"publicly accessible" pandemic
Duckely-ING
Posts: 11 ✭✭
almost everyone adds stuff like "publicly accessible", "safely accessible by foot" etc.
should I count this as "swaying reviewers" and reject?
almost everyone adds stuff like "publicly accessible", "safely accessible by foot" etc.
should I count this as "swaying reviewers" and reject?
Comments
No, I wouldn't go that far. The supporting info is there to expand more on how you think your nomination meets criteria. One of the criteria is that a nomination must have safe pedestrian access. This should be pretty easy to determine from the submitted pictures, but some people include it in the supporting statement anyway, especially if there's some ambiguity, or if they've had a rejection for that reason in the past. It seems a bit surplus to requirements, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing to include.
I definitely wouldn't reject things for pointing out that there is safe pedestrian access. It's rarely necessary to say that explicitly since it's incredibly easy to figure out for most things-- a business, playground, or sports field would be useless if people couldn't get to them safely. There are a few cases where pedestrian access isn't obvious, and explaining the route in those cases is useful to reviewers-- "It's not obvious but there's a hiking trail to this via (whatever). I've shown the trail in the supporting photo."
Influencing reviewers is more akin to asking them to take a specific action. For a while we had tons of move requests that included a text change like, "Pick the pin on the left." Those are the poster children for influencing reviewers, though I think most people have figured out not to do that anymore. I've occasionally seen someone tell reviewers not to move the pin and that too would count.
Even the ubiquitous "need more stops" and "many people pass by here" aren't influencing reviewers... they're just wasted effort.
I think not. If you think about it, it's likely to mean they've actually taken the time to read the criteria. I suggest not attributing to malice that which is otherwise easily explainable.
I know, as reviewers, we've seen all manner of people attempting to 'game the system' through word, photo or location manipulation; but such is not always the case. Otherwise and through the same logic you'd have to accept that the use of a photosphere image, because you know Google Maps and Streetview don't cover the area, would also be seen as a similar method of 'gaming the system'. Yes?
There's an art to handling edits and problematic features of nominations. You can give a 'hint' as to why a move/edit is needed. You give the reviewer information not a direction.
You might say: for and artwork that has been changed. Desc edit: Newart by Newartist painted in 2021. Previous artwork at this location was Oldart by Oldartist.
Recently I nominated an artwork work in a hospital building. "Not near emergency - the building contains specialist suites". A reviewer may discount a hospital located poi because of a worry about emergency access. Yet extra information 'specialist suites' helps clarify the context of the nomination.
This questions actually shocks me.
Someone is communicating why a waypoint is elligible, so you want to deny it!? Yikes.
Stop it.
I think what Niantic means by trying to influence reviewers is if you submit a location change to move a PoI and then also do a description edit that says something like "please pick the location to the west" that's clear manipulation.
There was an example on here a while back where the submitter had written something like "if you don't approve this, I'll reject every stop I review". That's the kind if thing I would consider illegal influencing. Of course, the point of supplemental information is to try to influence reviewers to accept your stop, so that wording is poor and we have to separate normal influencing from abusive influencing.
"Influencing" that addresses the criteria as opposed to unrelated threats, promises, or specific directions on how to vote.
And every one of those should be screenshot and posted as abuse by the wayfarer. Niantic should punish people who threaten like that
No, I don't reject it, but I think that text only serves to frustrate reviewers. They go on and on about how (in their opinion) it doesn't meet rejection criteria - and never address what eligibility criteria it meets.
If it doesn't meet any eligibility criteria - yes I reject it. https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/new/criteria/eligibility
"Influencing reviewers" is meant to mean "influencing reviewers in an attempt to get them to vote against the criteria." Simply giving the reviewers accurate information about how your nomination meets the acceptance criteria and/or doesn't meet the rejection criteria isn't just allowed, it's also the entire purpose of the Supporting Information field. (Not judging the usefulness of the particular information given, just saying it's perfectly acceptable, assuming it's accurate information.)
Influencing the reviewer is telling the reviewer to take a specific action, such as rating a nomination in a specific way, such as telling the reviewer how to specifically rate the nomination, using intimidation tactics (ex. "Niantic monitored" nomination posted a few weeks ago), or instructing the reviewer to do or not do specific actions (such as choosing an incorrect location or NOT correcting the location of a nomination because it won't show up in a specific game if it was accurately placed).
Stating that a nomination is "publicly accessible", however, is not among those. It is a complete waste of space in the supporting information as any pedestrian accessability should be obvious from the nominating photos and map. It is also something that the reviewer must verify on their own and should not take the nominator's word for it.
I just realized one other thing. While I wouldn't reject something because the submitter said it had safe pedestrian access I also wouldn't take their word for it. I have seen submitters explicitly lie about something having safe pedestrian access, most commonly for things that were in medians. I'm always going to verify pedestrian access if it isn't obvious, and use my best judgement if there isn't a clear answer.
Maybe for you, but in my experience you're darned if you do, and darned if you dont. I am a firm believer that the more accurate and relevant information that can be communicated, the better.
Ive had a number of nominations I've made have been rejected for "private residence/farm" or "safe pedestrian access" when that is just flatout, 100% wrong. I figured that information to be obvious based on pictures, but NOPE.
Then I get on here and I read things like "stating things like it's publicly accessible or not on private property will make reviewers not believe you."
Which is it?
This is a sad mindset to assume the worst out of nominators and assume they're lying. I understand what you're trying to do, but at the same time thats definitely going to deter legitimate nominations and discourage legitimate nominators and probably make the fakers more prevalent.
@PepeFuentez-PGO I'm not assuming they are lying... I'm just not taking their word for it. My job as a reviewer includes confirming that the candidate has safe pedestrian access so if "has safe pedestrian access" is part of the supporting info I'm just going to pretend those words aren't there. I will verify pedestrian access myself based on the other information available.
If someone explains non-obvious pedestrian access to me I will absolutely use their explanation as input for my decision.
How is it being used? Somebody nominating a park sign on the the side of a busy road where the person clearly is hanging out of their car isn't getting a "vote" of confidence from me if they state it has pedestrian access, or stating "it's publicly accessible
despite being in my front yard."But it can be helpful to offer an honest explanation in case it isn't immediately obvious. "Park sign is accessible from the maintained grassy area of the park intended for pedestrian use." "Apartment complex maintains the Little free library and it is located at the end of a driveway for the apartment complex, not nearby housing area."