Let's help the ML (part 1 rejection reasons)

General Discussion
1

Hi

I read a lot of statements about frustrating rejection reasons in receiving decision emails.
Like:

F.e.

So I get the idea to help the ML to do it better. I think of a community collection of good rejection reasons to be added, or existing readjust a bit.

As we all know, the emails are even automated. So rejection reasons have to be so exact, that they can be used for automate created emails, but be informative enough, that the submitter have a chance to understand.

  1. What reason would you add?
  2. What reason would you readjust?
  3. What reason would you delete?
2
  1. Object is massproduct
3

Emily is fine.

It’s the humans that are concerning me :robot:

2 Likes
4

I know, I know and beautiful aswell.
He/she/it can hear us :shushing_face:

5

I personally don’t like this reason because it does not always apply. Some things that are mass produced still provide a good place to exercise.

2 Likes
6

Same here. I would suggest almost everything we nominate is mass produced. It’s just the way you look at. Buildings. Bricks and mortar. Mass produced lol.

1 Like
7

You’re right to bring the BUT, but in your story the nomination is perhaps not in question to reject.
I’m looking in this first step to take the point of the muchest pain in nomination decisions: get a rejection (sad) and don’t understand the reason (sad x2).

8
  1. Supporting photo doesn’t show the POI (location/safety access unclear)
1 Like
9

From the ML rejected nominations we have discussed in the Wayfarer Discussion Discord, it appears to me that the majority of them are based on the main photo. Although we now have “Wayfarer Criteria” showing up, which is helpful, it would be nice to have “Photo did not have identifiable anchor” or “Photo did not clearly show eligible poi” or something like that to confirm it was the photo and to help us with resubmitting. Even “Low Quality Photo” if they want to keep existing rejection reasons.

5 Likes
10

From the ML rejected nominations we have discussed in the Wayfarer Discussion Discord, it appears to me that the majority of them are based on the main photo. Although we now have “Wayfarer Criteria” showing up, which is helpful, it would be nice to have “Photo did not have identifiable anchor” or “Photo did not clearly show eligible poi” or something like that to confirm it was the photo and to help us with resubmitting. Even “Low Quality Photo” if they want to keep existing rejection reasons.

Huh… That’s an interesting thought… I wonder if my mural rejected without reason, then more recently updated to “Wayfarer Criteria” was mistaken for actual landscape with a sign in it (a sign alone likely meeting no criteria) :thinking::exploding_head:

Screenshot_20240411-004059
Screenshot_20240411-0040591080Ă—1802 101 KB

The only question I would have with that would be why it was shown to be in Niantic voting before being rejected, as though actual humans at Niantic were reviewing it :thinking::woman_shrugging:

11

hmm… an overworked actual human could have gone too fast and thought that you were submitting an ineligible sign, or could have been rubber stamping the ML model decision you suggested. if you try again with a different angle that shows more clearly this is art on a wall, let us know how it goes!

1 Like
12

I’ve had other feedback previously that I’ll apply if I reaubmit, all of which would have been moot if the community had actually reviewed it, though :roll_eyes:
I haven’t had a chance to get back down there, but if I do resubmit I’ll let you know the result. I’ve had other priorities lately, though, so I suspect I’ll have a shot at appeal much sooner than I can get back over there TBH :woman_shrugging:

1 Like