What is being done about Existing Nominators/Reviewers not keeping up with Criteria
While ideally, nominators and reviewers would look at wayfarer criteria to figure out what to nominate, most nominators look to existing wayspots. Things like non-notable gravesites, not very socially centered chains/franchises, etc, that don't meet existing criteria, but also wayspots that Niantic opts not to remove even if they are approved today.
How is Niantic trying to find a way for existing nominators and reviewers (who no longer have to stay updated with criteria if they do not choose to) to actually look at and follow criteria instead of these popular but now ineligible wayspots? And also make sure wayfinders don't convince themselves that these ineligible things do actually meet criteria in order to make sense of the system.
(I know the wayfarer site mentions that not all wayspots may not meet current criteria standards, but very few players know this before I mention it to them)
Will the new twitter account be used to spread criteria awareness, changes and updates?
Aside from the twitter account can we also get these "notifications" into Wayfarer itself?
The Wayfarer twitter certainly will be helpful with making wayfarer more accessible and keeping people updated on it. How helpful it will be about keeping people updated about criteria will depend heavily on how it is used.
I've also seen people float the idea of an "Updates" or "News" page on the wayfarer site with important clarifications made. Might be helpful to have something like that there along side featured wayspots.
Make regular, detailed announcements about the criteria and specific examples of eligible and ineligible candidates.
On the other hand, equate the very confusing ineligibility criteria with the removal criteria.
I think we need to push for both sides of this.
As long as inappropriate wayspots remain in the field, inappropriate nominations and reviews will not disappear.
There are even experienced reviewers who might have their own idea of what should be considered eligible and what not, that clearly contradict the wayfarer criteria (though they would argue it doesn't). These reviewers can interpret the guidelines in a very skewed way in order to reject anything they just happen to dislike, such as "there's a playground/gazebo/barbecue spot/trail marker/notice board nearby that is already a waypoint, so this one needs to be rejected/rated very low because there are too many of these as waypoints in general/they are too common in the area/I hate them", and who might even tell people to not nominate certain targets because they claim them to be ineligible, and such, causing clearly eligible targets to be rejected.
I understand there can be legitimate reasons why something would need to be rejected but I mean cases where the rejection is specifically due to these reviewers' own skewed interpretations and/or unwillingness to adapt to the changed criteria. How will Niantic deal with this kind of bastardization of the criteria and similar type of disregard of the criteria as these reviewers' rating has not reportedly been effected by this?
The suggestions to centralise and summarise, which are scattered throughout the forum, would be helpful in keeping ourselves apprised of current criteria and any changes. It's very simple to implement, but, as usual, hasn't been.
I find this question very important. So important, that it was raised in the November 2020 AMA.
How are you surfacing the revised criteria for Explorers who aren’t as active in the forum?
We’re working on a number of initiatives aimed at clarifying the new criteria, including the second part of this AMA, linking the criteria directly in the Wayfarer interface and adding contextual help to make sure information gets to reviewers when and where they need it. The idea of proactively notifying Explorers that the criteria has been relaunched is a good idea as well and is something that we’re working on currently..
Over one year later, no changes have been made to distribution of guideline content, despite continuous pleas from the community to do so. Will Niantic please listen to your contributors and finally show something for this?
I am aware but not hopeful for the Wayfarer Twitter presence. Niantic doesn't have a handle on the Wayforum, I don't expect Twitter to go any better.
In my language, the detailed rules in the forums are difficult to hit in a search. Is it possible to have it described in a more understandable way?
I think solving this issue would solve the swimming pool issue for me. The November 2020 AMA, which is currently posted on the help menu, states "Similar to before the criteria refresh, swimming pools at private residences or hotels (or other similar residentially-focused locations) are ineligible." But community pools go live all the time, and I get disagreements when I reject them. I think this is because newer reviewers are unaware of the swimming pool ruling, and see them live all the time, so they accept. If we had a simple search function, reviewers would be more likely to see the statement and follow it.
Some scrutinizers do not know the criteria.
The standards should be well informed to the scrutinizer.
REviewers also need feedback from Niantic on reviewes where the voste is opposite to the community vote. It is no good saying "they should know the criteria" if reviewers cannot refine their undertstanding of them "for real". Also, if we were getting feeback, it wopuld help us pick up on the "fake / evil cabal" reviews that are out there, if we are seeing genuine "should be rejexted for xxx" reviews we voted "no" on gettin approved, then we should be able to flag these up to Niantic.
The automatic skipping of "additional info" while reviewing is very harming here. There are nominations, that look invalid at first sight, but there is simple way of confirming they in fact are eligible (via communal website etc) and without reading the additional info the reviewer has no way of knowing about it, and therefore completely good nominations keep being rejected, and good reviewers are being "punished" for being more diligent than majority.
The criteria examples are just that, examples. So it’s left open to interpretation. So for the most part, it would allow many things to be accepted. Now the problem is that many people are rejecting perfectly good nominations for no reason at all, which do in fact meet many of the criteria categories, and that is something that needs to be addressed. Seeing rejection reasons that don’t even apply to a nomination is just abuse on the reviewer’s end.
yes, that is abuse on the reviewers end. It gives the persons submitting the feeling that the review wasnt properly done and/or rejected because the submitter is known to the reviewer and therefore the contribution has been rejected to cause discomfort to the submitter.
There is a thin red line that is been crossed every day.
That's should not be a problem, but too many reviewers abuse of that and rejected too many eligible things, for totally false reasons (that's worst than just "no reasons").
Examples: Information sign about nature rejected for being temporary or for being natural feature (!)
Trail markers rejected for being temporary or natural feature, or living animals (!!!)
Restaurant rejected for abuse.
Fountain on public places rejected for being a farm.
The appeal system was a solution to adress that, but finally the daily appeal was not intended, and if Niantic revert it to a monthly appeal, it won't be able to resolve all the falses rejections, because there are too many of them. (about 25% of rejections, witch is equal to 8 false rejections per month.)
Niantic should took actions to solve this problem (allow resubmitting a rejection nomination directly via Wayfarer, took action on bad reviewers, increase the number of appeals to at least 1 per week, etc...)