New criteria - everybody should be able to retake ”the test”
daawg-ING Posts: 27 ✭✭✭
Since @NianticCasey-ING announced the following in the AMA thread:
”As we've announced, there's a completely new set of review criteria that overrides all previous guidelines and guidance.”
... I think it would be fair for NIA to enable the possibility for all reviewers to retake the reviewer test in Wayfarer in order to get their rating up to date.
If people failed to follow the criteria last time, why does changing it mean that they will follow the criteria this time ?
Dear Theisman, I am talking about the test that resets your rating to ”good” if your rating has dropped to poor, not the initial test. The test that every reviewer can take once if they have problems getting back to a level that for example actually contributes to Recon medal in Ingress.
Everybody including NIA knows that most reviewers are suffering from poor rating because the whole WF is a bit of a wild west lottery (to put it kindly), and until now the presentation of criteria has been substandard, having been scattered around Krug’s old AMAs, Ingress forums, different sections of WF and Pokemon forums.
Maybe because most of the people who have a poor rating really follow the criteria.
Do you have any evidence of this? There are people who are horrible reviewers, rejecting things they should accept, accepting things they should reject, and speeding through reviews, who have great ratings. Meanwhile, I know people who spend more time and have lower ratings, including some people who have poor ones. I suspect (and have convinced them) that the reason is that they missed a honeypot or two.
It's the same exact test as before. Besides, the test focuses more on predestrian access and location accuracy rather than the acceptance criteria.
And misleading, at that.
I would think if the new reviewing system went live (from star rating to Yes/No/Unsure questions), then the question bank must be updated.
And everyone should take the new test, whether they're new reviewers and those with poor rating to already great rating.
Yes, it is a question about location accuracy, not about whether the nomination is eligible. That just evidence to my point that the test focuses on location accuracy and pedestrian access over of eligibility.
* "focuses more on predestrian access and location accuracy" at risk of presenting cases forcing reviewers to compromise location accuracy to allow safe pedestrian access.
Not disagreeing with your point, just saying that the test is bad even at what you say it focuses on.
Maybe that is part of the test? To see if people read and understand the specific question asked, instead of focusing on whether or not it would be a good wayspot candidate?
And it leads to people claiming that it's OK to place it in some other location because the test said to rate that situation with 3*
In fairness, I’d probably just move it (assuming it was eligible)
The test absolutely needs an overhaul. No one would even rate the location because it would be 1-starred for pedestrian access instantly. Same thing with that World's Largest Basket Building, the pin is obviously off but it still tells you it is accessible. It needs to be moved instead. Of course educating reviewers that if they hate its current location and that they are encouraged to move it, we are probably going to get strange outcomes.
But if something is submitted in the middle of the road, would I even 3* it for location instead? Not even close. Because even if I tried to move it, it will be approved in the middle of the road.