It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
I agree with your opinion.
I've posted a similar agenda for AR scans before.
If this proposal is incorporated into the system, location impersonators will not be able to AR scans and will be able to prevent fraud.
Do you have any idea to provide guidance dedicated to supporting information separately from the title and description in the help?
If you enter the URL in the supporting information, you will receive an unreasonable rejection. This happens due to inadequate help.
Not limited to this, could you please revise the help for the elements added from OPR (peripheral photos, upgrades, etc.) to match the latest system?
Dear DanBocat, dear Tintino,
i think somehow this system of voting on ideas for the AMAs isnt really working.
Maybe next time, try something different. It isnt nice how people here look at the other peoples votes, and then start picking on them.
Also, the Idea of having AMA´s is somehow redundant.
Also i really do not like that there are criteria, and then some other "places" to look for criteria, criteria rewrite, criteria that has understood wrong, criteria that might change from moonphase to moonphase - AND THEN Criteria that is in AMA´s, also answered by people that somehow didnt really use Wayfarer that much, are not with the company anymore, or are now doing other stuff at NIA HQ.
How about GAMIFY with some Wayfarer THEMES? This could educate Explorers, and encourage good nominations and reviewing.
Once a month, email all Explorers with information highlighting a wayspot category. (Example categories: fountains, parks, statues, murals, interesting architecture, historic places, sports fields.) Explain what makes a good wayspot in this category, and what does not. Encourage exploring to find and nominate good examples.
Then, for the next two weeks:
Maybe some of it isn't practical, but Niantic could take it to a brainstorming meeting and come out with fun possibilities.
I'm sorry if I repeated the same comment, I have always had issues posting comments onto the forum and often have to repeat them.
My first question is,
Will it be possible to rework the Upgrade Mechanics to change to something like an Upgrade Points system?
The idea would be that you can get points or credits that you can trade in for either upgrades which would still be 1 upgrade point or other things like an extra nomination or cosmetic items which would require more points/credits to get.
The other question is when would we get the new folks who would be the ambassadors for reviewing that was hinted at months ago?
Another question is, are there ways for normal agents/trainers to help create events? I had previously hosted Wayfarer Bingo Competitions and even had a Card where you would fill in the slots, since my last post didn't go through you can see an example of it in my profile. I would gladly love to share them and the rewards can be 10 Upgrade Credits/Points since you can easily host those competitions weekly on the forum or tweak it as needed.
In situations where you got a play equipment in review, but the playground already has a POI (eg. slide exists and someone submitted the swing), whats the correct way to go? Rejecting (which rejection reason?) or duplicating (even though they are technically not duplicates) or eben approving?
Why even Wayfarer has bugs, does the intern at Niantic also work on wayfarer?
What's the point of adding POIs if you remove the best one of the Niantic games: CatanWE?
Is the wayfarer team considering how to accommodate neurodiverse folk. Sometimes my tendency for rigid thinking has me getting very very cranky/depressed about a rejected poi. 'Just nonsense to have a gazebo/park shelter rejected' loops on repeat around the brain.
There has been a lot of recent removals of churches in the area due to the presence of daycare or school for children to some capacity, even though churches are seen as places for social gathering / worship. Can you please offer full clarification on what makes a church eligible and what makes it ineligible? Should a church should be classified as ineligible if there is daycare or a school in a separate building located on the same church property? I have seen conflicting reports where these individuals who have reported and appealed removals have been rejected due to "separate entrances." In addition, are we as reviewers expected to look up this information when we run into future church submissions or is it the job of the submitter to clarify that there is no childcare services present? What defines separate entrances?
I want to understand why churches have been removed from the game aside from those that no longer exist. I realize many churches offer care for children in different capacities, most of which for individuals under the age of 18, so I can understand why there's a K-12 factor in there, but I'm just trying to get a better grasp on how to review these as I get them and better understand how someone was able to remove so many of these from my area. I've never submitted a church and just want to make sure if I do in the future I have a better understanding of the do's and don'ts.
Also, in a semi-related note, are blessing boxes still ineligible? Aside from little free libraries being nods to education and blessing boxes not following suit, what else makes a blessing box ineligible, or has this stance changed?
