Hi all!
In the process of evaluating nominations in my country, only about 10% do not comply with the rejection rules. I receive nominations from all over the country within a radius of 1000+ km. There is a high probability that I will never see the result of whether the nomination was accepted or not. Thus, I have to write out these nominations directly during the evaluation. So, in order to get a bad nomination rejected, I need to spend about 15 minutes: write out the name, find the coordinates on Google maps, conduct an investigation to prove, based on the sum of complex factors, that a statue of Venus of Melos cannot stand in the garden of a private house. While creating such a nomination takes no more than 5 minutes. I clearly see that most of the Wayfarer community in my country do not pay attention to the inconsistencies in the photos and GPS. In addition, there are many poorly educated teenagers (maybe even adults) among them who accept nominations with a large number of spelling mistakes. Often, nominations contain inappropriate references to in-game elements, which makes them more attractive to those Wayfinders who are players of the corresponding game. I often find that my deviations are not perceived due to the large number of Wayfinders who think that the more the better.
What to do in this case?
You review based on criteria and clarifications. If waypoints meet removal criteria, you can report them for removal. If titles or descriptions of existing waypoints need adjusting, you can submit edits to improve or correct them, same applies to locations.
1 Like
Warm greetings @DenialN1
You can respond to each nomination by giving it thumbs up or down. Accepting or not accepting.
If you think the nominator has deliberately attempted to mislead then you can choose the abuse reason, thumbs down and close that review.
I try to keep in mind that submitters can be doing it for the first time. Maybe submitting via an in game screen like from Pokémon Go. That game gives the impression you are nominating a poke stop. Little instructions and virtually no advice re eligibility etc. I like to think that most are making “ honest” mistakes.
Of course, there is some abuse but hopefully at a minimum. The ML is meant to get rid of the blatantly wrong.
Spelling can be corrected via edits later.
Like you I get reviews from places I am very unlikely to visit. I am sure you are doing your best. The system does rate you via an unknown formula that compares your % of agreements with everyone else. So you can be poor, good, great etc depending on how often your judgement agreed with the final decision. We don’t get to know on a review by review basis.
If I am unsure or the information given is poor then I skip.
Best best with your game !!
I already said that my vote during the evaluation does not carry weight with the opinion of the majority. Many players just want more in-game resource sources. They don’t care about the quality of these POIs. Editing and deleting are not possible because, as I already said, POIs is often 1000+ km away from me. I want to help the quality of the nominations, but a full report on each such nomination takes too much time.
I don’t see it as my job to check nominations that I have rated later. (You could check after a few weeks whether the wayspots appear as a portal at the Intel in Ingress.)
However, if I review a submission that clearly presents a problem, or the same photo appears 20 times in the duplicates bar, then I report it. Either via the Help Chat in Wayfarer or the Abuse Form, which is linked here at the top of the forum.
1 Like
For this purpose, the tasks of accounting and monitoring will be added to the task of reporting. That is, I will have to record everything that I then defined as a violation of the rules, coordinate data and etc. And then periodically check whether this POI has appeared. In addition, the time for approval/rejection of POI varies greatly from several days to months. The removal process will become much more difficult.
Some wayfinders do keep close records of their reviewing.
If you search for the wayfarer tools website there are add ons that will help you if you wish to use them to keep record your review history.
I do think it’s useful for wayfinders to reflect on their assessment of wayspots. Part of that should be looking at patterns.
If you analyse and reflect it is I portant to be open to all outcomes. So as well as looking for confirmation of your views you should be open to the question of “I might be wrong”. If you are not prepared to consider that then the analysis phase loses its value.
It is tricky when you are in the setting of crowd sourced results.
You need to go back to the basic guidelines and see if you are being true to the fundamentals exercise, explore, socialise. The expansion of these in the help pages, the review information buttons and criteria clarifications.
There is scope for some interpretation but you shouldn’t be trying to find ways to interpret because you have decided you don’t like something. As wayfinders we have to set those personal bias to one side when we review.
If you feel strongly that it’s something you dislike so much but can see it’s supposed to receive positive reviews you can skip.
3 Likes
At the bottom right of the Wayfarer map, you see the word “Google”. Click that and the map will open in another tab. Also, if anything is labeled (on the Wayfarer map or on the Google map), you can click and it will open that actual place, with whatever info Google has about it - which often includes its website.
Also, you can click the Wayspot title for a Google search of those words. Not helpful if the nominator gave it a generic title like “Pavilion”. But helpful if they gave the actual name of a business, mosque, etc.
I’ve started to record obvious fake nominations - it’s shocking how many get accepted.