I have found many "good" or something good nominations while reviewing, but when going to validating if it exists, there is no google street view of a photosphere, I keep all my ratings and location 1 start them, and later on, i saw those portals live, that makes me wonder if people are reviewing good or niantic changed that, back in OPR that would not go live.
Poor photograph job usually make impossible to find out where is the "thing". People who take a super closer picture as main, of something that is already small or poor "mural", and on the support picture just show the other side of the street, the ground or just repeated picture, if I can't locate the location on streetview I give it 1star.
Most people do a poor job at submiting and when got it denied start accusing the reviewers.
Weirdly, I had a portal come through today, which was my most recent submission. 16 days, no upgrade, in an area with lots of portals. However, based on talking to players in the area, it's not an area with lots of submissions.
Having a church and a city pool both denied and listed as "Do Not Submit List" in the past few days sums up what Wayfarer is these days. Only took 21 months to get that church through the system finally. My queue is clear, no upgrades remain, removed my last sub that is a duplicate of what someone else subbed a day before mine. There are plenty of "low quality" portals popping up all over the place. I'm sure there will be more. No need to bother reviewing.
That hydrant shouldn't be added, but I don't think it should get a 1* for location. It is on a corner by a fence that looks like it could easily match the area in the overhead view. Zooming in on the area in google maps, that location is spot-on!
red curb, small grass ****, fence with black spikes and brick columns!
I'm not trying to be mean, but if you're rating 1* simply because it has no photosphere than you're doing it wrong. If you can't find it in street view or a photosphere but it's "likely" to exist, it should be 3 stars.
They can if you're given a good supporting photo. Look at the surroundings, match it up. Stop 1-starring everything that is squirrely. Start at 3 and do some work go up or down from there.
Its a good example of a crappy submission. Main picture isn't centered correctly and the support is almost useless, since 80% is ground, providing absolute no clue where the "mural" would be.
In this case the hydrant can actually be seen in the maps, but if it were a mural, with this quality of pictures I would probably rate it poorly. If I can't the see the mural or identify the wall and nearby buildings because bad photography, I rate 1*, location not found.
I'm talking specifically about urban submissions that are poorly executed. If the pictures can't prove the place/mural exists there, it could be anywhere in the world, and if the location isn't visible doing a 360 turn on streetview, them it's misplaced hard.
Ah, sorry, that wasn't directed at you, but rather at others' comments above that seem to say "if I can't see the object in a photosphere, it's an automatic 1*". Aside from someone outright falsifying the submission photos (for example, by photoshopping a mural onto a blank wall), reviewers should be able to use any context clues to figure out whether the candidate should reasonably be expected to exist where the submitter says it does. I think we're on the same page about how multiple pieces of evidence can be used to verify a location... context clues in the supporting photos, landmarks from the photos visible in satellite view, or the object being directly visible in street view.
If I'm 1*ing because of a mismatched location where the submitter hasn't put the effort in to locate it properly, it's usually because they've dropped the marker in the middle of the road.
If it's something too small to be seen as likely to be there, the location isn't why it should be failing.
there is one side of the table: Niantic wants us to spend our time reviewing. There are submissions, that viewed thru the eyes of a experienced player and wayfarer, are easily 5*-accepted with only ONE Click. Also there are submissions that are clearly 1* with ONE Click. Personally, i do not think that my time that i invest for Niantic is to have a click-a-paloooza thru 5* 4* 4* 5* 5* - and then even sometimes i do get a cooldown for 4hours.
Is it really neccessariy that there are 10+ wayfarers who have to 5* a playground or information-box ?
and and the end of the day, i dont even get an upgrade that i can invest in?
surely, people are ranting too much on reddit, and also here, but come on, Niantic, theres really no incentive for me doing wayfarer every day. i had 2 upgrades that were useless, because there was already a wayspot "in the pipeline" and mine came 2 days later. that is wasted 200 reviews. i had 5 upgrades for 5* submissions, that were blatantly rejected (i am in germany and cannot see why, as we dont get that information in the email) - another 500 reviews wasted. that is about, i think a whole working week of wayfaring 1-2 Hours a day that i have done for Niantic, and they gave me those 7 upgrades, that i invested, and didnt get back when the submissions were falsely rejected.
i even cannot appeal to this, as Niantic doesnt refund.
