Add in Wayfarer for rejected nominations "Appeal" button. Make it reviewed by another player.

Add a button in wayfarer when you review your rejected nominations, when using it, the nomination is sent to someone different than the one who refused it. It can be done until you did appeal 2 times and each time it was refused.

Tagged:
«1

Comments

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

    You nomination is reviewed by multiple people, not just one person. Estimates vary from 10-50 people are needed to vote on a nomination, so your suggestion is not workable.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,619 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'd have guessed more, bases on photo spheres, but thats obviously never going to be an exact way of doing it. But based on even my own photo spheres, it tends to be when the nomination goes into voting, numbers on the sphere **** up, then when past voting, numbers slow/stop, and I reckon that it's about the 100 number

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Only one chance to for rereview and it costs an upgrade. The rereview is also added to the upgrade queues and cannot be reviewed by "locals".

  • Kawhinot-INGKawhinot-ING Posts: 189 ✭✭✭

    I don't think it is even close to that being high -- otherwise, nothing would get decisioned.

  • Daemare-PGODaemare-PGO Posts: 95 ✭✭✭

    I honestly wish it would go to people with high ratings or maybe if they opened applications for a group just to look at these types of appeals.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That APPEAL is a waste of time.

    All the applicant has to do is to find a high quality POI and apply for an accurate factual title and description, supplementary information, and location information.

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,236 Ambassador
    edited June 2021
  • Freakmaster5050-PGOFreakmaster5050-PGO Posts: 60 ✭✭

    I’ve seen countless of those get rejected as well. Parks, churches, etc.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭✭✭

    In most cases, your nomination is flawed in some way.

    I have had similar experiences, but when I look back at my past nomination after gaining more insight, I almost always find significant flaws.

  • Eneeoh-PGOEneeoh-PGO Posts: 749 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wayfarer instructs us to nominate primarily signs and plaques, or to use a sign or plaque as a proxy for a location.

    Alas! These signs are not always beautiful. They fulfill their function in the real world, and should do the same in wayfarer. Even skilled reviewers sometime lose their bearings and reject nominations due to something about the signage.

    You can bet that a typical reviewer who knows nothing of this website and is looking for Agreements so they can upgrade “moar stops at my house” is going to reject a lot, mostly in reaction to vague feelings: Banquet Halls remind me of boring events and rubber chicken. One star.

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 419 ✭✭✭✭

    I've had town soccer/baseball/football fields rejected for not meeting criteria (not near schools); WWII Memorial Plaques on sidewalks for not having pedestrian access; coffee shop rejected for being a private farm; a wall side mural rejected for having a visible license plate (no cars present in either photo); a restaurant rejected for photo orientation/upside down (the building had a unique roof the photo correctly oriented); a memorial that was placed in 2016 and is visible on google earth photo from 2018 marked as temporary/seasonal; a trail head with a link to the town website that maintains it in supporting information rejected for URL; a footbridge, visible by satellite and google street view for real world location. And the pièce de résistance, a fit trail station marked Submitter Identifiable because of my shadow.

    So no, you're assertion here is not accurate. It's incredibly naïve.

    However I agree an appeal process is not likely to work either, not because it couldn't, but because the current system is broken, and I have no faith that an additional appeal system would be any better. Yes the current system weeds out a lot of the junk submissions, (not all) but it also gets rid of A LOT of the good to great submissions because its so broken. The expression, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" fits well here. Niantic has created a series of compounding systems that have created a sometimes toxic review process. Not to mention we're going on nearly 8 months since the last AMA and any noticeable updates/upgrades from Niantic. At one point we had been told mid June on some major updates to the system. Still waiting. Still using a broken system cause its all we have.

  • Thor3381-INGThor3381-ING Posts: 220 ✭✭✭

    @Oakes1923-PGO

    Indeed, lid June for updates, they just forget to specify the year 😉

    I don't know if I'm taking to submitters or reviewers here, but if you check the topic "I want a pokestop at my house" topic, but those are also just the tip of the iceberg. Adding an appeal button will launch those back into the queue as well, because the button is there.

    Last few weeks I reviewed a lot less because of the amount of **** that passes along, less reviews done, longer queue...

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 419 ✭✭✭✭

    I've reviewed a lot less lately as well, since many of my pristine submissions were upgraded with the 15 upgrades I got from the Russia event and I don't want to earn any more right now. Most of my left over submissions are not one's that I would want reviewed by folks outside my local area. I'm playing for the long game with those.

    I can think of a few ways that appeals could be handled properly. It could be based off some metric of how your ratio for successful submissions and your overall review rating. Limited to one or two a month for ones that you think where marked incorrectly so its less likely trash gets submitted. Include the rejection reason for reviewers of appeals can either agree or disagree. There is a way to get it done, but it would require forethought and work. Holding my breath😶

    Better answer is to fix the broken system. Weed out the trash before it gets to the surface, properly incentivize reviewers, educate those that are submitting with better in-game tools and a more intuitive process. Forethought and work.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Since I don't have access to the specific rejected POIs you mention, I can't give you specific advice about them.

