Bans for submitting invalid nominations?
In the last couple days, I've seen various reports in different local groups about Wayfarer bans being handed out for submitting nominations "that do not meet criteria". Here is an example from one of these groups - I made the email anonymous.
There are two major issues with this in my opinion.
First of all: the emails don't give any specific information on the actual issue that resulted in the ban. One person said that they've submitted a local memorial plaque several times (and it was rejected several times), but other than that, their acceptance/recejtion numbers seem to be average and they didn't have any nominations that were rejected for being fake or abusive (allegedly - I don't have access to their Wayfarer, so I'm just reporting what I've been told by those affected).
This is an issue because I don't think there's any active submitter out there who has never had anything rejected. Even if you're super careful and only submit explicitly eligible stuff like public playgrounds and statues, even those are rejected sometimes. There are also borderline or notoriously hard-to-get-accepted nominations (restaurants, gyms, objects at apartment buildings etc.) that might take several submissions to get accepted. There is no indication in the e-mails that this ban is tied to any specific nomination behaviour (like nominating the same thing several times or nominating a certain type of ineligible object).
Second: nominating ineligible (or even questionably eligible) things should not be treated as equal to abuse. The point of Wayfarer is to filter out the ineligible stuff from the eligible. Nominating something that the community deems ineligible is often (in my experience, most of the time) done in good faith. Submitters actually do think that the park/memorial tree/lookout platform/building they nominate is eligible, I just don't agree with them. If it's not abuse (they don't try to misrepresent the location, influence reviewers, lie about the object, submit a fake etc.), I see no reason to punish submitters beyond having their nominations rejected. As an educator, I am vehemently against treating people who make a mistake the same way as abuse. This current situation, to me, seems very dangerous and counter-productive.
In conclusion, the way this is handled does nothing at all to educate nominators or help change the behaviour that led to the ban in the first place. The only thing it does is plant doubt into anyone's head: "will I be in serious trouble if reviewers decide to reject my submission?" That's not a great thing for the future of Wayfarer.
@NianticTintino @NianticDanbocat @NianticGiffard, I'd like you to share your opinions on this matter, because I feel that this is a very important and serious issue.
Comments
Given that my last nomination was deemed to be have "explicit or inappropriate activity" despite being merely the quite very unique signage for a winery, and that its greatest sin was that it had a slightly creative but otherwise entirely accurate name, I have NO confidence that the Wayfarer reviewers' voting results should in any way be used to help decide that an account should be suspended.
At worst, perhaps a complaints-based abuse reporting system that is otherwise entirely reviewed by Niantic staff, so long as there is an open channel where any such bans can be reviewed and possibly even overturned.
But there MUST be more transparency in the process @NianticDanbocat @NianticTintino
I just had a rugby pitch rejected for some reason. It's clearly visible on satellite view and all photographs meet criteria. People thought my nomination contained emoji or was temporray. I don't get it.
So, if people know who was making a particular nomination, a group of people could review somebody into oblvion now. I can easily see people using this new suspension vector to exclude people they do not like from Wayfarer. I'm already fed up of getting stupid rejections from people who can't review properly and this news makes me no to want to interact with Wayfarer. This has to be the last straw for me.
Also, was this new way of having one's account suspended ever communicated on this forum? If it was, I know I'd have seen it. People would have complained for sure, like we are doing here.
Well, I've seen several "no question 1* - do not meet criteria" rejecteions repeatedly submitted (and rejected by me) over the past few weeks since the "40 nominations" update to PoGo, things like Double Glazing Company Offices, the local MOT Garage and ineligible signs. By "repeatedly" I mean 5 or more times.
Yes - I have had nominations rejected and resubmitted them, but not the same identical nomination time after time after time as soon as I got the rejection e-mail - I usually tried things like going to get a "better" photo or revising and improving the description or supporting photo. Niantic do mention that "spam" nominations might have an impact on your Wayfarer account. Perhaps this is the cumulative result of "40 nominations" + 15 minute "try again" Wayfarere tests and "no need to read the criteria - just submit anything" nominations.
Nominations submitted by accounts with a history of spamming inappropriate nominations
If we believe you are spamming nominations inappropriately, you will receive a warning and may lose nomination privileges for repeat offenses.
