The Review Rejection workflow needs change

Following my suggestion to improve the German translation ( German Criteria translation needs improvement ), I would now like to suggest a highly necessary update to the Review rejection workflow aswell.

As it stands right now, if a user wants to reject a submission during review, and they thumbs down on “Appropriate”, they are met with this:


This does not explain to the user properly, what the denial criteria actually means. For that, they would need to press on the (i) icon instead. The main issue is, that the options on the rejection menu are misleading.

  • Private property is misleading as it’s meant to be private residential property
  • Adult location is misleading as it’s meant to be adult-oriented location
  • Schools is misleading as K-12 locations don’t necessarily have to be schools and other examples are mentioned in the criteria explanation
  • Sensitive location isn’t explained here at all
  • Obstructs emergency operations is fine
  • Generic business also isn’t explained at all

Judging from the high amount of false rejections I and other members of the community get, especially when submitting in a town/city, I would like to suggest for the rejection pop-up for Appropriate to be changed to something similar to what comes up with the “Report” button.
I assume the Report button has more extensive explanations in place to prevent false reports, which waste the time of Niantic employees - hence I would appreciate more extensive explanations in place to prevent false rejections, which waste the time of both reviewers and submitters.

The following mock-up tries to explain the criteria more closely to reviewers and provides valuable examples. The text might be a bit bulky and can be improved writing-wise, keep in mind that English is not my first language. I put a watermark on the image to show more clearly, that this is not an official screenshot, as

  • this probably is too night and day
  • this has my interpretations of criteria in them
  • and said interpretation might not be accurate, as I might be misunderstanding things, overlooking details or because I tried to crunch the text to not make it too long

The idea behind my suggestion is what I’m trying to bring across, not necessarily the full correctness of the content, so please don’t take this as criteria advice, as this is very cut & dry.


I also think, that on the “Permanent and Distinct” rejection pop-up, it should warn users from the most common false rejections that happen with this rejection reason. I don’t know which one that could be, but I’m sure sports clubs, community buildings etc. probably commonly get falsely denied.

Furthermore, I personally think that if Niantic accepts an appeal for a stop that was denied by reviewers, that reviewers should be notified that their decision has been overturned and why. This helps users to learn from their mistakes and improves criteria. I’ve written an example mail for how users could be notified of their mistake:

FYI:
K-12 means kindergarten to 12th grade and has nothing to do with 12 year olds :slight_smile:

In the past we have discussed AI-powered pop ups during the review flow/ submission, based on what the ML recognizes (or via the mostly obsolete categories).

Like: Looks like you might be reviewing/ submitting x. Please note that x

Looks like you might be submitting a school. Please note that kindergarten, elementary, middle, and high schools are not eligible. If you are not submitting a school please proceed

Exactly why it’s so confusing!

Its a very strange term that many reviewers will never have heard of, and will assume that it means 12 years old. I did. If something means children under 18, it should say that.

I really like the idea of the rejection screen showing the detail like this. I think it might be more clear what the criteria is by displaying it this way.

Yes I had no idea and as it wasn’t obvious I ignored it. Fortunately I knew schools ( which I did not equate to references to K12 ) were not allowed.
Once I realised it was to do with schools I assumed it to be Key stage 12.

Under 18 years is so much easier and universal.

Thanks for proving my point, I spend so much time on Wayfarer nowadays and I still get things like that wrong - which perfectly backs up why this needs change.

I’m in the UK and old enough that school was Nursery, Infants (years 1 to 3), Junior (years 1 to 4) the Comprehensive (years 1 to 5).
The clever kids might go on to 6th Form or College then University.
Us daft kids where told to go and don’t come back :teacher:

K12 meant nothing to me but a simple google sorted that :slight_smile:

A bit food for thoughts to add, but the “Obstructs emergency operations” rejection reason probably could also take a bit of work to clarify that for example hospital playgrounds or art in hospitals can be eligible - although I see how it could be problematic and lead to some problematic nominations

I firmly agree on the private property part. If the guidelines are that this should only be used for single family / single unit residential, and I believe that is the case, why not say so?

I’ve had three submissions rejected under this, which I believed shouldn’t have been, and all three were overturned on appeal (and are currently live in game). All three would have been excluded by such a clarification. Two were apartment complex swimming pools, the third was a hotel swimming pool.

