What are the two biggest challenges for new nominations....?

Just wanted to see if we can drill down to what - where the real challenges exist- or not… It may also be multi faceted. So multiple edges to one core problem/challenge…

Nominations is key here but often what we see in the real world is reflected by what is reviewed. So there can be cause and effect taking place.

To start this off

  1. Is it more coal/dross coming in
  2. quality of nominations (writing, description, supporting information, photos) is often just appalling.

To kick this off…

For point one… When I first started doing this I posed this hypothesis… In some communities most GREAT POIs would already have been nominated. And that while there will always be new opportunities coming in it will not be at the same rate as the “supply” is exhausted. And those not interested in quality will seek every opportunity to ““test”” the system. And as they find new things - these often get in because people do not understand the implications. Once that door is opened - the floodgates begin.

Once that flood starts - the games become full of them. Niantic does not clean them up. New users say in game I can do it. Niantic in some games opens up nominations to substantive numbers of nominators (for good reasons) but without approapriate guiderails in place

For point two. Existing systems do not appropriately engage, train and safeguard quality. Is related to quality of nominations already in games. We and Niantic ignore why people nominate and importantly HOW they use games to nominate (speed of behaviour)

Over to you all :slight_smile:

Are you asking thoughts about submitting new nominations, or reviewing them?

IMO, the two biggest challenges are:

  1. Inconsistency. This comes in two phases.

1a. People learn what qualifies as acceptable by what they see on the map and yet… many portals on the map would not qualify today.

1b. There’s no consistency from review to review because reviewing is subjective and crowd sourced. A submission might fail one day and be accepted another.

  1. Transparency. “wayfarer criterion” has no meaning. We may as well keep submitting the same waypoint over and over in hopes that we’ll stumble on the right combination of reviewers eventually. In the absence of better info, that seems like an appropriate plan.

Addressing either one of these would radically reduce the bad submissions, reduce the amount of reviewing necessary, and improve morale.

You keep quoting this specifically phrased this way, so i just want to make sure you are talking about what I think you are talking about. Are you referring to this rejection reason?
image

The options and reasons people nominate.

I feel as there is less good stuff and only more coal (not to say good stuff does not exist) then nominators who nominate for all sort of reason will nominate more coal. There are variety of reasons - and then a set of consequences based on these.

It is just a hypothesis.

Why people nominate is also based on what people see. IF you see it in game. Then why would even read the guidelines of what makes a good nomination. That is pure human behaviour. There is zero obligation to read at any time and zero consequences for most poor noms.

I don’t know. But @MargariteDVille I think it would be great to try and work it out.

I see all the improvements people want. And I see is mainly quality based. So I wonder if these can be sorted.

Of course what I think is only one view. :slight_smile:

Yes.

I think the biggest challenges are the same problem from 2 sides.

  1. seeing something that is already in the game as a PoI (let’s say every hole and tee area on a disc golf course)
  2. getting said PoI removed

Most people out there on something like this are going to look at examples to see what they can nominate, so if ‘not so eligible’ PoI make it in the system then others will nominate them. If others nominate them and see that on the near by that some similar ones are already in game then more get approved. Getting these removed is more difficult than it needs to be and it just compounds the problem.

2 Likes