It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
Except I didn't have their permission to dox them, which you are repeatedly trying to do. So please quit derailing this conversation and leave it alone.
Except im not, re read what i wrote, if you had said it was a friend, then blanked it out it wouldn't be an issue.
However you didnt chose to do that, you chose to lie about whos submssion it was instead
But based on what @NianticDanbocat just said, a reviewer can still reject a nomination even if it does pass all conditions listed in the "acceptance criteria" and doesn't meet any conditions listed in the "rejection criteria". In other words, there is no such thing as an "incorrect rejection" much else an abusive rejection.
And yes, I was one of the ones who believed that something that meets the "eligibility criteria" should be accepted unless it fails the "acceptance criteria" or meets one of the conditions of the "rejection criteria". If a nomination clears all three hurdles, then a reviewer must accept. But Danbocat's comment to defend dog waste station as "eligible" by saying that reviewers don't need to not acceptable them (even if they clear the other two hurdles) has thrown all of that in doubt. What's the point of an "eligibility criteria" if it doesn't even matter?
If you read what you wrote, you absolutely ARE doing that. I said exactly what I had permission to say in my first post, and not a word different. So please accept your guilt and go take your toxicity elsewhere. I said that the nomination got approved near me. I'm sorry if you assumed from my phrasing that it was my nomination, I can see where it can be taken that way but it wasn't intended that way.
Can you guys not derail this thread, though?
I guess a good example is the blue cycling signs. Niantic have said these signs meet criteria as they point the direction and people can exercise along the path.
Local knowledge now comes into consideration and the locals in the U.K. overwhelmingly have concluded that despite these signs being eligible we can see that The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.
since majority of locals feel that way and are 1*ing under “does not meet criteria” they aren’t incorrect for this as just because those types of signs are eligible people with local knowledge don’t believe these signs are good wayspots.
what would be abusive reviewing is selecting an inappropriate rejection reason for the submission
Whoah, woah, woah.
Every once in a while, somebody on your Team does something like this:
Noantics spent literal years informing us that ‘eligible’ is synonymous with ‘Meets the official Acceptance Criteria’: Congratulations, Trainer. Your Wayspot is eligible. It may not appear in every game, but it has passed all scrutiny.
A respected member of the Team redefines the term, seemingly at random. Kind of like your ‘Global Challenge’ that is only open to local reviewers.
Words do actually have meaning. If one were to switch to a sufficiently different context, one could re-brand a term: ‘app’ means one thing when discussing resumés, another on a desktop computer, still another on a restaurant menu, etc.
But the words you chose already have meanings assigned here on Wayfarer, and those meanings are not in line with what you said.
Do you actually wish to remove the long-standing, special meaning of ‘eligible’?
Better review every single word Niantic emits in games, websites, emails, social media so they are all in agreement, or you just have an enormous mess on your hands.
There’s already plenty of badly worded, illogical, even flagrantly contradictory information out there under the Niantic rubric.
Do you want to consider walking this one back?
Niantic have said this before, this isn’t a new revelation.
just because something is eligible doesn’t mean it will definitely get accepted or that every reviewer has to give it 5* or else
Yeah, I know. I'm saying Niantic should make this more clear on the wayfarer website because most wayfinders use them interchangeably.
You can press submit on any piece of coal you like.
First, it is eligible because it’s a place or thing that exists on Earth.
Then, it’s eligible due to meeting an *Eligibility* criterion.
What do we call it if it also meets an Acceptance Criterion? Eligible?
Hmm… How to call it if it doesn’t meet any Rejection Criteria? How about ‘eligible’?
Why then, is eligible used as the term of art on the congratulatory email?
It was already eligible one year, fifty-one fellow Wayfarers’ reviews, and an Upgrade ago.
And if I reject a trail marker or mile marker because I don't see it representing a tangible, or identifiable section of the trail, I'm not wrong to do so either.
Overwhelmingly was an overstatement there, based on what I saw in the thread that allowed them and on reddit, it was more in favor of them being in than not. I even saw people say they thought they were acceptable before niantic said they were.