That is like doing work for free, and not getting a decent payment. i am thrilled to do more work for Niantic.
If the percentage of garbage submissions is high, then it is not worth sitting down rejecting most and accepting very few. It's not fun. I am only willing to help people who are making a decent attempt and even though there is a slight improvement in quality ie no dark pictures of chains stores, there still is way too much garbage. I poked at it a bit after a break but still not really worth resuming.
"Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, The real-world location of the nomination could not be confirmed to have an acceptable pedestrian pathway leading up to it."
Criteria - sports field, encourages exercise. Pedestrian pathway? Seriously? It's freaking indoors, you have to be able to walk to it to get to it. Are voters afraid of being run over by a car inside a building?
but there's the supporting photo to show pedestrian access anyway if you didn't believe me.
Translated title: Village and chapel hiking trail - Elst
Description: Wandelpad met vertrek in de dorpskern van Hoegaarden. Langs de Tuinen van Hoegaarden, de Sint-Gorgoniuskerk, en de geosite Goudberg. De wandeling is ongeveer 9 km lang.
Translated description: Hiking trail with departure in the village center of Hoegaarden. Along the Gardens of Hoegaarden, the Sint-Gorgoniuskerk, and the geosite Goudberg. The walk is approximately 9 km long.
Supporting info: Trail marker with trail name, explicitly mentioned in the guidelines. Visible on 2009 streetview, so certainly not temporary. Certainly not a business or restaurant, and being generic is not against the guidelines. It is a trail marker, so it has safe pedestrian access.
The supporting info was for the 4th attempt.
Street view link: https://www.google.be/maps/@50.7689056,4.8882087,3a,75y,214.24h,65.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szQ76IXO2VFWyOuwDEAQ9eg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
2009 street view link: https://www.google.be/maps/@50.7690901,4.8882344,3a,54.1y,209.3h,78.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFbJyQypQiTFcDS4eT7n0-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
First attempt: 20-11-2019
Response: 25-11-2019: Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria.
Second attempt: 3-12-2019
Response: 13-12-2019: The real-world location of the nomination could not be confirmed to have an acceptable pedestrian pathway leading up to it, Insufficient evidence that the nomination accurately reflects the submitted real-world location based on comparison of the submitted photo and map views, Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria.
Third attempt: 17-12-2019
Response: 28-12-2019: Photo is low quality (e.g., pitch black/blurry photos or photos taken from a car), Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, The real-world location of the nomination appears to represent a generic store or restaurant.
Fourth attempt: 13-01-2019
Response: 07-02-2019: Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, Nomination does not appear to be permanent or appears to be a seasonal display that is only put up during certain times of the year, The real-world location of the nomination appears to represent a generic store or restaurant.
I have 13 more of these that got rejected 4 or 5 times already. 64 attempts, 1 was approved, 4 in voting and 1 in queue.
Not even in the longest stretch of the imagination can you claim that thats a sports field, it looks like an Indoor MUGA.
As such, and without seeing further info, they normally have fixed seating around it and only the users of the MUGA can actually get onto the games area its self, so based on that picture there isn't enough info to confirm there is pedestrian access to it.
What was it in ? A sports hall / leisure building ? If so sub the building its self
you must have a pretty weak imagination if you can't see a basketball hoops, hockey net and gym floor as not being sport's related. And as for your comments about pedestrian access, do you even know what pedestrian access means? I'd like to hear your definition.
I didn't say it wasnt sport related, I called it MUGA, I did say it is not a sports field, what with it not being outside or a field at all.
