Need Niantic to walk me through reviewing a memorial bench with this system
cyndiepooh-ING
Posts: 1,111 ✭✭✭✭✭
With so many people reporting that AI is rejecting their bench submissions, I don't understand how I am getting so many of these to review. Please show me how you would like us to review a generic bench with a generic plaque on it in memory of someone who is not shown to be significant to the community.
Comments
Would rejecting with Permanent and Distinct not work?
I think @cyndiepooh-ING’s real question is, are these benches considered to be a valid spot or not?
A lot of people saying theirs are being automatically rejected would suggest that they are not allowed.
But then again, a lot of them are making it into voting which would suggest that they ARE allowed.
Mixed messages here.
If the nomination is generic, then I would 👎️on all three eligibility categories: exploration, socialization, and exercise.
but a well placed bench could be a valuable place to meet up and socialize, even if it is generic, and that would deserve a thumbs up in that box, or at least an idk. and it could be important to the community, even if the submitter did not make it clear to me, so that could also be idk. i don't see giving anything but a thumbs down on exercise for a bench.
like i said, i need for niantic to walk me through how to review this in the new system. i need examples of how to review things like this.
I don't consider incidental socialization (socialization that can occur anywhere where two or more people can gather) as meeting the criteria, and a bench is as incidental as it comes. But if you believe that it meets that criteria, why are you rejecting it in the first place? If you think it should be rejected because it is generic, that means you don't think it meets any of the eligibility criteria.
The fact that some that something is not caught by the AI doesn’t mean that it is eligible. If it goes into voting, reviewers still need to judge the nomination against the eligible and rejection criteria. The AI isn’t supposed to catch everything that is ineligible, but to weed out some of the most obviously ineligible (in theory).
As I said, I need Niantic to walk me through how THEY want me to review stuff like this with the new system. I just got a flagpole at a public library to review. Everything is thumbs up until the last three questions, then what? Very hard for me to say that a US flag is not " significant to the local community" even though I would have rejected it in the past because Niantic said so.
Shame on everyone who is trying to belittle me for wanting to use the new system accurately. Shame on Niantic for just dropping this on us with no help.
Oh and now a disagree. Forget it. I don't care any longer whether I am reviewing correctly per what Niantic is expecting or not. Y'all have fun.
What we have been told and continue to be told by Niantic if to use your best judgement.
If you believe a particular nomination for a bench encourages exploration of local culture or is important to the community for socializing then 👍🏻 accordingly. If not, dismiss it with the 👎🏻 in those questions.
I do not believe we will get a more comprehensive answer from Niantic.
For me I’d look at it like this: is that specific flagpole, in that specific location, important to the community? Sure, you folks are patriotic about your flags, but there’s nothing special about that particular one. So yeah, vote no on the last 3 criteria.
Same goes for all generic items - as before, submitters need to provide evidence they are notable.
To the larger point, you are absolutely correct that Niantic dropping this with no explanation is poor form. They need to come out and give us some answers/walkthrough. We don’t even know for definite that downvoting the last 3 criteria actually is a rejection.
The more I read about people struggling with this, I have been asking myself why. Why is this so difficult for people to adopt?
Here's what I've come up with.
Those who have been involved with this process for a long time feel a sense of ownership over the map. They understood the prior system. They knew what would happen (or at least thought they did) when they clicked a certain combination of stars. They were certain that if they rated the first question as 1 star, they were telling Niantic "I want to reject this. I do not want this to show up on the map."
But I would remind people that there was a time when you didn't know how that system worked. Sure, maybe you always knew what the 1 star thing did. But you didn't know what it meant to use 1 or 2 stars on any of the other questions. It took you some time to get comfortable with using stars on individual components - even being able to explain what those components meant. Culturally relevant and Visually Unique (or was it distinct?) were baffling to new users and to you at one point. Eventually you got to the point where you could rattle off what those things meant and move along without giving it a second thought.
Niantic has absolutely removed our ability to do an immediate 1 star rejection. Though I don't know the reasoning behind that decision, I can promise you there *was* reasoning behind it. Do I need to understand it or like it? No. Can I live with it? I think so.
Those of us who have been doing this for years are struggling (I believe) because we feel like we've lost our ability to
manipulatemanage the map. Niantic is now in full control of the map. We are not. It's very hard for us to give up that control. But, ultimately, the map belongs to Niantic. They can do what they want with it. In reality, it never belonged to us. We just thought it did.this is the issue. do i want to live with it? i had at least a year's worth of unresolved decisions just thrown in the toilet. do i care enough to start over? i am not sure. and certainly not with no assurance that i am reviewing correctly.
Understood.
For some reason I've been able to separate the issue of the nominations being reset from the new review flow. The first is the thing that frustrates me. The second is something I just had to accept.
I was recently talking about withdrawing and renominating all my old stuff in case that ends up being the best way to get them back into the system. But I realize that only works for local submissions.
I think one of the issues of why people want clarification is because many of us previously have been sent emails telling us (not really TELLING us) that we are not reviewing correctly. We're now being told to use our best judgement. If I'm using MY best judgement and that judgement doesn't align with Niantic, will I be getting more emails telling me that I'm not reviewing how Niantic wants me too? Is it my fault or the fault of Niantic for not being clear. I'm answering the questions to the best of my abilities with very little training. I'm depending on cute cartoons to tell me how to review. We'll see how fast my ratings go down or whether I get more emails telling me I'm not reviewing correctly.
