Continuous accumulation of rejections with wrong reasons Part1

BochumJules-PGOBochumJules-PGO Posts: 473 ✭✭✭✭

@NianticGiffard @NianticAaron

It is almost more funny than sad, because these complaints should be slowly hanging over your neck!

wonder how long will Niantic want to watch this and not do anything about it?

It would be so easy. After all, we have the order from you to subsequently report wayspots that violate the criteria and with the bug in April, you showed us that you can check submissons again afterwards.

•☝🏻To ALL fellow readers here in the forum, ... 1: The submissons are not all from me, but from different groups / communities. 2. If you do not like complaints, then please scroll further, if you do not have the same problems, you have to Don't talk badly about submissons from others.


1. Here we have a named cycle path, if I am not mistaken, should cycle and hiking paths be accepted and are explicitly mentioned in the criteria ?! Perhaps someone can explain to me which "inappropriate activities" take place on a cycle path that should be rejected? Especially since we don't ONLY have a cycle path here, but a junction of four themed cycle paths!

also know from the wayfarer that it was the 3rd attempt to submit this POI. Pretty sad when you think about throwing 3 upgrades in the trash!


2. A "former" barracks now under "monument protection".

Here, too, "clear evidence" that the reviewers did not bother to look at the complete submission. Here you can only be triggered by the word: "barracks" and the rest does not matter. Yes, military grounds & buildings are against the criteria, but this is available to the public (a link to check it is included) and is used as an administrative building. Ergo, thanks to the monument protection, it corresponds very well to the criteria! Also that the photo is out of focus or from the car is completely nonsense. The subject may not be the best, but it doesn't violate the photo guidelines! "...das die einzigartige Geschichte eines Orts, seine historische Vergangenheit, seine kulturelle Bedeutung darlegt ..." 💁🏻‍♂️


3. Kunstlichttor

(The photos here are for clarity only, not the ones that should be involved)

Here we have an art project by Christoph Hildebrand from 2004. Here, too, information was given in the form of a link where you can find enough information on the page to confirm and also to localize it! One reason for rejection was, "Doesn't correspond the criteria ", ah? So art is not a criterion? There is no safe walkway! One of the photos of the Wayfarer was from the sidewalk / walkway! Why do you choose something like that? When you can see it !? Completely incomprehensible! 🤦🏻‍♂️


4. Clubhouse/Vereinsheim

At first the proposal is rejected because there is no footpath (to the sports field 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️) and because it is private. The second time the location does not exist (how is that possible) and also because the sports club should be private (a sports club is never private).

Now the submisson is rated twice as a duplicate to an information board that is 100m further. A meeting point and a place to explore are NOT the same!? I don't meet at the Community Board and watch the Bundesliga or Champions League there. So here a clarification would be appropriate!

Here then 4 upgrades have already landed in the shredder !!!

5. Community Board

Here a community board is rejected because of a group of people. 👀 I'm still looking for this group of people in the photo, maybe one of you (Niantic) can tell me where to find it. But that's okay and you should always endure that ???


6. Historical table

We have a "Philosophical Cemetery Garden" here, there is a chapel and in front of the garden these boards, here it is rejected 🤷🏻‍♂️ because it does not meet the criteria and because the location is inappropriate! Ah, ok so it is inappropriate to be in places where you can educate yourself (the information boards)!? Maybe Niantic also has an explanation for this !?


7. Memorial plaque for a tree

Here, too, you are looking for a group of people in vain 🤷🏻‍♂️ and are these badges also inappropriate?


So a man-made stone circle on a bike path, on which there is also a monument plaque in the center, suddenly emerged from nature and the bike & hiking path does not really exist or do I see the wrong thing on the satellite image ??


8. Playgrounds

My question here would be first and foremost whether there is a minimum size for playgrounds in the criteria or whether playgrounds have to meet minimum requirements? Because nothing of the same is known to me. A playground is a place where you can play and a playground is also a meadow that should be used for playing!?

This playground has now been submitted 3 times. The first time it would be supposed to be because he belongs to a kindergarten! The 2nd time private and the photo has a wrong orientation (🤷🏻‍♂️?) The last rejection even says the location is fake AND the photo is from a third party! 🤬 Cannot be surpassed when it comes to cheek !!!

