I AM DONE - reviewers as bad as never before
LumixMaster-PGO
Posts: 73 ✭✭✭
It's so bad I could just ****!
Yesterday I put my hard earned upgrade on a tennis court in my area. Now the review is complete - and my post is marked as duplicate 😂
The reviewers only see the basketball court, which is 200m away from the tennis court, and mark it as a duplicate. This proves that the examiners don't even invest a millisecond in the review and just see "okay, something looks pretty similar - let's just mark it as a duplicate and not look to see if it really is a duplicate".
What am I earning my upgrades for anyway? Everything just gets rejected for the strangest reasons!
My suggestion: You could add another level to the Wayfarer-Rating-Scale. Then we would have "great" and above that "excellent". And excellent reviewers could also review appeals. Even if our proposals are rejected for the strangest reasons, there would then be more people to review them and see that the proposal is actually great.
Best wishes, Luigi
Comments
Did you double check Ingress to make sure that the tennis court doesn't already exist in the database but not in Pokémon Go? What are the GPS coordinates of the tennis court?
Hey @LumixMaster-PGO, I just posted my quit too. Feel for you. You could check ingress intel. Like your idea about giving 'excellent' reviewers/submitters some sort of advantage.
In the last months i get:
-6 rejection for trail marker (with various reasons such as living animals, temporary or seasonnal, or natural features)
-3 sign about nature rejected (for being a natural feature... or a living animal)
-1 tennis court rejected for being temporary (lol)
-1 foutain for being on a farm (that's the only one rejection witch i can understand even if the reason is totally false)
-1 sculpture rejected for being seasonnal (the sculture is fixed on the ground, but reviewer don't care)
And the only reaction of Niantic is just to disable appeals...
Your suggestion can possibly reduce the number of false rejection... but some bad reviewers get the rating "great" because too many people reject everything.
Woah that's awful
It seems to me a good idea that someone with a better rating can review since it takes a long time to exchange the ratings...
And why do you think that none of those with higher number of agreements aren't the ones that rejected your nomination?
Hey, :-)
when you want to submit a pokestop, it shows when there is a wayspot right there in ingress (to prevent accidental duplicates). So when I submitted the wayspot, there was no notification on the map, that the tennis court is already a wayspot.
Because those people mostly take their time to look at the submission carefully. For example, you couldn't reach a 70-80% agreement status when you don't look at the submissions carefully.
Good chance that is correct.
Does not mean those reviewer's are good. Could all just be in a chat group where they have decided they are going to vote against certain things despite Niantic stating they should accept them.
Or getting agreements with others who automatically reject stuff on hospital grounds be not knowing that Niantic allow them if not blocking emergency services/are in sensible places in hospital grounds etc.
It's not just abusers and bad/lazy voters you have to contend with, but also those that reject thinking they know best and better than Niantics.
So many ways to get bad rejections that the system is hobbling away but losing submitters daily due to bad rejections
I was only checking because you might have submitted it from further away. The duplicate check only shows wayspots within ~100 metres of where you're physically stood when making the nomination, but you have the ability to use photos from your gallery and submit up to 10 kilometres away from your current location. If you had submitted the tennis court remotely, you would not have seen if it already existed as a duplicate. I am glad you checked it though :)
I've had my fair share of unfair rejections in the past but am currently on a streak of 14 in a row without one, probably the best I've done. Maybe the reviewing community has improved or maybe my nominations and understanding of the system has.
Are you aware that many "power reviewers" use scripts in order to prevent them submitting reviews too soon?, that's it: in less than 20 seconds.
You should take a look at the feedback provided in these forums and notice how easily you can find some people that claim to be high quality reviewers that are always trying to find ways to reject any nomination.
So I don't think that all the people that have high agreements rates are good reviewers.
I wish you could see the rating the reviewers gave you and comments. I work to add comments if I dislike the location but the three I have submitted so far have all been rejected and the reason just does not make sense to me. It just would help to refine submittals.
There are people using bots apparently to cause rejection waves, especially on the weekends. At least we got that problem here in germany.
I blame Niantic giving unlimited tries to pass the test with only a 15 minute wait in between attempts for part of the drop in reviewer quality. People that have no ability or willingness to read and understand criteria can just brute force their way past a test that is in my opinion already too easy to pass.
I definitely don't agree with that change however, the sort of problems you are experiencing have existed long before that change was made.
