedback about the reviewing process. What's new that's improving your experience? What made you happy to see? What makes more sense now than before? Etc.

Thanks in advanced!



  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭✭✭

    And yet, I bet a lot of historical buildings will be rejected on sight because they just look like normal buildings (I know this because it's happened to me), it requires to at least read the description, so I might get a lot more listed buildings through because descriptions will be read before the building is looked at

  • smantz0rZ-PGOsmantz0rZ-PGO Posts: 279 ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 31

    I certainly like the idea of title/photo/support. In fact, you're probably right that title should come first so that that's the first impression. The only critical thing here is that they need to be in-line with each other, rather than forced to scroll all the way down on desktop and back up like a fool.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I understand that for desktop, but for phones (which is literally all I do my reviewing on) that idea just wouldn't work lol, so I prefer title and description before picture ad it let's me know what I'm seeing before seeing it

  • nh97103-PGOnh97103-PGO Posts: 18 ✭✭

    I really like the thumbs up/down system instead of the stars. The stars were too subjective and could be confusing at times. I also love that auto-scrolling works properly in the new system! Finally, I appreciate that I can click to expand the supporting information and click anywhere to close it (rather than just that annoying X in the old system).

  • The26thDoctor-PGOThe26thDoctor-PGO Posts: 4,171 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I found that too.

    It was only normal to make subconscious decisions in that initial split second with the image first.

  • SweetnSassy37-PGOSweetnSassy37-PGO Posts: 30 ✭✭

    I really like the new system. It feels more obvious what to answer, I like that there is an information button you can click on each one which reminds you of the criteria and things like play parks won’t get rejected anymore for not being of historical significance! Great work.

  • smantz0rZ-PGOsmantz0rZ-PGO Posts: 279 ✭✭✭✭

    You can deliver a different UI to mobile and desktop. By default, mobile is going to parse it just as it did before. This shouldn't be a problem since there was already a functional UI on desktop and mobile. The mobile UI experience has barely changed, and the desktop experience has been ruined. Putting the title first would be great, but making it so that you cannot see the basic information necessary to perform the review without needlessly scrolling on desktop is abysmal and shows a lack of design process and decision-making by Niantic. It's amateur.

  • cyndiepooh-INGcyndiepooh-ING Posts: 1,111 ✭✭✭✭✭

    👍️/👎️/ 🤷‍♀️ is a good change.

    i like how the word "appropriate" means what the average person understands that word to mean now, with options to choose why it isn't if we thumbs down that section.

    i like the option to say idk and expand on my thought in "accurate and high quality" because a lot of things i can't call "high quality" are still things i can approve.

    and since this is the thumb's up side, that is all i can say here.

  • KellyCha0s-PGOKellyCha0s-PGO Posts: 40 ✭✭

    I generally like the new design and voting method. I can see how the new system of voting might encourage more people to join wayfarer. It's less confusing and less intimidating.

    It seems more in line with the criteria. Will you be updating the criteria pages so they no longer say 'accept' and 'reject'? It should be 'thumbs up' and 'thumbs down', right?

    However, I do think there are some things that need to be tweaked. So now I'm going to nitpick:

    'Appropriate' category is really vague. While I actually prefer less restrictive rules this is almost too much. Maybe something else like appropriate and interesting or appropriate and ??

    'Safe' category lists 'bridge with car traffic'. Having been on several bridges with perfectly safe (fenced off from traffic) walking paths I disagree with this being worded the way it is.

    'Accurate and High Quality' category is the only one without an information button. I find this weird and confusing. For the sake of consistency I feel like there should be one. It could simply list the rejection reasons given in the drop down.

    'Explore' and 'Exercise' categories. I've always worked from the presumption that objects that encourage you to explore further qualified. I mean that's the point right? To get outside and explore and move? The way it's currently worded leaves a lot of room for rejections of trail markers and mile markers and any other thing that might encourage someone to go the extra distance while playing a Niantic game. So maybe wording like 'places or objects' or 'explore further' would be helpful.