And how fake the submisson is 🤦🏻‍♂️

Who would you like to tell here that you couldn't see or recognize the playground ??? Also private can NOT be, this is a row of houses with a passage, you can also see from the benches and tables that it is not private🤦🏻‍♂️ just because there is protection against dirt over the sandpit, that is not an indicator of private!


Sequel follows

«1

Comments

  • connylein91-PGOconnylein91-PGO Posts: 9 ✭✭

    Einfach nur schade 😪 es ist wirklich ein sehr schöner Treffpunkt wo sich alle treffen und er ist dauerhaft im Betrieb. Selbst bei googlemaps eingetragen und beim Grünen Band berlin auch gelistet. Einen 3ten versuch mache ich nicht. Klar manchen sagen bestimmt wo ist das ein POI aber es handelt sich hier um einen Erholungsort/Freizeitort wo eins die Berliner Mauer stand.

  • EyeOfTheStormLP-INGEyeOfTheStormLP-ING Posts: 5 ✭✭
    edited July 2021

    I tried now three times to post something here, but nothing happens?!?

    I submitted a table tennis table in a public park in my hometown three times now. Always declined for other reasons. Then I submitted another table tennis table in a public park that is NOT in my hometown and it gets passed immediately. Completely incomprehensible for me.


  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭

    if you are using pictures in your posts, then the posts need to be approved by the mods.... there is a small message in the corner about this, but that isnt an eye catcher....

  • EyeOfTheStormLP-INGEyeOfTheStormLP-ING Posts: 5 ✭✭
    edited July 2021


    Post edited by EyeOfTheStormLP-ING on
  • YumiXxYumi-PGOYumiXxYumi-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭✭

    Great job Niantic, keep it up, it's really fun for you to propose PokéStops & Portals. 🤦🏻‍♂️

    Tell me if there is no footpath to this sports field? How could I go there and take photos? Or how do the club members get to the sports facility?

    And since when ?, do football pitches no longer meet the acceptance criteria for a PokéStop? Are you serious? Do I give away my time for that? Come up with something!

    @NianticGiffard @NianticAaron @NianticCasey-ING @NianticGray

  • xSuperSailorVx-PGOxSuperSailorVx-PGO Posts: 18 ✭✭✭

    Great idea of ​​this collective post, I'll join the creator, because what is currently going on at Wayfarer is not a state. The system or tool is slowly degenerating into a joke

    @NianticCasey-ING @NianticGray @NianticGiffard

    For all who reply to this post, I leave it open whether this submisson is worthy of Wayspot, for me it is only about the reasons for the rejection!

    Here we have a struck image, which can often be seen in the reviewers and which also exists quite often as a wayspot.

    But here I feel completely ripped off! How can it be that reviewers are allowed to continue with these types of decisions at Wayfarer!

    1.Where the hell do you see body parts here 🤦🏻‍♂️ really now? You can't even see body parts in the surrounding photo!

    2.What inappropriate activities are supposed to take place on this normal public footpath ???

    3.It could not be sufficiently confirmed that the proposal represents the submitted real location as shown in the photo and the map view. 🤷🏻‍♂️ What's that supposed to mean? There is street view at this place, you can clearly see the building and house number

    Here is and has clearly not been checked sufficiently, adequately and according to the specifications! If you reject this submission, THEN with the reason: Does not meet the criteria! THEN it would be halfway understandable BUT NOT SO! 🤬

  • MadJulle-PGOMadJulle-PGO Posts: 8 ✭✭

    This a part of a dam built in the 1830's to provide power for ancient industry that was located here. I'd assume a centuries old protected remnant from the past would qualify but according reviewers it is natural feature and a pitch black blurry photo. So I think someone believes that its a **** dam and can't tell a night from day. 🙄 Seriously this review process is such a flawed mess that why bother nominating anymore.

  • Kuleisbjorn-PGOKuleisbjorn-PGO Posts: 112 ✭✭✭

    Reason for rejection: private property

    Reason for rejection: private property

    Reason for rejection: private property. This is hilarious, because the sign says it's municipal ground and public passage, and I point that out in the additional information. There's even an official life saving ring on the side of the building. Might be that English speaking reviewers rejected it, I don't know.

