This is a closed corporate campus, so I can’t just go take a new photo myself. Besides, abusers should not get the reward of a new pokestop when using a third party photo.
Is there something else I need to do when reviewing besides just checking all these boxes to keep these from going live for abusers? I checked all these boxes and filled in the Google Lens search result in the check box:
Third party photo, Other abuse-related reasons, CRITERIA
That’s a lot better than keeping the photo because Scopely Explore didn’t a wayspot to have no photo.
The wayspot itself is eligible. There’s always a chance that the submitter was sent a warning about using third-party photos, but obviously we cannot know this.
that is better than leaving it up. but it does not help soothe my injustice sensitivity.
i correctly rejected this. i did not get an agreement for this. everyone who accepted it incorrectly got an agreement. the submitter got the wayspot. they all got points towards their wayfinder ratings. removing this from the game wouldn’t solve any of those pain points, but it isn’t fair that it gets to stay. it should have been rejected as submitted, and they should have to resubmit to get it in game.
at this point, why bother checking for third party photos? if the ML model doesn’t do it, and most reviewers don’t do it, and the wayspot doesn’t get removed for having been submitted with third party photos, why should i care?
I’m not as experienced as some expert reviewers, but I share this concern. It’s frustrating that careless consensus gets rewarded, while those following guidelines strictly get no recognition and bear the full burden.
I appreciate the Wayfarer team’s hard work, but this seems to be a structural flaw in the system. Just as none of us are perfect, perhaps no system can be either.
so they get to keep the wayspot that should have correctly been rejected? that makes zero sense, and is very deflating for reviewers who pay more attention. why didn’t my marking it as third party in review flag this for rejection?
But I also understand why the wayspot itself is not removed, as it probably does exist, and while I understand that this could be perceived as rewarding the nominators, removing it could be seen as punishing the other players. And wayfarer staff have other options to discipline those who submitted the original submitter.
oh it clearly exists. that is why reviewers didn’t hesitate to put it through. why doesn’t one person flagging that this is third party get it pulled for internal review?
No clue, did you use the report function or the reject for abuse function?
If I really want to make the case for abuse I use the report function (but I hardly ever do that), usually I just reject for accuracy. My assumption is that using the latter means it will only be investigated if multiple people have the same opinion.
I would think if it only needed to take one person to flag something and it sent it to internal review it would defeat the purpose of community reviews. Probably why it would need multiple people to flag it.
I ran across a nomination that was inside a rehab/detention center that I voted against and a few days later saw it was approved. Had to report it to get it removed. Other reviewers I guess didn’t see the 12ft high razor wire fence that surrounded the facility. Reviewers make mistakes. Sometimes people will see a basketball court or a mural and say, yeah this is good and pass it. They don’t take the time to look at the picture to see the watermark in the photo or they had a discription saying it would make a good pokestop. With crowd source you got to take the good with the bad as well.
Totally true, I am totally with you on this but just trying to work out why they do it the way they do.
Personally there is a massive chance that I would not spot the 1 I had flagged that had been Accepted so you follow-up report is probably a lot less than reviewing every flagged review.
I am not agreeing with that method but I could see that is something that they may do.
I imagine they would have some code that states “Flag for Internal Review if 5% Reject for specific reasons”.
Because if they [Scopely] were to look at a nomination, why not just approve or deny it? The person looking at it could make that determination. Why kick it back to reviewers?
