Wayfarer "Clarity" updates needed
0X00FF00
✭✭✭✭✭
I was heartened to see @NianticCasey posting directly to one of the largest Wayfarer fan-based Facebook groups. And while I understand that the core support group in Niantic is small and occasionally overwhelmed, there are a few specific things that have yet to be posted in an "official" capacity on the Wayfarer site itself. Without these updates, some of the arguments in those side-channels start to become loud and angry, and in the end counterproductive.
- There is only one "Niantic POI Database" and only one "Niantic". An official Niantic employee talking about what is valid/invalid for Ingress portals has just as much weight as one talking about valid/invalid Pokemon stops and gyms. Some of this communication may be via Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Telegram, these Community Forums, or even ancient AMAs that were formerly hosted on Google+ and are now only visible via the Wayback machine at archive.org or collected by enthusiasts at ingressama.com ; Some was written for "OPR" and some for "Wayfarer" ; and most of which it seems Niantic only considers to be "clarifications" of what they meant, and not actually new rules. (And my personal opinion is, that if Niantic themselves won't replicate the work of ingressama.com, they can at least officially validate that the text contained therein is an accurate copy.)
- What is Private Residential Property's definition with regards to Wayfarer? Apparently Niantic made their ultimate decision in the AMAs, partially due to pressure from the PRP lawsuits. Briefly paraphrased, many street addresses have an "easement" that the adjoining landowners do not themselves own but are required to maintain. The AMA stated that, since Niantic cannot possibly ever know all of the distinct rules across the globe, the single rule was to be applied globally: No wayspots on easements, period.
- The 1* - 5* subcategory voting needs to be explicitly described. At the very very least, explain that even with a positive rating overall, a 1* vote in many of the categories equates to a "this should not be a portal because..." vote. Too many people incorrectly believe that 1* for Title just means "meh", when they likely should have voted 3* for "meh".
- Inaccurate gps location can be considered "abuse". This includes both submitting a wayspot at an inaccurate spot, and submitting an "edit" request to move a POI to an inaccurate location. It may only be a minority of Pokemon players doing this in an effort to generate "more" in-game locations, but there is a great number of them doing this.
10
Comments
2a, What is Private Residential Property's definition with regards to Wayfarer? Expansion of types of residence that are classified as PRP. Currently in Wayfarer it just mentioned Private Residential Property and does not define what that actually means. In order for wayfinders to be successful they need clarity here. The old AMAs list PRP as Single Family Homes and Private Farms. However, currently as it stands there is confusion on town homes, condos, apartment complexes, duplexes, etc. Without a clear definition many valid portals are being denied.
I'll never understand the eagerness of some to bang away at the 1* and abuse buttons. I truly hope Niantic looks just as hard at the people clicking the button as they do the accused. It's a convenient system for the reviewer that only they can claim abuse. That needs to be changed. There is equally as much abuse going on in the reviewing side of things right now as the submitting.
How can you know there is people doing as you say?
I would be more worried with the portals that are being accepted. If a valid one is denied, just try again. If a invalid is accepted, it's going to be hard to remove it, since Niantic doesn't like to remove it, and the criteria of removal aren't just the opposite big approval.
The returned results of many submissions right now are basically abuse. Parks rejected as natural features. Murals being rejected as generic business. The pins on sports field being moved for no obvious reason other than to ensure it does not show up in all games.
A person does not have to look very far to see that reviewers have been getting away with some shady practices for quite a while.
Bad candidates will receive bad review results. It's the job of the submitter to provide good proofs and argument to approve it.
The field case, it could be moved after the approval.
The pub, it probably lacked good description and fall under generics business.
The so called mural, it's clearly inside a business lot, and is just a painting of a tool (is it a paper guillotine?). It's low quality candidate. I had trouble submitting far better one and I'm not mad about it.
As I was cited, to be clear, I understand a "cool piece of art" is subjective to reviewers, and if it didn't pass, fine. My only issue was that it got rejected as generic business when the nomination was art.
@Hydraulinski WHERE artwork is located is irrelevant unless it's in a Niantic restricted location (PRP, K12 school, military base, etc). Being AT a business is absolutely 100% IRRELEVANT for such nominations. The business is only significant if IT is the nomination (generally local hotspot, hidden gems).
