OPR need to improve

How this is not approved? I dont know what to do anymore to send new portals


  • Is an old hotel and sometimes they make like a open bar. Regular restaurants are acepted like "Crazy pizza" and you see the tittle in picture like this one,but nobody start to erase portals also...

  • Also, there is a lot of drawnings and grafittis, so i must reject every one of them just because "regular" grafitti or paiting.

  • SoylentGrienSoylentGrien ✭✭✭✭✭

    Submit again with a better photo and description.

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    The architecture itself is unique, resubmit

  • grendelwulfgrendelwulf ✭✭✭✭✭


  • I do know why opr does not have a certain number of green and blue agents approve portals. seems logical to have 10, 5 blue and 5 green approve portal before it is added to the mix.

  • OPR depends a lot on who is evaluating.

  • JosmanuJosmanu ✭✭✭

    OPR is about the subjective pov from the person who is evaluating, on reddit i had a discussion with an agent about him denying sports field...he just to this date think sports field should be rejected unless its some statue in the field or wtv thing he think

    It goes even worse when the stuff is a local hotspot, how do you convince these random internet dudes? is hard i know but not impossible

    and ive got churches and parks denied and i had to resubmit with the same picture and description and place of the pin

    summary: OPR is about keep trying until it faill into the view of some people with brain and will approve it (assuming ofc it deserve to be approved), which is tiresome at this point, especially when it takes an unrealistic timeframe for get a response

  • SoylentGrienSoylentGrien ✭✭✭✭✭

    OPR is supposed to be objective. That's what the guide is for.

  • JosmanuJosmanu ✭✭✭

    sadly is not, i mean even in reddit you encounter tons of subjective views from a submission if you post one, just do it and see it yourself

  • I would hope that Niantic continually verifies if a reviewer is doing a good job or not. It would be a simple matter of inserting dummy portals into the system and checking to see if the reviewer grades it as per the guidelines or not.

  • grendelwulfgrendelwulf ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm pretty sure a dummy portal got me. A little free library I gave the benefit of the doubt to because it was on the curb. This a long time ago though.

  • OPR is inherently subjective, though. What accounts for a local specialty is best known by the locals, as evident by the fact that your location is the primary source of portal nominations to review.

    A good example is the language barrier: how can someone with no understanding of non latin alphabet languages can hope to understand nominations submitted in those languages? Google translate doesn't do justice for the complexity involved, particularly for grammar, slang, or offensive languages which may be important to determine the value of a portal nomination.

    The guide is, well, a guide. A guide is not a rule. OPR achieves the supposed objectivity by amassing a number of subjective opinions to decide the value of a nomination.

    The OP nomination is a clear example of subjectivity - local reviewers who know the value of the nomination would rate it highly, while non locals would not, because TBH from my point of view it does only look like a private residence of a stranger. The onus is on the nomination submitter to present their portal so non local reviewers would understand the value. Take good photos, clearly show the restaurant title, explain what is good about it, the importance to the local community, photospheres, etc - people say a photo can convey a thousand words for a reason. If your photo does not, then the bigger part of the fault is in you as the photographer.

    I agree that reviewers should be held to a high standard, but considering they are doing free work, it should be something that does not hinder them or lowering their motivation to review. And another important side is that nomination submitters should be held to a high standard as well. I can't count how many times I wished several certain submitter can be banned, at least temporarily - they just keep submitting these candidates with their own names in the title or descriptions, and while it does mean free agreements for me, removing them from the pool would be just so much better.

  • GoblinGranateGoblinGranate ✭✭✭✭✭

    Allow me to bring out this froma related post. Sections 5,6 and 8 are in my opinion a possible way out of this.

    1-Raise up amount of reviews needed.

    2-Increase reviewer monitorization to spot OPR abuse and apply punishment if rating goes Red.

    3-Change rating display: Green = above 90%; Yellow = 66-90 %; Orange = 40-65 %; Red = below 40%.

