Regarding the drastic increase in the number of accounts suspension

Whether the rejection is by a machine-learning Emily or by a human on the team, you should receive the same email.
Those who have received suspensions seem to think that their edits or applications were rejected by Emily and that the automatic detection resulted in a ban, but this should not be the case.
I believe that reports are made to the team by the general reviewers, the team reviews and rejects them, and then makes a decision on the suspension after reviewing the reported violations. However, because they keep getting emails with the same content, I think that the people receiving the action are misinterpreting Emily’s flagging of the ban as a flag to take action.

Okay, Aaron.
I understand what you would say in your position.
Of course the macro approach to abuse in the Wayfarer team would be that.
But this issue is not a macro issue, it is a micro issue. And it would be an operational issue.
It is that there are likely to be uninformed team staff members who trust the abuse reports submitted by Emily and identify them as abusive.
If you have definitive evidence of mashimashi’s abuse, you might want to DM mashimashi and explain it to him.
Actually, it might be something else, because it might not be the edit of the location of the wayspot on the road that he is thinking of.
You could write a suggestive sentence while blurring the core point.
Also, if such location editing within 5 m constitutes abuse of wayspot, you should announce so.

Also, people are questioning Emily’s reviews, especially the edit reviews. That is from their own experiences.
The large number of denied reviews that occurred around March 1, as well as many others, have occurred. Let me give you one example.
I reported an edit of a title on April 10.
That is because I found the correct title of an object I had previously nominated and approved. (The correct title name was not known at that time)

Existing title, “白滝ゲートボール公園のオブジェ”
Proposed title “大地”

However, the report I submitted on April 10 at 16:02 (UTC+9) was rejected and I received a reply on April 10 at 16:02 (UTC+9).
It was denied in a few dozen seconds. LOL!

There have been many other cases like this where a report of editing the title or description was immediately rejected.
Of course this kind of thing is not a wayfinder review but a machine learning model review.

Aaron, if I repeat this report, is it abuse against Wayfarer?

Aaron, of course you would answer that this is not abuse and is reviewed correctly by wayfinder. (Even I would answer that)
But Emily, who denied it in a few dozen seconds, will report this editorial report to you as abuse for improperly changing the correct title.
And when Emily reports it as abuse, you will say, “Emily, you are not right about this. This is an edit report to correct the title.
And you would make sure that Emily learns not to make such a denial.
But here, instead of admonishing Emily and saying, “Thanks for the report, now the abuser is BANNED!” and push the send button on the e-mail.

Let them relearn what is going on in Emily’s brain.
And the perceptions of the team staff should also be relearned.
Perhaps you and your Wayfarer team are not meeting often enough.


Thank you for your interest in this thread.

Mystogan5097-san, when was that? Also, did you apply for the same wayspot more than 3 times and were denied?

CrownFeather-san, there have been a series of cases where the notification arrives within a few dozen seconds after the application is submitted, but no one would think that this one is being reviewed by a human. Therefore, there were many cases where applicants thought they had done something wrong and reapplied 3 or more times in a row, leading to account suspension.
Of course, even if the Abuse flag exists, I think Aaron is right that people are investigating afterwards. However, I still have a sliver of doubt as to how complete that investigation is.
In fact, there have been cases where, after interviewing Japanese ambassadors, it was determined that there was value in the allegation, but the person in question was unable to soar in disappointment, and the account was naively suspended.


Discussion has already run its course…


so people are getting banned because of their connection with 3rd party apps/ using them? or does it have to do with them attempting to “abuse” NIA’s system?

Thank you! And to those that have come here to say they are going to “test the system,” good luck with that…


Oh, no,
You don’t have to sacrifice yourself. But I would like to express my sincere thanks to you for your stance of trying to verify it.

1 Like

Here is another case among many.
A user attempted to apply for a location edit in the PokemonGO application.
However, because it was more than 10 meters away, the operation did not work, resulting in three failed attempts.
After that, people told me that I should apply for it in the help chat, and I was able to successfully move the wayspot to the correct location.
However, a few months later, I was told that my three previous failed position edits had been deemed “illegal” and my account was suspended. Even though the position I had moved myself in the help chat was correct!
Is this malicious position editing? Is even a mistake by an inexperienced user unacceptable?
Naturally, this person filed a complaint, but it was not accepted.
This is a sad case that could have been prevented if only there was a function to withdraw location edits. Did the thorough investigation really investigate this user’s “wrongdoing”?
This case is well known in Japan and is enough to make people hesitate to edit their location using the application.


