The right to upgrade should be able to be reapplied anywhere, over and over again until Wayspot goes
The right to upgrade should be able to be reapplied anywhere, over and over again until Wayspot goes Live❗️
We demand a change in the system.
The upgrade right does not work as a reward if it only "speeds up the review process".
In order for the upgrade right to work as a reward, it should be able to be reapplied anywhere and anytime until "Wayspot goes live" (i.e., accept but not live because it's too close, and true accept except for rejection and duplication)❗️
If you implement this, the judges who got fed up with the unreasonable system and left will join Wayfarer again.
1. it will save the nominations of veteran judges who have been unreasonably rejected. 2.
2. new judges who have been rejected for inexperienced nominations will have an opportunity to learn.
Save the judges from the stress of wasting their time on an immature and flawed Wayfarer system.
In order to make this new system work, we will need to stop the system where duplication adds photos to Wayspot (which is frustrating and unsightly), and stop the system where upgrades are automatically applied. Probably many other things.
I read Wayforum and learned about the fact that upgrades were given as rewards for the Poland Wayfarer challenge.
Niantic should be able to make up for the unreasonable loss of upgrades to us judges if they are 'willing' to do so.
Don't tell me they can't!
It should be done!
If you are a judge who agrees, please click the "Like" button.
Thank you for reading.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
私はWayforumを読みPoland Wayfarer challengeの報酬にupgradeが付与された事実を知りました。
you can’t appeal a rejection so each upgrade is only good once. This would just open up for crazy abuse of people just resubmitting the same stuff and clogging the system without improving anything on there own end
I don’t feel upgrades should be reapplied. However, I do think the upgrade system should be improved so they won’t be automatically assigned and can be stacked even if we have submissions in the queue. Also, we should be able to change our mind and un-upgrade a submission. But I don’t see it happening any time soon (or ever).
Sorry, if Upgrades coule be reapplied, someone could spam the same nomination over and over again with increased priority. Would be unfair to anyone else whose upgrades only got used once. Got to make sure your upgraded candidate is a real good one people anywhere could see as good.
I think the problem is that the current UPGRADE is not working as a reward for review.
Have you ever had an unreasonable denial by an inexperienced reviewer?
You might want to search Twitter.
Some great nominations submitted by veterans have been unreasonably rejected❗️
It's true that a lot of good nominations get unfortunately rejected. The solution isn't to just let players spam upgrades over and over again, cause then a lot of great submissions that aren't upgraded would take much longer than needed to be reviewed.
Niantic is working on improving the system to help mitigate this issue, but it's a complicated issue that's going to take time to figure out. And with the pandemic making everything more difficult and complicated, I don't blame them for not being able to do things as quickly as we'd like.
If the issue you are trying to fix are reviewers, who you perceive to be inexperienced, how does this help them learn? One of the biggest issues has always been the lack of Niantic helping reviewers learn the criteria, and improve their knowledge of what meets criteria. Most reviewers take the test, and that's all they learn. A better solution would be for Niantic to help reviewers understand the guidelines/criteria.
I don't think the nomination result report email is currently working properly (the reason for denial in the Japanese email is so inappropriate that I wonder if some lines of the program are out of place). The reason for rejection is given in the email that tells you to reject the application. Beginners should be able to learn from that.
I understand that the number one solution is to educate the judges.
How many more times do I have to waste an upgrade before the judges are trained? I am at the end of my patience.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
There are two parts to a good submission:
It is common for a good candidate to be presented or explained badly, and that is why it fails.
This might help: https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/9890/how-to-submit-things-that-get-accepted
(Via Google translate)
I'd add a third part that you can mostly get either a group of grumpy reviewers or happy reviewers voting on your nomination throwing the decisions just enough one way or the other.
Thank you for the useful information.
I wonder how many newbies will find this information.
@KOWLOONsGT-ING I am happy that it was useful to you. I share that link frequently, here and on other sites. Please feel free to share it with others.
