The issue with upgrades... rejections negative impacts



  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 114 ✭✭✭

    Wow that’s a whole lot of work to say very little man. You definitely need a great beer and good food. I have a recommendation but you might “ object” 😝.

  • R7Angelica-PGOR7Angelica-PGO Posts: 11 ✭✭

    @oscarc1-ING Was this image supposed to show how common this type of establishment is to a local community? You think that this is compelling evidence? Can you understand why we are all confused with your arguments? If you had come up with more the 2 or 3 in a couple of square miles of the original restaurant I’d accept it as a legit argument/evidence. You have six in 250 sq miles? In a fairly densely populated area northwest suburbs of Boston.

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 215 ✭✭✭✭

    Each point was in reference to the previous post. So let me summarise the criteria to make it easier for you to understand:

    • Eligbility Criteria: "Popular restaurants" - nothing about the nomination in question conveyed that this was a popular restaurant.
    • Content Guidelines: Nothing about the nomination conveyed how the nomination was either a "long-standing watering holes, favorite hyper-local hangouts, or even more regionally recognized as a cultural hotspot"
    • Rejection Criteria: Since none of the conditions for acceptance were met, an objective reviewer, not knowing anything about the restaurant, would thusly reject it because it is generic or uninteresting. Noting that rejection criteria takes precedence over acceptance criteria (eg. would you accept a mural in a school? No, of course not.)

    The Starbucks commentary is hilarious, Niantic Casey conveyed how it could be eligible as it is notable to that community, but it is still subjective and up to the reviewer to deem it worthy of acceptance with the burden of proof on the nominator to show why it is notable. This is in-line with the above linked criteria too and the nomination is question completely fails to support Niantic Casey's proposition.

    Restaurants in a 40-50km diameter is an absurd misconstruing of the truth. Let's look at the approximate distances comparing some of the results from the distance to Border Brewery and Barbecue:

    • TGI Friday's: 7.95 km (4.94 mi) as the crow flies, 7.6 miles (12.2km) driving distance as suggested by Google Maps
    • Hobbsies: 11.29km as the crow flies, 9.1 miles (14.6km) driving distance as suggested by Google Maps
    • Hickory Stix BBQ Food Truck: 12.54 km (7.79 mi) as the crow flies, 9.4 miles (15.1km) driving distance as suggested by Google Maps
    • Boston Barbecue: 13.38 km (8.32 mi) as the crow flies, 13 miles (20.9km) driving distance as suggested by Google Maps
    • Dickey's Barbecue Pit: 15.57 km (9.68 mi) as the crow flies, 13.5 miles (21.7km) driving distance as suggested by Google Maps

    So the maximum distance is about 10 miles / 22km. To me, this is all local and is just a short trip. To you, it might be a incredibly great distance!? So referring back to the original nomination, there is nothing in it that conveys why Border Brewery and Barbecue is notable compared to other similar BBQ restaurants in a 10 mile radius.

    You may try to digress the discussion with false clarifications, or make up your own acceptance criteria contrary to Niantic, or twist the truth, but nothing has been provided to the contrary of anything Niantic has provided as guidance on how to submit a business. So I await your officially Niantic sourced citations in order for you and your comrades to provide any valid points.

    Is this restaurant important to your community? Great, convey why in the description and supporting statement and it will have a greater chance of being accepted. Simple as that.

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 114 ✭✭✭

    Citing a food truck in one post, screaming about anchored objects in another. Top notch research sir. Top Notch. 😂😂😂

  • mamafox207-PGOmamafox207-PGO Posts: 8 ✭✭

    No doubt you are touting facts but you are showcasing them in a very one sided way. For example, using your own facts let me point this out.

    Hudson NH to Haverhill MA is at minimum 42 km. These are on opposing sides of your map.

    Londonderry NH to North Andover MA is at minimum 35 km. These are the two furthest points you have noted

    Your map is bigger then that, while still only showing five other restaurants, one of which is at best borderline on being a traditional barbecue restaurant; none of which are also a Microbrewery. Unconditionally uncommon per the provided evidence, making it most unique in the specific dataset you shared.

    I'd suggest reading up on this; Confirmation Bias. It's an article I've directed many students to over the years. It might be beneficial, as one of the best ways to manage confirmation bias is education, especially as it pertains to critical thinking skills.

    Hope it helps. Enjoy.

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 215 ✭✭✭✭

    Hudson NH to Haverhill MA is at minimum 42 km. These are on opposing sides of your map.

    Londonderry NH to North Andover MA is at minimum 35 km. These are the two furthest points you have noted

    The distance between suburbs (counties?) is not being compared. The radius to each restaurant from Border Brewery and Barbecue is. So those comparisons are not valid.

