It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
Would a reworking of the “report invalid portal/pokestop” feature be possible? As it stands currently, the options to choose from are quite limited. There is also no way to add a comment explaining any details, no way to upload any type of supporting photo, or no way to add any other information along with the request.
As it stands, we have to submit a report (picking the closest reason possible), wait days or even months for a rejection, then submit an appeal on the forum just to give the details that we could have given initially. Even then, if the appeal requires “additional evidence” we can’t even post that in the same thread and have to start a whole new appeal and hope that it’s sufficient.
The process of removing portals that are no longer around or were outright fake takes weeks or months and the effort is not really worth it and often inconsistent with what gets removed and what “should remain”.
The roadmap 2020/2021, though still to be implemented in its most important aspects, promises to address some of the biggest complains users had expressed for the longest time. Do you have any plans to 'seduce' back the jaded reviewers who gave up on Wayfarer ?
What is the reasoning for limiting edit reviews to a much smaller area than regular submission reviews? Years ago the theory was that the small area helps tap in to "local knowledge" but the result has been people reviewing edits from areas just as unfamiliar as regular nominations. The problem is since fewer people see it edits take significantly longer than regular nominations to resolve. The downsides seem to outweigh the benefits of this kind of limit. To show context my local nominations get resolved in about a month which is not bad but none of my edits have resolved and most are almost a year old with the oldest at over 2 1/2 years old. The current edit view area is too large to tap in to local knowledge but too small to resolve edits in a timely manner in many places and open to small groups of individuals abusing the system locally. At what point can the Wayfarer team re-evaluate the review system for edits?
Are there any plans to introduce feedback into the review system? Many people don't know where they disagreed with either the preapproved submissions or the majority of voters? Unless people have a way of knowing their mistakes, it will be difficult to avoid repeating them.
Hey, here in sweden we get a lot of title and description edits from Finland and even though our countrys are very close the languages are extremely different so it's super hard to understand some of the edits even with google translate since the finnish languages is very hard to translate to give a precis translation. So a lot of the time we can't decide for a title or description so we choose the 3th opinion (can't choose) which is only hurting the Finnish player. Can you do something about this, either let us skip edits like we can with ordinary submissions or have another option like "can't choose because another language".
Many players find it immensely frustrating that you don't seem to care much that there are submissions sitting in voting for a year or more while at the same time reviewers are being told there is nothing to review. Can you explain why you seem disinterested in joining the dots and letting players who want to review deal with the backlog?
What does pedestrian access mean
I mean do you need to have a real footpath or can it be grass and do you need to touch it or just stand next to it or do you have to be able to walk a circle around it
That's so correct what you brought up i sometimes get rejections where i get it is a buisness and on the otherhand i get PRP these two can't be combined people still think stores are PRP
How does the repositioning of the POi work at the end of an evaluation? The POIs seem to be directly repositioned after the end of the vote if it is not in the right location, is it positioned at a "middle" point of the repositioning suggestions?
Why in Pokémon GO we have to follow the one per S2 L17 cell pokestop limit too, while in Ingress there is only the 20 meters limit among portals? 90% of the location edit request or duplicate ones, are due to that limitation. We just need S2 L14 cells for gyms, so why don't you just remove that limitation about S2 L17 cells and allow all the portals already existing in Ingress to become pokestops?
Terms such as eligible and acceptable are used throughout the wayfarer help and criteria as well as in discussions on this forum. Unfortunately, declaring a category of objects as acceptable or eligible often leads submitters to believe that because a certain object is an example of an eligible category that their nomination should be accepted without regard to other considerations such as cultural value, visual uniqueness or verifiable location. I think it also can lead reviewers into patterns of stale reviews of commonly submitted nominations. The end result is that wayfarer can turn into more of a binary yes/no system instead of a methodical, individual rating of individual wayspots. Could you take a moment to address the terms acceptable and eligible and how they should apply to the way we review commonly "acceptable" items like playgrounds, pavilions, gazebos, trail markers, basketball courts, etc.? Does acceptable mean 5* or 3* or "it depends on the nomination"?
Sorry for my poor English. I used a translator.
I would like to see any information that the Niantic Wayfarer Team writes to Community that has a significant impact on the judging process reflected in the Wayfarer Help sooner rather than later.
