People giving false reasons to deny POIs

Why are reviewers allowed to get away with marking things as seasonal/temporary or generic shops that clearly are not?

Like a satellite university campus getting marked as a generic shop or restaurant when you can see it on google maps and the link to the website is in the supporting info. Why are reviewers allowed to make up false reasons to reject stuff they dont like, and still keep reviewing?



  • patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 586 ✭✭✭✭

    Depend on what submitter had explain in supporting information and photo. Mind to share your nomination detail here?

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 1,317 ✭✭✭✭✭

    For the same reason that nominators are allowed to put false statements and nominate clearly ineligible things. That abuse from nominators have eroded the trust of reviewers, besides that, many people select the "generic shop or restaurant" as a way to tell the nominator that this is a generic object. It would be better if they select "doesn't meet criteria", although in that case nominators that get this message also dismiss it.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Some of these are misclicks. Human beings make mechanical errors like this all the time. Some of them are people who have come to the "doesn't meet criteria" conclusion, but are in the habit of choosing something else because that particular selection used to require you to type something into a box rather than just clicking.

    If you have a hodge podge of rejection reasons it's usually a safe bet that the consensus is that it doesn't meet criteria.

    As for allowed to, what algorithm would you propose for Niantic to determine when a rejection reason is false?

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 239 ✭✭✭✭

    My proposal:

    Add a "Report abuse" button after every rejection reason in the e-mail. And add those reasons to mails in other languages than English in the process. They obviously don't have time to look at all those reports, but they can look at both the reviewers that were reported most, and the submitters who reported most, and take action when appropriate.

    This would remove the worst reviewers and submitters from the system, and when word spreads, other reviewers and submitters will be more careful with what they do.

    Accidently clicking the wrong reason from time to time isn't going to get you in a top spot. If you get a top spot, it is not an accident.

    Maybe even looking at the top 10 spots worldwide in both categories each month could make a difference in the long run.

  • SiIverLyra-PGOSiIverLyra-PGO Posts: 420 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Coming from someone who encounters a ton of false rejection reasons, for both my personal nominations and generally in the community - the best solution I can think of is enforcing obligatory commentary on every rejection you make (like when rejecting for reasons of abuse) - and sending all the rejection comments to the submitter when their nomination gets rejected, WITH an option to report inappropriate comments.

    This way, you get two main things - one, it's a golden opportunity to teach submitters how to make better nominations (for instance, a lot of people would never know that a "low quality photo" rejection is because their photos are watermarked, and will never change their camera settings unless rejecters get an opportunity to directly tell them so); two, inappropriate/abusive/bogus rejection reasons/comments will get directly reported to Niantic, and action will finally be taken against them.

    A lot of the "false rejection" cases that made it to this forum were proven to be bad, but from my personal experience with my community, this is a very real and serious issue.

  • spiesr-INGspiesr-ING Posts: 175 ✭✭✭

    Sending unmoderated comments to the submitter via official Niantic email is never going to fly.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 239 ✭✭✭✭
  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 2,429 ✭✭✭✭✭

    And how many people will use this thinking it is a way to appeal or overturn their rejections? How many people will use it simply to bog down the process altogether? How many people will use this thinking that if enough people complain "bad rejections" that weren't actually bad, then they could get good reviewers banned?

  • SiIverLyra-PGOSiIverLyra-PGO Posts: 420 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Is it still considered unmoderated if you can report inappropriate comments?

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 239 ✭✭✭✭

    That's why I said they also have to look at people reporting most. If those reports are invalid, then those reporters will get punished.

    How can it be bogged down, if they only look at a small part of the reports? Looking at the top 10 reports doesn't take more time when there are 1000 reports as opposed to 100 reports.

    It would be the abuse team looking at those reports. How could good reviewers be banned?

  • spiesr-INGspiesr-ING Posts: 175 ✭✭✭

    Yes. As they would still be sent to the submitter without prior manual review by Niantic.

  • DukeOfBellaire-PGODukeOfBellaire-PGO Posts: 66 ✭✭✭

    Waste of time and energy looking for ways to punish reviewers. You would be more productive to focus on how you can improve your own nominations.

    After all, when our own nominations fail, we should blame ourselves.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 239 ✭✭✭✭

    Nominations are still getting accepted at a higher rate than Niantic can handle. Taking away our ability to review would mean less wayspots approved per time period. Also it doesn't matter to them enough that we need to submit things 1, 2 or 10 times before they get approved, as long as they get approved eventually.

    I am aware of the investigation earlier this year, and it is true that most of the posts in that thread were valid rejections, even though wrong reasons were often chosen. Same with most threads that pop up from time to time. It's not because most of those reports are about objects that don't meet criteria, that there isn't a huge problem. Niantic know there is a problem. In their roadmap to 2021 they have stated they are looking for ways to solve that problem, but they say it is not an easy problem to solve. (More robust abuse signals and ways to keep reviews honest (not a trivial task!))

    It's also not okay to reject things that don't meet criteria, with other, non-relevant, rejection reasons. If people can't be bothered choosing the correct reason, how can we trust them that they review properly? How does that educate submitters?

    If they just look at the most reported, and most reporting accounts, they are not flooded. And the problem will become smaller and smaller as time goes on.

    If it was a minority who are doing it wrong, there would be very few wayspots invalidly rejected, as good reviewers would outnumber bad ones most of the time. And most valid nominations would get through after 1 or 2 attempts.

    Here are some examples of my rejected wayspots (texts in Dutch):

    Title: Dorps- en kapellen wandelpad - Elst

    Description: Wandelpad doorheen Hoegaarden. Vertrek aan het toeristisch infopunt. Wandeling gaat langs de Sint-Gorgoniuskerk, het park van Hoegaarden, en de geosite Goudberg. De wandeling is ongeveer 9 km lang.



