3rd bot wave or simply the most stupid reviewers? ... and a still not fixxed issue ....

2»

Comments

  • No1ofConseqence-PGONo1ofConseqence-PGO Posts: 161 ✭✭✭

    I'd mark it low quality photo, too. The speckled shade from the overhead canopy is one thing... but, your shadow is there for all to see. You couldn't even take a step to the left or right before taking the photo?

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

    I wouldn't reject for low-quality photo: low-quality rejections should be for pitch-black or overly blurry photos that don't let you discern the candidate object, or overly and obviously edited photos that distort reality. The photo isn't great, for sure, but it doesn't meet the rejection standard for me: I can see the sign, read some of the text, and discern that this photo is of an eligible object. In my opinion, reviewers should realize that nominators might have limited time and no control over weather or lighting conditions, and that if eligible candidates are accepted with subpar aesthetic photos, those photos can be replaced over time with less effort than it takes to locate the eligible candidate and go through the submission/voting process.

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

    you never had a photo rejected with "angle"? people do that here, when do are not fully in front of the object.

  • No1ofConseqence-PGONo1ofConseqence-PGO Posts: 161 ✭✭✭

    My first ever nomination was this one:

    I've never submitted a nomination that does not have the sign - if the sign forms the anchor for the nomination - at a slight angle. And all of them have been 'Accepted'. So, no, I've never had a nomination rejected because it wasn't direct in front of the sign.

    While reviewing, I've never rejected - nor will ever reject - a nomination because it wasn't 'square on' in the photo. There is no criterion where it requires the sign to be square on, only that it is not 'improperly orientated'. And that refers to the photo, not the sign.

    I am still utterly surprised there are reviewers who are deciding an image is a 'Low Quality Photo' if the sign is not 'square on' in the photograph. I cannot fathom how they've leapt to such an erroneous conclusion.

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

    So, no, I've never had a nomination rejected because it wasn't direct in front of the sign.

    come to Germany. We have this problem regularly xD

    There is even an example in my earlier posts in this thread:

    Few months ago this rejection reason was very rarely seen. But at the moment it's very often ....

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

    I can't neither change the weather nor can I travel in time to have another sun position. The photo was taken roughly at 2:00 pm, so it's in principle the best time for doing such stuff.

    Now there is this dilemma situation:

    a) doing the photo with my shadow on it, what could idiots trigger to choose Low quality photo or Submitter identifiable ....

    b) stepping few steps back or to the side, so that idiots could reject because of Orientation, because the object appears in a tilted way in the picture.

    I've chosen to go with a) because there are lots of other shadows from the spruce trees. So my shadow doesnt disturb the picture. Also I'm not identifiable from a shadow.

    But nethertheless .... totally unimportant, which way I would have chosen. Wayfarer is no photo contest and submitters don't have professional equipment. Therefore the rejection criteria for photo quality ask for very hard failures, like pitch black exposure, being blurry so hard, that you can't identify the candidate, etc.pp. .... and nowadays criteria are very clear, when it comes down to the guidelines and examples:


    So evryone, who chooses such a rejection reason asks simply for slaps or a Niantic ban mail ...

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

    And I got the next annoying rejection.



    A decorative fountain, not a 5*, but fully valid for a 3 or 4* rating. So if one of the very strict oldschool reviewers chooses 1* "Other rejection reason" ... okay, but that should be outnumbered.

    Location Sensitive .... the local graveyard is exactly 400m away. Did again an AI identify the upright standing stone, that is surrounded by greenery as an burial site?

    As a third rejection I got Fake Nomination. The supporting picture can't be better to prove the location - you have the shape of the way, two houses with their position and roof alignment .... easy thing, although the sat view is obscured by a tree.


    Compared to all the other examples this is a very old submission. More than 2 years! So this candidate saw all 3 bot waves now. 9 out of 25 months, that this candidate stayed in the system were coined by bot waves ....

    So we have two very big issues here: bot votes, and voting-times over 2 years ....

    What do you want to say about this, @NianticTintino ?

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

    uhm, well, i dont think you will get an answer. we dont get any answers anymore it seems.

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

    Next insane rejection from my folks:

    I'm simply disgusted ....

  • No1ofConseqence-PGONo1ofConseqence-PGO Posts: 161 ✭✭✭

    Now that one I'm absolutely flabbergasted about, if you'll excuse the old-fashioned term. I cannot see how you could get a better photo, considering the location of the dinosaur set so high and still include the mural on the rock wall below it.