For example, this Casey's comment.
In the July 25, 2017 AMA, the response was positive for Wayspots in the water.
However, Casey determined that Wayspots in the water (or Wayspots that can only be safely accessed at low tide) are ineligible because of "limited safe access to the Wayspots".
This is a policy change that only people who have seen this thread know about. If you look at the help, all it says is "Nominations with no safe pedestrian access to the Wayspot's real-world location".
I'm sure many judges would assume from just looking at the help that as long as it's safe to access at low tide, there's no problem with access.
I'm not saying that every post should reflect the content of every post. I think any changes to the standards that significantly affect player safety should be reflected in the help immediately.
I understand you can't give us details of actions taken against individual accounts, but can you tell us a summary of how many accounts have had some kind of restrictions applied because of abusive and/or fake nominations reported via the Wayfarer Abuse form? When we see repeated offences from similar postcode areas it's frustrating not having any idea if any action has been taken against anyone
Can we have a rejection reason "needs more evidence of cultural/historical claims"? Sometimes we see submissions which make unsubstantiated claims (no links or easy to Google information in description or supporting information) which would not be eligible POI on their own, but might be if reviewers were certain that claims for provenance were true. Currently while we can reject for title/description that doesn't tell the submitter what evidence might make it acceptable on a resubmit
Can you provide the ability to re-direct if the support information has a URL? Copying and pasting addresses isn't hard, but I think it's quite a hassle.
When can we set our bonus location to the moon?
Will you ban the words poke stop ( in this sequence as to not affect legit submits ) from description and additional information ?
And if it is added have a message pop up mentioning this is not a valid statement to make on a submission and then have a prompt pop with the rules or guidelines ?
Will cut back on the spam in the system and educate submitters lacking in quality.
Is there anything being done about the long wait for nominations that are occurring in some areas? Some nominations are approaching 1 year in voting and with reading some posts on this forum saying there are others out well over a year old. Many understand that nominations in urban areas should require more votes and a longer turn around but the length is getting out of hand.
I think it would be nice if we could see weekly stats on nominations reviewed, Wayspots created, edits made, nominations submitted and other general stats.
Would be kind of cool to see how much we are contributing as a group.
Can "Should this be a Wayspot?" question be asked as the last question asked and not the first one asked?
1) You're basically asking people whether to approve/reject a submission based on ONE single photo and nothing else. For mobile reviewers, they only see the photo and this question first without any context of Title, Description, or Supporting. Even reviewing on a computer, you're immediately asked this question first.
2) The Wayfarer team has repeatedly said that we should be taking our time to evaluate a submission. If I'm carefully evaluating a submission and read the Title, Description, and Supporting Statement, looking for duplicates, and checking out the location AND then decide that I want to reject the submission, I now need to scroll all the way up to the top of the screen to reject the submission. Reviewers on Mobile know how annoying it is to be forced to scroll to the very top. So why isn't the question of whether "Should this be a Wayspot?" be the last question you answer AFTER carefully reviewing the submission and placed at the very end where it's actually convenient? Why force reviewers to scroll all the way back to the top to answer this question?
3) The actual reality is that a lot of people are fast reviewing for Agreements and basing "easy rejections" on one single photo and that's it. In many cases, this can be an obvious rejection on one photo but a lot of submissions NEED context. They need reviewers to read the Title, Description, AND Supporting to explain why their submission fits criteria when their one photo cannot. For instance, a submission of a restaurant sign will be quickly rejected as "Generic Business" based off one photo. However, what if the Description and Supporting explains this restaurant earned 3 Michelin stars, was featured in Food & Wine Magazine, listed as the best French restaurant in the United States by the New York Times newspaper, has now become a tourist attraction drawing large crowds, and the chef appeared multiple times on the reality series "Top Chef." This fits the criteria: "Acceptable: Eateries that have been featured prominently in travel guides, those with historical or cultural significance, or establishments that are popular tourist destinations." Unfortunately, none of this matters because reviewers are basing whether to outright reject a submission based on one single photo and won't bother to read the Description or Supporting. It's a "generic business" and that's it based on one photo.
