It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
The one submitting this nomination should be permanently banned from the Wayfarer platform.
Thanks for flagging! We have reviewed the report and taken action on 4 Wayspots and the Wayfinder in accordance with our policies. While we are unable to discuss our actions in detail to protect the submitter’s privacy, they may include, but are not limited to, sending a warning message, placing restrictions on their Wayfarer, Pokémon GO or Ingress account, putting their account on probation, or placing a temporary or permanent suspension on their Wayfarer, Pokémon GO or Ingress account.
Thanks for helping us maintain the quality of the Wayspots.
4 wayspots... does that mean people approved that guy's picture 4 times? 🤔
They may be other Wayspots that they’ve submitted and had approved that didn’t meet criteria
In this kind of report, when Niantic staff say "wayspots," I've often wondered if it includes both nominated and approved/active. I would have to imagine yes in some cases, though I know Niantic will never confirm.
'Permanent Ban on Player' seems rather harsh, considering the commitment & time one must invest into the games to get to be able to create nominations.
People just don't read. I can't tell you how many nominations I've seen with proposed public descriptions along the lines of; 'a great place to chill and catch pokémon'
Some of these fools don't even realize the Wayspots we're nominating and reviewing are enacted in other games, let alone the actual criteria.
Wayfinder suspension or ban, I can get behind though.
@000GreenBttm18-PGO please don't be so harsh on those who 'don't realise' when Niantic have erred so severely in the wording of the Pokémon Go app nomination system.
From the Settings screen the relevant section has this:
- - - - - - -
You have no contributions pending upload
Player Nominations (Nomination Guidelines)
You have 40 Pokéstop nomination(s) available today.
And it just gets worse from there.
Through the process I noted TWENTY times the word 'Pokéstop' is used through the nomination process. I also noted that the word 'Wayspot' was used only ONCE; and it was in the middle of a field of description text. (Please note: Six of those mentions are on the first three screens of the sequence that disappear after you've made your first nomination.)
This is not a difficult fix for Niantic. This does not require a major overhaul of the programming of the game, just the addition and/or correction of text of a few background screens that are then passed on through the next 'update' process. And, yet, they appear reluctant to make those corrections or additions.
It is because of these glaring errors in the Pokémon Go App focussed on wayspot nominations that I feel I cannot logically mark as 'Fake Nominations' many of those that very likely are such.
Whilst I do agree, it’s odd that we never see “Portal” requests when the same wording appears on the Ingress app just with Portal instead of PokéStop.
There are plenty of examples of bad nominations with Portal or other Ingress terms. It just happens that the number of Ingress players is very small compared to the number of Pokemon players, so the number of nominations is also smaller and the bad nominations from one side outnumbers the other.
That's sort of my point. I was saying that people don't actually come here to read the background, instructions, faq, etc. Thus while nominating, they use the language prompted.
I get that Niantic can do better, but I use that exact system for nominations and I know not to mention POGO explicitly, because I read the help pages.
Which puts you in a very small minority... a VERY small minority. I've no doubt it would likely appall you to learn just how small, percentage-wise, that minority would be.
Heavens! The number of people who don't even read the first line of a contract they're about to sign... *sigh*
I once worked for a start-up ISP back in the late 90s and we created a set of install discs that did all the setup for the client on their Windows 95/98, Windows 3.1 or MacIntosh Computer. I think we also had an install disc for IBMs OS/2 systems back then. On the Windows 95/98 install disc it had the near-mandatory check box which the client had to check to acknowledge they're read the Terms and Conditions - sound familiar? - The Terms and Conditions was a hyperlink to a text file with said terms and conditions... only it didn't.
On that install disc it was broken and the file was actually missing. We'd been handing out that disc for over three months, about ten a day on average, before we received a phone call from a new client who'd complained he couldn't read the said Terms and Conditions and an error message popped up on his screen when he clicked the link. A quick scramble by the techs to find out why and they just as quickly discovered none of that version of the install disc had the missing file. Even more horrifying was realising that about a half-dozen of those previous clients were solicitors!
All the vast majority of people are looking for is the [Next] or [OK] button so they can just get through whatever text bumph is on the screen and get to what they actually want. It's how so many people end up finding themselves inundated with spam from one or more providers because they didn't 'uncheck' a check box that said they wanted such material when they installed a piece of 'free' software as they were installing whatever. It's one of the main reasons why, since about Windows 8 for Windows users, that you keep getting so many 'Are you sure you want to...?' from Windows pop-ups when installing software.
Niantic didn't create their 'Wayfarer test' to improve the quality of wayfarers. They installed it to make those 'Just click Next' numpties stop and think for at least a few seconds. Is it enough? No. But... what can they otherwise do?
They have to weigh the difficulty of their 'stop and think' test against the drop in numbers they'd get actually reviewing and hate-on messages - from the numpties who'd then whine that they couldn't pass the test and go looking on Reddit or Youtube for the answers - they were too stupid to find such by reading those help screens you and I and most others in these forums have actually read.
To demonstrate, I'm actually surprised that we haven't had a new 'My Pokestop was approved [so many hours ago]. Why can't I see it in the game yet?' messages for about four or five days. I've not been a Wayfarer for all that long, but even I can already tell that must be approaching some sort of record. (And I've probably just jinxed it, too. 😉)
To para-quote an adage purported to be from Einstein: "There are only two things that are infinite; the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not too sure about the first."
