many very good candidates were rejected with the comment "."
jene4444ka-ING Posts: 17 ✭✭
edited May 2021 in Nomination Improvement
today received many rejections of old candidates.
Everywhere there is a reason "."
Please change this decision. i think this is a mistake
I would like to hear your opinion on this matter.
Does the reason "." tell us that the final decision on such a candidate was not made by the reviewers, but by someone from the Niantic team?
If so, there are two possibilities:
a) The decision was made by live people after a "manual" review
b) The decision is made by a pre-trained neural network
In the first case, it's not very clear how such high quality candidates could have been rejected by a human (especially against the background of what's going on with the wayspot network).
In the second case, obviously, the neural network requires high-quality tuning.
However, if I am wrong, and the Reason "." is the result of reviewers' consideration of candidates, I would like to know how to interpret this reason.
c) The email system to send rejection reasons to the person submitting the nomination is not working.
So, another one :)
Pedestrian Bridge, the first composite bridge in St. Petersburg. What's wrong, Niantic? :)
After all, this is one of those nominations that was missing from the list.
A random footbridge does not make a great nomination but more borderline at that. But i do agree you should still get a reason at least
In my area random footbridges have been slam dunk approves over the last few months, too bad there's a bug with the rejection reasons.
Out of curiosity, whereabouts were these nominations? It's been a theory that "." rejections are nominations rejected by Niantic reviewers.
Which is pretty bad if true - Niantic would be the ones you expect to give the most accurate rejection reasons.
Nominations @jene4444ka-ING is located in Moscow, mine is in St. Petersburg.
There have been similar "reasons" before, but then they were applied to nominees who were in the voting stage for a very long time, as a rule.
At that time there was a theory that such a "reason" was a reaction to a long vote because of the ambiguity of the ratings, but the latest data ruins this theory.
Today rejected a good candidate with historical value was again with the comment "."
What criteria does this meet?
Not going to lie some of these are extremely borderline nominations. Unfortunate you didnt get a reason but majority of these i would not call a slam dunk nomination of even very good.
Is it true that nominations rejected for "." were reviewed (and rejected) by Niantic directly, @NianticCasey-ING? That's the impression I got from your post here https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/12810/an-update-on-wayspots-in-india
By now, many of you have noticed that nominations have gone missing or have been reviewed without email notifications or rejection reasons.
I don't think this has ever been clarified any more than that, though. Would it be possible for a post that indicated what the "." rejection means? It's been brought up in the Bug Report thread multiple times, too, without any update. Is it a bug, visual glitch, or working as intended?
+ 1 good candidate rejected
+ 1 good candidate rejected
For your issue, there's an ongoing bug right now.
Same problem here...