Can we please have a “No longer meets criteria” as a rejection reason added to the reporting option?
PkmnTrainerJ-ING
Posts: 4,809 Ambassador
There’s so much coal that slips through the system and then it’s impossible to get removed.
PkmnTrainerJ-ING
Posts: 4,809 Ambassador
There’s so much coal that slips through the system and then it’s impossible to get removed.
Comments
Or maybe a "Never meet criteria". Many of the worst offenders are a miscommunication between submitters and Niantic, they never met criteria to begin with. Case in point: pond aerators, fire houses, individual golf holes, and apartment/development signs.
This sets a super heavy precedent. We know the Wayfarer team doesn't always get it right. We see that accepted appeals become the gospel of eligibility and vice-versa. But what happens when something that we thought met criteria gets removed for "no longer/never meets criteria"? But their removal criteria is just as flimsy now, so maybe some things could be changed.
i.e. we would probably see an upheaval of MANY wayspots that we like to call, grandfathered wayspots, that were all approved during the portal monḱey era.
To get this rejection reason to work, you would need to be active in Wayfarer/OPR for quite a long time. It's not really compatible with new wayfarers. Therefore, I don't think its really needed/useful
the only way I see this having even a chance of working is if new wayspots had a 6 month probationary period during which this kind of removal could apply. just far too many problems trying to apply it to the entire 10 year history of wayspots. but believe me, I have a list of local stuff I'd get removed in an instant given the chance.
Generic Business/Object should also be back in the reason.
Once a wayspot that does not meet the criteria is approved and created as a wayspot, players around it look at the wayspot and apply for a similar or the same candidate, which is achieved by mass approval of an unsuitable wayspot.
To prevent this, I think we need a device to some extent (for a candidate who has never met the criteria in my opinion).
I think its a good idea. I see many things like generic memorial benches submitted because new submitters see some in the area and think they are eligible as they dont know about earlier criteria changes. If rejected for "Other" they dont know why it is being rejected and will likely resubmit, but if the rejection reason says "No longer eligible" they will know the criteria have changed.
This should only affect new submissions. Niantic arent likely going to start mass removing wayspots because of a new rejection reason. They rarely remove wayspots except for safety issues and private property.
This information could also be used behind the scenes by Niantic (although probably never will). For example if a submission is getting wildly varying reviews from 1* to 5* then maybe the criteria are unclear and need elaborating. But some of the rejections are "no longer eligible", then Niantic can see that maybe some of the reviewers who accepted are not up to date with new criteria, and that these criteria need better publicity.
Niantic could programatically draw off a set of wayspots that it suspects is neighborhood entrance signs. Then have a quick-review process for Trusted Wayfarers - where they see the original nomination info (including maps), and have one question: Is this valid, or is it invalid?
Repeat with programitally-defined potential golf course holes, survey markers, etc.
Not all neighbourhood entrance signs are ineligible. There are some fantastic, sculptural and artistic ones that are quite designed.
This is not going to happen. Wait until someone gets the "no longer eligible" for a park sign or something like a cafe that one reviewer strongly thought met the criteria and then they go to the forum to complain and get swamped by "ineligible, 1*".
I don't think the problems with wayfarer are going to be fixed by adding another type of review, at this point it's like adding another lane to a congested highway
I'm surprised this has taken off so much and I cannot over state how much I think it would be a bad idea.
Does nobody in here have a nomination they care about but could be stretched as not meeting criteria? I'd feel like half my nominations would be under constant threat because somebody doesn't like the Wayspot/(not car accessible) Gym/Portal - or me. Niantic reviewing is already questionable with what they accept/reject. We "trusted" them with appeals and complain a little about bad outcomes but this could lead to overturning legitimate & live Wayspots, which feels more personal.
Are we conveniently forgetting
the Polandregional drama that pops up from time to time where people blindly report anything & everything they can? Are we ignoring the number of "This playground should be removed because **I** can't access it" appeals requests? And turning our heads to the number of Starbucks, WAL-MART video department, dentist offices, and other generic corporate logos Niantic is accepting? Why do we think Niantic would overturn Niantic when Niantic is often responsible for the very coal we're complaining about and adhere to leaving in fringe-but-eligible Wayspots?I agree something should be done when "coal" goes live, but I don't Niantic should be responsible for that, not the community can handle that.
Ok, so what would be a better solution when coal goes live? Currently we have the issue of Schrodinger waypoints which are coal that got accepted but can not be removed. What removal reason would allow these to be removed but not cause too much infighting and abusive reporting? How do we fix these when we see them approved locally? Yes I agree that there is going to be some strife with older reviewers who are not up to date with clarifications, reporting things that are now acceptable, but we still need some kind of option for when the community review system fails.
I agree with these concerns, this would be wielded as a cudgel by players with an axe to grind. A gym is occupied by someone who keeps healing their pokemon? It's gone. A portal is being used to make a big triangle (or whatever happens in ingress idk)? It's gone. This could also be used to manipulate which pokestops became gyms as they could be spam added/removed.
Even if it only went through infrequently it would only have to work once and we know how random those reviews are.
Making removals harder than additions is one of the few insightful design choices Niantic has made in regard to wayfarer and changing that would immediately turn it into a battleground
In earnest, I don't know, and I wish I had a better answer. "Trusted Wayfarers?" Heck, I'm not sure I trust myself to show restraint. Re-push a nomination back into standard and/or Niantic voting, but maybe with a different threshold requirement for "approval" of removing vs keeping active? Maybe. Although I don't think we need to actively be pursuing more things going through voting and slowing down everything else.
Niantic accepted a dentist office locally to me. And a gas station convenience store where I'd wanted to nominate the adjacent coffee shop. And I've seen and brought attention to a lot other things that should have been rejected. But... I'm letting them go. Yay, somebody got their spinner and it doesn't hurt me.
After this…I don’t even know what to call it…comment, I wanted to highlight this thread again
"Doesn't meet criteria", "never met criteria", "no longer meets criteria"... I'm all for them, even for things I submitted in the past. Just today, I've seen a barn behind someone's house, a new GameStop, and a Little Free Library with the person's house in the background. Multi-accounting PoGo players are voting on theirs and each other's submissions just to get a stop at their work or home. We need to have these options to report this garbage.
This is exactly why we don't need this. The understanding of the criteria is very poor. Both among wayfarers and internal reviewers. Instead of adding new interesting places, all our and Niantics efforts would go to appealing wrongfully removed wayspots.
A new Gamestop is not categorically ineligible. A little free library is a great wayspot, even if it is in front of someones house. As long as it is not on their property.
This can only work if Niantic have the manpower to handle this alongside their other activities, and they can't even handle their other activities. The quality of their internal reviewers is also way to low for this. And if they do decide to do this, it should only be for wayspots that are 103% not eligible.
Anyone remember NianticDanbocats dog poop station remark? People who don't understand that, don't understand the criteria.
If the Wayfarer team won't remove the Wayspots that don't meet the criteria, what good is adding "No longer meets criteria"?
I think Niantic believes that the criteria hasn't changed from Day One - they just issue clarifications on what they've wanted all along.
In which case, we'd need "Wayspot doesn't meet criteria" - not "No longer meets criteria".
I'd love to see a removal reason for "has never met criteria and has had Niantic state that this specific type of object is not eligible" - the minute that functionality goes live, I'm off to every disc golf course in my area, including the individual holes and tees that Niantic has approved on appeal, going against their own corporate statements.