New Wayfarer Criteria Page missing Important Criteria
Qwizical-ING
Posts: 91 ✭✭✭✭
Hey Niantic,
I'm gonna start off by saying I like a lot of what you've done. I like that you've clarified your stance on fake nominations, couch wayspots, and influencers.
Here's the bit I don't like
Where are the criteria for wayspots that meet:
1) **Educational** guidelines for objects such as information boards that teach you things about anything and everything
2) **Architectural** guidelines for objects such as nationally listed buildings, those designed by noted architects, or those that help you understand the *history* of your local area or region etc
3) **Art** guidelines for objects such as statues and public murals. (Have a look at Christiaan Nagel's polyurethane mushrooms in London for example)
To me this criteria list is missing a lot, I understand that it's probably for newer submitters and reviewers, but entire chunks of information are missing that need adding. Especially if people are going to start taking what this says as gospel since a lot of submissions that aren't specifically covered by the acceptance criteria I've personally had a lot of struggles with.
Also pretty much everything can be argued to be "explorational" so that whole criterion is essentially useless IMO.
Qwizical
Comments
I feel those items you bring up essentially belong to the exploration category.
Everything can be explorational though. You would have to physically go to that spot to play all Niantic Games and submit the object in the first place. I just think that criterion is awfully worded and needs a lot more detail and depth.
I think this means pools are eligible again 🤣🤣🤣
I've been joking with people that their significant other would say their bedroom now meets all three niantic criteria.
That's why I believe these criteria are so poorly written. The innuendos are too real and these new criteria are opening so much out to abuse and don't even mention things like murals and architecture which at least the old criteria did.
All people will see now are those 3 bullet points.
I like the intent, but execution seems off. Guess we'll see 🤷
Indeed, my back garden is a place where people I want to, can socialise, get some exercise and most certainly explore.
As for my actual back garden, I guess that they can explore there too if I unbolt the gate.
Look, the point of this first section is to say what is eligible to be reviewed further. This should be a large pool of candidates. The next section tells you what can be accepted followed by what is to be rejected in the next section. Just because something is eligible does not mean it will be a good wayspot. In your example, your bedroom actually is eligible (in your SO's mind) until you see that a private, single family residence is a specific reason to reject (same with @PkmnTrainerJ-ING's backyard).
This applies to a lot of the endless threads of discussions about trail markers, neighborhood entrance signs, etc. Sure, they could be eligible, but should they be accepted or rejected. Well, that's the beloved gray-area that is now being promoted in this criteria write-up.
That all comes under "Exploration" according to the Eligibility Criteria page
Oh I know. I'm not silly :) I'm just very aware that a lot of people who want couch wayspots are only going to see those first 3 bullet points and ignore the rest of it. Doing away with that summary will probably encourage people to actually read the rest of it.
Exploration covers everything and anything. We are gonna see a lot more of that in the system than we've ever seen. We already see too much.
Plus Niantic never explicitly mention in big bold font for everyone to see that any 1 star reason overrides all acceptance reasons for the entire submission.
I see it I just don't like that now pretty much everything is coming under the exploration criterion anyway.
Plus no specific mention of educational stuff.
I also didn't saw anything about religious things or did i oversee it
"Public places of worship"
It all feels very indirectly mentioned now. I dont think new submitters and reviewers will be able to process all that info without pictures
What I have question with in the new criteria update is that the wayfarer team has completely omitted the fact of natural features in the guidelines and it would be helpful for a more detailed explaination on this as it opening up for people to just approve natural features with no educational, cultural or exploration values. i don't think niantic wants a tree representing a national forest etc.
I also question walking paths and biking paths I have seen people trying to use the concrete trail as a poi to tie down the waypoint and the most common is submitting a generic rules sign with the path in the background with no identifier of a trail name.
Can the team please clarify on the main page about this?
I read through guidelines last night and only *Famous Transit Stations* are listed under the social guideline.
Seems weird. Regularly transit stations are clearly rubbish portals ...
as always. If you talk to 100 wayfarer reviewers, maybe 10 will have noticed that there are new criteria. they will still vote NAY with our things that are now wayspots that are valid.
That all comes under Exploration according to the Eligibility Criteria page
You still need something thats physically tangible, permanent, and publicly accessible to place the poi/sumbission to. So a tree would not work. A sign for the forest would be eligible for that poi. I believe its stated in the criteria for those 3 main things still no matter what poi
Hello folks! Thanks for sharing your valuable inputs, I would like to pitch in here. We have simplified and streamlined the Eligibility criteria for acceptance or rejection. Regarding your query @Qwizical-ING Educational, Architectural and Art will fall under exploration. That being said, it should be physically tangible, permanent, and publicly accessible. Please review the criteria once again for better clarification along with the content guidelines. I hope you find this helpful, I'll be ever ready to clarify further queries you'll have.
Thanks! But it is difficult to convince the reviewer community as a whole because 1) not everyone sees these posts, 2) not everyone takes these posts as "criteria," and 3) the criteria page is touted as the "one true source."
Over the next few months, will the criteria page be actively reviewed and updated with prime examples of eligible candidates or added suggested criteria? I'm not wanting us to go back to the "this is eligible, that isn't" guidelines we've had in the past, but some additional published clarifications would be nice.
I hear you, @Gendgi-PGO! Thanks sharing your thoughts with us, I realize it's importance and will be sure to pass it along to our team.