[Idea] Tie submission slots to accepted portals and reviews.

To help advance the queues.

  1. Change Submissions to credits to be stored and are not lost if unused.
  2. Instead of 14 submissions or 7 submissions on a rotating set, get 1 submission credit every 7 days.
  3. Each time a portal is accepted or too close, get another 2 submission credits.
  4. Rejected portals do not refund a submission credit.
  5. Duplicate portals refund 1 submission credit.

Also in Wayfarer:

  1. Ingress Reviewers can start at level 10 (or raise submissions to level 12)
  2. Gain a submission credit for every 50 agreements.
  3. If your review rating is poor, you cannot submit.
  4. If you have not reviewed 100 portals (regardless of agreements) in the last month, you cannot submit.

Goals:

  • Encourage people to be more careful with their submissions.
  • Reward good submissions and do not reward bad submissions.
  • Ensure people review others submissions.
«1

Comments

  • AgentB0ssAgentB0ss ✭✭✭✭✭

    Reading through this at first I was very scared as I play in an area that reviews are very slow, but then I saw the second section and it all tied together.

    I want to say I believe this suggestion and amazing and it helps tie Submitting to reviewing really well to encourage more people to review.

    Only real feedback I have is there should be a weekly, bi-weekly, or a monthly cap to credits earned. I could easily review 300-400 portals a day and net 200-300 agreements a day. Meaning 4-6 credits a day not including my approved submission credits. I could easily net the ability to submit over 100 submissions in a month.

  • PerringaidenPerringaiden ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 8

    If you're reviewing 400 portals a day, every day, why shouldn't you be rewarded for that significant effort?

    One of the things that I've always hated about the modern credit system, is that I can't bank a whole pile of credits, and then go to a town in the middle of nowhere and submit 50 good portals, to help build regions with no portals.

    Driving 2-4 hours and only be able to submit 10 portals (since I'm still submitting locally) doesn't seem worth it.

    I suppose as long as credits can remain banked, you could cap the earned credits at some point and still be able to bank up 50 or 100 submissions.

  • XQlusioNXQlusioN ✭✭✭✭✭

    For wayfarer point 2:

    Why not just have upgrades either acts as an upgrade or as a submission credit?


    For me, upgrades are slower than regular subs, so I basically stopped doing Wayfarer just because...

    If I could turn upgrades into submission credits, I would start again.

  • PerringaidenPerringaiden ✭✭✭✭✭

    Well, under point 4 of Wayfarer, you wouldn't have a choice if you wanted to submit. ;-)

  • Podolsky88Podolsky88 ✭✭✭

    Its a good idea, many people on my area only nominate but they dont review. I review about 50 per day, if I have the chanse to review more I do, but its not a bad idea.

  • AgentB0ssAgentB0ss ✭✭✭✭✭

    That’s fair, a banked credit cap makes more sense. Like I said I actually love the idea and trumps the current system 10 fold.

  • cmonineedanamecmonineedaname ✭✭✭✭

    I worry a requirement to review would result in similar fashion to the Seer medal. We already have people more focused on rushing through reviews for faster agreements than being diligent and thorough. Wouldn't this just encourage that further?

  • GearGliderGearGlider ✭✭✭✭✭

    You could justify being against almost any incentive with that line of reasoning. You're not going to get enough Reviewers if you don't add some reward.

  • AnlashokAnlashok ✭✭✭

    "Instead of 14 submissions or 7 submissions on a rotating set, get 1 submission credit every 7 days."

    "No nomination slots for people who don't review."

    One of these statements is false. I wonder which one it is...🤔🤔🤔

  • sophielabsophielab ✭✭✭
    edited January 9

    Read the whole proposal. He doesn't want any submission if you haven't reviewed 100 in the last month. If you can't use it without reviewing, it effectively the same thing.

  • Basically you want to stop people from submitting.

    As a company looking, apparently, to make a profit from a POI database I would want as many people submitting as possible. I would also want as many POI in that database as possible. Quality of a POI is subjective and highly regional. With a properly done review it would be a simple matter to filter POI's based on criteria as opposed to a simple yes/no answer.

    In any case Niantic has never shown any interest in tying submission ability to reviewing input and that is not likely to change. It is only a few self important reviewers who believe that not everyone should have the ability to submit.

  • AnlashokAnlashok ✭✭✭
    edited January 9

    > "It is only a few self important reviewers who believe that not everyone should have the ability to submit."