    • Old: Trail marker with trail name
    • New: A great place for exercise: Hiking trail


    • This one: 6 times
    • Total amount of nominations of markers of the same trail: 56 times (1 was accepted)


    Title: Voormalige dorpsschool Meensel

    Alternative title: Mamadepot Hageland

    Description: Het gebouw dateert uit 1826 en was daarmee een van de eerste dorpsscholen in de regio. De school sloot in 2017. Het gebouw is erkend als erfgoed en huist nu het Mamadepot, een ontmoetingsplaats voor gezinnen.



    • Old: A cool piece of art or unique architecture: Buildings designed by renowned architects/structures famous specifically for their architecture, A hidden gem or hyper-local spot
    • New: A great place for exploration, A great place to be social with others


    Explanation: This used to be a village school, but due to the lack of students, the school closed in 2017. In 2018, a local social movement started using the building as a meeting place to exchange goods for babies and kids, like clothing and toys, to organize workshops etc. The building is listed as heritage as part of the historic village center.

    A reviewer has to put some work in this one to know it is a valid wayspot. Does that mean it is okay to just go for the fast agreement and reject for K-12?

    Rejected: 24 times


  • DerWelfe2205-PGODerWelfe2205-PGO Posts: 319 ✭✭✭✭

    Niantic should systematically include Trail markers as honeypots. This is absurd.

  • grendelwulf-INGgrendelwulf-ING Posts: 83 ✭✭✭

    This is funny, because last week I went to capture a "Satellite Campus" I had submitted and approved over 5 years ago. I went to Portal Scan the sign and it was gone. The satellite campus is gone from that office complex and the sign is gone.

  • grendelwulf-INGgrendelwulf-ING Posts: 83 ✭✭✭

    If it's rejected 24 times it's never going to be accepted. It really doesn't meet the criteria you think it does.

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 502 ✭✭✭✭

    If I had confidence on Niantic staff judgements, I'd have no trouble with tighter reviewer regulation. As it is, last time they did something, that caused most of the active, experienced reviewers in my area to drop to the red zone practically killing my area (upgrades only nowadays). And no, it was not some kind of a cabal trying to cram all the **** in to the game.

    Also, like others, I don't see your proposition realistic.

  • Ultimo6419-PGOUltimo6419-PGO Posts: 88 ✭✭✭

    It is not the reviewers or the nominators, it is the system.

    Today, the queue is full with submissions, some meeting the criteria, many do not. It has become frustrating for both. Submitters waiting forever, reviewers angry about poor submissions and submitters disappointed by rejections.

    Guidelines need to be clear about what is eligible, what is not and what is decided by the community. The new guidelines are a first step, but not sufficient. Regular training WITH feedback for submitters and reviewers is needed. Submission form/review form aligned with the new criteria system. Reject reasons with obligatory commentary in all languages. Feedback for reviewers as well.

    If efforts to nominate a stop are only taken for good stops, reviewing will become fun again and submitters will be happy as well.

    At the moment, I feel I reject 80% due to very clear criteria reasons. I do not like that. I want to accept 90%.

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I looked into both of the submissions and to give you the TLDR on them both.

    Trail marker - partially your own fault in not supplying enough information to confirm its valid.

    Old School - its not a notable building, its not a community gathering place, hidden gem or a hyper spot and old doesn't inatantly mean acceptable. Its basically now a shop open for 4 hours a month. Nothing about it is worthwhile as a POI.

    Of the two examples you have provided of valid POI's, one is valid but due to being a poor submission im not surprised it was rejected, the other is just a 1* candidate.

  • DerWelfe2205-PGODerWelfe2205-PGO Posts: 319 ✭✭✭✭

    Trail markers get rejected regardless of the quality of the submission in some parts of the world.

    I got a lot of advice in that thread and I followed all of it.

    360° Photosphere

    Provided links to criteria and the website of the trail marker in the supporting statement

    High quality photo etc. etc.

    Still 8 out of 9 got rejected :) So far noone has been able to tell me what was wrong with my submissions but you could give it a shot. Would love to hear it.

  • cleedude-PGOcleedude-PGO Posts: 2 ✭✭

    I think the problem is in large part the system.

    Think about it: If submissions had to be placed in a category when they are first subbed, reviewers could rate 1-5 on whether the submission is in the right category. If not, send it back to them to edit.

    After it has been approved as in the correct category, then reviewers could decide if it meets the criteria for that category.

    Then decide if the pictures/location meet criteria.

    Each of these should be like 2/3 votes. And if you keep voting opposite everyone else, your rating goes down and u dont get upgrades.

    It would add steps but also the people subbing stops would know exactly why their sub got rejected, and reviewing would be way more simple. No more rejecting a stop by calling it a k12 when it's a freaking water tower on the other side of town.

  • patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 586 ✭✭✭✭

    Again, it depends on how submitter nominates them.

    You didn't share your nomination detail yet, so how would we know what's wrong with your nomination?

  • grendelwulf-INGgrendelwulf-ING Posts: 83 ✭✭✭

    24 times it was rejected. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Wayfarer isn't supposed to be like playing the slots in Vegas where you think eventually you will hit the Jackpot.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2020

    @cleedude-PGO writes:

    Think about it: If submissions had to be placed in a category when they are first subbed, reviewers could rate 1-5 on whether the submission is in the right category. If not, send it back to them to edit.

    I have proposed that the submitter should be forced to choose a category, but there's a better reason for it. If Wayfarer already knew what the category was then Niantic could use that information to present specific guidance for that category to reviewers. That would probably get rid of the trail marker inconsistency because reviewers would see guidance like, "Accept if the trail marker contains the name of the trail. Reject if it is just a number."

Sign In or Register to comment.