Suspended for “Reviewer Influencing” After Requesting a Pin Location Correction

General Discussion
1

Hello everyone,

I’m posting here because I would like to understand whether anyone else has experienced something similar.

My Wayfarer account flashicegamer was recently suspended for 30 days, and one of the reasons given was “Reviewer Influencing.”

The situation that led to this is very frustrating for me.

The Wayspot was related to a car repair/automotive shop, and the pin had been placed near the establishment rather than at the actual location of the business.

I simply suggested that the pin be moved closer to the actual establishment, because that is where the real-world location of the nominated place is.

I did NOT ask reviewers to approve the Wayspot.

I did NOT ask them to vote positively.

I did NOT tell reviewers how they should rate the nomination.

I did NOT say that the nomination should be accepted.

My intention was only to have the pin represent the actual physical location of the establishment.

I have seen other nominations where people explicitly write things such as requests to approve a nomination or comments about wanting an additional PokéStop, but I did not do that. My comment was specifically about the physical placement of the pin.

I completely understand that reviewer manipulation is against the rules, and I agree that attempts to influence votes should be penalized. However, I strongly disagree with interpreting a request to place a pin at the actual location of the establishment as an attempt to influence reviewers.

I have also been accused of “Fake Content Submission,” and I would like to understand exactly what content was considered false.

Has anyone else had a similar experience where a comment about correcting the physical location of a pin was treated as reviewer influencing?

I would really appreciate some clarification from experienced Wayfarers or Ambassadors, because I genuinely want to understand where the line is and make sure I don’t make the same mistake again.

Thanks.

I have continued to make genuine, good-faith contributions to Wayfarer, including nominations that have recently been accepted by the community. This is why I am genuinely concerned and confused about this enforcement, and I am trying to understand exactly what I did wrong in this specific case.

To be clear, the pin was not actually on the wall/location of the automotive shop. It was placed in the wrong position, away from the real-world location of the establishment. My intention in mentioning the pin was specifically to correct that physical inaccuracy and have the Wayspot accurately represent where the business is located.”

image
image1186×580 116 KB

Localização

Rua Domingos Tordin SN, Valinhos, SP, Brazil, Valinhos, 13275-095, BR

(-22.970497, -46.987766)Copiar

Enviado por FlashIcee

Há 2 meses

2

Did you make an edit to the description of the waypoint saying that? This is the part that is specifically banned. Those kinds of description edits are considered as trying to change real good descriptions to somthing that degrades the waypoint, is not relevant, and makes no sense in game.

All the other edits doing the same should also have been reported so the community learns this is not allowed.

3

Thank you for clarifying.

Yes, I made an edit related to the Wayspot, but I want to clarify what my intention was because I believe there may be a misunderstanding.

The point I was trying to make was about the location of the pin, not about changing the actual description to influence reviewers.

The establishment is a real automotive repair/painting shop, and the pin had been placed near the establishment rather than at the establishment itself. My suggestion was simply that the pin should be closer to the actual location of the business.

I was not trying to make the description worse, make it irrelevant, or manipulate reviewers into approving the Wayspot. I also did not ask anyone to vote positively or to accept the nomination.

If the specific wording I used in the edit is against the rules, I can understand that I should not have worded it that way. However, I still disagree with the interpretation that my intention was to influence reviewers.

I also want to understand the distinction between an edit intended to provide accurate information about the real-world location and an edit that is actually intended to manipulate the review process.

This is particularly important to me because this resulted in a 30-day suspension and a warning that another violation could lead to a permanent suspension.

Thank you for explaining this. I am genuinely trying to understand the rule so that I do not make the same mistake again, and I hope this can also serve as a warning to other contributors who may unknowingly use similar wording.

4

Mind sharing what your description edit was?

5

Welcome. If its ok, Can you share full screenshot of your edit request and /or suspension email?

You can gather advice here first before deciding to appeal privately to wayfarer staff.

6

Sure. I can share the relevant screenshots.

I found the original Wayfarer email showing the exact description edit I submitted, as well as the suspension email.

I’m sharing them so the community can see the full context and help me understand whether this was correctly classified as “Reviewer Influencing” before I proceed with the appeal.

The important point for me is that I was trying to request a correction to the Wayspot pin location, not ask reviewers to approve or vote positively on the Wayspot.

7

Yes. This was the exact description edit I submitted:

“Olá avaliador, esse pokés stop ficando um pouco mais para atras o pessoal que joga no predio vai conseguir rodar em suas moradas”

My intention was to ask for the pin to be moved closer to the actual establishment, because the Wayspot was positioned behind/near the automotive shop.

I now understand that using the description edit field to communicate a pin-location request was the wrong way to do it, and I also understand why mentioning players being able to interact with the Wayspot could be considered problematic.

However, I did not intend to influence the reviewer’s vote or ask for the Wayspot to be approved. I was trying to address the physical placement of the pin.

That’s why I’m asking for clarification about whether this specific situation is considered “Reviewer Influencing” under the current rules.

8

image
image831×538 75.2 KB

9

This is a mistake that people sometimes make. There is no option to explain why you are submitting a location edit, so sometimes people use the Wayspot Description field to enter their explanation.

Obviously Scopely Explore could solve this user-interface issue by providing a space for wayfarers to explain why they are submitting an edit, but they don’t do this, possibly with good reason.

There is no way to explain your edit - you just give reviewers a choice of location and let them use their best judgement. Attempting to use the description field for a purpose which it definitely doesn’t have is problematic.

10

That makes sense, and I understand the distinction now.

In my particular case, the intention was not to influence the review of the Wayspot itself. The pin was genuinely in the wrong physical location — it was not on the wall/location of the automotive shop, but displaced from the actual establishment.

I was actually the person who originally submitted this location. At one point, the location was questioned as being temporary or possibly fake, so I appealed that and provided around four photos showing the real location.

Because I knew the location was real, I was trying to correct the pin so that it accurately represented the actual physical location of the establishment.

I now understand that the Description field is not intended to explain why a location edit is being submitted, and that using it for that purpose can potentially be interpreted as reviewer influencing, even when the intention is simply to clarify a location issue.

That distinction is exactly what I was trying to understand. I appreciate the explanation.

I was also the person who originally submitted this Wayspot/location. At the time, the location was questioned as temporary or possibly fake, so I had to appeal the decision and provide around four photos showing that the location was real. The appeal was accepted and the location was kept.

11

Hey @flashicegamer ,

I have shared all the relevant details through a DM. Please check it. Thanks,

12

:face_with_raised_eyebrow:

13

Thanks for taking the time to look into this. I’ll check the DM and review the details carefully.