Why do we have to wait a year to reset our bonus location? I cant think of any reason for this. If we were allowed to reset it more often, like once a month, then we could help people in rural areas across the globe that ask for help. Also it would be no big deal for people to partisapate in a global challenge even if they didnt get a reset afterwards. Really it seems only benifitial to me to have it reduced and I cant think of any reason it would do harm.
I think once a month would be too often. I suspect there may be some risk of abuse if the reset is too often, but I agree that maybe a shorter period would be helpful, 6mo? Some people may use it to mark where they are currently living (me), but others may want to help out an area but not for an entire year.
A question that probably interests many Wayfarers AND players:
How should we suggest a location change, for example to improve accuracy, without being able to give a concrete reason for the reviewers with the current options in the games?
Some do this via a separate edit of the description, which in the worst case leads to an abuse report and a penalty.
Reasons for the need for an official option to justify location changes would be, for example, that the reviewers are absolutely clueless in the case of poor satellite images and a missing street view and therefore decide more random than useful.
@FinalJudgmentZX-PGO Blessing boxes aren't valid, out of respect for whoever needs to collect food there. The whole point of the box being outside, is so that those who need, don't have to go into a building and feel scrutinized. They shouldn't feel scrutinized by gamers hanging around either.
Church playgrounds are not good. People leave their children in the care of others there (even if it's just on Sunday mornings). It would be a great place for a non-custodial parent to kid nap their child. Their teachers are trained to look for suspicious behavior.
(At park, neighborhood, or apartment playgrounds, the parent stays with the child.)
Scout and Youth buildings at churches are also not good wayspots - same reasons as church playgrounds. Don't be creepy.
The church main building entrance is 99% not the entry to a daycare.
Also, statues and gardens away from the playground are fine. They were put there so people who need solace can come, even if the church building is closed.
I'm not sure about church sports fields. Should a church be wayspotted up as if it's a public park? Would they want people walking around their sports fields when only the office is open?
They have stated that they want to provide some option to appeal rejections, there are other questions about that.
Meanwhile, you can post your nominations in the Improvement section if you want to listen to feedback, or if this situation is too hard to manage for you, then you should talk in person with someone that can help you, a forum is not a good way to communicate things.
Why doesn't Lightship automatically scan the primary picture, and auto-reject if there's a copyright, timestamp, or google logo (on pics of google maps)? Why leave it up to reviewers who might be earnest but just didn't notice? Automating this would give the nominator quick feedback, lessen the backlog reviewing other nominations, and protect Lightship from bad photos.
@FinalJudgmentZX-PGO ALL locations with primary goal to serve the underprivileged are considered "sensitive" by Niantic, including Blessing Boxes (aka Little Free Pantries). Specifically, Blessing Boxes are not good wayspots out of respect to those who need to get the free food. They are outside a building so the hungry don't have to go inside and feel scrutinized. They don't need to feel scrutinized by gamers either.
Church playgrounds aren't good wayspots. Parents leave their children in the care of others there (even if only on Sunday mornings). Teachers are trained to look for suspicious people hanging around. (For one thing, non-custodial parents could try to kid napp their own child there.)
(At park, neighborhood, or apartment playgrounds, the parent mostly stays with the child.)
Scout and youth buildings are also not appropriate wayspots. Don't be creepy.
The church main entry door is 95% not the door to the daycare, Bible School, Sunday School, or youth group, so it's OK. Church buildings have multiple purposes. The main door / worship area is keyed to the community more than its youth areas are.
Statues and gardens away from a playground are fine. They were put there for when someone wants solace and the building isn't open, or if they prefer solace outside - day or night.
What about church sports fields, pavilions, etc? A church is not the same as a public park. Church members finance the place, not taxpayers. Would the church be OK if someone is wandering around their soccer fields when there is no match? On a weekday when the office is open, but nothing else? What about after dark, and the fields aren't lit? Would that bring liability to the church?
Edit to add @AisforAndis-PGO who also asked about Blessing Boxes. See first paragraph, above.
Mark as duplicate
I'd like to request a comment on the effeciency and feedback of two Wayfarer-related instruments.