And no you have not proved pedestrian access to that MUGA
The picture shows a wall of some sort, based on that picture and one of a corridor it doesn't prove access to the MUGA the same as showing a picture of a football pitch inside Levi's Stadium and a picture of a corridor to it, doesnt prove pedestrian access.
Youve not proven anyone except the players using the pitch can walk up to it and access it.
You need a clearer picture or support picture to prove its accessible, as currently all you've provided is to show there is a wall of some sort preventing access.
Your pictures just weren't of sufficent quality to prove your sub was valid
you still haven't explained what you consider pedestrian access.
Plus, see the corridor, see the door, see the sign next to the door that says gym access? The idea of the support photo is to show that it's safe to stand there. Still don't understand how a person would get hit by a car there.
BTW here's the definition of safe access, as per Niantic
Rating Accessibility
If the real-world location of the nomination cannot be confirmed to have safe pedestrian access (for e.g. on a roundabout or on the side of the road with no sidewalk access), rate 1 star for the “Can it be safely accessed?” question.
This is exactly why there also needs to be a way to report abuse by reviewers. There is a play area indoors. You are not going to get hit by a car getting to it so it has pedestrian access. It doesn't matter if you or I can go there. Someone can. Unless it's in a school or a military base, it qualifies.
This is one of the things that got rejected even tho it's one of the best candidates I submitted. It has no street view but it's clearly visible from the satellite view and it's just next to the church that's already a portal.
There are plenty of other examples of such decisions. All playgrounds,no matter the location, get marked as K12 for example.
Comments
Good Point.
I have found many "good" or something good nominations while reviewing, but when going to validating if it exists, there is no google street view of a photosphere, I keep all my ratings and location 1 start them, and later on, i saw those portals live, that makes me wonder if people are reviewing good or niantic changed that, back in OPR that would not go live.
Poor photograph job usually make impossible to find out where is the "thing". People who take a super closer picture as main, of something that is already small or poor "mural", and on the support picture just show the other side of the street, the ground or just repeated picture, if I can't locate the location on streetview I give it 1star.
Most people do a poor job at submiting and when got it denied start accusing the reviewers.
Weirdly, I had a portal come through today, which was my most recent submission. 16 days, no upgrade, in an area with lots of portals. However, based on talking to players in the area, it's not an area with lots of submissions.
Having a church and a city pool both denied and listed as "Do Not Submit List" in the past few days sums up what Wayfarer is these days. Only took 21 months to get that church through the system finally. My queue is clear, no upgrades remain, removed my last sub that is a duplicate of what someone else subbed a day before mine. There are plenty of "low quality" portals popping up all over the place. I'm sure there will be more. No need to bother reviewing.
Example,
Its a bad example, I will rate it as 1 star, but lets pretend its a good mural.
You rate it properly and in Location Accuracy, there is no way to know., I 1 star them on location only, but i have seen many of them going live.
That hydrant shouldn't be added, but I don't think it should get a 1* for location. It is on a corner by a fence that looks like it could easily match the area in the overhead view. Zooming in on the area in google maps, that location is spot-on!
red curb, small grass ****, fence with black spikes and brick columns!
I said, "Let's pretend its a mural", on the wall. Those cannot be verified easly
I'm not trying to be mean, but if you're rating 1* simply because it has no photosphere than you're doing it wrong. If you can't find it in street view or a photosphere but it's "likely" to exist, it should be 3 stars.
They can if you're given a good supporting photo. Look at the surroundings, match it up. Stop 1-starring everything that is squirrely. Start at 3 and do some work go up or down from there.
Its a good example of a crappy submission. Main picture isn't centered correctly and the support is almost useless, since 80% is ground, providing absolute no clue where the "mural" would be.
In this case the hydrant can actually be seen in the maps, but if it were a mural, with this quality of pictures I would probably rate it poorly. If I can't the see the mural or identify the wall and nearby buildings because bad photography, I rate 1*, location not found.
