30-50 to approve VS. 5 to Reject rumour.

GearGlider-PGOGearGlider-PGO Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭✭✭

There is a persistent rumour that it takes 30-50 reviewers approving a nomination to approve it, but only 5 to reject it. This rumour has led to many reviewers rejecting many otherwise eligible nominations in hopes of gaining agreements. Can you confirm/deny these numbers, or comment on any plans on how you combat rejection-agreement abuse?

58 votes

New · Last Updated


  • GearGlider-PGOGearGlider-PGO Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I found the origin of the above rumor/claim that gets parroted around a lot.


    People cite/quote this post often as a reason the wayfarer system is poorly designed.

  • Kawhinot-INGKawhinot-ING Posts: 189 ✭✭✭

    And on this subject, if the rejection/approval count needs to be X out of Y reviews, will the rejection/approval automatically be effective, or will the total number of required reviews need to occur before it is decisioned? For example, if it is something like 40 reviews out of 50 need to be approved, does the approval automatically take affect if the nomination is for example already at 40 positive reviews after only 40 reviews? Meaning the last 10 reviews are unnecessary, and the nomination can then be decisioned without needlessly getting another 10 reviews. Likewise, in reverse, if a certain number of rejections need to occur for a rejection to be the final outcome.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,600 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would like to know if there is a ratio, I doubt they will give us exact numbers and I doubt its as little as 5, but I've always had the suspicion that it might be 70 accepts to 30 rejects (or something to that effect)

  • NorfosAlus-PGONorfosAlus-PGO Posts: 136 ✭✭✭

    From the local community i'd definetely say it should be more than 5 and less than 50... i'm stronly assured that it's dependant on the ammount of people rejecting/accepting a nomination or edit in a short period of time - for example if arround 20 reviewers were to extremely positively review a nomination in a very short period of time it would get accepted, same goes with rejecting but i don't believe it would be as low as 5, maybe in extremely rural areas... As i've reviewed 10s of thousands of nominations i'd say it's 10-25 reviews for rejection to a 25-100 reviews for accepted as this whole reviewing thing seems to be working as a double sided scale

  • NorfosAlus-PGONorfosAlus-PGO Posts: 136 ✭✭✭

    Also i'd like to say that a nomination is more likely to get rejected if all the people rejecting is using the same rejection reason , for example "low quality photo"

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭

    From a recent thread of ‘I got a nomination of a little kid’s face and his home address,’ we already know it takes more than five to reject.

  • feliscybernicus-PGOfeliscybernicus-PGO Posts: 97 ✭✭✭

    Seeing where this rumor originated, I feel there have been some quite elaborate conclusions drawn from very little if any proof, and none of it very reliable on top. Some conclusions were drawn liberally without anything concrete to back it up, and none of them took other possibilities into account, such as that google images are freely accessible by anyone and there could be way more people checking them out than you think.

    I think it would indeed be good if this rumor was officially debunked.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 777 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Maybe this could be an explanation for this phenomena. Note that this is just a theory.

    Lets start simple first. Let's assume that each star rating has a score behind it. And let's ignore the different categories for now.

    • 1* = -2
    • 2* = -1
    • 3* = 0
    • 4* = +1
    • 5* = +2

    A decision is made when a nomination reaches either -10 (reject) or +10 (accept).

    When people want to reject something, they go for the 1* rating. However, when they want to accept something, they don't always rate 5*. We see people, especially veterans from OPR, using ratings as low as 3* or even 2* when they want to accept something. This creates a bias towards rejection. When we take other categories into account, we'll see that even a 5* overall rating, might give a lower score than +2, because lower scores were given in other categories.

    The system wasn't designed to be biased towards rejection, but the way it is designed, does create a bias towards rejection.

    Disclaimer: Again, this is just a theory. And the numbers used are obviously fictional.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2021

    I personally find this matter alarming.

    And if the general framework of this speculation is correct, the abuse of the community with malicious intent will continue if we don't improve the way reviews are rated as soon as possible.

    There is talk that it is easier to get approval if you don't actually upgrade.

    And it is possible that the source of this gossip is the result of the malicious community's multi-account testing of the rating manipulation.

    If this is the case, we think the evaluation criteria and review process should be improved as soon as possible.

    This is a personal improvement, but if there is a nomination for a wayspot candidate that is suspected of being forged or abused with a bit more detail on the reasons for denial, then once the rating for a particular reason for denial has been reviewed, the candidate will be moved to a different stage as a "suspected forgery or abuse candidate".

    The status is automatically equivalent to an upgrade, with the minimum number of review results being raised to about double or triple the minimum number of reviewers, and the candidate will be reviewed by a large number of GREAT reviewers.