    Meanwhile, under the current system, we get things like Walmarts popping up in the queue. Or shoe stores. Or the parking bollards outside a Target store. Or the logo for the Target store. Or... well... whatever this is:


  • HydraulinskiHydraulinski ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 9

    Reviewing is boring. I agree it should gave us a better payment, but not punishment for not doing it. It's completely optional.

    Post edited by Hydraulinski on
  • PerringaidenPerringaiden ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes, it's optional. If you don't want to submit portals, you don't have to review.

    The problem is that when there are more submitters than reviewers, and every submission takes either 5-10 reviews, or higher now we have PoGo involved, you can't leave it optional, because there won't be enough people who voluntarily choose to do it. There definitely will be some, but not enough to not have people start complaining that the queues are too long. We already have that.

    Most work is boring to most people. You do it because you'll be recompensed. But at the same time, if you don't do it, you'll get fired. In this case, that "firing" means no more submitting.

  • PerringaidenPerringaiden ✭✭✭✭✭

    Basically you want to stop people from submitting.

    Definitely not. But the privilege of submitting, should require more effort than "It's Tuesday!"

  • ToxoplasmollyToxoplasmolly ✭✭✭✭

    I agree that everyone should be able to submit some minimum number of nominations without having to review. It can be low, but not zero. For example, one “free” credit per month, and you can have at most two “free” credits at any given time. (These thresholds can be calibrated based on data Niantic has about how nominations are currently distributed across submitters and time.) Allow the casual, infrequent submitters to continue doing their thing unimpeded; I doubt they’re the ones responsible for clogging the queues. No one can predict when they might come across that one thing that absolutely should be a Wayspot.

    As an extension/variation, also allow submitters to incur “review debt,” up to some limit. Essentially, allow a nomination to be submitted, but don’t allow it to continue through the rest of the Wayfarer process until the submitter has done some requisite number of reviews. Again, no one can predict when they might across that one area that absolutely should have a few Wayspots.

    Reviewing nominations isn’t a job, and no one should have to continually work at it just on the off-chance that they might want to submit something in some hypothetical future.

  • HydraulinskiHydraulinski ✭✭✭✭✭

    Thats two different jobs. Some people will like more to submit and other to review. It's not fair to punish some. Give more insensitive to review.

    At best make two being available at the same level, or flip it, with review at 10 and submit at 12.

  • They have already met Niantics requirements for submitting.

  • sophielabsophielab ✭✭✭

    Gee. Thanks for the token single submission. Honestly, I've done plenty of reviews in the time before upgrades were even a thing. All I see with the this discussion is power reviewers greedily counting all the extra submissions they can get at the expense of what I had been getting previously.

  • ToxoplasmollyToxoplasmolly ✭✭✭✭

    It's infinitely better than the original proposal if you don't review often or consistently, which describes me and I bet at least a few other folk out there. And if Niantic goes in this direction, as I said, they could pick thresholds based on real data, the data they have.

    The real point of what I said is at the end: Reviewing nominations isn’t a job, and no one should have to continually work at it just on the off-chance that they might want to submit something in some hypothetical future.

  • PerringaidenPerringaiden ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is probably a good trade off. The stuff you get for reviewing can be extra to whatever you normally get (whether that's 1 or 5 or 14) and only usable if you're continuing to review. You're right that portals can appear at any time, and people should be able to record them.

    But by the same token if no-one reviews it doesn't matter how many you submit because they'll never go live. Some of us are seeing two month long queues since PoGo got nominations, which is what OPR was designed to prevent, by taking the load off Niantic and giving it to a larger 'volunteer workforce'. If the PoGo crowd wants to submit, they have to also do the work of reviewing. If they leave it to the dedicated Ingress players who are dwindling in both number and dedication, the whole thing will grind to a halt.

    There has to be an incentive to review, or a punishment for not doing it, or the whole system will fall over.

  • RyuuVanDracoRyuuVanDraco ✭✭
    edited January 10

    Yeah, submissions somewhat need to be tied to Wayfarer work. Just getting Upgrades as reward isn't really working as we see. (And often we see Upgrades not even work, like stuff getting in voting and queue forever as some of mine do, even though high active areas...)

    My agreement rate isn't even 50%. OK, I review up to 1k a week which is way more than other do or got time to. But keeping those who do absolutely or nearly nothing in the system the same way those who do an acceptable amount of work is really unfair and needs to be changed.