Are you happy with the the distinct lack of transparency and the distinct lack of communication from Niantic (yet again)? A person would read that e-mail above and come away with absolutely no clue what they are being reprimanded for. As I said, people can use this new feature as another vector for targeted harassment of players, whom they want to exclude from Wayfarer.
We had no prior warning this was being implemented. It's like Niantic is trying as hard as it can to fail at being a business. It's as though they actually want to go bankrupt at this point.
The bit about "Spamming" has been present on the "Content Guidelines" page of the Wayfarer Criteria section for at least a year, and probably more, so you can't claim "no prior warning".
If people have "no clue why they are being reprimanded" then perhaps they should look at their rejected nominations and ask on here what the community think, particularly the "Do not meet criteria" rejections that most people convieniently ignore while asking "why was my nomination rejected". It has to be a fairly large number of nominations per person as I've not heard of this happening before As for "targeted harassment", reviewers have no idea who submitted any Waypoint, so that is a pointless argument.
Short Answer. Good job Niantic, about time.
People have no clue what they're reprimanded for because Niantic does not tell them. Period. There is zero transparency here, which is never a good thing. (No, never. Never ever.)
I’m in favor of this. I’m pretty tired of rejecting, rejecting, rejecting when I review. Today’s reviews featured a potted plant on the front porch, a(nother) Sherwin Williams ad, a hair salon, an algae-ridden puddle (audaciously named as a “lake”), and an image edit to include an Inkay photobomb overlaid on top of the church in question.
Seriously. Making this dreck less advantageous is a much-desired step forward.
I'm in favor too for people that submit a large number of ineligible spots on a regular basis. One example is the same individual in a suburb of Chicago that has been submitting nominations all with photos taken from their car of things like a Wendy's, a nail salon, a supermarket, a stop sign, several K-12 schools, etc.. Another person in a nearby area is systematically nominating every bus stop sign along one route, with photos appearing to be taken from the bus as they ride it.
Besides those examples of the same person submitting piles of coal on a regular basis, there is also no shortage of bad nominations from various people. There should be some potential consequence to make people think twice about submitting obvious 1* nominations. I do agree there should be a warning.
I wrote about this a couple of months ago based on someone else's issue with getting the same email by Penny. I assume that Penny is one employee out of a few doing the Niantic review decisions. Considering that the OP had 15+ emails simultaneously rejected recently with a Niantic review decision, this is probably the Niantic operative's doing. The last time this happened, someone else had reported a numerous amount of "." (dot) rejections, which was then followed by this same email (by Penny, if I might add). The dot rejection (and now, the Niantic review decision) were always a common denominator when this email was sent out.
Methinks that this is just an in-house Niantic reviewer dishing out heavy-handed punishments by mass-rejecting their nominations after they saw one they didn't understand, and then banning them from Wayfarer for ten days. If the OP can maybe give us a subset of some of the Niantic review decisions (preferably your more clearer ones eligibility-wise), we might be able to infer something, and Giffard, who is great at shining light and clarity on things might be able to review as such.
The concept of security via obscurity.
I hate to break it to you but being banned from wayfarer you can still submit
I am in favor of giving warnings to players who repeatedly make false or inappropriate nominations.
I think the inclusion of categories in the nomination process will reduce this kind of spam, but I don't think it will eliminate all of it, including the false ones. Disabling nominations from such players is an important part of keeping Wayfarer a positive environment.
In the future, we believe that grossly misrepresenting categories will be included in warnings, and will become increasingly important.
Also, the reason why we don't tell you the reason for the ban is to let you think for yourself.
Normally, any sensible player with social common sense will realize this.
Unfortunately, players who can't understand that shouldn't play Niantic games, which require them to play in the real world.
well ppl do submit too much garbage poi just to get a new random portal in pogo or whatever so i think thats good.
Can the people who disagreed with my comment above, seriously tell me they would be happy to be arrested and thrown into jail without anyone ever telling them what they were charged with? That's what is happening here. That is what Niantic is doing with these new suspensions. Why are they happy with no trial and no due process?
