It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
I disagree because of human nature. I think waypoints edits fall into 2 categories: Selfless to make wayfarer better + personal gain to manipulate game boards.
Picture/Title/Description Edits tend to fall into the Selfless category. People only spend the time and effort to make those because they want to make the wayspots database better. And during review we generally aren't bombarded with these. They are a small minority of reviews and super fast to do. Out of 100 reviews, how many times do you run into these? Less than 10?
Location Edits & Removal Requests manipulate the game board. Some times done for malicious selfish reasons. (not always but sometimes)
I think requests for "Grandfather" Tags would be more like Picture/Title/Description ie Selfless category. I don't think the average submitter or player would even bother making the request just as they dont bother submitting text edits.
And yes, something could go to "Not allowed" then later to "Allowed" but the same types of people who care enough to update would update.
Since the tag in my scenerio would have zero effect on game boards, there just wouldn't e any incentive for average player to bother. Only wayfarer reviewers.
And heck if you wanted, you could bother to code extra safeguards in. Like for example only people whose Wayfarer Accounts are "Great" have Grandfather Tag under their options to edit waypoint. As a side tangent may not be a bad code addition for location edit requests too.
@Cowyn2016-PGO "There wouldn't be any incentive for the average player to bother" is exactly right. Very few people would do this so most of the not-currently-ineligible stuff wouldn't get labeled, and that defeats the purpose. If only 1% of the grandfathered stuff is labeled as such then what good is it? People are still going to see hole #13 of a disc golf course and assume that all the holes are eligible.
This goes back to somone for else in this thread saying that Niantic needs to let us know what the motive behind some rules are.
Why is each hole on a golf course (disc or regular) not a good PoI? Because you might interfere with play and or may get injured.
Not really, you could just make a bit of program that makes it so waypoints older than say, 4 years, has a tag on it that when pressed, can say "this was accepted a while back, but might not meet acceptance criteria now" and solve the issue
You just posted my own personal pet peeve :< Perfect is the enemy of good. Better is still better even 1%
If 1% of spots that don't make a good example for new players of what to nominate had a tag that said that... that is still less new players learning bad nominating habits and tossing less coal into system and/or not getting upset and stopping nominating because they think their valid nominations get rejected.
But how much effort is being made for this marginal improvement? This seems like a lot of work for not much payoff, and that's assuming it's used exclusively in good faith.
I MIGHT be wrong...
I just don't think that much effort will be made or its that much work. Picture Edits and Description Edits are marginal improvements and yet we do them. When reviewing 100 nominations what percentage of time are "Mark Appropriate Picture" or "Choose best title" what comes up? I think it's pretty small. And those edit reviews are much much faster to click on then a nomination. A mark the appropriate picture usually takes less then 10 seconds before Im hitting submit.
I'm thinking of a simple Yes or No that pops up... Would you vote for this nomination currently if it popped up under current criteria. Yes or No. 1 Click and your done. Whatever high % of "Nos" Niantic picks... then applies the flag
Ironically, you could reverse the question and flag... Do you think this wayspot is Top-Notch example for new reviewers on what a way spot should be. Yes or No. Then if high enough yes %, the wayspot gets a little ribbon on it... exemplary wayspot. (% Yes)
I’ve had to reject a lot of good submissions lately that explicitly mentioned Pokémon go in the description. Adding “Do not reference Pokémon Go” to the submission title/description prompts would be an easy fix.
Writing about this, it goes without saying that the Wayfarer team and ambassadors will now need to hold regular meetings.
And they will eventually clarify the criteria.
At this time, they need to first determine what is prioritized as the POI as a clarification of the criteria.
Is it the priority of the location where the POI is located or the POI itself?
And whether the POIs should be viewed as a group or as individuals.
Good POIs can be found in off-limits, in areas where safe access does not exist, in sensitive areas, and in inappropriate areas.
A lighthouse on an isolated island on a bluff, an artist's object on private property, a celebrity's grave in a cemetery, a mural on the wall of a fire station, etc., to name a few.
Currently, some of the criteria for location are flawed and many remain ambiguous. This is the cause of confusion and controversy among Wayfinders.
This should be clarified.
The other issue is what to do with POIs that are identical in character and less valuable on their own.
For example, multiple gazebos placed 50 meters apart around a park plaza, which continue to be nominated and categorized individually alphabetically and numerically.