And then there's my favourite: "There is no such thing as foolproof. Whenever you approach such a state the universe goes ahead and invents a better fool."
In other words, you chase an impossible dream trying to completely clean up the wayfarer/reviewer system. All you can do is minimise future damage and mitigate previous errors.
Although one does not bring oneself to read the guidelines/instructions, I believe that he/she must have been required to undergo and pass a test before being able to perform any review. I keep seeing people writing about Niantic team failing to do this and that, failing to educate people like this and that, and blah blah blah. Isn't it because you are overlooking stuff like this? I do not think it is harsh at all to permanently ban those who know the rules but knowingly break them without feeling any guilt like this.
I do not gainsay your sentiment and empathise with your frustration. Trust me, I feel similar.
However, when Niantic's written instructions contain at https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/new/criteria/guidelines the following:
Reviewing Wayspot nominations involves your good judgement. There is no single set of rules or person who can tell a community in black and white what places are important where others are not. That's why there will always be some 'grey area' in our collective goal to map the most interesting local places. What really influences reviews is how content is presented to convince reviewers that a nomination supports Niantic's mission and follows the rules around abuse, accuracy, and intent.
It gives, not just reviewers but also nominators, a solid 'out'.
The problem then comes down to that 'knowingly' you mentioned. Proving that becomes... nigh, if not actually, impossible. It's only when it's clearly blatant you have any sort of evidence of deliberate breaking of the rules.
In law there is a defence known as 'Mistake of Fact'. It means that the belief that not knowing the law is not a defence is, in fact, false. It is. In many cases/situations it falls to the prosecution to prove the defendant knowingly breached the law. About a decade and a half ago I was foreperson of a jury in a criminal trial where the defendant successfully used this claim to avoid conviction (much to my own personal disgust and something which I'm still miffed about).
To para-quote something I wrote in these forums a week or so ago, 'Be wary of attributing to a deliberate breaching of the rules that which is easily explained as stupidity.'
The problem with the nomination above is: Mayhap the nominator posted it as a joke. Perhaps they knew it would never be accepted, but just wanted to give reviewers something to laugh about. They could employ all sorts of excuses and 'walk away' from it unpunished.
There is no single set of rules or person who can tell a community in black and white what places are important where others are not. That's why there will always be some 'grey area' in our collective goal to map the most interesting local places.
Also Niantic: "We have confirmed that you have been incorrectly reviewing nominations."
No one is an instant dictionary at hand who is aware of all the criteria changes, the nuances of how rigid Niantic's criteria seemingly is (i.e. based on existing wayspots, grandfathered in garbage, all the "clarifications" that are so hard to find, ancient AMA's, etc.) and so people are liable to trip on an existing loose rock of criteria every now and then.
In the same thing within the court of law, the above is very similar to the situation where a prisoner is put on trial in a court, but no one ever tells them what they're charged with. That's this whole situation. It's like having an unlicensed adolescent drive recklessly without having a license, crash and cause damage to the public domain, and then in court only punish them for driving without a license.
Yup, I know. That's why I apply a value system to what information Niantic are 'dribbling' out to us. The instructions on their own webpages I rate higher than what @Niantic??? tell us in these discussions forums. I see it as the webpage-based information has taken longer to develop and gone through a more rigorous vetting process than what So-and-So Niantic staffer has written through postings or email and those higher than what is written via PMs or verbally said to someone.
And is something Niantic can fix a lot of with a rewrite of the webpage-based instructions. (Though, admittedly, not near enough.)
I mean, when were the Wayfarer advice/instruction pages last rewritten? If they've been rewritten at all? The British chap who invented the whole hypertext system that forms the guts of the World Wide Web component of the Internet has always firmly stuck to his guns that webpages are meant to be dynamic. That is, constantly reviewed and rewritten/changed to match the latest information. Even Government departments, notoriously slow at this sort of thing, know and understand this concept.
A reasonable and fair analogy, yes. It's almost as if the lawyers have put a bug in the ear of Niantic management about how you should remain quiet/silent to protect yourself from being sued for what you state/write. The 'boilerplate' cut'n'paste responses to Wayfarers' complaints about abusive/fake nominations, the ignoring of calls for advice on certain matters and similar all lead me to believe this to be the case.
What they seem to not understand is that you can cause yourself just as much harm when you don't comment/respond. To use a very well known example, a certain US (ex) politician is currently finding that out the hard way. And that's just the legal aspect; without also considering the harm to company reputation and the financial bottom line regarding 'goodwill' value that also takes a hit.
With something like the Wayfarer programme you cannot just set it running and then pretty much ignore it. That does far more harm than good. Like any other programme that involves your stakeholders it has to be properly managed. You need staff dedicated to maintaining it in good form. That is even more apparent with Wayfarer when you have a business model that focusses on achieving profit from the Lightship database, which arises from the work of volunteers and which can only be successful if the volunteer stakeholders who are growing it are likewise 'maintained'.
Anyways... that's my view.
I'm not reading all that, but I'm happy for you, or sorry it happened.