    Reason for rejection: does not meet acceptance criteria

    These are all early nominations, so I wrote all the text in Norwegian (except for the last one which admittedly didn't have much additional information and the sign being wet made it really dark) because I didn't expect that many non-Norwegian speaking wayfarers might possibly review these.

    Anyway, it was demotivating, and I stopped reviewing and nominating for a long time, but Niantic doesn't care. They are perfectly happy not spending a penny on doing anything about bad reviewers who abuse the system to get easy agreement and clog up the system because people are forced to resubmit wayspots several times. The community does their job for them, so the money they save on that is worth more than having reviewers of a certain standard.

    Making reviewers take tests on a regular basis, like every other month, wich addressed updates to criterias, would be a simple way to help with some of this. I see a lot of old timers still clinging to old rules.

  • EyeOfTheStormLP-INGEyeOfTheStormLP-ING Posts: 5 ✭✭
    edited July 2021

    Alright, now we can talk a lot about 100% Waypoints that were declined, but nobody got any idea how to make the system even better that something like that doesn´t happen in the future.


    My idea of a solution is pretty simple: A two-tier evaluation system.

    At the moment we only have a one-tier system where every Ingress and PoGo Player is included who got the level requirements for reviewing, whether they play 3 days or 3 years.


    The two-tier evaluation system that i imagine works like this:

    The first tier can be like what it is now with "all players" can review. But in the second tier are players who play a minimun ammount of time (like 2 or 3 years for example), got maybe a recrusion already in Ingress or got a minimum of accepted Waypoints in PoGo. Whatever: the minimum requirements to get into the second tier have to be pretty high so that this players know very exactly what they do and can not get into tier two "in a coulpe of days". Maybe requirements that are so high that only two or three percent of the reviewers even make it to tier two.

    These Players review also the decision of the reviewers of the first tier with a review-site where they can see the decisions of all previous reviewers, based on the rating they gave to the nomination.

    In order not to give the tier-two reviewers too much more work, Niantic has to build an algorithm that presents these reviewers only decisions that are not absolutely clear.

    For Example: 8 reviewers gave one star to a nomination and only one reviewer gave three stars to it. This nomination is pretty clearly declined and needs no extra review from the tier-two reviewers. Another nomination got one star from 3 reviewers, 3 stars from another 3 reviewers and 5 stars from another 4 reviewers. This is an assessment that is ambiguous and has often led to unjustified rejections in the past. In this case, the nomination with all the ratings and comments will be given to minimum 2 tier-two reviewer so that they can re-review if this is a good Waypoint or not.


    This is just a first basic thought of mine how to approach and solve this problem. I think other people out there have also very good ideas and i think we are all interested in reading them and maybe somebody from Niantic will read this aswell and give the one or other idea to the developers so that they can make a system where everybody gets one to one with each other.

    (sorry for my english, it´s not the best, hopefully everything is understandable :D )

  • Freakmaster5050-PGOFreakmaster5050-PGO Posts: 60 ✭✭

    Oh **** ****, I need to join this discussion 😂😂. My biggest pet peeve is rejecting for stupid reasons or illegitimate reasons. I’m fine with questionable stuff getting rejected, I’ve tried my hand at a few noms that I knew were long shots. But when stuff should get passed easily and is still rejected, it’s extremely frustrating…….esp considering it’s taking some noms a year or more to get a decision on. Then you have to redo the whole process all over again and wait another 6-12+ months and hope it gets accepted the second time. I agree they need to have the test given more often …..and include in the test more of those issues that reviewers seem to have the most trouble with ie pedestrian access, generic business, seasonal item, location not found (people really need to start utilizing the maps, that’s what they are there for) etc. and those players that have high rates of rejections should be flagged to take the test more often. I have a feeling those who reject for stupid or illegitimate reasons reject way more often than the average reviewer.


    I’ll just include a couple examples or I could be here all day…..lol.


    attempt #1 for what should have been a slam dunk. My first upgrade.

    Ended up marked as a duplicate. Due to people not checking the map. There is a similar sign 1/4 mile up the road, but they are not identical and it’s for a separate section of the park. Both signs clearly show up on aerial and street view. So now this photo shows up as an alternate photo for the other location.

    Attempt #2

    Rejection reason: pedestrian access 🤦‍♀️ despite there being a 20-30 ft grassy area along the road. This has been my biggest complaint with reviewers……not understanding what pedestrian access means. You don’t need a dang path going up to it in order to have pedestrian access. As long as one can safely get to it and not be standing in traffic, it is pedestrian access. The shoulder along the road is pedestrian access for Pete’s sake!

