[Feature Request] Remove the text requirement for "Does Not Meet Criteria"

edited December 2019 in Wayfarer (Archive)

Human nature is simple. It will follow the path of least resistance on any given repetitive task. In terms of rejecting portals in Wayfarer, that means every rejection is "Generic Business".


Because "Does not meet criteria" requires a text explanation. No-one cares enough to give the text explanation so they select "Generic Business" because it can be done without typing.

If you make people explain why the submitter needs to be "kinetically retrained" after the umpteenth time, they're going to not care, and start clicking elsewhere. You can't leave an easy option with no cost, and not expect everyone to take it, especially in the PoGo era of "I just want more stops".

Remove the requirement to explain why it Does Not Meet Criteria, since the submitters doesn't see it, you don't care, and having submitters told "Your rock is a generic business" is plain frustrating.

The fact that something meets criteria is a benchmark the submitter has to provide. The reviewers should not be required to prove it doesn't because that's vague and frustrating. Most responses would amount to "X does not qualify as a portal" which doesn't even help.

If you allow reviewers to say that it doesn't meet criteria, without an explanation, then nominations will be far more clearly receiving the message that a rock is not a portal, a lamp post is not a portal, a scenic view is not a portal.

All you do now is let human nature take it's course and turn "View of Mt Everest" into a Generic Business. You're generating your own bug in the process.

EDIT: Acceptable Alternative - Require all rejection reasons to provide textual justification.

Post edited by Perringaiden on


  • While technically I agree with you, and I also think there should be a requirement to say what criteria a valid portal meets, we've seen time and time again, that the only way to keep engagement is to make the system simple and not ask too much.

  • I agree with OP and the commenters that something needs to be done. The requirement to write in that box needs to be removed *unless* it is added to every box. I think both are an improvement.

    Another way this could be solved is an additional dropdown (or two) after the "doesnt meet criteria" box. I would love to see an "ineligible object" box, where we could indicate that common invalid submissions arent acceptable. Flagpoles, neighborhood signs, aerator fountains, donation boxes and non-historical gravestones all come to mind. If we had these direct options, and submitters received a more direct message of "your fountain has been rejected because aerator fountains are no longer eligible candidates as the do not have pedestrian access", it would solve multiple problems at once. People would learn why their fountain was rejected and (hopefully) stop submitting it, good reviewers would have less trash to deal with as a result, and bad reviewers would have less oppurtunities to abuse ambiguous rejection reasons.

  • RostwoldRostwold ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think the best solution would be to keep the write in, but have a list of choosable options that cover the most common write in reasons that would remove the requirement to type something in. I review with a list of cut-and-pasteable reasons on hand that cover things like 'generic mass produced bench, no convincing evidence that the person commemorated was particularly notable', 'modern mass produced post box', 'nothing of interest visible in picture' and so on. These options could appear in the rejection email to educate the submitter.

  • KliffingtonKliffington ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes I would love if they got rid of the generic business option.

  • RostwoldRostwold ✭✭✭✭✭

    Perhaps 'generic business' needs to lead to a list of the reasons a generic business could be accepted? Maybe along the lines of

    • is this a generic business local hotspot?

    • does this generic business have an interesting story?


  • But generic businesses such as chains and franchises, are invalid as portals. Therefore removing the option would remove one of the reasons.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2019

    The key phrase there is "on their own." That doesn't mean that they are completely ineligible as Wayspot when they do meet criteria as a hidden gem or hyper-local spot.

  • RostwoldRostwold ✭✭✭✭✭

    Exactly. This part of the process is not joined up properly. It ought to be connected to the concept of the initial vote being your first impression. First impressions can be wrong. If you initially think 'reject for generic business' you should then go on to consider if it's redeemed by being a hidden gem, hyperlocal hotspot, interesting story, etc. but the process doesn't signal that clearly to the reviewer.

  • You are correct. I never said they aren't.

    But McDonalds is not a hyper-local gathering spot. It's a chain franchise found on every corner in America. There are plenty of examples of "Generic Business" such that the option needs to be a valid rejection option, because Generic Local Businesses are not, on their own, valid POIs.

  • As Kliff said, instead of quickening rejects, make them all require a reason

  • Either works for me, but I know only one option is what Niantic would consider.

  • My cut-and-paste list is lifted directly from the CAG on the old OPR website. Funny thing. use it much more after Wayfarer, wonder why!

  • I would rather have the submitter to have to choose which criteria it fits with a drop down, and then add extra in the sub statement. Then you can review against the proposed criteria

  • KhatreKhatre ✭✭✭✭✭

    All 1* should have the mandatory text

  • RostwoldRostwold ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is only useful if it results in some sort of feedback to the submitter, I think if it was required everywhere and never (as far as we can tell) actually read by anyone, we'd see a lot of 'asdsdfdf' responses.

  • You mean there aren't already a lot of "." and "asdf" responses?

    Anything that's going to go to the user has to be a canned response, so if they want to send responses it's only the selected from a list ones.

  • I'd have to disagree with a blanket ban on aerator fountains; there's one near me that serves a dual purpose.

    To wit, not only is it an aerator for a local reservoir, but it also serves as the centerpiece of a public park that's right next to the aforementioned reservoir.

  • kholman1kholman1 ✭✭✭✭

    No it needs to have all rejection reasons have a text entry to go along with it and introduce appeals so we can catch bad actors clearly there isn't enough to stop false rejects it would clean house when we get all random rejection reasons for our submissions that aren't even on topic. honest I get a few accidental clicks on the wrong one when it lags a lot. The system needs overhaul.

  • Well, I personally do my best to explain why I've selected a particular rejection reason.

    For example, let's say that someone's submitted Anytown Park Baseball Field #1... buuuuut they've titled their submission "anytwon parrk basbal fild numbre oen".

    That's getting a 1* Title/Description rejection from me, with a rationale of "Title is improperly capitalized and contains numerous spelling errors. Revise and resubmit."

  • everseekereverseeker ✭✭
    edited December 2019

    Then again there are some submissions that take a little... judgement...,

    I saw a portal submission for a brand new (first one in the rural area) Walmart

    Kill it, right?

    But the text description was

    "I see Dead People"..........

    That was way too adorable to reject

  • Svizac28Svizac28 ✭✭
    edited December 2019

    Perhaps the rejection reason "Doesn't meet criteria" could be divided into several subcategories that reviewers could select instead of writing. And this could be displayed to submitter in rejection e-mail. As it is now, it's impossible to explain the submitter why their nomination doesn't meet criteria.

Sign In or Register to comment.