What is even the point?
sandpaper67-PGO Posts: 2 ✭✭
This rejection criteria is absolutely absurd and quickly driving players away from the game and putting time and effort into trying to build a community.
Like... What is the point of descriptions and tags when submitting that SPECIFY places as unique local cafes or cool places to go then someone who has never even visited the place turns around and gets to deny it as "a private residence"?
This wayfarer program needs to get its house in order. And no, thats not how I'd like to phrase it.
Show us your submissions and perhaps we can give you feedback on how to make it easier for reviewers to accept them.
Hello and welcome @sandpaper67-PGO
Being a wayfinder can generate a lot of frustration as there are many pitfalls and flaws.
If you look around this forum you will find lots of examples. Is the system flawed? Yep!
There are people here who will look into submissions and try and figure out what has happened, and suggest ways forward.
Rejection reasons which should be helpful, are a lot of the time unhelpful.
The system tries to generate 3 reasons. So you should find 3 - you often have to reload the page to see the full range. Often the key one is the most bland one - other rejection criteria. This simply means that reviewers didn’t think it is something that generally meets acceptance criteria. It is likely this is what most people chose. In trying to generate 2 others it might find one person clicked on PRP. Some rejection choices can be misunderstood.
Cafes/local unique businesses are tough to get accepted. It shouldn’t be that tough but that is the way it is.
The problem is with the local aspect. And as you observe the decision is highly likely to be made by people who have never been there. As a wayfinder submitting this is frustrating.
As a wayfinder reviewing it is not easy. All the reviewer has to go on is the information in front of them.
if there is little information some reviewers will take the view, there is nothing here that demonstrates this is a good place, and quickly (or efficiently depending on viewpoint) reject and move on. They are doing this work for free so it’s not wrong to spend a lot of time. Others may think this has potential and do an internet search to see if there is anything that can help them agree a nomination. This takes time.
So currently the submitter needs to put forward a good case in these instances. So a good photo, , title and description. Supplementary that helps the reviewer who has no idea about this location agree that it is good eg links to websites that show more about the location.
So if you post the full submission here or in the nomination improvement we can help. You might not like our answers or suggestions but they will be based on experience of what works within the system we have.
I love your subject. I have never seen anything like it, and it really satisfies the explorer in me. I think your images capture the spirit of it and make me want to go there and see it for myself.
I think the text could be improved. The criteria to hit here is explore, and the text reads socialize. I think this is a mistake - albeit an understandable one - and muddles the nomination. Simplify the text, speak to the waterfall’s uniqueness and intrinsic value, and remove the references to community and gathering spot.
As for rejection reasons, you have two that are location-based and neither of them is particularly accurate. I think reviewers are generally saying ‘we don’t know that this is where you say it is.’ I think I would give the benefit of the doubt were I reviewing, but Google does not seem to have a street view here, and with the review bug being what it is the Wayfarer page might be taking your reviewers to an inaccurate photosphere location. This is a guess, I do not know that. I also don’t know that I have a good solution to this issue; maybe see if you can unearth the Google Street View app somewhere and upload a photosphere of your own? I’m not sure if that’s still even possible.
I think @X0bai-PGO has covered all I would say.
It does look interesting
I do want to jump back to the top and address a statement from the OP that I missed as I was going over the nomination.
”This rejection criteria is absolutely absurd”
I don’t think it’s the criteria that generates the resentment for Wayfarer as much as it is the atrociously unclear communication. Niantic itself is awful about communicating, and has passed along that awfulness in the form of awful feedback tools for reviewers. It is next to impossible to give accurate and insightful feedback to nominators to help them improve their submissions. Look at my comment above, as I went over the different aspects of a nomination: subject acceptability, image quality, text quality, location accuracy/eligibility. There is no way to rate these different facets in the review system (except as rejections) and no way to give free form feedback, so you end up getting some schlock like “location inappropriate” because reviewers don’t have the ability to clearly say, “We need more clarity on matching this pin to this waterfall.” And because the Niantic Wayfarer team doesn’t use the system very much, and doesn’t listen to user feedback, and they have so much turnover, they are in the dark about how bad the experience is. And even what they do know, they lack the resources to make even simple improvements.
Sorry to say, but if any reviewers (especially in mobile version) were reviewing that nomination and the page won't suddenly jump to Location Accuracy question part, they would assume from the photo only that the waterfall is located inside a PRP and quickly tap 1* without further thinking.
Bad UI design, you can say that.
Nearly every day I think I comment (in one context or another) that Niantic’s communication is dreadful 🙄
honestly, i think it's a large part. from getting rejections declined myself, it is almost the dumb rejection reasons that cause rage, even though i know its probably just one person and they don't understand the system. buuuuut for example
"maybe you dont think that fishing dock is really there even though you can see it on satelite, maybe you just dont think a fishing dock is eligible, but pedestrian access????????? do you think i'm driving my car down that 4 foot wide ramp?"
is not an uncommon thought to have.
it does not cause all of it, but the rejection criteria absolutely adds to the resentment.
They are random enough that they don't really deserve to be taken seriously, mostly.
Maybe they just didn't think it's acceptable, that's on them while doing the review but moreso on Niantic to have a properly working system that reviewers can understand... if that's what they want.
Others will hopefully have good ideas on how to improve your nomination, but it's a good one and should have been approved. I hope you resubmit.