Hundreds of information boards scattered roughly every 100 meters, by street number, in the same neighborhood of the same town, continue to be nominated only for their street numbers.
Mosaic tiles with the same pattern appear again and again every 100 meters along the sidewalk. They are nominated with different titles on their own.
Distance markers that appear every 100m along the walking trail have no value or meaning on their own. However, they are all nominated individually, such as 200m from the start of the walking course".
At the start of OPR, or rather from 2012 when Ingress began, to the present, it remains ambiguous whether priority is given to this group or to the individual.
And with the current review system, the more extensive these are, the more they become a weak point.
And these have become a source of confusion and controversy when we review.
So, as I mentioned at the beginning, the Wayfarer team and ambassadors need to meet and clarify what the priorities are in terms of POI criteria.
And we would like them to show us what those criteria are.
Also, and I trust we all understand this, but a necessary perspective in clarification is the social acceptance of the general public who do not play games.
This is not the perspective of gamers or geeks who only see what's on their smartphone screens.
Because Ingress, Pokémon GO, Pikmin, and the upcoming launches of Transformers and Peridot will all be played in the real world.
We are required to have social common sense at the outset of playing a game.
Our games can only be played with social tolerance.
This should not be forgotten, not even for a moment.
The same is true for POI.
Thank you for the conversation, examples, and explanations about your thoughts on the Criteria Clarification. Myself, the team, and Ambassadors will take this into consideration and in our meeting next week, our Ambassadors and I will discuss the feedback you all have given. Not to worry though, the discussions won't be closed. We'll leave them open for you all to continue sharing, just wanted to let you know what our first debrief about it will be taking place.
Thanks ! We are gratefull that Niantic is trying to get in touch with us !
Ok, I havent read that much, but what were the ideas in general? I know what mines was but I can't remember much else lol
Someone else posted in one of these so thought it would be worth checking in to see any actions taken/proposed on the feedback provided.
It’s frustrating as a submitter and reviewer that some clarification is within a small comment from a Niantic forum person.
If it’s criteria, it should be added to the pages within Wayfarer, otherwise Wayfarers are fine to ignore it I think. Reading and participating in the forums or other Wayfarer groups shouldn’t be required to undertake the Wayfarer responsibilities at all. But at the moment you have to dig into old threads, or rely on the right question being asked & answered.
Honestly something that I wish would be done would be for there to be a news tab/section/pop-up so criteria clarifications would appear as people open wayfarer for the day. That way people would not really have an excuse to not see the changes to criteria.
What's the latest clarification for Wayspots in cemeteries? Lately more and more Wayspots in cemeteries disappeared, so I guess you don't want them in your database?
There have been two cases in the last week in germany. One person tried to move an existing Wayspot out of the backyard into the cemetery, with the help of the Help Chat. Instead of moving one Wayspot, they removed 10 Wayspots that were in boundary of the cemetery. This included fountains (What's wrong with them?!). Another case included 15 Wayspots, which are now gone too. Personally I accept Wayspots in cemeteries, of course no sensitive ones like Gravestones and such. But chapels, art, fountains and Info signs are great Wayspots, even on cemeteries. If the players behave appropriate I don't see an issue
Memorial Benches. I'd like clarification on these if possible. They seem to have such a bad rep! They are ofc permanent also. And i feel that by rejecting these, the memory of the passed idividual is also discarded. I just dont know where the bad rep for these came from.
Also clarification on the NCN Route Markers also , would be a great help!
With memorial benches I think their abundance and temporary status, their price range from £500 up to a couple of thousand , sometimes for only a few years make them poor submissions. Without being disrespectful they only really have a relevance to the people involved.
@DraculGaming-PGO For a long time the guidance was that memorial benches don't qualify unless the person being memorialized is famous or locally important. The vast majority of memorial benches are purchased by family members or friends and those generally don't qualify these days.
I acknowledge that, in a lot of parks, the playground in that park is often the only permanent feature for which a wayspot can be 'anchored'. However, I'm a 58 year old bloke who often goes for walks in the evenings, especially to my local park - with it's multiple wayspots - and sit for a while on one of the benches to spin stops and battle gyms/raid bosses.
Twice now I've been visited by the police who... politely... ask me what I'm doing so close to a children's playground.