    If there are no problems, they are approved. Reviewers who give a negative rating will have their rating points lowered significantly, and reviewers who repeatedly give a negative rating will be banned from nominating or reviewing.

    On the other hand, if any forgery or abuse is found, it will be rejected. Players who nominate more than a certain number of such candidates will be penalized and banned from nominating and reviewing. (You might want to apply the three-strike system here: 7 days, 30 days, and then permanently)

    Both players will be able to appeal their own penalties to the administration.

    What do you think?

    It's not a bad idea to increase the number of good wayspots and decrease the number of bad wayspots.

    Post edited by tp235-ING on
  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I find it hard to believe that the truth of this gossip has not become a major topic of conversation.

    If an abusive community can manipulate ratings with 30-50 votes, that's awfully easy to do.

    I trust that there are no such people here, but I think we all know that Pokémon GO is severely tainted by multiple accounts.

    I would estimate that the number of accounts in Pokémon GO is about 2.5 times the number of actual people. At least 70% are multi-accounts (whether they use it or not), and 30% of them have three or more accounts. This allows one person to fight a 5 star raid battle. A couple can get a strong Legendary Pokémon with six accounts. They call this a necessary evil. (That doesn't change the fact that it's cheating.)

    And Wayfarer's review is solely dependent on the number of accounts.

    So if you need 50 accounts to vote, and the number of accounts is 2.5 times the number, the number of people you need is 20.

    For 30 accounts, the number is only 12.

    Now, think about the places where people often gather in your hometown, raid battles and flash firings.

    Wouldn't this be a good number of people to gather?

    Even if there are only 6 people, if the rest of the reviewers give you 3 stars instead of 2 or 1 star, you can mass produce low quality wayspots.

    And they will probably come out for review at about the same time. In other words, all you have to do is have a malicious nominator contact the abusive community that it has changed to "under review" and players in the community will exchange their accounts one after another to review it.

    Then there will be more and more places like the false spot I put up the other day.

    It's that simple.

    If these are not the case, Niantic should deny it as soon as possible, and if in fact they are correct, they should revamp their system as soon as possible.

    For me personally, if the gossip is correct, any wayspot candidate with a specific reason for denial should be automatically upgraded and the minimum number of accounts required for evaluation should be increased by 2-3 times.

    Of course, the review should go to the reviewer with the best rating.

    We should also establish and announce a re-review system and a clear penalty system.

    If we don't do this, sooner or later our mountain of treasure will turn into a pile of garbage.

    I do not want that to happen.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭

    “I trust that there are no such people here”

    You can rest assured that this forum is peppered with the live accounts of repeat abuse offenders, of which multiaccounting is the least egregious.

  • VladDraco-PGOVladDraco-PGO Posts: 560 ✭✭✭✭

    Very interesting post on the 30-50 rumors.

    As you said too, "It's not a bad idea to increase the number of good wayspots and decrease the number of bad wayspots." It seems really the thing Niantic should focus NOW, as the source of all their income, the Waypoint database, is slowly turning into a pile of garbage.

    I'm worried too if the "5 to reject" rumour is NOT true.

    If the 5 first reviews are 1* : K-12, category : school, for example, I really hope the submission is rejected, and don't stay in the pool for months.

    If it's not, it explains why the nominations are mostly coal and so why so few people are interested in reviewing.

    On the other hand, if it's easier to disagree, that could explain the current south Germany problem.

    But now this problem is more than one month old, so the problem, in my opinion, as shifted from bad reviewers to Niantic not doing anything !

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 948 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Why rumours like this exist and are believed is because it feels very much like such a system exists when some areas see so many good POI rejected on a regular basis.

    I certainly believe the system could be setup that badly by all the terrible rejections I see.

    Niantic need to re-think their system as more and more people stop bothering to submit in some areas

  • rodensteiner-INGrodensteiner-ING Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭✭✭

    it needs less votes to get something rejected. idk if it is 5, but people have found out that the system works this way. It is how the "bad uns" gain alot of points for their upgrades. They reject anything that isnt straightforward a POI and Wayspot. Their "bad uns" friends do it the same way, so they are able to tank something in short time.

    The problem is that these people do think they are in the right, because they are "the commuh-nee-tee" and their decision is the right one.

    After this whole kerfuffle came up again they waited a little to see what Niantic would do about it (Niantic didnt do anything) - now they are back again rejecting rejecting rejecting.

    It is what people seem to see as "bots". Infact they are just pesky ones that sit all day at their PC and vote with several accounts at the same time.

  • Dam0clees-PGODam0clees-PGO Posts: 86 ✭✭

    This is why I review but hardly submit anything anymore.

Sign In or Register to comment.