    Attempt #3:

    Tried a different description. Rejection reason: impedes emergency traffic. This is where some critical thinking skills are lacking. You really think if this was impeding emergency traffic that they would have the entrance to the park here? Not to mention, the PD is up the road. This is how you get to the PD, but it’s not at the PD, CLEARLY seen on the map.

    I am now on attempt #4 and I’m hoping people with more brain cells will be reviewing this time.


    Second example

    attempt #1

    Rejection reason: generic business. This is literally a tourist destination. Tours are given. That right there should be an automatic pass.

    Attempt #2

    Rejection reason: Again generic business. I am currently on attempt #3.


    I have many more examples (trail markers, pergolas, church signs and more) but this is already really long. The struggle is real and at this point I am taking a break from submitting and reviewing. My family has over 120 nominations between our 3 accounts and it’s very frustrating to put a lot of time and effort into these…….wait months and months……then have them ridiculously rejected.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 449 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is not a bad idea, but selecting those tier 2 reviewers on experience alone wouldn't be good.

    Reviewers get very few feedback on how they review. If they somewhat vote like others in their area, they won't notice if they are doing something wrong. All it does is strenghten their belief that they are doing a good job and be less open to suggestions from others. When their rating does suffer, they think it is either because of a bug in the system, or because other, less experienced, reviewers made the wrong decision, never them.

    Some of the people who have a 5* rating on this site don't even know how to vote properly. Claiming things like voting 3* or even 2* on a nomination is an accept, while the "Reviewing a Wayspot nomination" page in the Help section clearly says that it is not.

    More testing and keeping people up to date with the criteria, and very difficult tests to become a tier 2 reviewer (if they want to do that), would be better than relying on "experience".

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It would be really interesting if Niantic had two different ratings-- one for things that are in the reviewer's local area of play and one for things that were outside of it. That would identify reviewers who have a strong agreement with local reviewers but do badly on a broader scale, and vice versa. I'm not sure if this information would be helpful for reviewers, or should even be shown to them, but it would allow Niantic to identify areas where local reviewers were taking the rules into their own hands.

    If Niantic created a tier-2 reviewer system I would want them to require a great rating for both categories in order to filter out people who only have a great rating because of local cabals (explicit or implicit) making their own rules.

  • rodensteiner-INGrodensteiner-ING Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭✭✭

    the amount of reject criteria simply is too much.

    Niantic introduced changes that werent only poorly communicated, they werent communicated AT all to casual reviewers.

    instead of creating more problems, this idea is not something that niantic would follow.

    Also, again, if your 3* submissions are rejected with bogus information (leet activity, isnt there) -

    GUYS this is a broken system, what do you expect? Niantics At-The-Moment-Caretakers of Wayfarer are not IT Guys, they are backoffice guys that only Parlay back to the IT Guys that werent there when this system was created.

    Do not expect any changes, the only thing you can do is just try to adjust to the broken system and the people that work it:

    • If your Submission is 3*, make it 5*. Work it. Get a better photo, get a better description.
    • Try not to outsmart people by submitting links to youtube videos, or making a collage as secondary photo
    • Try not to push near-identical things that arent needed (yes in germany a sportplatz mostly also as a "Pub" attached to it, functioning as the Beer-Well after the games (and sometimes only fronting the beer-games and disguising it as a sports activity) - if there is already a Sportplatz called TSV Wayfarer, do not expect that people will accept your submission of TSV Wayfarer Beer Dive. Also do not expect to have the small soccer area, the big soccer area, the bambini soccer area and the lady soccer area of a sportsgroudn EACH to be a wayspot. Niantic cleary states they do not want that. Also they dont want every little elephant and slide on a playground to be a wayspot.

    things rejected are rejected because they arent really good wayspots. Just because the system processes an email made of some information, do not take this information for granted. It was turned off for years, someone at Niantic turned it on again in europe and it still is broken.

    some of things are rejected because of Niantics strict policy to Photos.

  • BochumJules-PGOBochumJules-PGO Posts: 473 ✭✭✭✭

    Do you want to improve the system? Here are the 2 most important points ...

