No, you can’t. You can suggest a new pin placement on a nomination, but for Location Edit reviews, you have to pick between the dots presented.
2 Likes
Doing both is not that bad, here is a post about it:
Don’t know where this falls, but maybe #nomination flow.
So, the online form to request Wayspot removal/modification asks for a good deal of things that I somewhat see as unneeded, or at least unrequired. You’re asked to provide a full street address, city, zip, and country, when the lat/long would give all of this info and most likely would be more accurate. I say may lat/long required instead of the full street address.
Also, there’s no option for choosing that the location no longer exists, such as in the case of something being torn down and being inaccessible due to cleanup and/or construction work happening, so it’s fenced off. This should be included in the drop down list, or just get rid of the drop down list altogether. We have to explain why we are requesting what we’re requesting, so the drop down isn’t really needed.
I think if the removal/mod form was more like the reporting abuse forum, that may be a little easier to use, and not take up so much time to fill out. Just wanted to add as the abuse form as well as help chat ask for less info than the removal/mod form, and sometimes people are turned away from using certain forms when they see all the info they have to provide.
2 Likes
#reviewflow
when reporting a nomination be able to explain why you are reporting it. I get that some might be self-explanatory but the options to leave a message why you report a nomination might be helpful.
#reviewflow
do not allow identical photos (same dimensions,file size, filename, etc) be used for both the nomination and supporting
1 Like
like the idea in principle but those that would use same image can just make a slight crop.
At least it would give then 1 bit extra they need to do but don’t think it would stop the problem.
We already have the option to report nomination for abuse and provide a note using the Report button at the top right. You can also leave a note when rejecting for Accuracy. However, these should only be used in cases where there is clear abuse occurring or the rejection for Accuracy may need some explanation (example could be when one finds the nomination has a 3rd party photo and you want to provide the website it came from).
I don’t think we need to explain why we are rejecting nominations every time, as this will create more work for staff, as they do review these. As long as you follow the guidelines and criteria and feel that a nomination should be rejected and do so, that should be good enough. It’s up to us as reviewers to make the best judgment when reviewing.
#reviewflow
When reviewing a “Description Edit” being able to copy the text so can do google search for obvious website text “lifting”.
I don’t see anywhere to leave any comments about the report. Nothing I said had to do with rejecting nominations. With the text above the submit button can seem intimidating to people who use the report feature because if they feel that something should be reported, they also want to make sure that the reason they are reporting is understood. I don’t think reviewers should feel threatened by using the report feature because some nuance is lost on by a wayfarer employee who is trying to understand why something is reported and ends up penalizing the reviewer who initiated the report. Maybe it’s not that big of a deal, maybe I am just overcautiously because of the random stories of bans or whatever. I don’t report very often but when I do sometimes I have wished for a way to elaborate a bit.
We also have the Reporting Abuse link at the top of the forums, which does allow for more info to be provided.
Again, I don’t think it’s the best idea to allow for explanations of why one is rejecting or reporting via review. If it’s a larger issue that may warrant staff to have more info, you can use the Reporting Abuse link and provide that info.
We used to have a comment box, and it made me feel much better when I could explain my review. I would love to be able to leave a comment.
2 Likes
My view is that there should always be a comments box available to explain ( if you wish) what it is that you have found and perhaps provide a link if there is evidence.
As far as I’m concerned there is very often no appropriate box to tick - I very rarely see offensive ones.
I would prefer if it was simply a refer this nomination for Wayfarer Team Review and provide a reason why. This could include citing what I have seen in the duplicate check for example. The team can then investigate and decide.
2 Likes
The only problem is this would put more work on staff, and they may even have to look at hiring more people. You do have to keep the business side of things in consideration with a suggestion like this, and on the business side, it doesn’t make sense, so I don’t see it happening any time soon.
It shouldn’t result in a substantial increase as all I am suggesting is taking away some tick boxes - instead of trying to fit it into a category that may not make sense. With the text provided it might be clearer what the issue is. Who knows how much effort is needed unpicking referrals that are not clear.
There is no harm in suggesting ideas which is all this topic is about. 
My gut response is that with a narrative of why the reviewer reported a wayspot (or an edit, or whatever is reported), it will be quicker for staff to scan the report and decide whether it needs looking into.
Currently, all they get is “this wayspot has something wrong with it”, which is a lot harder to evaluate than “this wayspot is in the middle of the motorway”.
So this should reduce work, not increase it.
Then why did they get rid of it? We used to have it with the old star rating system, but when it was switched to the up/down vote system, it was removed.
As someone that used to work for a large business and had to do quarterly projects that helped to look at ways the company could save money, it most likely would cost more and create more work, create more hiring, which leads to more employees having to be paid.
Keep in mind that we pay nothing to use Wayfarer as it’s free. When something is offered for free to people, businesses need to look at ways to make up any money that they may possibly lose from offering something for free. Adding on extra work for staff and possibly more staff isn’t cost effective for a free product.
It’s arguable whether we are getting wayfarer for free or Scopely are getting our work for free 
Maybe it’s one of those things that seems, to people who know what they are doing, to be helpful, but in practice it didn’t, because muppets ruined it by abusing the facility. Tragedy of the commons and all that.
Or maybe they just got rid of it for no particular reason. Niantic have never blessed up with appearing to make rational decisions.
This is what I think happened. Many of us asked for it back immediately.
I do feel that there were many using it for no reason other than to explain their rejection, but no explanation was ever needed, or, it was being spammed and abused. It also could be that it just wasn’t being used very much, and I feel that most reviewers, once they get used to reviewing, don’t have a need to provide a comment. If only 1% of reviews had valid comments, well, it’s not really something to keep around, for example.
I don’t think it would have been removed for no reason whatsoever, as there is always a reason, but we may not get told as to what the reason is, due to it being a business decision.
i certainly agree we’ll never get told.
There’s a difference between the narrative box on wayspot reviews, which some people used but I imagine many didn’t (I never wrote an explanation for rejecting, because I assumed it would never get read), and a narrative box when Reporting a wayspot (submission or edit).
I can conceive of why the former was removed, but the latter feels very much needed.