4) There will be some Reviewers who will complain that they will be inconvenience by having to scroll all the way down to reject easy rejections. Yes, it's convenient to be able to instantly reject a tree with the first question. However, what exactly is more inconvenient? A reviewer who has to spend a couple seconds scrolling down so they can press the reject button OR a submitter who has to wait 14 days to get their next submission opportunity, then be forced to review over 100 submissions to earn an Upgrade, and then do all this all over again when their submission is rejected because people are basing their decision on one photo without context? At least with making reviewers scroll down to answer this question, reviewers might see that the submitter has actually thoughtfully provided evidence in the Description/Supporting and might actually stop to read it.
In the end, if you want people to slow down and thoughtfully review each submission, then "Should this be a Wayspot?" question should be the last one asked and not the first. This will hopefully prevent at least some submissions from being erroneously rejected when they actually do fit criteria.
Why Pogo nominators still can't see existing waypoints during the nomination process?
Related to that why the in app text still use "nominating Pokestops and gyms" terminology? It's intentionally(?) misleading the player base.
Could you add a straight link to Wayfarer in the "nomination received" email confirmation?
Preferably with something like
"You can still check and improve the text parts in your nomination and participate in the review process of other wayfinders' nominations on Wayfarer site."
In my experience many casual submitters don't even realise there is a Wayfarer system involved.
Niantic should have a certain amount of trusted reviewers do a "First Selection".
If a "First Selector" says it goes into the review pool, then the normal review process will start.
If the First Selector says "reject", and there will be a certain amount of other First Selector say this also, it will be rejected.
If the First Selector is undecided, other FS will decide. If there is no decision met, it will go into the review pool after 3 days.
Niantic can a) up the quality of the Database by having NOT everyone see things that do not need reviews, also speed up the process. There is nothing more frustrating than obvsly bad wayspots that are in review for 12 Month and then are rejected due to obvs misinterpretation of the rules
b) Niantic would make life easier for "FS" Reviewers by give them no time limit, no hassle with criteria and no hassle with location check, as the submission is basicly just being reviewed for the standards.
(Examples: Things like Playgrounds here in Germany can easily go into review, by seeing the main pictures and location. Things like stuff in your front-garden are easily spotted and will be filtered out)
When are "ghost pokestops/gyms" (I mean those waypoints that have been removed from PoGo client by the L17 recalc triggered by a location edit, but still accessible through Plus/gotcha) going to be fixed server-side?
I mean, I have a ghost gym in a L14 cell with 3 waypoints inside but no gym accessible in PoGo because the one waypoint promoted as gym has been removed shortly after its location edit and honestly this whole thing blows. It's not fixing an abuse, it's opening doors to many many worse abuses and this prevents people from submitting any other locations edit, since we might lose other waypoints ingame. It was so good before that
Recommend the following option within Niantic Games: Remove and replace.
Objective: To remove obsolete waystops that no longer exist with new ones that happen to be in the same location or within 20M of that location AND within the same cell for Pokemon (If used). This is to only occur to waystops within that game (I.e if a waystop is in Ingress Prime, it will not be accessible for change within Pokemon Go, or other Niantic games).
Implementation: All players able to submit are allowed to have 2x the number of Remove and Replace request as Waystop request (28 for Ingress, 14 for Pokemon Go, etc) and do not count against their submission numbers. Acceptance requirement is the same as all other Waystop submissions.
Design Element: Recommend a side by side view of the obsolete stop vs the recommended new stop.
Acceptance: If a stop is approved for changes, the name and updated photos will change. All points, badges and keys will remain with the stop however will change in name only along with the updated photo of the new Waystop. The changes will take place during the server synchronization time
Thank you for reviewing this comment.
Could we please clarify the Removal reasons from Niantic's team versus the Eligible nominations from Wayfarer?
There are thousands of active Wayspots which do not meet acceptance criteria such as Private Property, Duplicates etc, where removal gets rejected by Niantic due to "This currently does not meet our removal criteria".
It would make sense that things that are clearly stated as being ineligible, get removed easily - yet Niantic does not understand this.
Is it possible to extend the reviewing time for a limited number of nominations? I often review nominations that are close to my location, still sometimes I am unsure if the object is exactly at this location. Especially trail markers or educational signs in the forest are difficult to assess. It would be helpful if I could put them on a "review waiting list" for maybe 6 hours to go and check the place and finish the review then.