Was a mechanical translation to Japanese easy to understand?
お役に立ててうれしいです。 私は頻繁にそのリンクをここや他のサイトで共有しています。 他の人と自由に共有してください。
Are those of you who voted "disagree" really happy with the current rewards for "getting the review done faster"?
1 upgrade = 1 Wayspot
Is it so wrong to ask for 1 upgrade = 1 Wayspot?
Can't they see that there is a huge difference in the quality of judges from region to region?
1 upgrade ＝ 1 Wayspot
@KOWLOONsGT-ING Yes, I think it is wrong. 1 upgrade = 1 expedited review. The burden is on the submitter to use it wisely. I don't think it should be 1 upgrade = 1 wayspot.
Why should 1 upgrade = 1 right to clog the review system repeatedly with garbage?
はい、間違っていると思います。 1つのアップグレード= 1つの迅速なレビュー。 それを賢く使うのは提出者の負担です。 1つのアップグレード= 1つのウェイスポットであるべきではないと思います。
Isn't it strange that the submitter bears the burden of the "reward"?
When it's time to reuse the upgrade, if the applicant corrects the mistake or nominates another upgrade, the Wayspot baby that never saw the light of day will be born in the game.
Aren't you too worried about clogging up the review process?
We should be more worried that unsatisfied reviewers will get angry and quit the review, reducing the number of reviewers.
Isn't that more productive than having reviewers and applicants spend time with each other and not have anything come of it in the game?
I'm not happy with the current system but it's better than what you proposed so I voted "disagree".
They could avoid some of the nuisance by letting us save up our upgrades and have full control over where they are applied. There are situations where I absolutely do not want a nomination to be upgraded and there are situations where I need to upgrade if I want to live long enough to see it enter voting. As a result I am currently not reviewing because I have nominations planned this summer that I don't want upgrades on and currently I have nothing in my sights that would need an upgrade.
I all am in favour of reusing upgrades until one nomination gets accepted. Increasing the number of upgrades does not increase the backlog, it just changes the priority of individual nominations.
In my own experience as nominator, only playgrounds and soccer fields get consistently accepted. With other kinds of nominations, it feels more like a lottery. Industrial heritage gets a lot of rejections. What to do? Apply the upgrade to the boring stuff that is likely to be accepted, or to the awesome POI that has a higher chance of rejection?
Someone who wants to resubmit garbage can just earn a new upgrade and apply it to the resubmission. Single-use upgrades do not solve this problem.
But someone who sent in a picture of a tree right in front of his/her house will also be able to re-use the upgrade and send in over and over again the same tree which will always be rejected.
In the end the bad nominations that once were upgraded will flood the system entirely, making upgrades worthless
Do your reviews and you'll get upgrades, that's the name of the game: 100 agreements for 1 upgrade
If you keep rejecting stupid upgrade nominations, you will eventually notice the mistake and apply the upgrade to a good nomination.
Are there so many fools that the system is flooded?
Good poiint. It should be impossible to use an upgrade in a 40-meter radius from any place where the same player has previously used an upgrade. That would prevent re-use of upgrades in the same location.
Being able to re-use upgrades comes with a risk of people reviewing a lot less. I am sure most of us can agree we have heard people from our local communities reviewing because “they are close to an upgrade”, allowing submitters to re-use upgrades would lessen that and result in less reviewers.
Veteran reviewers are usually reviewing enough to earn plenty of upgrades. If I don’t submit for 2 weeks, I usually blow through applying upgrades to all of the submissions I am comfortable upgrading and am having to go out and look for more slam dunks.
It's ridiculous to think of a system that focuses on stupid applicants who will eventually leave.
Why do I have to make up for the lack of reviewers by getting rewards again?
You should think about why the number of reviewers has decreased and take measures.
Let's think together about what we can do to increase the Wayfinder population.
Let's grow as many wonderful Wayspots as possible.
Let's arrange the system so that a little inexperienced reviewer and a little unfamiliar applicant can grow while enjoying Wayfarer and continue Wayfarer.
