They’re asking us to vote on nominations that have already been decided

What you outline here is a perfect example of poor programming, and this is the problem that OP is highlighting.

Yes, that is a possible outcome - perhaps a coincidental threshold was reached on the 100th review that resulted in a verdict assessment that put it below the arbitrary threshold of 4* that you've surmised here. Perhaps after 99 compiled reviews, an aggregate score of 3.94* rating has been assessed. Maybe the 100th review of a 5*, across the board review, would adjust the aggregate review rating to 3.99*, but still result in a rejection.

If, as a reviewer, you are giving 5* to something that is at a 2* aggregate score after a review count that makes it impossible to achieve a 4* aggregate score at, or before 100 reviews have been tabulated, you are wasting the reviewers time.

The point is that there is the possibility that poor programming is wasting reviewers time when aggregate review scores, before a n=100 count is achieved, will result in a guaranteed rejection regardless of the number of 5* reviews completed beyond a certain review count. This same logic can be applied to nominations being accepted.

This is a variable that can be accounted for on a programming level, and should be implemented for efficiency purposes.

Stop wasting our time, Niantic.

/r/NianticWayfarer Thread Parent