You who? Me?
I'm talking specifically about urban submissions that are poorly executed. If the pictures can't prove the place/mural exists there, it could be anywhere in the world, and if the location isn't visible doing a 360 turn on streetview, them it's misplaced hard.
Ah, sorry, that wasn't directed at you, but rather at others' comments above that seem to say "if I can't see the object in a photosphere, it's an automatic 1*". Aside from someone outright falsifying the submission photos (for example, by photoshopping a mural onto a blank wall), reviewers should be able to use any context clues to figure out whether the candidate should reasonably be expected to exist where the submitter says it does. I think we're on the same page about how multiple pieces of evidence can be used to verify a location... context clues in the supporting photos, landmarks from the photos visible in satellite view, or the object being directly visible in street view.
If I'm 1*ing because of a mismatched location where the submitter hasn't put the effort in to locate it properly, it's usually because they've dropped the marker in the middle of the road.
If it's something too small to be seen as likely to be there, the location isn't why it should be failing.
there is one side of the table: Niantic wants us to spend our time reviewing. There are submissions, that viewed thru the eyes of a experienced player and wayfarer, are easily 5*-accepted with only ONE Click. Also there are submissions that are clearly 1* with ONE Click. Personally, i do not think that my time that i invest for Niantic is to have a click-a-paloooza thru 5* 4* 4* 5* 5* - and then even sometimes i do get a cooldown for 4hours.
Is it really neccessariy that there are 10+ wayfarers who have to 5* a playground or information-box ?
and and the end of the day, i dont even get an upgrade that i can invest in?
surely, people are ranting too much on reddit, and also here, but come on, Niantic, theres really no incentive for me doing wayfarer every day. i had 2 upgrades that were useless, because there was already a wayspot "in the pipeline" and mine came 2 days later. that is wasted 200 reviews. i had 5 upgrades for 5* submissions, that were blatantly rejected (i am in germany and cannot see why, as we dont get that information in the email) - another 500 reviews wasted. that is about, i think a whole working week of wayfaring 1-2 Hours a day that i have done for Niantic, and they gave me those 7 upgrades, that i invested, and didnt get back when the submissions were falsely rejected.
i even cannot appeal to this, as Niantic doesnt refund.
That is like doing work for free, and not getting a decent payment. i am thrilled to do more work for Niantic.
If the percentage of garbage submissions is high, then it is not worth sitting down rejecting most and accepting very few. It's not fun. I am only willing to help people who are making a decent attempt and even though there is a slight improvement in quality ie no dark pictures of chains stores, there still is way too much garbage. I poked at it a bit after a break but still not really worth resuming.
"Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, The real-world location of the nomination could not be confirmed to have an acceptable pedestrian pathway leading up to it."
Criteria - sports field, encourages exercise. Pedestrian pathway? Seriously? It's freaking indoors, you have to be able to walk to it to get to it. Are voters afraid of being run over by a car inside a building?
but there's the supporting photo to show pedestrian access anyway if you didn't believe me.
Wayspot photo:
Supporting photo:
Title: Dorps en kapellen wandelpad - Elst
Translated title: Village and chapel hiking trail - Elst
Description: Wandelpad met vertrek in de dorpskern van Hoegaarden. Langs de Tuinen van Hoegaarden, de Sint-Gorgoniuskerk, en de geosite Goudberg. De wandeling is ongeveer 9 km lang.
Translated description: Hiking trail with departure in the village center of Hoegaarden. Along the Gardens of Hoegaarden, the Sint-Gorgoniuskerk, and the geosite Goudberg. The walk is approximately 9 km long.
Supporting info: Trail marker with trail name, explicitly mentioned in the guidelines. Visible on 2009 streetview, so certainly not temporary. Certainly not a business or restaurant, and being generic is not against the guidelines. It is a trail marker, so it has safe pedestrian access.
