False reasons for refusal

[DTrain2002]

Hello and welcome,

So the rejection reason is that something is not permanent and district, and this has been confusing. Most likely it’s being rejected for being indistinct, as it should be asking if it’s permanent and/or distinct.

The recent AMA from staff did note that this is being worked on, to improve the wording of some of the rejection reasons, as well as a better way to reject nominations that do not meet criteria.

@NianticTintino

How to record a “Does Not Meet Criteria” vote in review?

Glad you asked, and I’m happy to share that we are exploring a more explicit way for Wayfarer reviewers to specify approval and rejection decisions on Wayspots. We’re working with our Ambassadors to ensure the question is appropriately phrased, tested, and then we’ll be adding it to our existing review flow. More to come in the following weeks as we near a more final solution.

Can we split rejection reason “The submission is likely not permanent or distinct”?

The Ambassadors and the Wayfarer Team sought to clarify this after the new reviewing system was implemented. As you can see, the question “Permanent and Distinct” isn’t the only one that has several components to it. Most of the other questions also take multiple aspects into account. Asking specifically about each one of those components would result in the reviewing page having upwards of 14 different questions to give a thumbs up, thumbs down, or “I don’t know” response.

While exploring deeper into the reason for this question, in conjunction with the Ambassadors, we came to the conclusion that many times, a thumbs down response is given to this question as a way to reject the nomination even if it is permanent or distinct, leading to unclear feedback for the nominator. As shared above, we plan to make the rejection of a nomination much clearer by reintroducing a rejection question after selecting a Thumb Down for the last 3 questions of your review. We hope that reintroducing a clear rejection question will alleviate some of the issues with coupling components in our existing questions.

As for POIs located on or near sidewalks, they may not be on public property, depending on the boundaries of the area. It could also be in an area that is unsafe for pedestrians to access, so some examples would need to be provided for this rejection reason.

You are also welcome to use any language you feel comfortable with here in the forums, as there is a translator; English isn’t required, just the most used.