All it takes is the correct reviewer pool to agree it’s acceptable because it’s eligible. The same goes for dog waste bins.
Because you don’t care what the point of interest is you only want moar stopz
That has nothing to do with it. Niantic has said they are acceptable and eligible so why shouldn’t accept them? It’s your choice to decide over Niantic’s guidelines but then it’s coming down to what you find interesting or what you want added to the game. It’s almost like you don’t care about community growth as long as the POI is interesting to you.
Putting aside the actual subject of the signs (I really don’t think it’s helpful to keep raking this up)…..
There have been a couple of instances of people making blanket statements about the views of the community. These boil down to things like the community are overwhelmingly against or the community wholly back this.
These are groundless statements.
A very small fraction of the community are active here or on other social/messaging groups.
I know that these can start to feel like the whole world but they are not.
No one has been elected to represent the views of others.
When you contribute an opinion in this forum you should present it as YOUR opinion and not purport to be speaking on behalf of a wider community and try and add weight to YOUR view.
And can we avoid things getting personal please.
I care about an interesting point of interest system. I’m at nearly 600 accepts now because I do my research and thoroughly check the areas I submit.
So don’t say I don’t care about community growth because I took my town from 5 gyms to over 40, 2 villages with 100 people now have 4 gyms each. I’m making gyms in tiny villages by finding the history that others missed.
There’s so much history and interesting things out there if people look for it instead of just finding basic uninteresting things.
So you would put 5 stars for this one @NianticDanbocat ? Please take back what you’ve said as submitters will hang on yours and other Niantic staff’s every word.
Sounds like those children aren't even interested in playing the game... and seem rather... childish; despite having a point or not.
It would not be the first time I've seen parents cajoling reluctant children to participate in Niantic games.
@WheelTrekker-ING could you send me to where I can find the recent clarification about markers along a trail or pedestrian path? I've currently submitted quite a few at my nearby trail. The 1st one I upgraded got rejected and now I'm curious as to the specifics of this. I started a thread which lead me to this one, now I'd like to read the clarification that you've mentioned. Thank you. My thread if anyone is interested.
Best bet is to post full details of your nomination in the "Nomination Improvement" section on here and see what people think might be the issue.
The gist of the matter here is that even if Niantic might state in one post that something is eligible, they also have stated that being eligible doesn't mean that reviewers must approve it, so trying to say "hey, Niantic said that this is eligible" might not work as you expect and you'll feel extremely frustrated.
I understand that eligibility and acceptance are separate concepts. However the examples you used to showcase their differences have no correlation to wayfarer submissions. A political campaign has only one position to be filled. A scholarship program has a limited number of positions to fill. I am unaware of a fixed limited number of POIs that can be accepted on wayfarer. Is there a fixed number? If so could you disclose that information? If there is not a limited amount of POIs that can be accepted then logic would dictate that any eligible nomination should be accepted. So why would you tell the community that they don't have to approve any of them. That's poor leadership and leads to more confusion.
@NianticDanbocat @NianticAaron @NianticGiffard @NianticTintino
PS. I'm just looking for some clarity before I go and reject every nomination because it's faster and leadership has said "You don't have to approve any of them." So why should I take my time if it doesn't matter if it's eligible, leadership says it's okay to reject them anyway.
So I don't have to approve anything at all. I'm fully entitled to reject every single nomination if I fell like doing so...
So ratings only drop if you approve something that was rejected?
Or even worse, ratings are actually supposed to be considering the approval mood of the neighborhood instead of the eligibility criteria? If I happen to review in a community that decided that churches, playgrounds and graffiti are bad and they reject them all, my rating will drop because I don't follow the local cabal rules and it's just how the system is supposed to work? I'm the one that's wrong for daring to approve eligible nominations (not to mention I would have no way to know what I'm doing "wrong").
Also, an Ingress faction players can reject every single nomination in areas dominated by the opposition faction and they are perfectly within their right?
What an amazing system.
Well, if Nia ain't running it, someone has to, and in this case (and this is some pro level 500 IQ stuff), if your submitters and reviewers already work for free, then Nia can sit back and watch as the community bickers and fights with themselves, all while avoiding accountability.