We used to have this rejection reason, and I also want it back. I think it is much clearer to say that we did not find it to meet any acceptance criteria. The closest option we have right now is to mark something as “Temporary or Not Distinct” to tell the submitter that something just isn’t significant enough to be a Wayspot. But often the point of interest clearly is permanent and can be expected to find it again when on return, which I think confuses them, but is the only option we have right now.
But I do appreciate your viewpoint as a newer reviewer. How would you suggest we word the rejection when it just does not meet any acceptance criteria?
I made the suggestion that they combine the last three core criteria questions into one section, where a on all three triggers a pop up that you are rejecting the nomination.
“Does not meet criteria” means the reviewer is telling the submitter “dont submit this again” -there’s no improvement to make it eligible, it’s just not the sort of thing that should be a PoI
For example a regular road sign, a lamp post, a supermarket, or a tree.
Many of the rejection reasons we can use send a message to the submitter about possible improvements for example if I select “low quality picture”, “blurry picture” and “submitter identifiable”, I’m trying to say to the submitter next time don’t take a picture with loads of glare and reflection where you’ve caught yourself in a mirrored shop front.
If I reject for “generic business” then I’m trying to tell them that they need to show why this is important because it just seems like a business that doesn’t meet any criteria- but maybe if you tell us more it could be better.
If I reject for low quality title, I’m telling them their title needs looking at - maybe it contained something about Pokémon Go - but I’m not telling them the whole nomination is bad.
I’m following the situation — and correct me if I’m wrong:
a) Wayfarer Wayspots are supposed to be “great places to exercise, explore, or socialize.”
b) The review system is broken, and three for explore/exercise/socialize are ignored — those votes are counted as accept.
c) The Wayfarer team and ambassadors are suggesting reviewers use other rejection reasons, such as “not distinct” (but really, any rejection works — like “description accuracy”), instead of rejecting for EES.
d) Some reviewers are fine with that, some don’t want to be part of the lie, and some haven’t even heard about it — and still use EES three (which currently means accept).
Question: It’s been two years. How hard is it to fix? Either make three thumbs down count as rejection, or remove it from the review page altogether.
Going forward, I think it is more fruitful to focus on how to fix the system than to throw accusations at anyone who is doing their best to work within the framework of critieria and the not optimally designed review process.
Also, while it has been 2 years for us, keep in mind that it has only been a few months for the current owners of Wayfarer. Wayfarer is a complicated system that takes time to master. It takes time to view the whole landscape and determine what to work on, knowing what to unravel and how that impacts the entire ecosystem.
One of the aspects of our work as ambassadors is to advocate for the community. Please know that we have been doing this at every chance we get about all the major frustration points. Though I can’t reveal anything more than what Tintino has said, I feel very optimistic about their team’s desire to improve the community experience and their eagerness to listen to you/us.
You asked the question, “How to review streetsigns without abusing acceptance criteria?” and Roli provided the answer from staff on how to review these things. That is the solution. I know that you don’t like that answer, and neither do I, but it is the solution.
No I didn’t. I edited the title to that, yes, because the original title that was chosen for me suggested that I don’t believe street signs should be accepted, but this discussion was entirely on topic in the original thread.
I would not have nominated street signs if I didn’t believe they met both eligibility and acceptance criteria.
Yeah this is a good summary, and a source of personal frustration for me because I also feel like I’m lying to the submitter when rejecting, so then they’re confused and probably angry about being told their permanent and distinctive item is temporary or not distinct. It helps no one.
3 thumbs down should reject. Since we were told it doesn’t, I struggle to review, because I hate the advice we were given, it makes no sense to me and I disagree with doing it. I still do as I’ve been told but it doesn’t feel good, so I hardly review anymore.
For anyone who has landed on this topic of “How to review streetsigns without abusing acceptance criteria” and has genuine questions, the answer has been provided by staff on another post:
That topic also questioned when we should use the “not Distinct” rejection reason. Staff said this was a legitimate way to reject a nomination. It is not abuse to use this reason.
Staff have also said previously that we must pick one of the first four questions to reject a nomination:
Staff have also advocated for rejecting pools and trail markers, despite them clearly meeting eligibility criteria. This was clearly wrong and the community saw through it. Saying something that is visually distinct isn’t is also clearly wrong.
And that was done through series of communication, opinions and civil persistence not through attacking other reviewers because you disagree with methods provided by staff.
I agree that the definition that is used for Wayfarer for items being distinct is not very accurate. At first I also used the definition as provided as a guiding principle.
However I do believe, that the word “distinct” has a broader meaning than what is mentioned in the guidelines, at least certainly if I look at the words used in my own language, it also means “stand out from the masses”.
Every street sign can easily be identified when in the neighbourhood, but if they don’t add any special meaning, I don’t think they stand out. In fact all streetlights in my street have a unique number, so yes, I can identify them when in the neighbourhood. But would I really be interested in looking at them? No, so they are not distinct enough.
So I don’t mind using the non-distinct option. If it does not meet any of the three criteria, it just doesn’t stand out.
Would it be nicer if we could actually use a better rejection method, yes I completely agree, as it will help people in understanding why a nomination was rejected.
In The Netherlands you do see a lot of streetsigns with the names of famous people, often even explaining why they were famous (eg famous painter from the 17th century). I do reject these, as no one really looks at those signs for the cultural meaning, they are used to find the right address/directions:
on all three triggers a pop up that you are rejecting the nomination.
— let people have a way to play.