In the primary picture, can you move the folding chairs from in front of the waterfall? They take away the focus from the nomination, AND they look like chairs that families buy for their back yards.
Thanks for reaching out, @sandpaper67-PGO! We have reviewed the report and taken action on the 12 Reviewers 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.
We appreciate you for helping us maintain the quality of the Wayspots.
Nice, I was reading and thinking it looks a sweet spot to go and people just didn't bother giving a good look. I hope it shows up now.
Oh snap. It takes 12 reviews to reject a nomination?
So Niantic agrees that nominations have some subjective input needed in reviews, but then punishes reviewers who apply those subjective measurements to a nomination that could definitely use a bit of improvement? No proof of collusion or misconduct needed? No wonder I'm reviewing less these days.
(edit: one reason this irritates me so is because I know that these reviewers will be "punished" by receiving an email saying "you're doing it wrong, and might be suspended" without any specifics. These reviewers may have done dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of reviews since they looked at that waterfall - and will never know exactly what they did wrong.)
> Le player complaining for their nomination being 'correctly' rejected
Niantic: "Thanks for the appeal, we're not curently reviewing pokestop submissions, please resubmit"
> Le player complaining for their nomination being 'incorrectly' rejected
Niantic: "Thanks for reaching out, we have reviewed the report and taken action on X reviewers bla-bla-bla"
The duality of Niantic is AMAZING!
An extremely charitable interpretation of Niantic's actions could be that they took a look and only "punished" reviewers who entered obviously false rejection reasons... But that seems unlikely.
Yeah, I am frustrated with bad reviewers, but I don't know how Niantic can fix it. How do they know the difference between intentionally bad reviewing, collusion, and just misinformed reviewing? I'd hope they would do something like pull the people who rejected a nomination, compare the IP addresses those accounts use, and then "punish" any that share IPs. But then, I don't know how that works for people who review from a public space (dorm room, office, shared housing, reviewing party at a cafe, etc.) vs people actually running a bot farm or reviewing on multiple accounts. There seems to be an innocent loophole for just about every scenario that you can think of that could indicate malicious behavior.
Another thread like this had 10.
Well it's not our fault anyway if certain groups like TheSilphRoad (which known for their research in Pokemon GO based on observations and simulations) are able to 'reverse engineering' and determine how many votes needed to reject (or accept) a nomination, if Niantic keep these going.
This thread is why Niantic isn’t more active in the forums. They do nothing, commenters blast them for it. They take action, commenters blast them for it.
I’m not saying Niantic shouldn’t be criticized when they get things wrong - which they do often - but these staff members just got here and aren’t familiar with the sins of their predecessors.
10 reviewers for 8 nominations rejected.
I have been uploading photospheres for many of my recent nominations, and keeping an eye on the number of views that occur on the day that an upgraded nomination goes into voting, I think that acceptance can also occur with only 10-15 reviews.
I did that a few months ago and got similar results with upgrades.
Wait what?????? What in the name of mew made you punish people. I agree that this should have been accepted, I would have 5 starred it, but I dont disagree that it could be hard to prove its there so rejecting for that is an acceptable reason. Does this mean any time I get a rejection I don't agree with I should tag you and make you punish them?
Last time I did a photosphere that, while not being upgraded, was in a place I doubt many people would look at, it was also in voting and decided on within a couple of days, the number was around 50 to 60, this was a couple of months ago
yes. i plan on reporting some reviewers for punishment myself.
I think this Niantic's action is not good.
Usually, when our submissions got rejected, we have to resubmit or appeal them. If we appeal it, we have to wait for many months until Niantic reviews.
But in this case, the submitter got Niantic's agreement quickly by appealing in the forum. Isn't it unfair?
Plus, Niantic punished 12 reviewers, but that's too much. Reviewers decide if it's acceptable or not based on the submitter's description & supporting information. Such punishment can hesitate to reject submissions.
We submitters can often find odd rejection reasons, it's not rare.
If Niantic behaves like this, we can bring many submissions with strange rejection reasons to this forum, in order to get quick Niantic's agreement & punishment! (of course without 'appealing'!)
But that's not always the case. Read again what I wrote before:
Niantic: "Thanks for the appeal, we're not curently reviewing pokestop submissions, please resubmit"
Besides, if everyone keep bringing their rejected nominations into this forum then soon there would be none to review nominations other than Niantic internal reviewers themshelves.
Currently, when I look at social networking sites, I can feel that reviewers who have been contributing to Wayfarer are becoming disenchanted and are rapidly leaving the site.
They are seeing one wayspot after another go live that they have reviewed with what they consider to be a definite disapproval, and they believe that the meaning of their review and the significance of Wayfarer has been lost.
The number of junk wayspots on Wayfarer is rapidly increasing as only poor-quality wayfinders are left, resulting in a vicious cycle that further degrades the quality of the wayspots.
I think this phenomenon is the result of the Wayfarer team's folly in ignoring the concerns of many Wayfinders and conducting unlimited reviewer testing every 15 minutes.
Unfortunately, the upcoming Indonesian Wayfarer Challenge may not be as successful as it could have been.
The Wayfarer Challenge was originally a project that was prone to quality degradation, but it is still considered to have maintained a minimum level of quality.
However, in light of the current situation, this time it may create a Himalayan mountain range of trash in your country that is unparalleled in comparison.
The current situation in Japan, the world's most-spot-dense country, is nearly apocalyptic.
A huge amount of garbage is being discharged every day.