I want a checkbox to suggest that the submitter read the guidelines

Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,048 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited January 2 in General Discussion

I've come across so many things recently that make it clear that many people submitting things have zero clue about the criteria. For example, the two examples under "Does not meet eligibility requirements" are street signs and the red ball bollards found in front of Target stores but I've seen lots of both of those recently as well as other things that either clearly hit a rejection criterion or fail to meet any of the acceptance criteria.

I want a checkbox when I review that says, [ ] This person should review the criteria. If enough reviewers check that box then the rejection email would start with a highlighted section that reads something like:

Please review the Wayspot criteria. Reviewers suggest that you review the criteria for what makes a good Wayspot, and what things are ineligible. Things that exist in the games right now do not provide good guidelines as they may have been accepted under earlier criteria. Please review the current guidelines here: (link)

I think there are a lot of submitters who are just completely ignorant of the criteria, and a gentle nudge might help them learn what candidates are good and bad. It won't work for all of them, obviously, but I'm sure it would help some people. Garbage candidates waste reviewers' time, and every garbage submission that doesn't happen helps the legitimate candidates get through just a little bit faster.

Right now I estimate I would check this box for 5-10% of the things I review.

Post edited by Hosette-ING on

Comments

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭✭✭

    When I read the title I thought this was going to be a box to check when someone was making the submission. Might be tricky but it would be useful to go back to a repeatedly errant submitter to say you said you read guidelines but clearly haven’t, and maybe impose a cool-down or something.

    I think your actual suggestion is simply a better/stronger phrasing of what could go in a rejection email if the doesn’t meet criteria rejection box is selected?

    I think this stronger wording could be woven into some of the others too.

    Maybe I’m feeling frustrated by how long it seems to be taking for an overhaul of the feedback to submitters to focus on communicating properly and educating them as to what has gone wrong.

  • MelodyS88Chi-PGOMelodyS88Chi-PGO Posts: 627 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I see worse than just not meeting criteria in at least half of what I get to review. People submit stuff that clearly meets exclusion criteria such as K-12 schools, stuff in the yard of single family homes, vape and recreational marijuana shops, etc..

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,048 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Elijustrying-ING Basically, I'm suggesting an additional checkbox during the review that says, although not in these words, "This is so bad that the submitter should get a reminder to read the criteria." If enough people checked that box during the review and the candidate was rejected then the rejection email would include a link to the criteria. Realistically, "Please include a reminder about the criteria" would be a more neutral wording.

    I reject lots of things for not meeting the criteria, but most of them are just sort of blah rather than being egregious. If I rejected an unremarkable restaurant, a generic bench, or something marginal I wouldn't use it. If someone tried to claim that the overhang on the front of a store was a gazebo I'd just laugh and reject it. Some of the things I've seen recently that I would use the checkbox for:

    • The hand sanitation station at a warehouse, and a lunch table at the exact same warehouse (I know the facility)
    • Road signs
    • Fast food drive-thru menus
    • A trophy on someone's desk
    • A solid black photo with the title "(area) kids needs a poki stop"
    • A sewer
    • Blocks of mailboxes at apartment complexes
    • Fire hydrants (not decorated ones, just everyday fire hydrants)
    • Things clearly in a private home or in the yard of a home

    Even if the checkbox got overused that doesn't seem problematic-- getting a link to the criteria at the top of rejection email isn't really a horrible thing. I suspect this would mostly fall on deaf ears but every now and again getting the nudge would probably be an effective clue-by-four to remind someone newish that there are actual guidelines.

    I'd also toyed with the idea that if someone got too many of these in a short time period they would get a timeout for submissions but I think that has abuse loopholes.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I like the idea of a direct link to the guidelines.

    Good ideas just needs that overhaul.

  • Sanyara8011309-PGOSanyara8011309-PGO Posts: 23 ✭✭

    I like the idea! Some people seem to have no idea that there are rules at all!