  • If the goal is to encourage more of the GO community to review the solution is simple. There's needs to be a badge and in game rewards. Anything to do with submissions, adding them, removing them, getting extra ones will have a minimal to zero effect. The only people that will care are the people who are already doing it. If you want to effect the GO community it has to be in game and it has to be relevant. A badge alone wouldn't do it. It has to be something of value. Time and again with every new feature the ones that have in game effects are used and the ones that don't are left to the side. Wayfarers is just a new feature as far as most people are concerned. What does it do for them? Very little as far as they can tell because the one stop that TrainerX did submit was refused. It doesn't matter that TrainerX submitted the local Walmart. TrainerX no longer cares. He's got enough people around him that have made a few new things and off he goes. Wayfarers forgotten.

    I don't know what would do it for Ingres or HPWU eventually but I can't imagine either would be any different. The carrot has to be real. Saying your going to lose or gain more of something you don't even want is pointless.

  • PerringaidenPerringaiden ✭✭✭✭✭

    @CybrHare

    The only people that will care are the people who are already doing it.

    If you mean Reviewing, sure. But PoGo people don't care about badges like Ingress does, because there's no requirement for them for levelling. However, PoGo players DO care about submitting new POIs. And if every person submitting, is also reviewing, they will offset each other. Someone who never submits POIs does not add to the queue of waiting POIs, so they don't need to review. But submitting without reviewing is what is causing the problem. They care about submitting. That's why there needs to be a link between their ability to submit, and their willingness to review.

     It doesn't matter that TrainerX submitted the local Walmart. TrainerX no longer cares.

    And that's fine. If he's not submitting, he doesn't need to review. Solved. TrainerX is not the target here.

    The carrot has to be real.

    An in game badge barely works for Ingress where badges matter, let alone PoGo (and eventually WU). That's why you need a carrot and stick approach. For people who want to submit portals, submitting good POIs and reviewing will get them extra submission slots (carrot) and not reviewing will prevent them from being able to submit (stick). A badge is not a real carrot.

  • PerringaidenPerringaiden ✭✭✭✭✭

    And often we see Upgrades not even work, like stuff getting in voting and queue forever as some of mine do, even though high active areas...

    This is part of my issue. I live in Los Angeles, one of the largest cities in America, and yet I have portals that have been In Voting for two months. One was submitted on 2019-11-09 and went into voting the next day, and is still there.

  • We're on the same page that's why I said

    "There's needs to be a badge and in game rewards......

    ........A badge alone wouldn't do it. It has to be something of value."

    Any amount of "stick" is going to have a negative effect. If Trainer X is not the target you are expecting the same people to do more work for free. Then you are going to tell them that if they don't enough of this free work there will be penalties. Good luck with that.

    GO players don't actually care about more pokestops. They say they do and will try for a few extra's but beyond that it's work and they don't care. Most GO players that cared about waypoints were already doing it through Ingress. That's my experince anyway. If you are not looking at some incentive to get more people interested then it's wasted effort. I am one of those people highly interested in helping out the community and adding to the local play map and to be honest in the current reviewing atmosphere I can hardly be bothered to review. Why bother? My submission, good ones like parks and churches, are being rejected or moved **** nilly and nothing is being done about it. Throw a "stick" into that mix and that'll likely be the end of reviewing alltogether.


    BTW how do you add the quote tags?

  • GearGliderGearGlider ✭✭✭✭✭

    When you type, there's a paragraph marker that shows up on the left. Click it and you'll see the quote symbol.


  • PerringaidenPerringaiden ✭✭✭✭✭

    If Trainer X is not the target you are expecting the same people to do more work for free.

    You said TrainerX doesn't want to submit portals. Therefore they are not the target.

    The target is people who submit portals and don't review. If TrainerX doesn't care about submitting, then he's not damaging the queue. People who do submit portals need to be reviewing, because otherwise they are a burden on the system.

    GO players don't actually care about more pokestops. 

    That's patently false. They care about it more than Ingress players, because they need to pad the right cells to generate Gyms and EX Gyms, which is the whole focus of Pokemon Go. The reason we have places like Los Angeles with a 2 month+ queue, is because PoGo players are filling the queue with POIs but not reviewing. If they weren't submitting, we would go back to the 2-3 week queue we had before they could submit or review.

    This is a problem. This post is a suggested solution.

Sign In or Register to comment.