I understand why the full history could be abused but surely more information could be supplied when a warning / ban is issued.
1 Like
I understand that thinking. But, if you are badly reviewing and want to improve your review by changing it to the community opinion, this creates a terrible result.
In fact, if you are reviewing “badly” but genuinely, your review is just as valid as a “good” one.
We will never have access because it’s a really bad idea for wayfarer, even if some individuals would benefit.
It could be helpful to other reviewers if you could share how you were reviewing incorrectly so that others don’t make the same mistake. But I understand if you don’t want to give the private details.
1 Like
No, you got it wrong. People should vote as per the set criteria.
I suspect the problem is that it will never be a single review that has caused the sanction. It will be a history of suspect reviews, as @NianticAaron indicated above.
This makes it hard to give more information, because Scopely would have to list all the reviews that were suspicious. For someone that is deliberately cheating, that would be assisting them.
I forgot to respond to that claim. You should NOT be voting based on what you think other people will do, but on the validity of the wayspot based on your understanding of the criteria. The goal is not to improve your rating, but to approve legitimate wayspots and reject substandard ones.
1 Like
Some people never accept community shops, even if they can as per as some criteria suggest. With that, they will be able to see some example accepted even if they declined, and so learn from it
Maybe, and that’s a problem. But, the cheating should be threated by itself. Without cheating, you can do bad review, and with auto-things, you can do good reviews. It depends…
I’m already at max rating. If I’m asking for that, is to know what I think legitimate but it’s not, that the objective of seeing old reviews.
For example, website like stackoverflow give possibility to see complete list of review and it’s not a problem
Sorry to be blunt. This is worrisome given the warning email refers to a pattern. I hope I’m wrong in this assessment.
I’m curious if you’re willing to share more details, such as what the nomination was? Otherwise, we’re all speculating and it would be good to see what details were provided by staff that has taken personal time to reply.
1 Like
I don’t know what I can show. So, to be sure, I’ll not share any photos or localisation. The nomination were fake because there is nothing at this position. The picture is fine (it’s a real statue) but not at the right place
1 Like
Are you saying that reviewing it as fake instead of just incorrectly placed is what triggered the educational email?
No, I’m saying I accepted a nomination that were fake because it does not exists
I don’t think this was an educational email. It looks like a proper warning strike.
1 Like
i think you are correct. the original post looked like my “educational email” did.
this was before they started adding in the example
and my follow up message read similarly to this one
so that is why i called this an “educational email” - don’t want to side track this to be about me, but am looking for clarity for others.
1 Like
Last time I checked, that history didn’t really help me understand how I voted, so to speak. There was no clear data for the “explore,” “exercise,” and “social” scores, and some data was converted into the old recon 5-star system instead.
If you have a guide on how to read the GDPR history dump and recover the actual votes, could you please share it?
Many (not all) fake/incorrectly placed nominations I see are easy to tell with the photo. It is either very low resolution with grainy pixels or too high of quality such as from a marketing website. Are you sure there’s no telltale issues with the photo?
As for location, is it a case where Satellite or Street View could be out of date?
Street view is 2 years old (2023), so pretty fine, and the photo look like the statue is here for long time.
The photo isn’t in very good quality yes, that could be a hint, but it’s not “so bad”. I already saw nomination with very bad picture which let people easy to find it’s fake
It’s great as long as you got clarity. Hope it helps you in your future reviews.
It is common for submissions to be accepted based solely on the impression of the images in the submission. I am pursuing a mural project to submit to Wayfarer, and part of it is a wall of a single-family home. Although I looked up at it and thought it looked great, I did not submit a Wayspot proposal, but when I visited the city later, I found a PokéStop in its place. Do not accept it just because it looks great. You must always look at aerial photos and street views to see if it is really there, what it looks like, and if there are any duplicates.
Recently there have been some unscrupulous people trying to gain certification by intentionally shifting the location of parks and community bulletin boards. They are submitting parks but the pins are standing over homes and streets. Do not let your guard down.
Also, people are stealing photos from other wayspots (presumed to be when they see them in review) and submitting wayspots in completely different locations.