players agreeing on whether to accept or reject a submission in an area question

I know what the rule was for opr - you weren't supposed to collude with others - agree to accept or reject submissions.

But what is the rule for Wayfarer? Is it okay with niantic for a group of players to set up a social site, get other players to post their submissions, and agree with each other whether to accept or reject the submission?



  • pkmnsearch2-PGOpkmnsearch2-PGO Posts: 249 ✭✭✭

    what do you mean? Each reviewer needs to follow the guidelines that are in the criteria and help page.

    There are national groups to ask for feedback what nominations are more prone to be accepted.. just that.

    because nobody wants to waste time in submmmiting an obvious 1*.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I thought were were here to offer advice based purely on the Niantic criteria to novice submitters to save them wasting time with ineligible Nominations that clearly don't meet the criteria?

    You will notice I deliberately left out the phrase "on our interpretation of the Niantic criteria" out of the above sentence.

  • qPANlNl-PGOqPANlNl-PGO Posts: 52 ✭✭

    I agree with the replies.

    It's totally ok to be part of a group/social site (besides here) to discuss and clarify any doubt about the criteria for better understanding, to talk about improvement if needed (photo quality, better redaction/text), but what is definitelyn NOT OK under any circumstances is to collude to give high rating and accept ineligible nominations. As reviewers we must stick to fairness following wayfarer guidelines. By giving green light to bad nominations and abusing the system they are just damaging their own community because others may think that they can submit rubbish stuff based on those bad examples. Sooner or later, the abuse will be discovered and the bad stops/portals are going to be taken down little by little.... A group/social site should think ahead instead of crushing themselves and their fellows for temporary wayspots that have been made from bending what they should really do as reviewers.

  • TheZodiac007-PGOTheZodiac007-PGO Posts: 845 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2021

    Some users are colluding to accept things that don’t meet criteria @crystalwizard-ING I recommend possibly asking others etc for advice but to not accept things that are blatantly against criteria or faked. These wayfinders always get caught in the end. The acceptable criteria is basically common sense. There are some

    things that can slip through the cracks as being unique but most of the stuff that is eligible has been listed by Niantic before. I can share a link that may help as well that I normally share around because it’s so helpful. You will most likely find yourself denying more than you are accepting at this time. Hopefully though in the future this gets better & we start seeing more things getting accepted & less people wasting their time to submit useless wayspots & more people submitting stuff that meets criteria & isn’t faked. If you need anything at all feel free to reach out to me or any of the other wayfinders here. Most of the people here commenting are extremely intelligent & have a ton of knowledge on the criteria, etc & I am sure that they would love nothing more than to help in any way possible

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Haha i know. I was poking a joke at how sometimes on these threads there will be a consensus on what the users would generally accept or decline 😅

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,869 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NianticCasey-ING's answer is really only half an answer. There are also groups colluding to exclude things that are high-quality. I'm aware of one group that deliberately rejects trail makers because they "hate them".

    Unfortunately, if the majority of reviewers in the area are part of a cabal they control the outcome and their rating doesn't suffer even if they ignore the criteria and make their own. I would love it if no more than 40% of reviewers for a candidate came from the local area. Alternately, make it 2/3 from the local area and 1/3 from the pool who would review something if it was upgraded... and if they upgrade-pool reviewers disagree with the local-pool reviewers the upgrade-pool reviewers vote stands. (And yes, I know that a lot of people complain that stuff gets rejected when it's upgraded. When people show their submissions with the complaint it's often either a low-quality candidate or a poorly-presented one. Not always, but often.)

  • pkmnsearch2-PGOpkmnsearch2-PGO Posts: 249 ✭✭✭

    dont expect clear answers from niantic users. There is the criteria page so it is up to the local community to say "yay or nay" to it :P

  • DMoshiko-INGDMoshiko-ING Posts: 5 ✭✭
    edited April 2021

    I don’t see anything wrong with consulting with others, however saying, approve this or reject that is wrong.

    for instance if there’s something that should be unique I’ll consult with locals in the community

  • LunaChui-INGLunaChui-ING Posts: 26 ✭✭

    The final decision should be yours alone

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As others have said, "collusion" is prohibited.

    Even if the candidate is a "Good" candidate, the act may result in your account being frozen.

    If possible, @NianticCasey-ING should once again inform its players about this malicious collusion ban.

    In particular, we would like to see this displayed at the beginning of every Wayspot nomination.

    There are already some cities that have lost the Niantic ethos, notably some cities in Spain, due to this kind of malicious collusion.

    ( I think all the spots in those cities should be removed and recreated.)

    Also, some players in large countries have a high level of influence over a wide area.

    These are the Youtubers and writers who deal with Pokémon GO.

    When they say "I applied" for such malicious acts on Twitter, Youtube, etc., it is similar to collusion.

    When I wrote about it here, it didn't have that much influence, did it? However, the reality is different.

    It should be clearly stated that these acts should be punished as an act that interferes with fair judging.

Sign In or Register to comment.