    Today I got:

    Several private Houses

    a black picture titled "the mysterious Spot" with explaination: "the spot is in our living room, we like PoGo and need a stop here"

    2 elementary schoolyards

    A rehabilitation center

    A plain tree

    I think a link in the mails of rejected locations would be a good idea.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,048 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Sanyara8011309-PGO Yeah, that sounds like a typical day for me.

    I think Niantic also needs to include a better explanation of the philosophy of submission. Lots of people seem to approach it from the position of putting wayspots in specific locations rather than finding interesting things to submit. "There aren't any wayspots near here so I'm going to fish around and submit anything I can find in the area" rather than, "Oh, that's a good candidate so I'll submit it."

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,120 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2

    I've said the same thing in other threads - we need something to flag up to reviewers, and to Niantic, that some people have either not read or understood the criteria for "obviously" not eligible submissions like K-12, or are just spamming nominations in the hope that repeated submission of an ineligible object will result in it eventually getting through. "Third party text" is another reason that needs a specific rejection button all of it's own - far too many good stops have to be rejected because the submitter just compes the description of the site or trail directly from a web page - people submitting need to be made more aware this is not allowed.

    Post edited by sogNinjaman-ING on
  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,120 ✭✭✭✭✭

    So I type my comment, go back to my next review and get this coming up:


  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,048 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @sogNinjaman-ING That one looks like the submitter was trying to be funny, at least? I had a similar one recently that was titled Optimistic Garden or something like that.

    Many years ago I had just submitted a couple of things in my neighborhood. I turned a corner and found myself face to face with the most horrific vehicle monstrosity I had ever encountered-- a ginormous Pepto Bismol pink Hummer. I snapped a photo and submitted a portal titled "Don't Approve This!" The description was something about how I just wanted to give them a bit of humor and laugh at the monstrosity.

    Submitted: 2014-07-04

    Rejected: 2014-12-04

    In retrospect, I guess that's around the time when the queues were going from slow to hopeless.

  • QuiteConfused-INGQuiteConfused-ING Posts: 51 ✭✭

    I like this idea. I also get a really substantial number of nominations that are just total garbage. Loading docks, things inside people's houses, body parts, etc.

    I'd go further and say that I'd like there to be some tracking and after a submitter has repeatedly submitted a number of garbage waypoints (3?) they get a temporary hold on nominating, and if it continues after that (maybe once they get three of the emails, so 9 blatantly ineligible points?), it becomes permanent.

  • auntergoaf-PGOauntergoaf-PGO Posts: 139 ✭✭✭

    Hmmm... I think there are judges who check all the nominations that they determine to be rejected, is this the correct way to use the checkbox? Isn't it enough to change the text of the rejection email based on the overall rating?

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,048 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @auntergoaf-PGO I think we may have a language issue here, or a miscommunication.

    Right now when reviewers collectively reject something the submitter gets email saying that it was rejected. There are rejection reasons, although I think they are in Wayfarer now but not in the email.

    To me there are basically two types of things that get rejected:

    1. Things that were OK submissions but just weren't good enough to pass, for whatever reason (example: a mural, but the submitter didn't notice it was on the wall of a grade school)
    2. Things that are complete rubbish that should never have been submitted (example: a dumpster)

    For #1 I think it's enough to say "This was rejected". For #2 I'd like it if the email said, "This was rejected. Please review the criteria."

    Does that make sense?

  • ElwynGreygoose-INGElwynGreygoose-ING Posts: 244 ✭✭✭✭

    @Hosette-ING 3. Possibly eligible candidates where the submitter has done too poor a job for this to be accepted, either by ruining it (eg cut and paste text from the internet, or by not using a "unique, detailed title") or by failing to provide sufficient information for the reviewer to be convinced.

    Anyway, I would also like a series of buttons on topics like "Go and read the guide pinned in the community forums on how to nominate [whatever]".

Sign In or Register to comment.