    I imagine quite a few wayfarers are angry and frustrated right now. And angry frustrated people have a tendency to lash out... likely manifesting in unfair reviewing practice. So maybe put the whole abuse policy on hold for a minute while the dust settles.

  • Spannerdaniel-INGSpannerdaniel-ING Posts: 46 ✭✭

    Two things I like about the new review process: The three point scale is better than the five point scale where it wasn't clear when (if ever) you should use the two or four stars. The questions are now directly criteria based which is also good.

  • ksuc1-PGOksuc1-PGO Posts: 1 ✭✭

    I would say Yes/No/IDK system completely changes the reviewing experience and I love it. However, this simpler mechanics has caused me to hit 12-hour cooldown twice.

    I completely understood and agreed, cooldown are needed whenever someone is reviewing too fast. However, since this new review system technically cuts your time to review, it made some people hit the cooldown period by accident. I suggest that the cooldown methodology to be changed as well. It can be either 3-second cooldown to click between Yes/No/IDK, or giving a soft warning before the actual 12-hour cooldown.

  • ZinkyZonk-INGZinkyZonk-ING Posts: 285 ✭✭✭✭

    Omg I love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Loved the cute comics on the onboarding (trail signs represented!!!!)

    But the streamlined review process is so much better .... Why didn't you do this years ago 😜

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is the wrong channel because your suggested option is likely to come from a thumbs down. Mass-produced is okay sometimes, so you must use your best judgement. It's not hard to click the three Eligibility criteria as no.

  • rufoushumming-PGOrufoushumming-PGO Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yeay good point. I was hard pressed to work out where it should go. overall feedback. Up. Down. Fair call :-)

  • Middlemayo-PGOMiddlemayo-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭

    I feel like the Pros of the new review system outweigh the cons. Here is what I think was improved:

    1. The old 5-star rating system was a little to arbitrary for the voting process, as I believe I have seen many people comment on. What does a 2 or 4 star rating mean? I generally voted 2 star on things I wanted to reject but didn't meet "rejection criteria" nor completely miss "acceptance criteria", and 4 that were perfectly acceptable under the guidelines but were lacking in photo quality (generally angle or excess background/too far away), but since reviewers don't know the acceptance threshold, I could be off of what constitutes a "rejection" or "approval". Moreover, in other sections besides the overall, the 5 star rating just didn't make sense, and again since reviewers didn't know the thresholds, nor how individual sections were applied, I didn't know if a 3-star in Historically/Culturally important would affect something that should meet the criteria but holds little importance in that area.
    2. The flow is better, though longer. I think that listing all of the Rejection criteria followed by the acceptance criteria makes a lot of sense for a couple of reasons: Fewer questions to get to a rejection based on the rejection criteria and more thorough answering to get to borderline submissions that may or may not meet acceptance criteria. I think that reviewers who complain about how much more time is spent rejecting what is called "submission coal" that doesn't meet rejection criteria would be at risk of making snap judgements on borderline submissions and would be prone to making mistakes. It is always good to slow down and double-check that you are giving each submission a fair rating, though it is not always popular as that would often mean not just thinking about maximizing one's own rewards.
    3. Getting rid of individual ratings based on Title and Description, Historical/Cultural, and Visually Unique help a lot, because it was ambiguous how those affected the eligibility of the Wayspot in question and/or just were either pass/fail or not applicable.
    4. I liked moving the location to the top, as that is an important part of the review and one of the "rejection criteria" (duplicates), though I am on the fence about the implementation of "duplicates"/"location accuracy".
    5. Simplicity of the new rating scale: I feel like "Yes"/"No"/"I don't know" may prompt reviewers to give it a more definitive answer when they are on the fence about a submission but are leaning more one direction. Hopefully that will expedite nomination resolution (though I have noticed any improvement yet).
  • Yacatect-INGYacatect-ING Posts: 142 ✭✭✭

    I like having an explicit "I don't know" option, and I like that I no longer have to answer if stuff like dog parks and exercise corners have historical or cultural value.

Sign In or Register to comment.