Major content-creators abusing WF for more view time
yatsueku67-PGO
Posts: 1 ✭✭
I'd like to raise the issue with content-creators. Not going to specify them, just show the problem.
During Poland Challenge I had opportunity to visit stream by one of the major content-creators here. I was curious how the process will go and what arguments can be heard when accepting/rejecting things. The general goal was to review and show how things should be properly reviewed. Sounds cool right? However, what we were able to see was just enormous pathetic missunderstanding.
This guy didnt care about reliable reviewing at all. The whole process looked like 2* insta spam, especially for good nominations. After asking him why his reviewing is so bad and inaccurate, he said he cannot review anything higher otherwise he will get banned from reviewing (for 4 hrs I assume). The nominations will maybe get accepted anyway. Such an attitiude is just sad. Things ppl stuggle with:
- Wayfarer problem with random bans. People care less and less about reliable review, stars are marked randomly to avoid bans. Best prevention is just to reject everything 1-2* because using 4-5* starts in row even though nominations are really good is almost ban guaranteed. 2* for public library?
- Sending reviews at first glance on main picture. Not checking for water-marks nor duplicates, 0 care about additional info, too lazy to compare photos surrounding with actual map..
- Instead of portal name, portal description is not demanded. We dont have to write poems there. It is optional info which can be added anytime later. Puting ex. exact location there doesnt make it 1* or 2*.
- People still have 0 understanding how to interprate visually unique, although it was clarified by NIA. Those criteria descriptions should be changed already, they are probably still too confusing esp. for new reviewers. How can you mark 2* visual uniqueness when reviewing local landmark or well-organised high quality sign with park history even though they are outstanding..
- Safe access and location seem to be treated as thing to increase/decrease overall result, not taken seriously. Even if nomination is as good as expected, those options should also taken under reliable consideration. Marking 2 or 3* for access and location when you clearly see pavement, pedestrian crossing, park alley, official photosphere+map is irresponsible.
- Nomination education from NIA is still lacking, they do try to improve but too slowly and not too directly. Why for example dont do pop-up windows of type "do you know that.." and inside write short clarifications about one criteria or like many ingame tip bars. Such simple visuals are more impactfull than reading wall of text for ppl who dont want to improve POI-base just realese their frustration here.
The general problem affects mainly new reviewers who just got access and those who review not much. It is really painful to watch them deepen the WF's well, like it wasnt already in the mud.. Especialy kids thinks about their games content-creators as almost idols, they believe blindly and yet such people give soooo bad example to those kids..
Comments
"The nomination will got accepted anyway"
But he's a content creator who speedrun the review, and the video has been viewed by many people. What if his subscribers do EXACTLY the same thing?
Wasn't that just adding more angry submitters complaining in this forum telling that their nomination got either rejected by ridiculous reason or stuck longer? We know that 2* rating would lead into rejection, btw.
Why in the world would anyone watch a video of someone else doing WF reviews? That's what really blows my mind. Maybe they're not really equipped for the task in the first place.
Anyway, if Niantic wants to crack down on bad reviewers and needs somewhere to start it sounds like they'd have a pretty easy job on this one. Even easier if you provided some links.
Why in the world would anyone watch a video of someone else doing WF reviews?
For the same reason that they watch videos of people doing all kind of things on YouTube, and the rest of streaming platforms.
Why? Why not? It isn't like the guideline pages have ever been an adequate source for learning how to review. I could certainly see people watching review streamers to learn, and it gets brought up quite a bit during Ingress FS when reviewing is a focus of the event.
I guess I'm just too old to appreciate the amount of trust some people will put in the opinions of some random **** posting videos on the internet. Disclaimer: I obviously haven't watched these videos so I am going by the description in the first post in which it sounds like they're full of it. I've reviewed for a while and never been banned for either rejecting or approving several nominations in a row.
I mean, yeah, the guideline pages aren't really great but why would some random on youtube be a better source? It literally makes no sense.