Kinda silly to have to burn six weeks worth of appeals just because the rejection reason isn’t clearly stated to the reviewers.

—-

Regarding “K-12”… as an American, this is clearly a reference to educational facilities for under-18s (our academic years were originally numbered 1-12, sequentially, and then “kindergarten”, hence K, was inserted before first.)

…but it’s a cultural reference that doesn’t appear to translate and could easily be avoided. I would suggest changing the wording to say something like “schools and other facilities that primarily provide education or services for children under 18”.

I complained about most of these issues when they switched to this review flow. K-12 makes sense to me being US based, but still should indicate facilities for minors without their guardians. And “schools” gets universities rejected incorrectly.

The biggest one for me is that we can’t reject for something not meeting criteria in this work flow, and it isn’t clear that a thumbs down on the last three questions about meeting criteria is NOT a rejection.

Staff never addressed any of my issues, and too many people were telling me it was a me issue, and that new reviewers love this flow, so I gave up. Mostly. Thank you for bringing this up again.

I will note that the Wayfarer Ambassadors were able to get a change from "“Accurate and High Quality” to “Accuracy” fwiw.

I agree with all of what GabrielPBC is suggesting - there needs to be better descriptions of the rejections - I imagine outside of the wayfaring community - most of the people doing reviews are just trying to earn some sort of in game badge and don’t have a thorough understanding of Wayfarer - and that is okay, but they need more education / guidance.

for the K-12 discussion, I personally would prefer “K-12” be changed to something like “educational facilities for children 18 and under” because almost every daycare and pre-K facility I’ve ever seen has some sort of mural on it. This would also cover dance/karate/swim schools/camps etc that only have classes for kids.

“Not permanent or distinct” is one of the most confusing rejections for a new reviewer and is also the most common. This is because we have no way to reject for “does not meet criteria” and have been told to pick not distinct as the best work around. New reviewers see this and say " what do you mean not permanent? Its literally a giant building!?!" Or “not distinct? This is the only sign in existence for this concrete company!?!”

We need a new rejection reason for Does Not Meet Criteria!

It can be its own category or it can be a sub category under appropriate or even under permanent/ distinct.

I’ll use the opportunity to inform that this is still an ongoing issue. There is something very wrong with the system when a tennis court gets rejected for private property & unsafe access. It’s a tennis court at a tennis club, come on.

Can you post pics of this specific submission? Also, did you appeal it?

I can share a censored submission.

Name: Double Tennis Court 2 -short name of tennis club-
Description: Here you can play tennis at -full name of tennis club-
Supporting information: Good place to do sports at and socialize with others. Link to the tennis club: LINK

The location is a tennis club in the woods that is registered on Google Maps, and the address in Wayfarer even shows the address as the name of the tennis club. It is very visible from satellite and the website of the club is actively maintained.

Here are pictures:



I wasn’t able to take a lot more pictures due to time and lighting concerns but it should be very easy to confirm the location based on the club house in the background and the surroundings. As I said earlier, satellite shows things very clearly.

I decided against appealing since I had to use my last two on sport studios, so I resubmitted.
I am fairly sure that this is a slam dunk submission.

I am having a hard time, from the pictures you shared why this could have been marked a private property. Are those houses in the censored area? Me not being staff, would recommend you wait for your appeal to come off cooldown and use an appeal for this.

Please see my prior post on the subject - I had the same issue with two apartment complex swimming pools and one hotel swimming pool. All three were overturned on appeal and are in game. But that consumed six weeks worth of appeals because of misinformed reviewers.

A fourth “private property” rejection, at a casino/hotel, was also appealed but not overturned as Scopely apparently decided the artwork was “mass produced”.

German reviewers reject the most random things as private property, for no reason

Yesn’t, they’re not residential houses but the tennis club house. German reviewers often reject for private property because they take it literally and don’t go by the intented SFPRP definition. I’ve had this happen numerous times with a large variety of submissions.

I would like to add to the “adult location” rejection reason. The rejection reason “Ort richtet sich an Erwachsene” (location is geared towards adults) leads German reviewers to reject things such as art galleries, sports fields (for adult sports such as boules, which obviously only retirees engage in), and picnic tables. I would like to emphasize how frustrating it is to wait more than a month for a nomination to go through voting, only for it to be rejected as something illogical.