They have but I think that change has certainly exacerbated things.
@LumixMaster-PGO I have never seen a highly-experienced reviewer have a 70-80% agreement rate using a calculation that's based on total reviews and accepted/rejected/duplicated. Maybe 70% but I've never seen 80%.
I have the same feeling I made a request for a pokestop in a place to go hiking, this place has been used that way since I can remember and I am 31 years old right now, almost 32, now it was rejected for being temporary!!!! What the!!!
For 4-5 years, Niantic has been promising a new reviewer interface. They seem to actually be doing in in 2022... but they've fooled me before; maybe I'm too gullible.
ANYWAY, a proper reviewing process would make decisions clear and easy for everyone.
So, I suggest trying again once (if) the new system is released. That's my plan, anyway.
Did propose kinda "similar" approach for reviewing appeals:
Proposal was that instead of "excellent" reviewers the Wayfarer Ambassadors could review Appeals.
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/28278/give-wayfarer-ambassadors-a-voluntary-possibility-to-review-nomination-appeals
Most of community did not agree with that.
Was expecting that there would be at least 50 Ambassadors and Ambassadors would be the best of the best reviewers as Niantic does detailed selection process by reading all applications.
But now there are only 12 Ambassadors and what I understood Niantic do have a group? of full time paid employees doing appeal reviews and they even have better? and more advanced review system/tools for doing reviews.
Also Ambassadors and "excellent" reviewers would probably have more knowledge of their local area and they would do better reviews for local nominations than global appeals from all over the world.
So when thinking afterwards it is perhaps not a very good idea to give any "outsiders" a possibility to review appeals.
We have just to wait that Niantic review group reaches the full strength and speed.
ps.
There is also a proposal to get Upgrade back to user if the Upgraded nomination is incorrectly rejected in the first place:
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/28333/give-the-lost-upgrade-back-to-user-when-upgraded-nomination-is-appealed-and-the-appeal-is-accepted
If I send something to appeal I would like it to be reviewed by Wayfarer staff.
Ambassadors are as far as I can tell about communication- I’m perfectly happy for there to be a small number to test the system and communication does not always work well with large numbers.
I don’t see the point in having an excellent category. But even if there was, this could still easily contain reviewers that rejected the proposal in the first place. It is all about judgements and you should expect a range of views.
I prefer a system of appeals that goes to those not involved in the original decision and it will be good for wayfarer staff to learn from what is being appealed
I get rejections like that pretty much every day of week which is why I am seen here complaining quite often.
Here is today's rejection, which did actually have a typo I could have fixed but 'not culturally significant'...
They could have said "Typos in text" - but not that it isn't significant... furthermore, typos can be fixed. So only if it is "really bad spelling", I reject a submission.
This again feeds the speculation that the "not historically or culturally significant" rejection reason is caused by some people marking it as a duplicate, but not enough to actually trigger the duplicate message. I can see several similar Welcome to Tilgate Park signs and info boards on the intel map and whilst I'm sure this is a separate one to those, it wouldn't surprise me if some people did mark it as a duplicate of one of the existing ones.
I absolutely agree. I just got rejected after waiting for 3 years for a mural that was painted on a pharmacy. Check out the reason. Like ****? How is a pharmacy mural a sensitive location?
Wow, I am sorry to hear that for you. This is just a great wall art, I see no reason to reject that.
And the criteria "Location sensitive" doesn't fit at all.
Upgrades are still a curse, and geez I don't see how a park information board isn't culturally significant.
My friend just posted this:
Apparently these days people still don't realise that "fire trail" really means it's a management trail (usually in a nature reserve or a national park) where when it's been dry for a while, the road is at best at 4WD-able condition for rangers. Those trails are designed for hikers and sometimes, bike or horse riders. Most of the fire trails I see, 0 chance of getting an actual fire truck up/down those.
Dammit. Yet another disagreement. Sigh. They probably also saw the Wild Dog/Fox Poison too.
You can't use agreement rating as a serious way of determining whether someone is a good reviewer.
Trail markers have been eligible for many years, yet they hardly ever got accepted before Pokemon GO players got access to reviewing. Hence, you would get a HIGHER agreement rate, for not following the Wayspot criteria if you knew there was a trend among the reviewer base.
In other words, whenever I accepted a trail marker, or playground, back in the day, I had a high risk of getting a worse agreement rate.