    1. Rejection

    - The fact is that too many reviewers decide at the first glance at the wayspot photo to reject it and Do not have a look at the Rest of the Submisson at all because you can reject it directly. So the Button for rejecting has Go all the way Down (like the picture), next to the Button for acceptinng, so that you can See the rest of the Submisson on the way there.

    It would be even better if you MUST give 1☆ in every category in order to be able to decline, just as you have to give ☆s in every category in order to able to evaluate a Submisson. This is also prevents, and even better, the fact that you can simply reject a Submisson in general, regardless or whther it is justified or not.

    2. Additional Pics

    1 Supporting photo for a Wayspot is not enough. There MUST be the possibility to upload more than 1 photo in order to better locate and support the Wayspot. At the Moment you must upload collages in order to be able to give the Reviewers the necessary information and ways, so that they are pushed to properly check and have everything important in mind.

    - In addition to other supporting Photos, you should be able to include one or more links for Support, because there is not enough space in the Text Box with 280 signs. But So you can prove a local Restaurant, a registered Monument or oters.

    Do you want to improve the system? Here are the 2 most important points ...

  • Freakmaster5050-PGOFreakmaster5050-PGO Posts: 60 ✭✭

    Welp, attempt #3 down the drain.

    I don’t understand this at all. Breweries and pubs are allowed. And don’t tell me there aren’t waypoints at vineyards and wineries in California. And the location reason is laughable it’s clearly shown on the map, both on aerial and street view. I’m fact I’m pretty sure its labeled on the map. How is this explicit or inappropriate and how does it not meet criteria. On any of my 3 submissions for this? It’s a beautiful building that would make a nice waypoint. It clearly fits the criteria. It has now been almost a year since I’ve been trying to get this and the park sign in game.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BochumJules-PGO I don't think "You must give 1* in every category in order to decline" makes sense. If something is on private residential or K-12 school property then it can be a 5* for being visually unique but is an automatic 1* rejection overall because it trips over one of the automatic-rejection criteria.

  • RyuuVanDraco-PGORyuuVanDraco-PGO Posts: 106 ✭✭✭

    I'm really getting tired of this, I demand compensation for all these wasted upgrades thanks to bad reviewers. In all submission I added that they fullfill everything written on the criteria page.


    "The real-world location of the nomination appears to have explicit or inappropriate activity, Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, Photo of the nomination appears to be of a live animal instead of a valid object."


    "Der vorgeschlagene Ort scheint als Spielort nicht angemessen zu sein (z. B. ein nicht historisch oder kulturell bedeutsamer Grabstein oder Friedhof)., Der Vorschlag erfüllt die Akzeptanzkriterien nicht., Am vorgeschlagenen Ort finden anscheinend anstößige oder unangemessene Aktivitäten statt.." (Translation: Inappropite place, doesn't fuillfill criteria, inappropiate activities.)


    "Der vorgeschlagene Ort scheint als Spielort nicht angemessen zu sein (z. B. ein nicht historisch oder kulturell bedeutsamer Grabstein oder Friedhof)., Das Foto ist von geringer Qualität (z. B. dunkle/verschwommene Fotos oder Fotos, die aus einem Fahrzeug aufgenommen wurden)., Der Vorschlag erfüllt die Akzeptanzkriterien nicht." (Translation: Inappropitate place, bad photo, doesn't fullfill criteria.)


    "The real-world location of the nomination appears to have explicit or inappropriate activity, Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, Photo is low quality (e.g., pitch black/blurry photos or photos taken from a car)." (I will accept the bad photo part.)

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    These are pretty good ideas that will probably get lost in all of this... would be nice in their own thread.

  • BochumJules-PGOBochumJules-PGO Posts: 473 ✭✭✭✭

    THAT'S EXACTLY where the problem lies. It is precisely because you can simply reject something that the system is being exploited so negatively! EVEN if the submisson is something on school grounds or in a roundabout. Should you have to select all categories with 1 ☆, so that a rejection, especially in the case of submissons that are not immediately apparent, can be checked correctly. The possibility that you can reject everything directly on the first photo without looking at the rest (e.g. the additional information) breaks a lot. So you have to select all categories in order to be able to reject, just as I HAVE to select all categories in order to be able to accept! In addition, the reviewers, who only cheat their points by rejecting them, will give themselves up in the long run because the effort is far too great because you could then check correctly!

