I’m sorry. I’m old, and I’m looking after my dad who’s moving from hospital to elder-care rehabilitation, today.
Maybe when things are settled I can try some searches and see what I can do…
3 Likes
i am old, too! i think you know that i keep notes on things i want to refer back to. if an ML rejection was overturned here, i want to make a note of it for future reference. this wasn’t a challenge.
take care of your dad! i miss mine so much. mom, too.
4 Likes
Two of my examples, the statues and the nature signs were discussed in the previous forums and the decisions were reverted by Niantic employees. We were asked to provide feedback on the forums about the ML process.
I can’t link to those discussions because they’re obviously gone. @eneeoh you’re not imagining things. We were asked to share examples of ML failing. Those cases were reviewed and reverted, in many cases. (Hope Dad gets well soon!!!)
I’d also like to show the dates on the contributios, but can’t. They’ve managed to wipe my contributions since 2022.
1 Like
I did say on this forum. Hope you get your contributions back. So frustrating.
Whoops forgot this was the topic you asked me not to comment on. Will mute it.
Found one: https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/47674/legitimate-wayspots-marked-as-duplicates-by-niantics-appalling-ai#latest (old forums)
The Wayback Machine has a copy of the discussion here: Legitimate wayspots marked as duplicates by Niantic's appalling AI — Wayfarer
Funny.
I don’t understand why you don’t think an appeal is a fair use in this scenario, I mean its the very definition of the word appeal. You essentially want to appeal the decision without following proper procedure and without consuming your available quota. Appeals were implemented to overturn incorrect review decisions, whether its by the community, internal reviewers or ML.
1 Like
Submitters were asked to provide feedback on how the ML was working. I have done it in the past, provided proof of that. They have recognised the issues and sorted them.
Using an appeal, the rarest resouce available to submitters, against a poorly design service in production seems extremely unfair. I get it using an appeal because of human error, due the criteria subjectivity. My faith in the appeal team is low, see the past examples.
What I don’t get is why they don’t acknowledge it was a bad call, take that in, improve the system and revert the decision, as they done it in the past. Simple.
Edit: It’s just bad customer service.
Nearly 2 years ago, when ML was new and when there was mass examples of ML reviewing wrong, not for single case examples where you have been given feedback on howbto improve your nomination.
You win by exhaustion.
A failure of a flawed service in production can only be contested by using an appeal, even if my past experiences with appeals have been sub-par.
Now have this in mind the next time you buy something or subscribe a service.
@s3w2 would you like this conversation to continue in the direction of how ML rejections should be handled or do you think it’s gone off topic for your original intent?
Your request for the manual appeal was denied and you’ve been told by staff of your suggested course of action. Like it or not, I don’t see them changing their decision and I don’t think you think they will, either.
I’d love to be part of the conversation on handling ML rejections if you wanted it to go that way or create a different thread. Personally, I don’t think this is the right thread to continue this discussion.
If you’d like to continue, by all means. If you’re ready to close this thread, please let us know. I worry that much more “lively discussion” will bring staff to close it out.
So, I submitted an appeal, as the Niantic employee and ambassadors recommended. Surprise, it was rejected. For the Appeals team, this is a normal fountain. No issues with the photos.
Thanks for the appeal, Explorer! The nomination in question does not meet the Wayfarer criteria as it is a normal fountain. If this assessment is not accurate, please resubmit the nomination with additional context. We recommend you review the Wayspot Criteria and Forum Criteria Discussions Library sections before submitting your next Wayspot contribution: Wayfarer — Niantic Technical Support and Help Center and Forum Criteria Discussions Library — Wayfarer Help Center
Reviewers provided these top reasons for not accepting this submission:
The submission lacks uniqueness or historical and cultural meaning
I’m guessing the submission and the appeal weren’t enough to convince the Appeals team that this lake, fountain, and sculptural elements from the 18th century, in the gardens of a Portuguese palace, protected as a national monument, are not worthy. After all, what we see below, for this team is just a normal fountain.
As unfortunately predicted above, the Appeals team is showing consistency by making, what I think, another wrong decision, as they have in the past:
Seems the Appeals team missed the memo on the Water Fountains clarification.
Yet another great experience.
1 Like
IMO: This fountain is not eligible as it is unsafe to reach it (you would have to walk in the pond).
The fountain in the clarification is one where the fountain / “pond” / Surrounding wall would all be classed as part of the same structure.
Therefore you could reach the waypoint by safely sitting on the surrounding wall, something that can’t be said in this case.
Oh wow. That is quite… I don’t even know… So, in your view, even something like this
That can be seen as the PERFECT example for an interesting wayfarer contribution, at the Water Fountains clarification, should be considered unsafe because you can’t touch the fountain?
I guess you don’t consider the fountain walls as part of it.
This example is perfect agreement to what I stated.
The Fountain / “Water Storage” / Wall are all part of the same structure. You can safely reach the waypoint by going as far as the wall.
The previous one, you are nominating the fountain which is in the middle of a pond so is not safe. If they removed the fountain you would still have a decoritive pond.
As stated, Yes I do. The previous example does not have a wall, just a surrounding of stones.
A wall, right?
This is absurd.
Not absurd at all. One line of stones does not make a wall. Stating it does is absurd.
1 Like
If you removed the “line of stones” the pond would still be there. Move the wall then you just have a flood. Another reason to state that the last example / clarification example are all one feature.
What you have is a separate fountain, pond and rockery.