Just wondering about whether this is something the community feels is helpful: It seems like it would be beneficial to require a person that rejects a nomination to write a brief (few words/sentences) description of why it was rejected. This would help SO much more than just a generic “wayfarer criteria” or “photo.” Something like, “Can’t verify safe access. Please consider including a photo that shows pedestrians can safely reach the waypoint,” or, “Doesn’t seem to be distinct/significant, please include more information about the history/purpose/significance of the location.” I feel like the dropdown rejection system is so incredibly vague. I feel like this process would also likely cut down on the workload of Niantic staff in reviewing appeals. Thoughts?
We’ve talked about it many times. Just take a look at how quickly discussions break down in this forum. You’d end up with Ingress players saying “Nope, that’s ENL/RES territory, no new portals.” Or others would write far meaner variations of, “Learn how to spell you dummy.” The risk of allowing someone to insult the submitter is too high.
Welcome and good day!
While certainly helpful when used as intended, a write-up where someone can comment anonymously might have a large con of being used maliciously as said above. Managing that would be additional moderation work.
The forum and other Wayfarer spaces can support discussions and feedback.
Thank you both for the prompt/quick reply. It’s sad that humans can’t consistently be more supportive/helpful. Would be so helpful to hear specific reasons about why reviewers rejected a nomination. Thanks again!
I typically know why they think my nomination is rejected, but then when it just randomly says generic business or temporary/seasonal or not distinct, when it’s not even a business or temporary, and is distinct, then I’d like to know why. And also, sometimes it just says “other rejection criteria”, or “various rejection criteria”, and doesn’t even tell us why.
The current system is easily quantifiable because it just requires people to select from a predetermined list of rejection reasons - that way, the system can just just collect (usually) the 2 most selected rejection reasons and display them to the submitter.
With this, however, it would require more qualitative analysis, since people can write literally anything now. It’s very likely people will write the same thing in lots of different ways (“did not meet criteria”, “does not meet criteria”, “this is ineligible” - these pretty much mean the same thing) so you cannot collect the most common reasons based on a simple algorithm alone. Plus, as others have mentioned, it can also allow people to post bad comments.
The only relatively feasible way to summarise them that I can think of would be to feed all the comments to an AI and have it generate a summary to be provided to the submitter…? But that doesn’t sound like it’s worth the effort. The other option is to show the submitter some (or all) of the comments left, but then there’s always a chance that irrelevant or unkind comments could be picked to be shown instead. And if you showed all of the comments, it’d reveal how many people voted on a nomination (which is something nobody knows yet).
There used to be a field where you could leave comments on a review you made with the old star rating system, but I don’t think anyone knows whether they had any impact on anything. It was supposedly for Niantic’s benefit if they wanted to investigate a nomination or someone’s reviewing pattern, but we don’t know if they took those into account when that happened.
Oh ok, well it’s good that the comments we wrote weren’t for nothing.
Seeing as you can’t add comments anymore unless you IDK or reject under accuracy I doubt there’s much for them to use anymore