    The other way around, why do I have to call through a playground completely, you could also accept it directly !? ALSO, either everything runs according to the same scheme, so that fairness is guaranteed, or Niantic should start checking itself again.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,117 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Why would you need to give all categories 1* if not all categories deserve a 1*... A mural at a k-12 might deserve 5* across the board but only fails the initial category

  • BochumJules-PGOBochumJules-PGO Posts: 473 ✭✭✭✭

    You can already read or understand the text? The point is that you can't refuse at first glance. And must and would check everything carefully. Even if something clearly does NOT meet the criteria. You can also prevent a ban in this way.

  • CopperChick-PGOCopperChick-PGO Posts: 93 ✭✭

    In response to quality of photographs - which one do you think got approved and which one got denied for low quality photo?



    Yeah that is right mine got denied for low quality photo.


    Theirs is a gym.

  • CopperChick-PGOCopperChick-PGO Posts: 93 ✭✭

    I have two to report, although I have had many good nominations rejected.


    The first was a custom designed bike rack for an apartment complex. Five bike racks sort of like this (but much plainer) are in game at a mall only a few miles away (five at 1 mall). This one got rejected for "Insufficient evidence that the nomination accurately reflects the submitted real-world location based on comparison of the submitted photo and map views." I also provided the google street view of the nominations. You can clearly see the bike rack in street view.


    The second one was at a hotel I stayed at during the pandemic. I stayed there several days for a total of about $300 and while there I submitted the pergola in the courtyard. The reason for rejection was: "The real-world location of the nomination appears to be on private residential property or farm, Photo is low quality (e.g., pitch black/blurry photos or photos taken from a car)." So next time I have to wait for the sun to be out to take the picture? And the location is obviously a hotel and not a private residence or farm. This one made me especially mad because I felt like I spent $300 to submit it and it got denied. You can also clearly see the pergola in overhead view.



  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BochumJules-PGO Imagine getting a candidate titled "Foo Elementary School" and the main photo is clearly of a school with a bunch of children walking into it. Under the current system I can immediately reject it with 1*/Location/K-12 (or possibly 1*/Photo for the kids in it) and move on.

    Under your proposal I would have to examine every single field and give it a star rating in order to decline something that is unquestionably and unequivocally to be rejected based on only the top-line information. That would waste a lot of reviewers' time and slow down the queues even more than they are right now-- reviewers would have to waste time on a lot of candidates that were auto-rejects and that would mean fewer things get reviewed overall.

    It would be even better if you MUST give 1☆ in every category in order to be able to decline

    That makes no sense at all. If I see the elementary school as mentioned above and I rate it 1* for "Should this be...?" then I would be lying if I marked the Title/Description as 1* if that is exactly the name of the school. You're basically arguing that nothing should ever be rejected unless the submission is so bad that it is 1* in every single category.

    Imagine a beautifully-crafted historical fire bell, with a plaque documenting who the craftsperson was and that it was the first fire bell in the state. Now, imagine that this bell is located one step away from the driveway of an active fire station. Should it be accepted or rejected? How would you expect people to vote on this candidate? Image for illustration: Satellite view of a fire station bell located exactly in the position I'm describing.



  • BochumJules-PGOBochumJules-PGO Posts: 473 ✭✭✭✭

    Thank you very much,

    I actually wrote under the Treat of "Wayfarer Update 3.4" (hence the edited pictures) and I also gave a lot more points, such as the Niantic in Ingress AND in PoGo the words "Portal MUST replace "&" PokeStop "with" Wayspot ".


    Or that the description for the additional photo MUST be described much better, because many players turn away from the POI and then do not have it for the location in the photo, which often does not help the checking!


  • BochumJules-PGOBochumJules-PGO Posts: 473 ✭✭✭✭

    Thank you, that's exactly what I mean. "Waste of time" .... it is not about "fast, fast", but about quality and if the quality increases, then a minimal loss of time is the least problem. In addition, cooldowns are preventively prevented. Because again ... exactly for the reason that there are so many false rejections as we are discussing here, because the point collectors crash the review with the (too) simple and time-saving rejections for some randomly selected reasons. Then it just takes longer, I don't see any problem at all. That is exactly what the view should be.

Sign In or Register to comment.