    Therefore, I can only give you general advice, but in the majority of cases, the content is flawed because you blindly believe that the candidate will be approved.

    Titles and descriptions with unnecessary embellishments, photos that don't tell you which is the POI, supplementary information that doesn't help you, location information that is way off from the POI, etc.

    I've seen a lot of people messing up even candidates that would be approved if they just wrote the right title and description, photos, supplementary information, location information, etc. without any problems.

    But they are so sure that it is 100% correct, and that is where the disagreement with the judges comes in.

    This is especially true for Pokémon GO Trainers who started their nominations from Wayfarer.

    This tendency is not observed in Ingress Agents who have been nominating since before Operation Portal Recon.

    I think this is a result of lack of experience.


    What we need to do is to guide them to " Nomination Improvement" to get specific advice from experienced people.

    I think this is the most efficient way.

  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 419 ✭✭✭✭

    If I was looking for advice on those submissions I would have posted them. You don't have specifics regarding the submissions because I am not looking for advice. Each post I mentioned was not flawed in someway. You assumed that. Incorrectly. You make assumptions based on the fact that my wayfarer tag is PGO and not ING. Too which I could care less. How about I make the assumption that you've spent almost no time in these forums actually looking at issues since you claim to be a long time wayfarer but have a total of 85 posts? I could waste everyone's time and post each of the examples I've cited but I am not going to get into a measuring contest. I've done my homework on my nominations and are happy with them and will submit them again until they get approved. They will get approved and I know this as several of these examples have been on accepted on a second try, with near identical info.

    For the record I don't blindly believe that every nomination will be approved. Which is why I make sure upgrades go to the right type of nomination while others I ensure stay local. What I do expect is that each nomination will be judged fairly and accurately. So when a nomination on a sidewalk for a WWII memorial plaque is rejected for not having pedestrian access I take offense for two things. One that a small minority of reviewers took my nomination and my time and wasted it, and also that Niantic has allowed this and other nominations to be cannon fodder because they cant fix a broken system. But also I am passionate enough about it and enjoy the game within our games to not sit idle by and have the ability to call a spade a spade.

    So spare us with your grand 'advice". Its garbage. Anyone who spends time in the forums knows that its garbage. Good nominations are cast aside on a daily basis, many of which have nothing to do with "flawed" content as you assume. However, they now have to be resubmitted and continue to clog up a system that is already beyond capacity.

    For certain their are nominations that are pure trash, and are rightfully rejected. There are also many nominations that fall victim to fishers, and uneducated reviewers, but also reviewers who are stuck in the past and on previous criteria, Reviewers that claim that things like trail markers are not eligible even though recent AMA's contradict them. Or that a POI needs a clearly defined walking path right up to the anchor point, even if in the middle of a field, or any number of old ingress specific criteria. I would contend that players on Ingress are just as prone to making mistakes as PoGo players. Sadly your comments read more out of ignorance then from a genuine want for the system to improve.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭✭✭

    So, please keep nominating POIs that you think are worthy.

    Your nomination will be reviewed by many people.

    So if you are rejected, it is the right result.

    The system is not broken.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,470 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Reminder: The number of reviewers required isn't fixed but depends on multiple factors, including the ratings of the individual reviewers who look at a submission. "Dozens" is probably the right estimate for the number of reviewers required.

    I agree that many of the submissions that are "incorrectly" rejected often have significant flaws. They aren't clear to the reviewer, they can't be found on the map, the photos are garbage, the supporting information is useless.. It's not enough to submit a good candidate. You need to submit a good candidate AND present it well.

    Try this: How to submit things that get accepted

  • AisforAndis-INGAisforAndis-ING Posts: 1,072 Ambassador

    Correction: The number of reviewers required isn't known to be fixed or variable.

    While it is suspected that there are multiple factors that impact voting turnarounds, such as reviewer rating, wayspot density, how well a wayspot is rated, etc, exact details are not known.

    Niantic also regularly updates their wayfarer algorithms. Even if reviewer ratings ever did directly impact the amount of reviewers required, there is no way to know if they do anymore, and there certainly isnt a way to test it.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,534 Ambassador

    I think if you spent 5 minutes looking at the St Cloud abuse threads you would notice the system is pretty broken.

    Abuse aside, good eligible nominations are falsely rejected and bad ineligible nominations are abusively accepted from time to time.

    I've also rejected candidates that I later saw live "in game" and I've had to travel to so I could report invalid. I certainly would appreciate being able to contest wrongly accepted nominations so I could earn back my agreement.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,534 Ambassador

    Niantic mods have been known to spread misinformation. Considering how tight lipped they are about some things, it wouldn't surprise me if they intentionally say misleading things just to keep people off their tail.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 3,470 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @AisforAndis-ING I'd have to dig it out and it's hard to search a forum like this for an idea but I'm 99% Niantic has actually said somewhere in this forum that the number of reviewers required isn't fixed, and that one of the things it depends on is the rating of each reviewer. I haven't been able to find the specific comment about the approval/rejection process, but this comment from @NianticAaron says exactly that about moves. Perhaps they or one of the other Niantic reps here will confirm that the number of reviewers required to accept/reject a candidate itself is also not fixed.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭✭✭


    The examples you give don't show that Niantic's Wayfarer system is broken, they just show that the ethics of the players in it are broken.