The supporting info was for the 4th attempt.
Street view link: https://www.google.be/maps/@50.7689056,4.8882087,3a,75y,214.24h,65.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szQ76IXO2VFWyOuwDEAQ9eg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
2009 street view link: https://www.google.be/maps/@50.7690901,4.8882344,3a,54.1y,209.3h,78.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFbJyQypQiTFcDS4eT7n0-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
First attempt: 20-11-2019
Response: 25-11-2019: Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria.
Second attempt: 3-12-2019
Response: 13-12-2019: The real-world location of the nomination could not be confirmed to have an acceptable pedestrian pathway leading up to it, Insufficient evidence that the nomination accurately reflects the submitted real-world location based on comparison of the submitted photo and map views, Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria.
Third attempt: 17-12-2019
Response: 28-12-2019: Photo is low quality (e.g., pitch black/blurry photos or photos taken from a car), Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, The real-world location of the nomination appears to represent a generic store or restaurant.
Fourth attempt: 13-01-2019
Response: 07-02-2019: Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, Nomination does not appear to be permanent or appears to be a seasonal display that is only put up during certain times of the year, The real-world location of the nomination appears to represent a generic store or restaurant.
I have 13 more of these that got rejected 4 or 5 times already. 64 attempts, 1 was approved, 4 in voting and 1 in queue.
Not even in the longest stretch of the imagination can you claim that thats a sports field, it looks like an Indoor MUGA.
As such, and without seeing further info, they normally have fixed seating around it and only the users of the MUGA can actually get onto the games area its self, so based on that picture there isn't enough info to confirm there is pedestrian access to it.
What was it in ? A sports hall / leisure building ? If so sub the building its self
You're not sure there's pedestrian access?! Do you think people drive their cars through the building and park at the doorway to the court?
Are indoor play areas no longer eligible for waypoints?
They are, voters are just being voters.
you must have a pretty weak imagination if you can't see a basketball hoops, hockey net and gym floor as not being sport's related. And as for your comments about pedestrian access, do you even know what pedestrian access means? I'd like to hear your definition.
I didn't say it wasnt sport related, I called it MUGA, I did say it is not a sports field, what with it not being outside or a field at all.
And no you have not proved pedestrian access to that MUGA
The picture shows a wall of some sort, based on that picture and one of a corridor it doesn't prove access to the MUGA the same as showing a picture of a football pitch inside Levi's Stadium and a picture of a corridor to it, doesnt prove pedestrian access.
Youve not proven anyone except the players using the pitch can walk up to it and access it.
You need a clearer picture or support picture to prove its accessible, as currently all you've provided is to show there is a wall of some sort preventing access.
Your pictures just weren't of sufficent quality to prove your sub was valid
So you think this is a Rocket League arena?
If players, referees, etc. have pedastrian access, that is enough. Not everyone needs access for it to be valid. This has been stated numerous times.
you still haven't explained what you consider pedestrian access.
Plus, see the corridor, see the door, see the sign next to the door that says gym access? The idea of the support photo is to show that it's safe to stand there. Still don't understand how a person would get hit by a car there.
BTW here's the definition of safe access, as per Niantic
Rating Accessibility
If the real-world location of the nomination cannot be confirmed to have safe pedestrian access (for e.g. on a roundabout or on the side of the road with no sidewalk access), rate 1 star for the “Can it be safely accessed?” question.
This is exactly why there also needs to be a way to report abuse by reviewers. There is a play area indoors. You are not going to get hit by a car getting to it so it has pedestrian access. It doesn't matter if you or I can go there. Someone can. Unless it's in a school or a military base, it qualifies.
Amen
This is one of the things that got rejected even tho it's one of the best candidates I submitted. It has no street view but it's clearly visible from the satellite view and it's just next to the church that's already a portal.
There are plenty of other examples of such decisions. All playgrounds,no matter the location, get marked as K12 for example.