Wayfarer Crappy Portals

edited November 2019 in Wayfarer (Archive)

Wayfarer had gone from decent portals to crappy portals in less then 3 days. The amount of bad portals I've had to deny has quadrupled since nomination and reviewing opened to PoGo players. Kids bedrooms, lots of explanations saying this would be a good pokestop, more residential submissions of backyard playsets and statues or art on residential property. These portals are horrible...


  • ingress subs were just as bad in the old days. they will improve soon enough dont worry

  • EvilSuperHerosEvilSuperHeros ✭✭✭✭✭

    Almost every single review has a mention of why they need yet another stop or gym in their supporting description. Some local ones are in parks with over 40 stops/gyms.

    I really hope denying these obvious bad submissions won't cause our ratings to go down if a ton of pogo accounts rate these junk submissions as 5 star.

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2019

    who cares if it is in the supporting statement and you deny a valid submission based on the supporting info thats on the reviewer. I have seen valid submissions be bogged down by trash submission statements. To be honest there are a lot of pogo players voting just as irritated about it people that are trying are tired of the begging and whining or life stories about the waypoint submission so saying all pogo players are doing it is not even fair. It has gone as far a topic getting posted on the main reddit for pokemon go to quit it and why it is hurting their submissions. Also local discords are giving suggestions to not do it. There are people taking action on showing how to do photospheres and quality suggestions just that a bad batch of submissions flooded in from thursday of uniformed pokemon go players and the submission statement basically tells the submitter to give information to the trainers on why it is important not even giving the same exact phrase ingress uses which to be honest they should both be the same as this giving a false pretense to the pogo players that only pokemon go players are reviewing their submissions so there are some actually thinking the target audience is just level 40 pokemon go players.

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭

    quit making false accusations the system isn't going to fall apart. Only thing getting approved is valid things for the most part. Just because not everything is pretty don't get angry and act like it is over for ingress. Quite frankly a lot of areas are getting valid submissions.

  • EvilSuperHerosEvilSuperHeros ✭✭✭✭✭

    If they were legit submissions and not a rock or a residential home. So many houses coming up in wayfarer. So much ****. All mentioning Pokémon. Yup. Quality submissions.

  • It could be a regional thing, but I've had very high quality stuff come through for the most part. Gazebos, playgrounds, information signs, murals.

  • Super-clear rejects are not a problem, they are easy agreements and frankly, a break from the norm. "Oh that's rich". Not likely to enter the portal network.

  • Problem is it depends on the areas

    As an example from local:

    2 cities very close together where I have played both Ingress & GO

    Milton ON - very very few Ingress players (city is usually white and open for picking, I would say 3 full time players including myself). But this same city has hundreds of GO cheaters ... I mean players who mult account like madness

    Hamilton ON - very good Ingress player base (had about 130+ show up for last event). Many more GO players but way less cheating.

    Guess which city I see the more junk being submitted in?

    People who are running multaccount really dont care and just submit everything & vote 5* everything (I actually requested 2 portal removals this past week, never happened before)

  • having 2 very different games tied to the same POI submission/review system is just not a good idea

  • 0X00FF000X00FF00 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Niantic's goldmine IS their POI database. It, and Ingress, are the only intellectual property they have exclusively to themselves.

  • edited November 2019

    ok? not sure what this has to do with my comment.

    i don't believe there has to be crossover. you can have the same database and not have them influence each others game.

    i think it's a bad idea to have the 2 games tied to the same system, there is a conflict of interest between them. Ingress players generally want less density (with some exceptions to farms) and the portals have strategic value when it come to location e.g., limited access durables, portals lined up for good layering, etc. Whereas, Pokemon players essentially want anything and everything to be a POI because they are just spins and gyms for them.

  • 0X00FF000X00FF00 ✭✭✭✭✭

    From your comment, you want a separation of some kind for the POI-ness between Ingress and Pokemon. Niantic doesn't, because they want one big POI database they can market around to big game developers.

    What's not to understand?

  • edited November 2019

    because you keep the same overall database, you just restrict which POI are in which game.

    what's not to understand?

  • 0X00FF000X00FF00 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The part where, somehow, without having any contact with their board of directors, it's very very impossible to convince Hanke it's remotely a good idea? Ingress players want "more". Pokemon players want "more". Neither wants "less".

  • edited November 2019

    So now you think my intention is to try and convince John Hanke my idea is good? I'm expressing an opinion, not sure why that's so difficult for you to accept.

  • 0X00FF000X00FF00 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Don't be mad at me for reiterating Niantic's position on their behalf. Opine all you want, but most of us only have enough time to roll our eyes at things that will never happen.

  • AgentB0ssAgentB0ss ✭✭✭✭✭

    In my opinion the problem is not having 2 separate POI Databsaes. They should remain 1 database, its the rules of how the Waypoints interact in each game. Currently Ingress is "wideopen" while a game like PoGo is limited 1 one Waypoint per S2 Level 17 cell.

    I will never understand the concept of "less density" = gud (yes spelled wrong on purpose) in Ingress it doesnt prevent large fields.

    I always see more density in all 3 games as an overall positive.

