Thats what i always thought, too.
It would be very strange to be asked three questions that don’t matter. At that point, why complicate things? Just ask 4 questions.
Ok, just an example here. Reviewer 1 downvoted on Safe, reviewer 2 downvoted on Accuracy for inaccurate title, reviewer 3 downvoted on Appropriate for Generic Business, reviewer 4 downvoted on Permanent/Distinct. All 4 are different, but all are downvotes, hence “Various.”
That’s what I kind of thought it was, more than 2 rejection reasons, which is typically the most received. If there are 3 or more, it’ll most likely be “Various.”
Downvotes on Social/Exercise/Explore don’t guarantee a rejection, so I think it’s on the first 4 questions.
Even when i dont understand, i appreciate you answering. I think it is the word “categories” confusing me.
“Curious,” isn’t it? Almost like after mass imports and apathy to removing generic businesses & fire stations… Shoot I can’t think of the test. Oh, Freudian slip, there, but I’m leaving it.
@NianticAaron would you not agree that “Various Rejection Criteria” is no help whatsoever to the submitter? Between this and the “Wayfarer Criteria” rejection reason, you are effectively removing all feedback that could be given to the submitter. And if you are telling the truth, and this actually means that these nominations were downvoted in all 7 categories, what does that say about the quality of reviewers? Does this mean that a reviewer looked at my church nomination and said that it was an inappropriate location, an unsafe location, had inaccurate details, was temporary/not distinct, and was not a good place to explore, socialize, or exercise?
Furthermore, this doesn’t explain how my nomination was rejected by “The Community” within 25 hours of myself submitting it. I did not use “Upload Later.” This is highly unusual behavior.
1 Like
1 Like
Why do you think it’s not possible?
may be but is definitely possible.
2 Likes
Do you consider that effective reviewing or abusive behavior?
If the latter, can those account(s) be reviewed and can good faith appeals be processed for some of these examples?
It very much seems to me that “various rejection criteria” is a red flag for poor reviewing in almost all cases.
And its ubiquity would point to a systematic issue/failure with the whole process.
Obviously some nominations are omni-garbage. But for so many, fairly standard nominations, to be rated as unsafe, inappropriate, non-distinct, temporary places which arent good for socialising, exercise or exploration submitted with poor photos and titles stretches plausibility.
Nominations which are genuinely like that should be absolutely obvious to any experienced reviewer. There should be no question or doubt in any of our minds for something legitimately rejected on EVERY grounds by at least one reviewer.
The fact there are so many examples where no one can seem to pin down even ONE obvious rejection reason shows the standard of reviewing must be abysmal. Or the system must be throwing errors.
Its preposterous that this could be occuring so much.
3 Likes
Going back through my rejections I had this one for various rejection criteria. Its not a slam dunk by any means, but to find out at least one reviewer thought the grounds of an outdoor museum (marked on google maps) is inaccessible to pedestrians, an inappropriate location, is either not distinct or temporary has a photo/title/description that fits rejection criteria AND isn’t likely to be worth exploration, despite being (as per supporting) the first part of an actual mueseum is nuts.
2 Likes
It isn’t possible that one reviewer did that!
If you answer question 1 with no, the review is finished 
Niantic’s claim is that at least one reviewer rejected under each category, NOT that a single reviewer rejected it for all reasons (which would be impossible).
It seemed that in the bad old days some nominations remained stuck in voting for a very long time. This may have been due to Niantic recycling the nomination until a single consensus emerged: keep asking for more votes until one acceptance or rejection category has a preponderance of all votes cast.
Perhaps the new system has an additional bail-out possibility if every rejection reason has at least one vote.
You would not expect any reasonable reviewer to call a museum in an historic mine indistinct or temporary or sensitive or not worthy of exploration or unsafe for foot-traffic, though.
When a reviewer selects a high-level bail-out like ‘cannot confirm it exists at the given location’ does the system auto-complete the form to reject unanswered questions?
Keep in mind that Niantic doesn’t disclose how many reviews need to be done for a submission to be resolved, but I doubt that 1 rejection or even 1 approval is needed by the community for resolution. It would be unfair to reviewers looking for agreements for the medals, or for those looking to raise their rating.
One theory could be that there were just a large number of local reviewers on at the time, and the local queue was low, so these examples were processed quickly. This could make the 25 hr turnaround possible.
Some local queues may have many reviewers and many submissions, but some, like mine, may have few reviewers with few local submissions. So, if an area has many reviewers but not many local submissions, they could get processed quickly.
Exactly my point!
I can’t comment on Various rejection criteria, but unusually quick resolutions is what we have observed in our community lately. We have seen an unusually quick turnover rate and nominations getting resolved in as little as 2 minutes by the “community” where they were previously in queue for weeks. The only possible explanation is that there are voters in the system who can decide nominations just by themselves, or a bug to the same effect.
1 Like