Please change the most abused rejection reasons "inappropriate location" and "low quality photo"

13»

Comments

  • GearGlider-INGGearGlider-ING Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2021

    I mean, people are always going to choose an easy reject option if there's any reason to reject it, but their specific reason isn't on the list. The solution isn't removing certain reject options because then those same people are just going to move to a different default reject reason.

    A good solution would require a revamp of how reject reasons are handled. I've suggested in the past that the reject process should take just as long or as much effort as the approval process, but that gets a lot of push-back from people who like the current easier reject system, so a different solution might be required. Though it's hard to determine what a good solution would be that would make people actually use rejections properly if rejects are always going to be easier than approvals.

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,725 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Let's think about it this way. Say, in a sample case of 20 people rejecting a nomination for example:

    • 17 people (85%) select Does not meet criteria (rightfully),
    • 2 people (10%) select Inappropriate location, and
    • 1 person (5%) selects Live animal...

    Then because they are not dominant reasons (at least 20%), they should not at ALL be included in the reject emails. Like we already know, it takes a single person to select a rejection reason for it to appear in the email, so as outliers (even if they are by any ounce right) should be disregarded.

    Alternatively, for a different nomination, if:

    • 11 people (55%) select Natural feature,
    • 6 people (30%) select Does not meet criteria,
    • 2 people (10%) select Low quality photo, and
    • 1 person (5%) selects K-12 school,

    it should only show the Natural feature and does not meet criteria reasons in the email.

    But what if, for an extreme example the rejection reasons are so varied because the nomination is absolutely garbage, for example if the rejects recorded were as follows:

    • 2 people each select Does not meet criteria, Low quality photo, Orientation, Private Residential Property or Farm, Inappropriate Location, Live Animal, Submitter Identifiable, and
    • 1 person each select Abuse, Natural Feature, K-12 School, Location Mismatch, License Plate, and URL or Markup,

    then this very low chance, this rare instance is probably where the email shows a dot.

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,725 ✭✭✭✭✭

    But referencing a conversation I had, at the end of the day, it just generally seems that it's not really a big deal. Sure, it's a pain point and absolutely frustrating but if the nomination is good, then submitters will just go about resubmitting it and putting it back through the Process. It's just safe to ignore these concerns coming from a business perspective. What's inconvenient and frustrating for us in the short-term for getting these pathetic and often incorrect reasons is just a small blip in a general world where points of interest are just being approved elsewhere anyway.

    Whether our wayspots are not being approved the first time around, there is an expectation that it will eventually be approved iff it if was truly eligible. If it just takes a little bit more time for it to appear, then so be it.

    But this response from NianticGiffard gives me hope. They could have left the Wayfarer ecosystem the way it was, but they are working on things, so hold tight onto your living animal.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭

    But that is another discussion xD

    I can't remember, that I ever had a nomination for review, where an animal was featured. I only know lots of complaints from other people, who had valid candidates rejected, because there was somewhere a duck in the background or something like that. I don't see the problem, when someone nominates an infoboard next to a duck pond, when there are a few wild ducks in the background.

    If the dog of the submitter is in the pictures that's another thing, but a random wild animal, that isn't even featured shouldnt be a problem.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's not the main point of this thread, that all rejection reasons can be mis-used .....

    I tried to focus on inappropriate location and low quality photo, because I think, that a new wording for both rejection reasons could fix a lot. Both are very shallow, and dumb reviewers can reject evrything, that they don't like or they don't need for their own game expierience, according to these wordings. And they don't get any hint, that they are wrong. For example: if I would be a newbie to the wayfarer system and not part of any bigger wayfarer related social media chats, than I would reject childrens playgrounds as inappropriate location since they aren't great places to have hanging around smartphone gamers imho. So someone would have to prove me, that I would be wrong - the wording of this rejection reason doesn't ....

    So this is a different problem than fastclickers, who simply click on a random rejecton reasons. this problem could be fixed the way @GearGlider-ING described: rejecting a nomination should need more effort by the reviewers, maybe not as much as approving, but there should be more.

    The worst part of this is, that we found two active forum users here, that still defend how these rejection reasons are abused .....


    So in detail inappropriate location could be improved by bringing the idea of the explicit content to the label. The only problem here is, that the word explicit has more connotations. So this may be confusing for non English mothertongues like me: for me the No1 meaning of that word is a maths term, synonymous for distinct or unambiguous. The use of this word in terms of youth protection is very strange for me. Maybe Niantic could use wordings like (not) youth-free or youth-friendly. Or similar to a German youtubers literally translated wording: (not) family-friendly. The description sentence then could be a enumeration of examples ....


    My own expierience with the very short reasoned mails, either simply the dot or the sentences for the sub-categories (visual unique and cultural background) is, that there are lots of duplicate votes involved, but not enough, that it is a full duplicate rejection.

    An example:

    This is the townhall of a small medieval town, built during renaissance. The maypole with the guild flags on the right side of the picture was already a wayspot there. I got "not visually unique" for the only rejection reason, I guess because half of the townhall was in the picture of the maypole. I had to change the picture of the maypole to get the townhall approved. I found reviewers who admitted to have fast-clicked on duplicate ....

    I had a few more examples similar to this one. All involved wrong duplicate votes .....

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There is no animal ..... so it's more a Leerbienenstand than a Lehrbienenstand 😂


    (for non germans: Lehrbienenstand = educational apiary, and Lehr -> Leer switches educational to empty)

  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,625 Ambassador

    Those boxes were obviously prepared for visitors, there has never been an animal inside. Such rejection are as annoying as the "PRP or farm" I am getting on all of those nominations on this environmental center

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The infoboard is obviously there for exactly that purpose. The nitpickers would start a discussion about the main picture, and that the infoboard should be more in the focus ..... but that's totally unimportant ....

  • DerWelfe2205-PGODerWelfe2205-PGO Posts: 374 ✭✭✭✭

    Rated that one 4*. It's a sad day when you lose an agreement like that :'(

  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,625 Ambassador

    Ýeah, sad for the agreement, sad for the upgrade but lucky for those who don't understand that an URL in the extra information is totally fine...

  • DerWelfe2205-PGODerWelfe2205-PGO Posts: 374 ✭✭✭✭

    The same thing happened to me. Resubmitted without the URL and it got accepted. Moral of the story for me is that I will no longer make an effort in providing additional information.

  • SportJules-PGOSportJules-PGO Posts: 16 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2021
  • Shilfiell-INGShilfiell-ING Posts: 1,560 Ambassador

    Photos are replaceable. If I can tell what an object is from the photo, I'll never reject for Bad Photo Quality reasons, unless your thumb or your side view mirror or something intrudes on the photo. I do not believe we should rate photos on "Would I hang this on my wall as artwork?" or "I would have taken a far superior photo" or "Yikes this is taken from a slight angle and I prefer straight-on perspective" or even "Not submitted at high noon" reasons. That's what photo upvotes are for.

  • Hi everyone. I will be closing this discussion for future comments since it was headed off-topic. I've removed a few off-topic comments as well. Please be mindful while sharing your thoughts to not offend others. Thank you for your understanding!

This discussion has been closed.