5 Star Honeypots are a good idea
DerWelfe2205-PGO
Posts: 374 ✭✭✭✭
There is a lot of garbage in the system. Undeniably. And we know that Niantic occasionally includes Honeypots which - at least for the instances I know of - are extremely bad and supposed to be rejected.
This does a good job of preventing people from accepting everything. If you accept everything your rating will drop to poor in no time. However the other extreme of rejecting everything to farm upgrades does not get penalised by this system. If a player rejects everything they at least get all the honeypots right and therefore will remain at a good rating for longer than the player who accepts everything.
I think in order to counteract such behaviour Niantic should include some nobrainer 5* candidates into the honeypots.
Comments
My "standard" score for accepting Waypoints is 3*, so if I didn't 5* a honeypot would you expect my rating to be affected?
@sogNinjaman-ING
if @DerWelfe2205-PGO assertation is that people are bad that chronically underscore just as overscore, then frankly yes. If its a "Great" nomination that niantic gives a 5* slam dunk and you give it a 3* its the same as giving the 1* honeypot a 3.
Yes. Ideally, such a honeypot would be a nomination that is something obviously eligible (place of worship, playground, statue, etc.), is visible on Satellite and/or Street View, the pin would be at a confirmably correct location and both the title and description would be flawless. If you give anything other than 5* to such a nomination, then yes, your rating should be negatively affected.
But why when a 3* "I agree" this nomination has the same effect as a "5* I agree" comment? They both vote for the nomination to be accepted and Niantic have never said anything to indicate that "more stars" equals more chance of it going through. If you want people to vote that way then you arffectively making the voting very binary, you have to vote 1* or 5* or you rating will suffer.
I tend to reserve 5* scors for the most exceptional candidates, not your "everyday" accepances like churches or playgrounds, I've found that using the top end of the voting scale a lot tends to trigger more cooldowns for me at least, and I have a lot of "Nomination accepted" totals on my ststs using 3* as the base line "yes" vote.
They may have honeypot that need to be accepted in the mix. It's probably something much easier than must be a certain score. It's probably just must not equal 1*.
The reviewing guidelines are clear about this (at least):
The question you're asked is not "Are you enthusiastic about this object?", but rather "Should this be a Wayspot?" 3 stars means you're unsure about it. If you review something that should definitely be a Wayspot, no matter how "everyday" it is, you should give it 5 stars.
I believe there are no-brainer 1*'s, but I don't think there are no-brainer 5*'s. Wayfarer works because of crowd sourcing: people, all with different opinions who are asked to give a rating "based on their best judgement". I don't believe you can tell people to find something fantastic, or slightly less fantastic.
The other way around should work though: if you present a Wayspot of a random garden chair in someone's front yard without any back story, it should yield a 1*.
As an anti-bot measure, there are most likely 5 * honeypots but I think it's something as simple as must not equal1* to take into account different opinions to actual score. The reasons for 1* are more numerous and can cost money in the form of staff hours removing stuff so I don't think they're anywhere as numerous as the 1* honeypots.
I guess you didn't know that 3* is a neutral vote "I don't know if this is acceptable".
I’m actually curious about the 3* vote. My understanding is that 3* is a “neutral” vote as the website says, meaning you are not voting to accept or reject the nomination.
This topic recently came up in conversation though and others thought 3* was a weak acceptance with some people having evidence that they received a couple acceptance agreements from 3* votes. Now I’m not really sure what the 3* means.
I thought 3* was basically not voting to accept or outright decline.
The idea of Honeypots get thrown around. "Pre assessed reviews" have been mentioned but I'm not sure there's been much reviewers have ever discerned as honeypots. For a long time, certain "Redacted" nominations were suspected as being honeypots, however their recent support in getting approved has made me think they weren't. Maybe some of the outright coal we see is honeypots. I find it unlikely than Niantic willingly holds certain nominations hostage as acceptable nominations and that Niantic goes nationwide/international to create acceptable nominations.
"If I ran Niantic Wayfarer for a day"
I don't believe honeypots should only have an influence on reviewer rating. Sure, making obvious good/bad nominations might catch a few people, but I would be personally interested in using pre-reviewed nominations to assess the general "vibe" of reviewers and use that to self-assess the criteria page. Then I could update the guides to better address lapses in published criteria.
In a lot of ways, we are in the dark while reviewing. We don't know the effective difference between 4* or 5*, or between 2* and 1*.
But the guidelines are indeed very clear on this, as you pointed out: "If you are unsure or have no opinion, choose 3 stars". In case anyone doesn't know, it's coming from the help section: https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/new/help/reviewing-a-wayspot-nomination
So, if anyone is giving 3* to stuff they consider eligible, they are just reviewing against the guidelines and should reconsider it.
