The new edits in Prime has distance limits for submiting edits. Location edits range 50km and the rest is 100km. And for some reason invalid has unlimited range. This is bad and need to go, where is the logic behind this?
Probably to try to reduce abuse of the edit system
If something is off by that much just report it as invalid instead
Doesn't mean you can move it that far, it means you can't do remote location edits from more than 50km away.
There's nothing invalid about a portal that could simply use a better description.
strange so I can abuse the system by reporting invalid portal from 1000km away from comm. But if i see a spelling error i have to be in 100km range to send in corections, that is just stupid excuse my french😇
I don't see why description edits need a range limiter at all.
The inability to amend the portal network by improving the portal title or description is quite discouraging for some of us. I do not enjoy seeing the portal names like „Church”, „Cross”, „Holy Figure 2” etc. Disabling name and description edits because of the distance is an overkill in my opinion. It will not empower the abuse greatly since we have the level restriction. @NianticBrian @NianticAkshay @NianticBC @NianticAustin @NianticCasey since you are able to communicate with the game developers, please consider this suggestion of the player base. Thank you in advance.
The more important thing to ponder by is, "Why not?"
test. post reply attempt #1
1.25am UTC+8, 3 oct 2019
Presumably the distance limit for edits is to prevent bad actors from maliciously editing portals in an area just using a key or the COMMS. Like clogging OPR with multiple unnecessary edits or location edits to take down strong anchors.
Plus it helps keep edits to people who are in the area, and would more likely know better about the history, culture, and other details of the portal.
But that doesn't excuse not being able to edit name and description. Even 100 km is short when considering my OPR area involves a much larger around. If you want to limit the range, it should be a bit bigger.
The limits are meant to limit potential abuse based on some player behavior we were seeing, and I felt being more conservative, evaluating, then expanding would be safer than restricting after the fact. Anyone can report invalid portals because of the use cases we were seeing on removal requests.
Description and name seem odd, but locals know best at the end of the day... Usually.
Location should be obvious. Breaks all the links when it's moved even a hair, can be more easily weaponized, and why should you be able to change it when you're not even there.
But even adding a photo? There's a lot of times where I want to add photos to portals after returning home from a vacation.
Why after Vacation? Why not why you're there?
Not everyone has sufficient data allowances, or speed, when abroad.
Because I'm busy playing Ingress! Duh.
But really it's like when Google Photos makes the albums of your trip after you return home - I like to add photos to Ingress and Google Maps after my trips so I can look back at my trip.
I feel removal requests have as high potential for abuse as locations change requests. Name and description changes don’t affect portal location or use so the logic isn’t quite valid for distance limits.
I didn't notice this before, maybe because I don't try to edit portals out of my area.
I don't see any problems with those limits, they are actually very large in my opinion. I usually do my edit at the portal location.
I've heard that it's hard to get stuff removed unless you're verifiably the property owner or it's on school grounds, so I doubt it's easy to abuse.
Or unless it no longer exists or is in an unsafe location.
Removal is hard to abuse but edits have been games. Limiting the distance and number of edits is very welcome.
Removal is handled directly by Niantic, unlike edits which go through OPR.
Just add then when you thake them ?
I usually wait for Google Photos to show me the best photo of the bursts I take. (This isn't the one where they process filters onto)
Same here, @GridEXE . I like to spend as much time as possible with playing Ingress when I'm onsite on my spare vacation time. I take a lot of picutres with my mirrorless camera and a drone, but I only review, sort and edit them when I'm back at home in front of my Mac.
Some of them are good candidates for new portal pictures - especially since I use my drone for aerial pictures of famous landmarks as castles, fortresses or large scale sculptures. The aerial perspective compliments the new Primes 3D graphics.
Example of the Portal Schloss Merode in Germany.
Picture taken with an iPhone on site:
Picture taken with a DJI drone:
I think that the second one adds a lot of quality to the portal network.
I understand that every option opens a new possibility for abuse. And as @NianticBrian elaborated it is logical to set some limits first. I'm curious whether having the limit will reduce the abusel rate significantly. My assumption would be that most of the abuse as false reporting or renaming results from conflicts between local factions so that the new range limit won't have a great effect. But I'm always ready to overthrow wild assumptions after reviewing the numbers.
It would be great when such a review could take place at the beginning of year 2020 - especially when it comes to photo submissions. Their abuse should the most unlikely since they all get reviewed by NIA OPs staff. The low rate of portal photo appeals in this community (as today: 16) shows that they're doing a really good job.
Please let the passionate ingame content contributors do their job - even from remote!