First of them is a "Reporting Abuse in Wayfarer" form. When agent reports incorrect nickname of another agent, he usually gets some kind of responce (that nickname is OK for Niantic/we'll force agent to change it). When agent requests a location change to <10 meter via scanner, he gets a letter stating that "reviewers have evaluated your request and decided something, you may appeal their decision". When we use a Wayfarer Abuse form, we basically request/report similar things (location edits over 10 meters or inapproprite title description edits). However, (1) we got a disclaimer that the person who reports something via form should be active in Wayfarer. Whatever that means, is it normal that we can only get some support if we are Wayfarer-active? So some bad actors can request my home portal renaming harassing me or submit the portal far from its real location obtaining unfair in-game advantage, and they would just get away with it if I haven't reviewed any nominations recently? (2) Why does the form submitter doesn't get any feedback regarding the processing of his request, unllike the requests via scanner which where discussed earlier? (3) Is there any available statistics on this form efficiency? To my experience, it was extremely ineffective, the abusive portal renames resume whenever specific agent is playing and so on. If, for example, some actions is taken after only 5% of the requests, does that mean that 95% requests are misleading? Probably not, it means that the system requires serious rearrangement and ensuring of better clarity regarding what you want to see in the form.
The second issue is an efficiency of the portal removal request submitted via scanner. It also seems pretty inefficient (only portals on school and kindergarten areas are likely to be removed after request processing, to my experience). It also seems like a waste of time for support team: they have to investigate some outdated maps/street view data/photos to, most likely, find some outdated info about the portal and reject the claim. Wouldn't it be better to provide players some opportunity to attach the proofs? For example, in reply of the letter about received request.
Thanks for your time!
The number of very low-quality proposals, which clearly violate criteria, has increased a lot in recent months, both in quantity and in percentage.
This fact saturates the system and slows down the possible acceptance and implementation of high quality proposals. There are several reasons that justify this fact:
- The inexperience of a very important part of that great mass of players who now have access to make proposals or to evaluate them.
- The inexperienced reviewer sees that certain types of proposals are continually requested, and he assumes that he can also ask for them even though in reality they are contrary to criteria.
- Sometimes, some of these proposals are finally accepted, and that means that inexperienced players believe that it is valid only because it has already been approved once, thus multiplying the problem
- The automated selection of featured wayspot showcase proposals, on too many occasions, selects proposals that violate criteria, mass-produced objects, photos with a watermark, ... - ...
The upgrades awarded as a prize by having 100 agreements in valuations, can encourage more value, but they do not encourage the valuation to be done by meeting criteria and giving each proposal the time it requires to be valued correctly.
In reality, it encourages compulsive valuation trying to reach the goal of number of deals through the number of valuations carried out, leaving aside the quality of those valuations. These compulsive evaluations carried out by those whose sole objective is to achieve upgrade, in turn influences the acceptance of non-valid proposals, and the rejection of others that do meet criteria, due to the little attention devoted to the evaluation by the compulsive reviewer.
I am convinced that there are many of us who share this concern, including you. I believe that a set of measures could substantially help to improve this situation.
1. Link agreements to achieve upgrades to personal performance.
This will make compulsive reviewers take more care in their valuations, aware of having to value well, meeting criteria, to have a good performance that allows them to access those upgrades.
2. At this time, any player with sufficient level in the game can make the same number of requests, which do not depend on their degree of knowledge of criteria.
One way to enhance quality assessments as well as knowledge of the criteria by the players is to differentiate between types of proposals.
- NR - Normal Requests. As before, each player can make X proposals from time to time
- ER - Extra Requests. Requests that would only be won by meeting certain criteria, depending on agreements obtained and personal performance. This measure would serve to improve the quality of the proposals, the ratio requests / evaluations, and the average knowledge of the criteria by the players.
To access the Extra Petitions, it is necessary that:
- perform well as a reviewer
- has obtained X agreements during that month.
3. Report option in featured wayspot showcase. If a proposal with a watermark has been accepted, and selected as a featured wayspot, it is assumed that the reviewer understands that the "watermark" is not a reason for rejection.
A direct reporting option in featured wayspot would allow these proposals to be removed from the sample system and thereby avoid the negative effect they have on inexperienced reviewers who understand that something is valid if it appears as a sample.
In these cases, of report admitted in prominent wayspot, they could be maintained for a time with a "rejected" mark that includes the reason for rejection "watermark" as one more form of information.