I don't think it's wrong to give a chance to retry without stress.
I think an intermediate solution would be that upgraded nominations are "saved" so you can choose to submit them again, maybe tweaking the texts.
Then is up to the submitter to choose if they'll upgrade it again (and keep saving it) or not (and will be lost if rejected).
Yes and no. That depends on the reviewing timescales, I guess.
I'm sitting on a large S2 cell border, where the southern side is very fast, and the northern side is nearly dead. So the southern side needs no boosts. At the northern side all fool proof candidates within my usual range are online. So I review only, if there are new fool-proof candidates, that would survive an upgrade. For unknown reason upgrades lower the chances for being accepted harshly, maybe because of the higher distribution range and the language chaos in central Europe. So the remaining dozens of candidates are all shaky ones or at least not fool-proof enough for surviving upgrades. So I review only occassionally, since I dont want upgrades right now.
If the upgrades would be re-usable until an upgraded candidate is accepted, I would do more at least to get a dozen of upgrades, since all the shaky candidates like hiking trail markers, that are in most cases rejected wrongfully, could be upgraded again and again and again until those reviewers, who dont know the rules, note that hiking trails and their markers are enumerated as a big bullet point unter the exploration criterion ......
But the big problem is, that the trolls could again and again send their trees and stones upgraded to block the queue. So there is too much abuse capability, that re-useable upgrades could be a valid improvement of the system.
On one hand I see the logic to reapplying, imagine reviewing for ages, getti g your upgrade, putting it onto a safe bet (soccer pitch, church, play park) and then bots or poor reviewers reject for dumb reasons (photo quality, historical/cultural significance) it would feel like wasted effort and time for nothing. But there is the argument people will abuse this to keep submitting bad stuff.
I do think though that the upgrade system needs a severe overhaul. Its way too much work to get one when it's being done in free time. It then needs to be pre selected what it will go.on, and hellmend you if you're selection goes through and accepted before the upgrade applies to it, meaning it was wasted. Not to mention, you aren't allowed to wait till you get one before deciding, if you get an upgrade, and you haven't picked something, then it will just go onto somethi g completely randomly. How is any of that a reward?
Correct me if I’m wrong, it sounds like you are saying if upgrades were re-usable, you would be more likely to use them because you wouldn’t feel as bad if they were wasted?
I can understand that but I also feel that can be applied to the system as is. If you were to start reviewing more, even if you don’t have fool-proof candidates, you would continue to earn upgrades and be able to try again if needed. This also might help the chances of upgrades being approved - if more reviewers who know the criteria are reviewing, there is a better chance they can outweigh the reviewers who need further education and upgrades might not be so doomed anymore.
Obviously, that’s easier to say when we are talking about local submissions that can be re-subbed at any time.
I do agree the system could use a re-work, maybe change the way upgrades work? Instead of just sending them out to more reviewers, maybe send them out to non-local reviewers with a high enough rating? Or if Niantic goes through with the Community Advocate program, send upgrades to some of them and have their reviews carry more weight?
Are there so many fools that the system is flooded?
YES! Yes yes yes. In many places it takes six months or more for their submission to be reviewed.
Many people stop reviewing because they are tired of looking at the same garbage over and over.
You should be able to bank your upgrades instead of it being automatically applied.
I don’t think that you should be able to re-use an upgrade at all.
Niantic has discussed that they may eventually have an appeal process for wrongly rejected nominations. Which is a much better alternative then endlessly resubmitting with the same upgrade that will clog the system.
I can see the possibility of instead of upgrading a nomination that you can use it for an appeal. That way you don’t get people endlessly appealing garbage. This way it makes them think wether or not they want to appeal it
Thank you for your wonderful suggestion ❗️
If the appeal system were to use the Wayforum, I would have to publish my residential area online for appeal, putting my personal information at risk.
I don't want to use such a system.
If the appeal system is possible by email, I'm in great agreement!