    The only improvement I could possibly recommend - and I'm reaching for straws here - is see if you can get a better shot of it by 'climbing the tree a bit' shown in the supporting image. The grey dinosaur against the grey clouds means the dinosaur could be better backgrounded with a blue sky, but we don't get to pick the weather of the day.

    The other change, while keeping the same photos, is make the title 'Tanystropheus over Ocean Depths Mural'. Stretching a bit I can see how someone might have thought, since the Title is just 'Tanystropheus', the photo should have been a closer shot of just the dinosaur. But, as I said, I'm stretching to find an explanation.

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

    That's why I'm throwing evry rejection with picture in here. The staff needs to approve the posts and see the problem on and on again ....

    Join the dark side. We have cookies!

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

    There is a German saying: on every ship, be it sail or steam, there's always one who gets things done.

    I think that person is on holiday.

  • Losifer026-INGLosifer026-ING Posts: 138 ✭✭✭

    I have a theory about the people using bots. Have you people getting bad rejection waves posted in bonus area exchanges? Because our bad rejection wave came not long after doing that. If so, it might be a good idea for you to let @NianticGiffard know because if the bot abusers are indeed using bonus area exchanges to target backlogged areas in order to get the maximum number of matches with all their accounts they can be caught by reporting bad rejection waves and looking to see what accounts have those areas as bonus areas; and then looking to see what is being rejected by all the accounts that have that as a bonus area. Since those bonus areas can’t be changed often the bot people would be sitting ducks.

  • No1ofConseqence-PGONo1ofConseqence-PGO Posts: 161 ✭✭✭

    @rodensteiner-ING Join the dark side. We have cookies!

    Sorry, my wife is a 'Coeliac'; that is, she's allergic to wheat/rye/oat based products. Cookies (Aus translate: Biscuits) are somewhat banned in my home. 😥

    But... if you have hot chocolate... sign me up!

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

    The Niantic ship is neither sail nor steam .... it's balloon ....

  • RyuuVanDraco-PGORyuuVanDraco-PGO Posts: 106 ✭✭✭
    edited August 13

    I go with stupid reviewers 1st, then bots.

    Dumb arbitrary rejection reasons? I can sing a whole concert about it... And it's nothing but annoying. What the flying duck is wrong with reviewers?



    These by far aren't all, you can put 20 more on top of it.

    And I link that in all support info: https://www.tourenplaner-rheinland-pfalz.de/s/IcuSB / https://www.lahnwanderweg.de/s/74aCp

    That pages make it obvious these are 24/7 existing hiking trails, they even have awesome interactive map showing the entire trail in detail, with a bar telling you the kilometer you are at (I mention that as well). I even add a GPS tagged photo and give a help how to verify via that map and the additional photo. How easy ahall I even make it? Even ducking photospheres don't help anything.

    I really don't wanna spend 3 years adding trail markers in a radius of 1,5km solely through appeals. Because most of them got added only through that so far... -_-

    Seriously, where are honeypots when you need them? -_-

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 13

    @RyuuVanDraco-PGO Nutso rejections in Germany are probably bots. This has been well documented over time in this forum. Pats of Germany are Ground Zero for aggressive robot reviewing and rejections.

  • RyuuVanDraco-PGORyuuVanDraco-PGO Posts: 106 ✭✭✭

    Signs still go through flawless though, so must mainly be humans being very shortsighted. Also my rejection reasons read like human rejection, bots ones are more random.

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

    Theres still alot of reviewers who have their own agenda. When they review with 3-5 accounts simultaneously, as they do, you can expect an outcome like seen above.

    There are people that absolutely hate the idea that there are wayspots in the woods that cannot be reached with a car.

  • RyuuVanDraco-PGORyuuVanDraco-PGO Posts: 106 ✭✭✭

    Yeah, like, people who actually like to walk? Eew! They got such an advantage their biggus BMWus doesn't have! xD

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

    Seems to be a rejection wave in my area of the UK too. Never sure if it's down to bots or idiootic pedantic reviewers that have returned from a voting break.

    Among many I just had one back that was on a pavement beside a road as 'no pedestrian access'.

    Situation with wayfarer is ridiculous again

Sign In or Register to comment.