"No, officer; I am not a 'kiddie fiddler', nor am I looking to sell drugs. I'm playing Pokemon Go." Then have to show my mobile with the game on screen.
I'm never upset by this, as I recognise - without context - that a reasonable belief of me having diabolical intentions is a valid assumption. But... daaammnn... it is embarrassing!
As an uncle to a handful of small post-toddler children, on one hand I'm pleased that someone has seen me and made the call to our local constabulary reporting me being there... and that said constabulary have promptly investigated... but it has well and truly highlighted to me that a children's playground should probably not be an acceptable wayspot anchor.
I personally question that if a K12 (primary/secondary/elementary) school, a scout hall or similar are ineligible due to being focussed on small children, then should not a children's playground equipment/set in a local park also be the same?
/me dons flak vest and awaits the incoming 'fire'.
It’s a good point @Sinykal1-PGO but I think as playgrounds/soft play areas allow adults to be social with each other (thinking stereotypical thing of two mums sat on a bench in the park chatting/catching up whilst their kids play or having a coffee together, similarly in the soft play area) when the kids are occupied.
The same doesn’t apply to a school/scout hut as parents/carers there would just drop their kids off and go. The adults would not be socialising at the school overly (I know that there would be discussions between the adults when queueing at/waiting at school gates etc.) when compared to playgrounds.
It would also fall under good exercise for kids, allowing them to run around and burn off some steam, but I doubt the kids would be checking their phones at the same time.
Actually I found an old AMA for Ingress that may help see why this is followed too @Sinykal1-PGO
Q16: I have two questions regarding portals. While I can see the value of having parks, churches, monuments, etc. as viable portals, I find myself puzzled by the inclusion of playgrounds. The minimum age is 13 and it would seem the majority of the playerbase is well over that. As someone who has been questioned by suspicious mothers at playgrounds (why is that strange lone man hanging around a playground with a camera?) and I would rather be questioned by the cops than have that happen again. Since schools are not allowed as portals (presumably because Niantic does not want strangers hanging around schools), why are playgrounds? Second, why are portals on military bases considered viable? Hospitals, firehouses, and other emergency services are considered off limits, so why should military bases, and other restricted government facilities be considered acceptable?
A16: Playgrounds that are within a park or a community gathering area are acceptable candidates. They fall under the criteria of public spaces that encourage walking and exercise. Currently, our policy is that Portals on Military bases should be given a one-star rating.
Except remember that military bases are no longer an instant 1*, per NianticGiffard here:
"if it's a park or public area that is open to the residents or the general public in the military base it will meet our eligibility criteria."
Yeah I did think of cutting that out of the question but then I figured someone would complain if I did.
lol, okay. Just don't mind me. I'm out here to pounce on military mentions. Have to defend my bases and get waypoints. Still working on getting spawns back for PoGo 🤪
Fellow Wayfarers, thank you for your responses. That has cleared things up for me regarding playgrounds in public parks.
Isn't it amazing how questions can be answered and puzzlements solved, thereby saving one or more others from unnecessary aggravation, when information... that shouldn't be kept secret... is freely given. 😁
I want to go back to this comment for just a moment.
Playgrounds are not always acceptable. They are acceptable unless they run into one of the rejection criteria, which in this case would typically mean being on K-12 property (which also includes things like daycare centers.) Playgrounds on school property are not allowed, and Niantic feels so strongly about it that being on K-12 property is a removal criterion... old ones don't get grandfathered in.
Can I request that Niantic look into abuse of the "Location Inappropriate" and "Location Sensitive" rejection criteria? In my experience, and from what I've read in the community, these are significant causes of frustration for nominators. They just are very frequently misused. And by misused, I mean when there is absolutely no relevance to the nomination. No gun/liquor/adult toy shops, cemeteries or the like anywhere nearby. It really does happen a lot.
If I am misunderstanding the criteria, please correct me. Otherwise, I believe this problem is caused by either misinformed and/or lazy reviewers, or bots...or a combination of them. Whatever the cause, I hope it wouldn't be too difficult to identify reviewer accounts which grossly overuse these criteria, and either educate them, or in the case of bots, ban them?
And in order to avoid confusion, perhaps "Location Inappropriate" could be reworded to "Inappropriate Business," or "Inappropriate Establishment?"