This measure would serve to improve the featured wayspot sample system, making it possible to withdraw those proposals that should not be there.
This thread is an AMA: Ask Me Anything.
What's your question?
I know it's an AMA. That is why I have raised this issue.
I am interested to know if Niantic plans to adopt any measures to solve the problem of the increase in absurd proposals that is taking place in recent months.
and that is why I have added some proposals that I think could improve the system.
Posted in the wrong (old) AMA thread. No idea why the old one is at top of discussion.
Since trails are always a hot topic:
Could there be some revision/consideration of trail features? I know that in some places (not my area), there are markers every 1/4 of a mile (or even 1/10), which get generic and repetitive. But in most areas, you might go a mile or two (or more!) along a trail without markers or other features. But hiking and getting out to explore is supposed to be one of the things the games are encouraging. So, could notable features along a trail be acceptable -- memorial benches that might not be for a noteable person, boardwalks that maybe aren't quite a footbridge, etc? And maybe that's accompanied by clarification regarding the numberic mile marker only type things that are generic.
Could there also be clarification regarding PRP? This is another thing that there are regularly tons of questions and debate about. A few areas I can think of that could use clarification: single family vs. multi-family, is there a size that multi-family needs to be (statues or fountains at small 4-6 unit apartment buildings), and what is acceptable at a housing complex (playgrounds yes, pools no, the piece of art in the rental office ?).
Also, would love to see a final verdict on the dreaded sidewalk ****/verge/whatever you want to call the chunk of property between the sidewalk and the road [a popular location for little free libraries], since that also comes up frequently.
Just to note: I've read the discussions on PRP regularly. I think I have my own clarity on it. But there's lots of debate about them with lots of inconsistent opinions, which is why I'm asking for official guidance.
If a nomination's potential duplicate list includes another object that looks exactly like the nomination (because it's another instance of the same thing), should that be marked as a duplicate?
For example, if a nomination is a park entrance sign, and another park entrance has the exact same sign 200m away - Niantic could choose to show existing wayspots in a 150m radius or a 250m radius or whatever. If they chose a 250m radius, and so the existing park sign shows in the potential duplicate list, should the proposed identical sign be marked as a duplicate?
While on the other hand, if a nomination is a park entrance sign, and another park entrance with the exact same sign is 500m away, and Niantic shows all portals in a 250m radius as potential duplicates - obviously they don't care if the exact same sign is repeated 500m away.
Repeat questions with trail markers. If the nomination is for a trail marker, and another trail marker that looks the same is shown in the potential duplicate list, is it a duplicate?
To answer your question
A watermark for a picture is defined as "A superimposed image, logo, or text placed over a photograph"
So the answer is still valid as the camera details on the pictures are watermarks as per the definition.
Any reviewers who disagree should be pointed to the no watermarks section of the guidelines and told to research / google the definition of a watermark so they can see it is an invalid picture.
Having said that I completely agree with you that just having one of those pictures with the camera / phone details in the non acceptable section would help immensely
You presented some issues and proposed a solution.
A better post would be to present the issues and ask what they plan to do to fix them, as there can be many different proposals to solve the issues
Niantic said that soon we'll see our edits and photos on our Nominations page. YAY!
Will that include edits/photos done in the past?
Could we get half an upgrade for each that was accepted?
@flatmatt-PGO By Ingress lore, portals have existed for centuries or millennia, emitting XM the whole time. Human minds were affected by that XM, so they built churches on them, or artwork, or trails connecting them, etc. We try to find and map these portals (left by alien "Shapers"). If a church changes names, or a piece of art is moved - the portal is still there, emitting XM, the same as it was before and during the human marker on it.
So, for out game, renaming a portal is fine, but removing it doesn't make any sense, unless it's unsafe, on someone's house, or blocks emergency services.
With the recent updates to Lightship, there seems to have been a bug introduced whereby approved POI are appearing in Pogo, but not on Ingress. This has been acknowledged by Niantic here : https://community.ingress.com/en/discussion/16194/approved-portals-not-showing-on-map-no-key-in-inventory
There appears to be an increasing list that is added to daily with no response yet of what is actually going on.
Could we have some clarification on when this will likely be resolved ? It makes planning extremely difficult when there is no fully complete source.