We had reviewed this case again after @AgentMAenlight had brought it up. This information turned out to be incorrect as well.

Thank you for your response, Aaron-san.
I see…
I will refrain from mentioning this case, as I do not know any further details, such as detailed latitude and longitude information down to the last 6 digits.
However, I would like to reiterate that many users are afraid to edit their location because of the lack of public information.


Today, I received an interesting email from Wayfarer Team, which we would like to share with the public.

This is an edited version of the title and description of a monument erected to commemorate the centennial of the settlement of an area.
The description of this wayspot was blank, so I edited it based on the inscription.
I submitted this on May 6, 2024 at 22:40 (UTC+9) and it was rejected by “our team” 37 minutes later at 23:17.
It does not state that the “community” denied it.
Note that I do not believe I have provided a 100 point description, but I believe I have submitted an explanation of about 80 points.
And the score would be much better than a blank explanation.
I didn’t write anything completely irrelevant.
But “our (Niantic) team” disavowed it.
Did a human really do the editorial review?

So, out of curiosity, we appealed to you guys about this on May 18, 2024 at 7:45 (UTC+9).
We thought that if the team staff really checked the content for our appeal, it would normally be approved at this level.
Then, on May 21, 2024 at 12:34 (UTC+9), I received a response saying that Niantic had denied the appeal.
I don’t expect them to reply right away, but it’s a very quick reply, even though appeals were sent from all over the world and there was a Saturday and Sunday.
And it was already Monday night in San Francisco.
Well, maybe the staff went out of their way to work overtime, but I’d like to know what you guys did wrong in this description to disavow it.
Because I don’t think you just followed Emily’s judgment and clicked on it.

The personal name of a century-old pioneer? is personal information?
Or did you decide that an iconic sentence describing the history of the area constitutes copying?
And if I repeatedly send you descriptions like this one, which Niantic has denied even on appeal, will you ban my account?
By the way, here is how it translates using DeepL.
Read it carefully.
And recognize that the results in this regard are different from the results you and your Wayfarer team have in mind.
Note that I am not going to dislike Emily’s review if the machine learning works properly and if, as you guys say, the accounts that were banned have evidence of the correct reason for the abuse.

A monument erected by the entire Nakashokotsu Neighborhood Association on September 14, 1997, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the opening of the Nakashokotsu area.
According to the inscription, “The Nakashokotsu area is located downstream of the Shokotsugawa River, which flows into the Sea of Okhotsk from its source at Mt. In 1897, Shokotsu Field was selected as a colony, and applications were being accepted for loans after the land was allocated.
In March of the same year, a group from Kochi Prefecture, led by Mr. Kan’ai Miyazaki, entered the flat land stretching from the 12th to 24th lines with permission to apply for land.

By the way, it is an inscription.
What would you consider the correct way to write the description? If you are so inclined, please show us.
It is the duty of the Wayfarer team.

1 Like

that’s for Wayspot Appeals…

However, everything is to be interlocked.

As almost everyone here now knows, Wayfarer review does a fair amount of machine learning (ML) review.
I have no objection to expanding the use of ML, as long as the Wayfarer team gets it right and manages it properly.
ML and AI can improve the speed of people operations and provide collective knowledge to people.
We should make great use of them.
However, it is not the role of ML or AI to verify whether the answers given by ML or AI are appropriate or not.
That is done by humans.
It is not to send an email to Wayfinder notifying them of a BAN with blind faith or no confirmation of the ML or AI’s response.

So, I ask this question with specific examples.

1 Like

We want to clarify that all suspensions and warnings are issued only after a thorough human review. Machine Learning (ML) plays no role in these decisions. Thank you for your understanding.


There are certain words that are flagged and typically result in an ML rejection, your original description edit was likely rejected for this reason.

Did you copy your description edit directly from the inscription on the plaque? If so that’s likely the reason Niantic rejected your appeal. You are meant to paraphrase the inscription, to give a general idea of what it’s conveying. Copying it word for word, even in part, could be considered plagiarism. If you didn’t, I don’t know.