Will there ever be more transparency in wayfinder ranking?

Information such as how to improve the ranking, what metrics went into your ranking etc.

Answers

  • Kroutpiick-PGOKroutpiick-PGO Posts: 370 ✭✭✭✭

    This has been discussed a bit in the latest AMA

    "Offering feedback for disagreements between reviewers and the final decision as well as information about where reviewers decided differently from the Niantic reviewed submissions.

    We definitely hear you on the need to provide more feedback to reviewers so you can improve and learn how to better review. Honestly, there is a lot of technical work that is required in making this happen, so we are deliberating how to best do this and how we can break it into phases so that the necessary information gets to the people who need it sooner rather than later. Please share any specific ideas you may have!"

    Or here : https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/3170/feedback-system-on-decisions

    There is a lack of transparency in Wayfarer. If you ask them "how to improve your rating?", Niantic will simply answer "read and read again the guidelines so that you will review accordingly...". I also hope that someday, we will have a better feedback system.

  • TohtoriJamba-PGOTohtoriJamba-PGO Posts: 12 ✭✭
    edited June 2021

    Hey, new wayfinder here, been here almost for a month and learning the ropes. I'm here to share my view on this.

    The current system is open up for manipulation. If you think about the way how pokestop has to go through the voting process.

    In perfect world, as you review pokestop and you see clearly fake nomination or some other criteria (k-12 school, blocking emergency access etc.), you would see everyone acknowleding the fact and in mutual understanding and thats that, right?

    But what is there stopping people with either multiple accounts or multiple different people (with wayfarer access) that decide to vote against the guidelines in mutual understanding?

    Surely this will automatically affect to the rating of decent folks that try to uphold the rules and see that each nomination is okay. In the case above, if you get hit by clearly fake nomination and others not so honest people voting for pass.

    Now thinking about the long time consequences, if someone with great grading gets pushed all the way back to poor due to this, it automatically affects the next reviews right? So it'd only take handful of people to push legitimate reviewers in favour of people that vote and pass for everything.

    Edit:

    Ps. I understand that this most likely has been brought up before but felt like it had to be said.

  • ElTioVenancio-PGOElTioVenancio-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭

    Yo tambien soy nuevo en este mundo, y si, realmente en cada localidad y en cada país existen grupos de personas que hacen lo mismo, en mi revisiones he mirado esos malos comportamientos para el beneficio de una persona o un grupo de personas, y dejando atras lo que realmente Wayfarer necesita, puntos de interes reales.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,471 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JamHamskinson-PGO That happens in some areas-- I call that phenomenon "local cabals".

    I believe that Niantic could address this by requiring that a larger percentage of reviewers come from outside the local area. They would just need to set the threshold high enough that local reviewers wouldn't have a majority vote.

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,725 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The contrapositive is also true.

    What we know is that the area of reviewers comprises of 9 S2 Level 6 cells: the cell you're located in, and the eight surrounding. In practice, you have a 200km radius of a reviewer pool reviewing your nomination (unless it's upgraded, than it balloons to the entire Australian landmass and its territories).

    So already, say in this example with Sydney, reviewers from Canberra, Newcastle, Dubbo, Jervis Bay, Goulburn, and Orange are reviewing nominations in Sydney. This is fine. It balances the reviewers so it isn't entirely just one single community.

    Regarding the instance of local knowledge, NianticCasey has advised that they look to the folks in Wayfarer for their hyper-local knowledge:

    So there is value in having your local community with aforementioned hyper-local knowledge to do similar assessments. Except when that same community is approving things such as electric boxes, random shops and advertisement posts, then the onus is not on the community but on the system for easily allowing these ineligible things to be approved. Why is an ineligible object like a trash can or a school being approved? Why can ineligible objects stay in-game just because they're "grandfathered in"? Why can't we remove them as invalid because they don't meet any removal criteria? What do you mean I can't use existing wayspots as a baseline to submit new things?!

    Once again, I've been in various Pogo communities interstate and very often seeing tactical reviewers and community groups to "reject anything that isn't in their area" or those that don't directly benefit them. "I've never been to Sydney, so why should I vote it highly" someone from South Australia might say. Why would a group of players from Queensland want to do anything to remove wayspots from New South England?

    Voting against the guidelines is the cause of an easily manipulatable system, not the players. It is also, a disgruntlement of eligible nominations that do meet criteria that are being rejected (i.e. the cases where an entire community is rejecting every single nomination that appears in Wayfarer just for easy agreement points).

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,471 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2021

    @HaramDingo-ING Yes about the voting.

    As for ineligible things, that gets tricky to unwind. Many things that were eligible seven years ago are no longer eligible. Should we allow a sweep of the now-disqualified things every time the rules change? What if the rules revert and that thing becomes eligible again? If you try to tie it to whether or not it was eligible on the date it was submitted or approved then I think that very quickly becomes an intractable problem. Removing all currently-ineligible things can quickly become weaponized.

    I think it's excellent to turn to the local community for discussion, but I also think that locals should have a minority vote in whether something gets approved.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,619 ✭✭✭✭✭

    On one hand I understand the need to have more people outside local area, on the other hand though, it would mean harder to get rhe local known waspots through, like hotspots, cafes and resteraunts, that kind of thing (as if they arent hard enough alread)

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,471 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @gazzas89-PGO I don't think it would be much more difficult. I think it would just require that submitters make a solid case. I've seen a lot of submissions that just say "this is a local hotspot" and expect that to be enough, but I've also seen a lot of submissions even on other continents where the submitter took a couple of minutes to explain what made the thing special. I usually vote against the ones with no explanation and for the ones with good explanations.

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 754 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Most reviewers do not read past the title of a nomination. There is a building used by a bank in my town that is listed as being of historical importance by the authorities. Yet, despite clearly being a bank, it has been rejected twice as being "private residential property".

Sign In or Register to comment.