I give 3* all the time for the first rating, in which we are asked "In your best judgment, would this nomination be a good addition?". It's a subjective measure, and for me it indicates the fact that I realize that the nomination is eligible but I'm not impressed with how good an addition it is as a POI. "Baseball Field #8 of 24" is always gonna be a 3* for me. I consider this the minimal accept level for the first category, which asks for our personal assessment of the candidate as a whole. The majority of my "yes" votes are 4*, and I reserve 5* for the candidates I find truly impressive, those I am tempted to visit myself.
I'm always curious: why give something eligible the minimum accept level?
Understandable but I think at that point you have to ask yourself wether or not your votes even have any impact. I like to give clear 1* or 4/5* star ratings because voting neutral feels like not voting at all. I only vote 3* if I'm really unsure but even then I'd rather skip.
Already been over this with you, 3 star is no opinion, don't know, essentially a skip, thats literally on the website. So if you don't 5 star the thing niantic feels is a 5 star and you get punished for it, it would show that you're reviewing differently from how niantic wants you to (4 and 5 star are accepts)
Admittedly though, the first thing niantic needs to do is tell you that you got a honeypot wrong, don't need to tell you which one, just say "in the last 5 reviews, we gave a nomination a high acceptable score, you did not, please make sure you are reviewing to the guidelines *insert link to guidelines on scoring and criteria*"
@Shilfiell-ING less 3* more 4* is my suggestion keep 5* same.
Here's my scale
1* == No. And there's a pretty specific reason I can pick from list. I try hard as heck to avoid "Other rejection" on 1*
2* = No but nothing specific I can point to
3* == ????
4* == Yes by criteria but not spectular
5* == Yes no brainer
It's possible that people who pick 3 star for good or bad candidates mught be getting agreements as a loophole, like if they were to 3 star everything, they might always get agreements, it would need someone to test that though, be willing to only 3 star everything and see how their score and agreements went
I sort of get what you mean by 2 star, but your way of wording it makes it seem like you're rejecting on feeling rather than a real reason lol
If I give a 3* on the overall rating I likely skew my vote more to the positive by the category values - 3* overall, 3* unique, 4* safe access, 5* location for example. The only thing we know for sure is a rejection vote is a 1* in the overall, and at that point all other categories are skipped.
Just curious, I meant no disrespect with inquiring reason.
Maybe it does?
If a nomination is "eligible" but a enough reviewers are not voting to criteria (confusing apartments with prp, for example), then the difference in a few people giving "minimum accept level" and a 5* rating could be the difference in pass or fail.
Personally, usually give 4* or 5* to each category (overall and subcategories) if it meets acceptance/criteria and only vote less when it's an area I'm unfamiliar with and don't have enough support to base my decision.
What I mean is something like Private Property. It doesn't matter if its a cool statue, it's expressly forbidden. Those are only 1* for me
2* are things that don't make a POI cut but aren't expressly forbidden for examples:
A memorial bench that doesn't have a reason that implies the person is famous or critical to the local community.
a restaurant with no supporting information on why it deserves to be considered a community gathering spot or hot spot
I tend to use more 1* rejections than 2*
Fair enough, I would just one star those thing myself personally as not meeting any criteria. I've never seen any reason to 2 star anything other than description or title where there were too many mistakes to ignore
How can you be sure? For a start, niantic have said 3 star is essentially neutral, no opinion, don't know. The second thing is more based on what people have seen over the years, that being, something that is an easy pass like a church tends to get through faster than something that is maybe more borderline
Back in the OPR days, they'd described it as roughly this:
And they would tweak those numbers (number of votes, and the accept/reject thresholds). It is likely still using something similar.
So yes, reviewers who want to see a nomination accepted, voting merely 3.0 means that you're acting to make the voting process take longer, when you COULD be acting to actually make your vote count unambiguously.
I avoid using 3.0 stars, and use 5.0 for "omg yes!" ones, and 4.0 for "ayup, works for me". I limit 3.0 for "meh, not really an outright reject, but it's hardly anything reeeeally worthwhile".
The problem is when you 1* it comes up with a list of rejection criteria. Nothing on list says "Doesn't meet acceptance criteria"
I could use "Other rejection criteria" but for me theres a difference between a reason to reject and just not having a reason to accept.
Well, I must be doing something right if I have 15,300+ "Nominations Accepted" using a 3* vote for 99.9 % of them. As somebody commented above, "3* - meh hardly anything really worthwhile". Thats what most of the acceptable nominations are these days - trail marker, trail marker, church, playground, noticeboard, noticeboard, noticeboard, playground Meh type subs - acceptable as Waypoints because they fit the criteria, but nothing special.
And yes, it would be great if Niantic would give us more details about the scoring system. Why we need a scale of 1-5 I do not know, as essentially we are voting "Yes" or "No". Two choices is really all that's needed for the "Should this be a Waypoint" vote.
I must doubt this is the case. I tried this before by 3* p much everything for a long period of time and I got disagreements almost exclusively. Fell to poor quite fast.
I was doing this too, but after the last AMA have been switching to using more 1*s as it's not clear from the response that a 2* would lead to an agreement if it was rejected.