I'm honestly baffled (and a bit horrified) by the responses here. Does the majority of people here actually support the lack of transparency? Really nobody has any problem with handing out bans for non-abusive behaviour?
I'll try to argue once more, because my points might not have been entirely clear.
The point of any punishment should be that the offender doesn't repeat the offense. With obscure e-mails like this, it won't work. The people reporting these emails legitimately do not know what their offense was. As I said: none of them reported any of their submissions being rejected for actual abuse (fake, offensive, etc.). Telling people what they did wrong and making them understand why it was wrong is crucial in every such situation, because otherwise they will not learn. I see zero point in keeping this information obscured in ban emails. I can see that it feeds the schadenfreude and arrogance (bordering on malice) of some people towards "bad submitters", but that's not a legitimate education goal.
My other point is simple: don't punish people for things that are not necessarily their fault. And "submitting ineligible nominations" is not necessarily the submitter's fault, that should be pretty obvious to anyone who frequents this forum. Sure, there are always nominations which are straight up ineligible. However, it's really not that rare to see submissions that are actually fine, reviewers just decided that it wasn't fine enough. And there are those nominations where even this forum is divided on eligibility. Just yesterday there was this thread where Niantic themselves rejected a piece of public art. (I myself am preparing a few Niantic rejections for appeal, including art installations.) Nominating those and having them rejected is definitely not a result of deliberate malicious intent on the side of the submitter, and therefore no punishment is needed.
Many people seem to have the reaction that submitters should just "look at the eligibility criteria and make better submissions, and they won't be punished". Putting the obvious victim-blaming aside, let's look at this advice.
A submitter goes on the Niantic criteria page. The find that according to the criteria, the following are explicitly eligible:
So they go on and submit these, only to have every single one of them rejected. Why? Because according to the community, parks/plazas/forests/gardens need a sign, while businesses in general need to be perfectly unique and significant in a million different ways. Some of these can be deciphered from AMAs on forums nobody tells submitters about. Others are just "community traditions". Still, the result is thet these will be rejected - and now, in addition, the person might also get an email threatening the termination of their account as well. How is this fair? How can people legitimately agree with punishing people for something that's not their fault?
The reason they don't say why is so that the cheating doesn't become more serious.
This is the case with location falsification.
They are different but the same kind.
And let me answer one more thing.
"explicitly eligible", this is not a free ticket to approval.
You can be rejected for any number of reasons: title, description, photo, location.
It just means that it is not ineligible.
I've seen examples of Pokémon trainers being denied multiple times in local parks that should have been approved anyhow.
But that rejection was inevitable.
This is where a lot of players get it wrong.
It means that an immediate rejection is wrong and should be reviewed carefully.
I agree that bans and warnings should be openly communicated towards the offender.
If you submit a lot of POIs you will get a good number of rejections. How should you know which one triggered the ban?
On those cases warnings should be handed out first. And those warnings should state which nomination(s) are the reason for the warning. Otherwise the wayfarer cannot learn from the warning.
"The reason they don't say why is so that the cheating doesn't become more serious.
This is the case with location falsification.
They are different but the same kind."
No they're not. Nominating something ineligible (or having something borderline eligible rejected) is not abusive and does not have malicious intent.
"explicitly eligible", this is not a free ticket to approval
I know that. That is actually my point. Even something eligible can be rejected. So how can you actually support a system that punishes and bans people for doing absolutely nothing abusive, just maybe not doing a perfect job? That's a horrible, toxic and abusive system.
I'm willing to bet money on these suspensions being dished out by anlgorihm or AI and humans are only invovled when somebody wants to dispute the process. Will wrongly accused Wayfarers be compasated in any way for a mistake in the algorithm? I highly doubt it.
It should be noted that European Union legislation requires any decisions made by a machine be double checked by a human (think morgages and loans decided by an algorithm), if the victim of a such a decision wishes it. Niantic needs to be open about the process and trnqsparnet too. It could be they are flouting EU law with the suspensions.
Okay, so the police should no longer tell any individual why they are being arrested in case they try to commit a more serious crime in the future? Listen to yourself. Why are you making an exception for Niantic.
Would you be happy to be thrown into jail without any idea why are in jail?
And it's maybe the worst part of it, actually.