    Instead of bemoaning the brokenness of the system with the rare cases of good nominations being denied (which I believe are also denied because of flaws in the application), the quicker solution would be to have players with such broken ethics disappear from the game.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If you are saying that the system is broken (cannot protect against malicious intent) from that perspective, then I understand.

    I don't think it's broken from the perspective of the purpose of this thread's beginning.


    I do think that the system's protections are being built in, given the large number of penalties that have been issued recently for applications from low quality players. (Though I doubt Niantic will ever disclose the true nature of their actions.

    And I'm told that deliberate repositioning of existing POIs is now also done so that POIs moved to the same cell disappear in Pokémon GO, so eventually multiple POIs in the same cell can be stopped, at least in Pokémon GO, by reloading the POI in that abused city.


    However, that's just on a specific game and not a fundamental solution to POI, so at this point I believe Niantic is encouraging players to work on voluntary improvements (removal or fix).

  • Freakmaster5050-PGOFreakmaster5050-PGO Posts: 60 ✭✭
    edited July 2021

    Wrong. I am not talking specifically about my nominations either, but the whole of a local discord group. Yes, occasionally it is a bad nom but a majority are accurate and not “flawed” as you say.


    I will use a most recent rejection. One that was auto upgraded from the Russia event. A church sign. Rejected for pedestrian access. I’m assuming b/c the sign is in the parking lot. However, parking lots are considered pedestrian accessible. Another example. A trail marker. Rejected as “does not meet criteria”. Last I checked, trail markers were one of the shoe in acceptable waypoints. Very simple submissions so no need to really “sell” the nomination.

  • UllaHelen-PGOUllaHelen-PGO Posts: 82 ✭✭

    Because it costs an upgrade, you should thoroughly check the criteria before submitting the proposal. For example:

    - is it a good photo in which the object is centered?

    - can the object also be seen in the photo of the surroundings?

    - is the title suitable and has proper spelling?

    The description should not be the mere repetition of the title, then you can also omit it.

    And please do not beg around because there are soooo few waystops in the area. That's a killer.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Since I can't see the specifics of the POI, I can't mention them individually, but I will talk about the examples you mentioned in general terms.


    First of all, the church sign, the "sign" of the church you are referring to is undeniably a lower rating than the church structure.

    Especially when the church structure is an existing POI, it will be rejected in many cases. The church structure has value, but the "sign" does not have the same value.

    As for the reason for rejection, without seeing the photos and street view, it's not clear whether it's walkable or not, but if it's in a parking lot, I think it's a tough reason. So it may be appropriate to assume that you made the wrong selection and then sent it.

    I've also mistakenly selected "Body Part" when I should have selected "Other Rejection Criteria" when submitting a rejection.


    Next is trail markers. Recently, many players have taken the liberty of interpreting trail markers as something that is not really a trail marker as the word implies. In my country, there are many cases of people applying for trail markers that are just plates or stickers with distances written on them every 100 meters.

    The original trail markers are located at the junction of a trail or hiking trail and point out the correct path. They are not meant to indicate only the distance on a paved course.

    Therefore, it is thought that this is not a trail marker as it should be.

    For further details, please see "Nomination Improvement" to improve the recommendation.

    I wish you good luck in getting your POI approved.

  • Freakmaster5050-PGOFreakmaster5050-PGO Posts: 60 ✭✭

    They are literally trail markers. Name clearly visible.


    as for the church sign…..it is eligible as long as it is a good distance from the church building. Which it is. This has already been debated. I don’t know what you mean when you say I may have made the wrong selection and then sent it. I am not new to doing reviews, I am well aware of the criteria. Both of these examples fall within the criteria parameters and should not have been rejected.


    I think most people reviewing are going about it in the wrong way. It seems people start by going in thinking it will be a rejection and then the nomination has to prove as to why it shouldn’t be rejected. That’s the wrong way to go about it. One should go in assuming it’s passable, then the nomination will show if it’s otherwise not acceptable.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I thought I mentioned up front that I was only speaking in generalities because there are no photos, descriptions, or street views in what you submitted?


    Even if it is a real trail marker or a worthy church sign, you may have ruined it with your photos, descriptions, and location information. In fact, we've all seen many such examples since Wayfarer was launched.

    A good POI should be approved, but when it is a low quality photo, wrong title or description, or location information, I say no.

    Even a good POI will be rejected if any of the photos, titles, descriptions, or location information are not correct.

    The only thing the judges can correct is the location information.

    The only thing the reviewers can correct is the location, but only if there is a clearly visible street view.

    We all need to make good recommendations.

    If we ignore that, we cannot say that the judges are wrong.

Sign In or Register to comment.