The one case where we know why the individual got an "educational letter", it was because they were misapplying the safe pedestrian access rejection criteria. They rejected nominations inside an apartment, claiming that because only the residence had access to the location, it didn't have safe pedestrian access. Of course, that is not what that rejection criteria is about. But the fact that they weren't initially told the specific reason is a problem.
However, I don't foresee Niantic sending out such emails for rejecting things based on eligibility. After all, they told us to use our best judgment. So downvoting all three eligibility criteria for a generic object won't get such a letter. However, using "generic business", as I've already seen one Wayfarer advice using, will likely result in an "educational letter".
Can't say I agree with this assessment. I'm not a frequent reviewer so I was certainly not wedded to the old system. In fact I really like the IDEA behind the new system, it makes much more sense than star ratings.
The problem is the usability. If something is just plain ineligible, why should I go through the rigmarole of verifying a generic sign is where the user said it was, and that it has safe pedestrian access, if it's going to be rejected by the last 3 criteria? It's just a waste of time when we could be approving good POIs.
And the criteria themselves need a little more clarity. What makes a trail marker a good place to exercise but not a bench/gate/stile on the same trail/footpath? Are all generic, mass-produced footpath signs now allowed, because they encourage exercise? Since they cannot be rejected using the "permanent and distinct" criteria any more.
Niantic need to produce an FAQ with all the questions people have been asking.
Cannot depend on "cute cartoons", they tell reviewers to reject dumpsters, but the new UI does not allow that. I think we'll see meta change soon, more street signs and lamp posts nominated and accepted (street lights help to explore right?), and more stuff like that. Meanwhile updated the picture to reflect the new UI:
If something is just plain ineligible, why should I go through the rigmarole of verifying a generic sign is where the user said it was, and that it has safe pedestrian access, if it's going to be rejected by the last 3 criteria? It's just a waste of time when we could be approving good POIs.
While it is a good question, I thing it is a reaction to complaints that it is too easy and quicker to reject something than it is to approve. Thus, requiring a full review to reject something that does not meet the criteria take the same amount of time as approving it. As to why a full review isn't required for downvoting any of the other categories is another question.
That would be downvotes for all three eligibility criteria. But this misconstrue of the socialization criteria to justify anything and everything is among my biggest pet peeves in Wayferer.
Ohhh. Good question. Sorry Cyndiepooh not Niantic but hope my view helps.
Rule of thumb (poor pun) - The three eligibility criteria are thumbs down unless evidence is provided of heritage/historical/interesting nature.
The best I can come up with - is the bench a memorial for someone that is historical/interesting and evidence of this is provided. So historical is creator of the steam engine. Fastest 100m in 1909. Interesting could be a unique design feature on the bench (some are painted, some of different patterns on the back, seat and so on etc etc). Heritage could be memorial bench from the 19th century (say 1842). And all with evidence provided in supporting information. IF yes then explore is on the table.
If it is for joe/jean bloggs whose mam and da paid 400 quid/dollars for a bench. Then explore is off the table.
I am using this as the (pardon the pun) my bench mark.
I had no idea benches were so controversial.
I usually approve any bench unless the title, photo, or description are particularly bad. Especially if there isn’t anything else nearby.
Not every spot has to be amazing.
Memorial benches are not good at all unless the person memorialized on it has historical/cultural importance.
Again, not every stop has to be amazing. It’s fine for something to just be fine.
And I’d rather see a benign memorial bench nominated (at least they cared enough about their local park to donate some money to improve it) than seeing nothing else nominated in an area.
Not every wayspot has to be "amazing," but every wayspot has to (is supposed to) meet at least one of the three acceptance criteria. A memorial bench with no further significance is not a great place to explore, exercise, or be social.
What? You don’t want to sit and talk with friends? You don’t want to sit and read a book in your neighborhood park? You don’t want to sit and rest on your two mile walk? It’s always good to know where the benches are.
A lot of (antiquated but loud) voices want to say that a bench is only generic infrastructure and accepting one because it could be used to socialize is the same as accepting a sidewalk or a curb because you could sit there and socialize.
To me, a bench placed on a trail or in an urban plaza that was obviously and potentially placed to aid visitors with a place to reflect, socialize, or help them rest on a walk meets enough criteria. Being a "generic memorial" doesn't lessen the value of the bench itself.
Many nay-sayers focus on blanket statements that all are ineligible. Don't mistake or misinterpret my own words - I'm also not saying EVERY bench should be. It is important to review to your best judgement and take local context into consideration and remember this is just for a game.
This.
Many people claim that Niantic only wants the best of the best, that each wayspot should be something really important, etc... but the evolution of the eligibility criteria doesn't match that narrative, the new review flow is more open minded and the thousands of new wayspots in India, ... think about it. If they only wanted to very best, why the rush to add that.
Agreed. Do I think ALL nominations of memorial benches should be accepted? No. Do I think they should be rejected BECAUSE they are memorial benches? Also no.