    Your map is bigger then that, while still only showing five other restaurants, one of which is at best borderline on being a traditional barbecue restaurant; none of which are also a Microbrewery. Unconditionally uncommon per the provided evidence, making it most unique in the specific dataset you shared.

    Great, now was any of this insight provided in the nomination itself? No. The description provided was "Craft Brewery & BBQ restaurant in the heart of Salem. Great food, good beers". As per the guidelines and Niantic's own clarifications, I am pointing out that the nomination should be strengthened with further information to show why Border Brewery and Barbecue is unique so that reviewers would deem it acceptable. "Great food, good beers" is not sufficient to show how unique a venue is, as millions of other restaurants around the world would fit the bill if that were case.

    No doubt there is potential with the nomination, if the submitter could just put the tiniest amount of effort into it, it would have such a higher chance of being accepted. Then we can all rejoice together with some great food and good beer ;)

    Thanks for the suggestion on confirmation bias, that's cute that you've run out of points on the nomination or criteria and try to digress the topic by going into the unsubstantiated psychological analysis of random people posting on the forums.

  • wonderdude2k-PGOwonderdude2k-PGO Posts: 13 ✭✭

    Since so many nominations are languishing for months, it's nice to get a nomination reviewed But, I've also come to believe upgrading increases your chances of rejection. Lately, I've only been upgrading what I think are sure things, like playgrounds, public art, athletic courts in parks, pavilions, gazebos, footbridges, etc. If there's any hint of a judgment call, in my experience, my upgraded nomination will get shot down.

    Are all the active reviewers up to date on the recent criteria changes? Some are, but my suspicion is many are relying on the old, outdated criteria, since they made it easy to spank down every business nomination: 1* , get an easy rejection agreement, and move on without expending any extra mental effort. Brutal, but an efficient means to get a medal, or snag your own upgrade. I'd like to see Niantic require all reviewers to acknowledge the new guidance.

    There is, however, an avalanche of poor local business nominations. It's easy to get jaded by all those with irrelevant and/or unhelpful information, like "we need a stop here," "it's near X," "we should support this local business," "the owners want more foot traffic," "several agents/trainers work here," "good food," etc. Perhaps Niantic could give better guidance to people entering a nomination? Maybe also require criteria-related boxes to be checked?

  • Pollaryss-PGOPollaryss-PGO Posts: 41 ✭✭

    I wish we could leave some feedback from reviewer to reviewer (anonymously) about the POI we have previously reviewed.

    I got very upset lately because I was quite "proud" of me for having uncovered a kinda fake nomination. Everything about it was real (the picture, the location) except for the description. It was a sign with pictures of nature standing in front of an agricultural building, and the submitter wrote that it was the start of nice trailpath. It took me more than 15 minutes to do enough research to get confirmation that it was indeed a lie and that the sign was definitely just certifiying that the producer had received a label about some quality chart promoted by an agricultural cooperative. But it is a Wayspot now (didn't meet eligibility criteria but probaby doesn't meet removal criteria though !) and there is no way to just inform reviewers that they've been fooled. And I think that's a problem because if they knew, they could be more careful in the future. If they just keep believing that they approved a nice POI, they will never change their way of checking the nominations they review. And there is no reward for those who have been cautious and meticulus, only a lost agreement. I know, we all already know that, but still, it's depressing.

    I used to track the submissions I reviewed in order to understand better how I should rate, I thought it would be enlightening. Actually it's not, because what I find out is a lot of clearly wrong approvals/rejections, and everytime it makes me think about how my own rating must be dropping. So from today I'm not tracking them anymore because I'm afraid it could influence me in a wrong way. About that false trailpath, the moment I rejected it, I knew that most people would probably approve it (was still hoping though). Someone I know on another group told me that she now accepts those because she has come to consider that the game's rules are to agree with the majority, as that's how we are rewarded. So I'm starting to think that trying to be fair is a lost cause here.

    Sorry about all the negativity, saw a lot of junk today. 😂

  • BleedBoss-PGOBleedBoss-PGO Posts: 92 ✭✭✭

    Oh man, this topic is gold, pure gold. It's always great seeing someone question the "set in stone" unwritten rules that have so long been dictated by a select few.

    I've argued this a fair ammount of times, and i'm inclined to agree with the OP in this one, simply because everyone that states otherwise has not disproven what OP has stated. Keep up the good fight!

  • KetaSkooter-INGKetaSkooter-ING Posts: 130 ✭✭✭

    I agree with the OP that there is a downstream effect from upgraded nominations getting an overly high percentage of rejections. And this effect is that people stop reviewing so their stuff doesn't get upgraded, and they just give up on the system.

    As for the reviewers I think the largest problem is the herd mentality leans towards thinking of why should a nomination not be approved vs thinking why should a nomination be approved. There also seems to be an over the top demand that the submitter needs to convince the reviewer that the subject is 100% in the right spot for many reviewers.

Sign In or Register to comment.