Can you please put a warning that giving a rating below 3 on the cultural criteria cause a rejection
Euthanasio2-PGO
Posts: 272 ✭✭✭
A lot of my friends got very weird rejection lately. Most of them was "low cultural value". It was play areas in park or footbridges. I think a lot of people who review have no clue it causes a rejection in the system.
I also have a friend that I had to tell her and she was surprised when I told her. All it was written in the guide was "art is worth more than a kids playground for example " without any mention that it causes a rejection below 3*. And that's what she did rate the cultural value of them at 1* while THINKING she was accepting them.
Even on this forum. I have seen people saying giving a 5* to a nomination and 1* to the cultural rating accept them. It's just not true.
Post edited by Euthanasio2-PGO on
Comments
I would ask instead: if the overall rating is 4 or 5 stars, why would a 1* in cultural criteria means a rejection?
Given the way that the question is asked nobody expects that, so instead of adding a note they should change how it's handled at the moment.
As far as the community knows, marking any of the Criteria 1* or 2* causes the whole submission to be "Rejected".
It would be good if Niantic could add some traffic lights or colour coding to the system so we can see overall if the submission is rated as "Accept" or "Reject" depending on how we vote, or perhaps just colour the stars on each question Red ( = Reject) for the 1* and 2* stars and "Green" (= Accept) for the others.
Exercise equipment in a park has no historical or cultural value and should be 1* in that criteria.
Niantic clearly believe that waypoints with no historical or cultural value are still legitimate. If 1* the historical or cultural value is causing a rejection, then it is up to Niantic to update their algorithm, and not up to users to give fake reviews.
Id Ban you instantly from reviewing, but you have a Point there, Mister.
That would be perfect and valid.
We need a better evaluation system.
yes, anyway i alread wrote this here a a dozen times, the system needs to be changed to 1*, 2* and 3*.
The 2 and 4* are pointless.
Might aswell change to YAY! - MAYBE! and - NO! /Red, Green, yellow
I disagree I use the 4 * option a lot on the Safe Access question.
I have had both road and water safety drummed into me from an early age due to incidents effecting family members.
As such any portal which is adjacent to a body of water or a potentially busy road in a town or suburb is max 4* in my book. 5* is only for parks, reserves and trails
Better yet, the questions asked during the review process could (should?) more closely follow the criteria. For example:
I can also imagine asking submitters to answer some of these same questions, in an attempt to teach them about the criteria and filter out lower quality submissions earlier in the process.
I agree.
I concur that there are perfectly legitimate wayspots that have no cultural or historical value. Trail markers are an excellent example of this-- almost none of them have any historical value, and I've never encountered one that I would consider culturally relevant, but they're included in the games because they promote exercise and exploration.
Cultural/historical value should not be a primary rejection reason. I'm not even sure it is... I suspect it's often the thing Niantic throws into email when the overall consensus on a submission is "meh".
Cultural and Historical in this review process is too subjective. Does a playground or a trail marker really hold any cultural significance? Possibly historical, but far more often than not the answer to that would be no. It holds a relevance to some things, and is irrelevant to others. Highbrow criteria that more often than not has any application.
On the whole, the layout for reviewing is ok. I am skeptical of the Cultural/Historical question as mentioned above. I would beg that the very first question “Should this be a wayspot” be the last question asked. After reviewing all the criteria above, should this be a wayspot.
I mean there's no rejection reason for this, so I think it's safe to assume it's because a nomination was rated low in this which caused a rejection.
@Euthanasio2-PGO I'm not sure I agree. I seriously doubt that anything which was 4-5* for every other criterion and 1-2* for cultural/historical value would be rejected. My intuition says that maybe it becomes the deciding factor for something that was right on the pass/fail border without it but I would be very surprised if it had a larger impact than that.
If that field was actually that important then I would expect more guidance from Niantic than "use your best judgement." The entirety of the guidance is:
How much historical or cultural significance does the nomination hold within the community? A local library built 100 years ago is certainly more historically and culturally significant than exercise equipment in a park. Use your best judgement and rate the nomination accordingly.
I mean. I have seen the email about stuff not being culturally significant. Try to 1* something. There's no rejection reasons for that. The majority of odd rejections got this messages(although I often get no pedestrian access for trail markers in trail made for pedestrians). Either they need to rework it or tell people below 3 causes a rejection.
As Hosette says, I also don't think that a 1* rating means a rejection, but that if the overall score across all the reviewers is low, then some 1* might be enough to finally sink it and Niantic thinks that as it got several 1* on that rating it could be useful to put that as the rejection reason.
Maybe Casey could confirm?