So, you are submitting too much trash? Let me suspend you from reviewing, but you can keep submitting your trash...
To continue on the general concensus from most of the other posters, it is not helpful to the people in question receiving the email since they aren't informed on the specific reason(s) that led to the suspension. So not sure exactly if they are going to learn anything from receiving the email.
Yes, there is a lot of **** out there to review and it would be great to not have to see this garbage, but I'm not sure this really will solve anything. Plus all the punishment does is prevent them from using wayfarer, and not actually submitting new nominations. I suspect most of the garbage nominations are from people that don't use Wayfarer or even have no idea what Wayfarer is.
I've had to resubmit some nominations on multiple attempts because of strange decisions (people are clearly NOT looking closely at the photos or reading the supporting information), so I would be more than upset if I was punished for reviewer mistakes, not my actual quality of submissions. And then not even knowing what was the nomination(s) in question that led to the suspension.
Yes, these forums are filled of people that have an attitude "I'm better than everyone else" they are better than even Niantic themselves.
And they ignore/forget how recently (and it hasn't been the first time) a person reported that they had got a suspension mail and all their edits were in these forums, no abuse at all. Finally Giffard reverted the decision, but this shows that there are many mistakes in the way that Niantic works and hiding why someone is being banned doesn't help at all to fix any issue by that person.
Punishing without explaining why is absurd, I can't understand why people defend it.
In some specific cases of clear abuse you can decide not to disclose too much information, but in cases that are caused by lack of education instead of malice, it doesn't make any sense at all.
I find it extremely worrying that anyone on this forum would be for this, many people have had **** rejections for more than acceptable candidates (someone who even said they were for this was too lazy a reviewer to even try and tie up a supporting image to Google maps), what happens if you get unlucky on a string of nominations, like I had 6 rejections in a row, 2 were borderline that I thought might pass, 4 should have been easy passes and had the usual bs rejection reasons like poor photo because my shadow was in the corner of the picture (and I mean, like, just the corner), or historical/cultural significance. So should I now get this email if because of that string of bad luck? Or as someone else suggested, am I wrong to resubmit the 4 easy passes right away again (I cropped out the shadow, so thats an improvement on thay picture) because it would be spam?
Oh and, dont forget niantic have said before if you believe something should be a poi, just keep submitting it till it goes in, which I did for a poi I got accepted recently a trail marker that happened to be metal like a street sign, that took 4 attempts to finally pass
Maybe they nominated a pond fountain
I'm waiting for the day that the people advocating for randomly suspending Wayfarers with no due process and no accountability, to randomly have their accounts suspended for a reason they cannot figure out why. Then maybe those users will come crying back to this very forum and the people who were very clear that reprimanding and censuring people without giving a reason will say "we told you so". This is a dangerous step by Niantic.
The police would never arrest anyone without telling them what crime they are accused of committing.
I ask again: why are there people making an exception for Niantic here?
at least in most 1st world countries. But think about Russia, Belarus, Turkey ... not really ....
Yeah but some people look at a game like Cyberpunk 2077 and think to themselves: "that looks cool, I'd love to live there!" They are happy to sleepwalk into that kind of reality. I look at the cyberpunk genre and see it is as a reality to be avoided!
These "the end justifies the means people" make me sick.
This isn’t a court of law, this is a video game. If you randomly get banned from Wayfarer and Ingress and Pokémon Go and HPWU and Pikmin all at once, the punishment is not incarceration. The punishment is to go about the rest of your life without Niantic on that one Gmail address you used to create those accounts. So stop with the legal arguments, they’re totally inapplicable.
If your underlying argument is ‘Niantic does a poor job communicating with their player base and an even worse job of educating their Wayfarers,’ then of course there’s no argument against that. There’s about 100 other threads that say the same thing. Anybody with ten minutes of experience with Wayfarer has figured that much out.
But if your argument is ‘Niantic shouldn’t be handing out ten day bans for piles of coal,’ then you better be arguing that the ban should be bigger and longer. Garbage submissions have been the number one problem with the Wayfarer experience for, maybe, ever.
I get this particular one just about every day.
And just about every day I tag it as abuse and just about every day there’s another one just about tomorrow.