Oh I agree with you completely and that's why I used the example as a candidate where the submitter should be able to report abuse by the reviewers.
My only issue was that it got rejected as generic business when the nomination was art.
That's because Does Not Meet Criteria requires people to enter text and Generic Business does not.
https://community.ingress.com/en/discussion/8031/feature-request-remove-the-text-requirement-for-does-not-meet-criteria
Probably because is easier to mark generic business than give low stars and fill all forms, or give 1 and justify how low quality they feel it was. And since it is a picture of something representing a business, they're weren't exactly all wrong. Not precisely, just lazy. In my opinion this candidate is not valid, so the result ended right (imo) by the wrong way.
And that is a form of abuse and gaming of the system, resulting in useless feedback and a lot of ill feeling.
Sure, but it's also the reality of human nature, thus the post.
If it was human nature then everyone would be doing it, but they aren't. It's a wizard scheme from the OPR days. Now that the rejection reasons are part of the decision notice, those people need to change their ways or be kicked out of Wayfarer.
Yes while there is the chance that people are approving incorrectly related to PRP, that doesnt change the need for a clear definition. Almost all of the new reviewers in my area are hyper critical on PRP so anything even remotely close to a human dwelling is being rejected.
I believe a lot of people are just choosing a random 1 star button to go through things as quickly as possible. It probably isn't a misunderstanding but a lack of caring unfortunately.
I can't speak for all reviewers in my area but the ones I have communicated with are HYPER vigilant and are ending up making their own rules due to the lack of clarity. I am sure there are others with the 1-star button.
Because reviewers frequently gloat about blanket 1-starring a Submission, particularly the "Should this be a Portal" question, rather than just the "offending" category (location, quality of description, historic/cultural value / safety). If you don't like a portal because it's not interesting or culturally-significant but is in a safe place and has an accurate description, then you 1 or 2 star that category, not the whole thing. Same with location. Great portal, but bad location? 2-star the location (or suggest a better place if you know where it should be) and 4/5 star the rest. It isn't rocket science.
But this is the first question asked. If you don't think something should be a portal, you had to give it 1* and then select the reason.
I take issue with this part of your assertion:
Great portal, but bad location? 2-star the location (or suggest a better place if you know where it should be) and 4/5 star the rest. It isn't rocket science.
If the location is bad enough (i.e., you can't find the candidate at the nominated location or within a reasonable distance thereof), it's fully appropriate to give it a 1* overall rejection for "Mismatched Location" (and yes, that is an actual rejection reason you can use).
Blame PoGo in the OP as usual but excuse Ingress abuse.
I (the OP) am utterly boggled at this above accusation. I'm CLEARLY stating that ALL Niantic communications re: Wayfarer need to be treated with equal weight.
Could you point out specifically where PoGo was blamed in the original post? To me it looks like @0X00FF00 is requesting better communication and asking for clarification for all groups equally. Am I mistaken?
I'm guessing it's the little tidbit at 4. regarding "edit abuse". Apparently I'm somehow blaming all of the Pokemon world for the actions by a small minority.
I just wish Niantic would comment about old OPR/Wayfarer criteria decisions from AMA still applying to Wayfarer now that PoGO players have access. It's something I see a lot of people saying that OPR criteria clarifications should no longer apply to justify their personal rules.
That and going back to re-rate the "Should this be a Wayspot" rating to reject if we find a valid reject reason after the initial impression.
All we really need is a single source, and a statement that everything else is out of date. But that single source needs to have gone through everything else and added the relevant and still applying rulings.
@NianticCasey
I guess on technicalities, your recent response over in https://community.ingress.com/en/discussion/8318/clarification-history-replaced-with-criteria-inquiry-form/ confirms my points 1, 2, and 4 in my post, but only indirectly:
Profit!Erm, I mean edits trying to influence the reviewer are considered reportable "abuse"That still leaves the part were we know reviewers still misunderstand how a 1* vote in a subcategory can lead to an unintentional rejection.
If a person can't be bothered to write a couple of words about why the candidate does not meet the criteria, I really hope they stop reviewing.