reviewers, that vote purposely against the criteria

2»

Comments

  • SiIverLyra-PGOSiIverLyra-PGO Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's absolutely not all mass conspiracy. I've experienced it firsthand.

    Granted, not all rejections out there are a result of such groups, certainly not. But it's a phenomena that absolutely does exist in specific places.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Why are all of you now discussing again cabals?

    That's not the main topic here. Only again a thread, that leaves its main topic thanks to @Theisman-ING .....


    Even @NianticGiffard didnt read anything. It's also not about "that the rejection reasons are accurate". Topic here is people, that reject stuff, that is explicitly enumerated as good wayspot example under the big three criteria ....

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Because that is a very common behavior of cabals?

  • rodensteiner-INGrodensteiner-ING Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The "Mass" sometimes/often is just someone with too much time on his hands.

    Having 20+ smartphones and accounts makes them think they can throw around their weight and make their own Wayfarer rules.

    Wayfarers tend to do things their own way in private, not with 10 friends around that follow one leader. You wouldnt think that they sit together sundays at 7 to mass-reject.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭

    But nethertheless these are different cases ....

    Cabal guideline: A) We want as much spots as possible here. B) other shall not have them.

    Solo rejector guideline: could be evrything. The guy from the initial post .... since he is an ING-only-player I guess he hates anchors, that are not accessible by car, and so he constructs stupid reasoning-chains to reject fully valid candidates. Dunno.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,336 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 27

    Point of order, Theisman didn’t bring it up, RandomExploit brought up voting groups and described how they become cabals.

    This isn’t the most helpful comment, but if you’re going to call someone out and tag them, best to be really, really correct about what you’re asserting.

  • Shilfiell-INGShilfiell-ING Posts: 968 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Solo rejector guideline: could be evrything. The guy from the initial post .... since he is an ING-only-player I guess he hates anchors, that are not accessible by car, and so he constructs stupid reasoning-chains to reject fully valid candidates. Dunno.

    Wait. What?

    Most Ingress players I know love anchors that are not accessible by car, that have limited hours, or are otherwise difficult to get to. The best anchors are those that cannot be easily attacked and allow fields to stand through at least one checkpoint. In my area, it's the Pokemon Go-only players that prefer car-accessible Pokestops and Gyms, so they don't need to use remote passes or heaven forbid, walk. I play both games, of course, and I like those remote gyms (gym hours are my favorite stat!) but if you look at the current outcry against the Incense nerf you'll surely see a trend. This is NOT an Ingress-only-players-being-bad-Wayfarers issue. I reached level 40 based on the efforts of Ingress-only players who provided those old Waypoints for me to hit my target level in 2017, and then my eventual Gold Guardian (ran out of time to get it Onyx, being late to the game) in Ingress. Please don't disparage Ingress-only players. We're all improving the same overall map.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is NOT an Ingress-only-players-being-bad-Wayfarers issue

    What the? I didnt write this. It's only the one guy from the example .....

    Nethertheless the whole post coircled only around this. RandomExploits not. Of course the cabal-topic may be a part of this discussion, but it cant be reduced on this one topic, what only Theisman did.


    So pleaaaaase - stay at the topic. Everyone seems to have a go on writing evrything down, that could be connected to examples. An example is only a descriptive part of an argument. If something is wrong with special examples one or two sentences incidentally are enough to reference examples - but not whole comments, that purely revolve around single examples ....

    Somehow this forum is a catastrophe in that. Here a story from our social media is the example. In other threads, where special nominations/rejections are used as examples, people totally neglect the main topic and only try to find the fly in the ointment of this nominations, although not aked for. So .... whats wrong with this forum? Where do the people learn that pointless style of discussions?

  • Shilfiell-INGShilfiell-ING Posts: 968 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As far as @Raachermannl-ING's comment above - if you meant just a single person by your comment, then what is the meaning of your "since he is an -ING only player" phrase? That reads, to me, like you are including the original subject in a group behaving in an established pattern. If you meant otherwise, then the meaning is unclear. Meanwhile, according to the original post, the subject of the example is insulting even fellow Ingress agents for their Pokemon Go style of voting, which is another exaggerated case of classification into "my app is good and your app is bad" behavior. Being Ingress-only or Pokemon Go-only does not determine anyone's quality as a Wayfinder.

    As far as voting cabals - they have some bearing on the topic, I believe. The example given was one person voting against standards, sure, but if acting alone such voters would likely fall into Poor rating very quickly and their opinions would be less of a factor. If you do feel that this topic has wandered off-course, though, there's always the Flag --> Off Topic option to bring this fact to the Moderator's attention.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Because thats my only idea about how people can hate the wayspot in the nature. In PoGo they arent effecting you if you don't want to interact with them, but in ING someone can throw a giant field about your area. So when someone builds big fields, other agents might not like that, and somehow dont like to take the walk to the offroad wayspots to remove the fields ...

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,336 ✭✭✭✭✭

    So, to try to steer this back to the OP, this guy sounds like a real nuisance.

    That said, if he was alone in voting according to his own criteria, he wouldn’t get very far. So while other reviewers may not be as vocal or confrontational about their voting habits, it sounds like he’s not alone in his dislike of trail markers. (I think this line of thinking is where the “cabal” discussion rolls out) In terms of official Niantic action, there is some expectation that appeal data will be used to generate reviewer feedback about how to do better by Niantic’s standards, but that’s a long ways off, if it ever happens at all, and it’s not like Niantic has a track record of clear communication that would inspire confidence in such a program.

    TL;DR: no, there’s nothing to be done about this kind of troll.

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 437 ✭✭✭✭

    Apologies if anyone thinks my comment took thing off-topic but the very first sentence in the original post did mention groups of people voting against Niantics wishes, so im not sure that it's totally off-topic.

    My point, apart from there are groups that openly admit to voting against Niantics wishes, was that a few persuasive/strong voices in a group can alter the voting of others. Either by persuading them that a wrong rejection is correct for a particular type of POI or just changing their vote to reject knowing they will get more agreements due to how the group votes.

    Individuals are obviously an issue too but I think it would be unwise to ignore the effect of such groups on rejections, especially when global groups can do this too.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 783 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The question I always have when stories like this come up in threads is that if they are 100% rejected by collusion, then they are also 100% approved by collusion.

    I don't know how Niantic's voting program works, I just know that it is a very complicated process, and I am not sure how it is supposed to work. And they will not disclose it so as not to be abused.

    I rather think the fact that low quality POI's such as chain convenience stores are being approved one after another is not good enough.

    These would be reduced by adding a program that would allow a wider range of reviewers to make decisions and increase the number of reviews required to make a decision when a split rating or a rejection for a specific reason is voted on.


    I think we need to look at this from many angles.

Sign In or Register to comment.