  • most of us only have enough time to roll our eyes at things that will never happen

    as you continue to take the time to reply each time i post. do you ever you ever contribute more than condescension into a conversation?

  • AgentB0ssAgentB0ss ✭✭✭✭✭

    Guess you didn't look at his post history as he is one of the most helpful individuals on the forum.

  • 0X00FF000X00FF00 ✭✭✭✭✭

    When players continuously propose the same thing over and over and over, sometimes we only mock. Mind you the last time somebody took a contrary-to-Niantic-policies position (they reeeeeally wanted to have things like picnic tables accepted), he ended up getting banned three times over. But at least now, thanks to my personal efforts, @AgentB0ss has been freed from jail #FAB

    But generally, so long as the conversation doesn't devolve to "wabbit season! duck season! wabbit season! duck season!" they die off quick enough.

  • EvilSuperHerosEvilSuperHeros ✭✭✭✭✭

    I love density as an Ingress agent. What I don't like is the junk submissions or moving the submissions or portals for that matter away from their actual location. It's frustrating looking for what should be a cool place. You can find the portal itself but the actual location of the poi? Many times it's good luck.

  • From a player's perspective, yes. From a business perspective, it could be that Niantic realised giving away items that could be sold was bad for business. Without going into specifics: Clearly, they have made many monetisation changes in later games that are good for business (and bad for players) Still, a plentiful portal network may be worth more in a later sale.

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    I've seen "gazebos" that are just a basic shelter, aren't aesthetically interesting.

    Then you have BBQs

    Yes, the fact that garbage nominations have significantly increased since opening nomination and reviewing to the pogo Community shows that Niantic are still hoping that us Ingress players are going to do the right thing, and state why they are so awful.

    Pogo players that used ingress to nominate portals went from very poor, to ok, in the space of a year.

    And, I have begun to see such garbage going through the review and being accepted. 😢

  • My problem with density is how it is applied

    Case in point

    Someone said Gazebos were a good idea, and the local park suddenly has 5 Gazebo portals

    Then someone else said Baseball Diamonds and both of those are added as well

    Now on to signposts, minimum of 4 per park, often more since you are carpet bombing every entrance / exit / even remotely educational (I had a huge beef about a signpost dedicated to a Salmon Spawning Ground in the other thread but I got shouted down; as far as I am concerned it is a river with fish, the sign should not be a portal imo)

    Then the ultimate insult to injury; I went over to park and attempted to add 2 very valid portals (certainly far more value than what is ingame). I attempted to add the Towns Time Capsule (but the Millenium Gazebo is built on top of this) and attempted to add the historic plaque that details opening of the park + local history. Both accepted but cant come online because too close to a generic Gazebo.

    We end up with very boring parks / locations since there is nothing but generic stuff being submitted and approved.

    I had the same argument against the Little Free Libraries and painted electric boxes; as a one off if it was very visually unique ok but way too much **** being submitted and approved (in last couple of weeks even worse since GO players are even spamming more)

  • So, on the subject of the Salmon Spawning Ground candidate: was it just a sign that said "Salmon Spawning Ground", or was it more along the lines of an informational plaque that gave an overview of why salmon use this particular type of location to reproduce?

    If it were the former, that's getting two stars from me at best.

    If it were the latter, I'd be more likely to rate it higher (four, maybe five stars).

  • I get it is informational but it is based on a natural feature which is why I tend to just skip these nominations (otherwise I would be voting 2* and hurting my OPR rating)

    Beyond the fact it is a sign, it is colourful, and it is located in a park. That is so sketchy to what seems to have been intent in first place.

    I commented in the density post above, but it seems like lines are gradually being moved / eroded, and many one off or simply ok portals are seen by someone who then goes and uses every submission to carpet bomb the area. I have an issue with a tiny park that ends up with the maximum portals allowed (I have honestly see submissions where someone has written something about "I have offset the location to allow additional portal as per S2 cell" or whatever.... like they are mapping out area Niantic allows and squeezing in an extra one by placing portal marker a few feet off actual item, this is abuse on so many levels....)

    I mean like look at Starbucks or Tim Hortons. They were spononsered in beginning and now people are submitting them as they are being built, its too much.

  • Well, if the submission is for an informational plaque about the natural feature (or some important aspect of the natural feature), and not the natural feature itself, that's an acceptable candidate.

    However, for it to get more than two stars from me, it'd have to go into a bit of detail about said natural feature, instead of just being there to say "This Is A Thing That Exists".

    For example, there's a portal in my area called Bald Eagles Soar At Ashokan. The actual point of interest that the portal represents is an informational plaque on a walking trail near the Ashokan Reservoir in New York, and the plaque in question gives visitors information about the bald eagle, including nesting habits and diet. That's an easy four-star, in my opinion.

    A similarly-informational plaque about the spawning area - one that, say, talks about what species of salmon you're likely to see in the area, when they spawn, and why they like this particular type of waterway - would get a similar rating from me.

    However, if it were just a plain metal sign that said "Salmon Spawning Area"? Two stars, at most.

  • I literally just saw a submission that was someone's custom license plate

    I looked off into an imaginary camera like Jim from "The Office"

Sign In or Register to comment.