    4-Punishments: suspension of OPR account for 3/6/12 months, depending on how many times the punishment has been applied. OPR test required to get back to 50% rating.

    5-Monitorization: by cell, OPR will check upon EACH portals with excesive discrepancies based on faction's averages. Portals should be pushed if aproved in batches monthly. At push time window, portals will resolve if minimum amount of reviews is met.

    6-Deeper clarificaton in OPR manual: community MUST be able to develop and conciliate a generic REGIONAL manual for OPR users to follow. This will reduce the amount of black areas, increase OPR test results and player base knowledge when rating candidates and flatten faction discrepancies.

    7-Repeated abuse: if a reviewer has recently succeeded in an OPR test after a punishment, his activity will be monitorized in order to study tendencies when reviewing, such as Postal Code of each candidate VS rating valoration.

    8-By achieving section 6, community will at some point be able to fully handle portal appeals, leaving current workforce from Niantic to ticketing services.

    There are several ways to improve and even "save" OPR, but the way I see it, none will work without an enhaced punishment system.

  • As I had said before, imposing high standards on reviewers currently will **** the OPR, not fixing it.

    If you want to impose standards on the reviewers, impose standards on nomination submitter as well. They are the bigger part of the problem.

  • This! "submit rating" along side with "OPR rating"

  • Hi,

    you missed:

    0-Increase number of reviewers

    Maybe OPR should be extended to lower level ingress, maybe even Pokemon/WU/... players. Let them review and see who does well and who not until their votes are applied to the general decision. And maybe with more votes the logic on what is accepted and what not could be refined to get better results.

    Without more reviewers OPR is dead. It's already slow with all these Pokemon submissions. And in some places it's already stalled with months of backlog.

  • I will copy paste this from a past post of mine:

    I'm thinking maybe opening a limited amount of review to lower level players would be beneficial. Something like 100 reviews a week for lv10, with each agreements refreshing the review quota by 1 or 2. Full OPR access would be given when they reach lv12, or by reaching a certain level of agreements. Considering how spread OPR review pickup range is, this shouldn't cause problems where people only want to review their own locations, and therefore limits the self nomination bias. Or maybe make them actually only able to review candidates outside of their playing areas during the limited OPR access.

    Things that could be tinkered with this idea, such as treating the limited OPR reviewers as apprentice reviewers whose rating holds lower value than full access OPR reviewers. Something like 2 apprentice review rating is worth the same as 1 full access OPR review. Or maybe compare their reviews to full acces reviews, where disagreements among the two kind of reviews would indicate that the apprentice should have their quota lowered. Problems like biased full access OPR reviewers might exist, but since the apprentice can level up themselves to lv12 and become full access OPR reviewer later anyway, this should be pretty much the same as the current situation.

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    These high standards are a requirement.

    Otherwise we would just have [email protected]#s portals everywhere.

    The fact that submitters can submit whatever they like, should not discourage them from nominating.

    • Not everyone who nominates, reviews.
    • Not everyone who reviews, nominates portals

    These are things that must be kept in mind

    There is an awful lot of history to why we are here with OPR as it is, and it is working, mostly, as intended

  • Please read the previous posts by me and GoblinGranate. High standards on reviewer is indeed a requirement, but the "high standards" I'm talking about in my post you quoted refers to the even higher standards GoblinGranate is proposing.

    Saying "submitters can submit whatever they like, should not discourage them from nominating" is a subjective argument. As a reviewer, I had seen not just one, but multiple submitters who submit their name in the title and descriptions. Why should these submitters not be marked as poor submitters, just like reviewers can be marked as poor reviewers?

  • GoblinGranateGoblinGranate ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree there should be some way to flag reincident submitters that send such stuff, but target is to get OPR to be the very true filter, that is why I'm focusing on it.

    Main problem is to find out a way to search and destroy submitters who are nominating poorly.

Sign In or Register to comment.