The first one was approved, and this one wasn’t?

I’m seriously struggling here. This is in reference to a pair of memorial benches honoring the founding couple of the church. The one honoring Sarah Shelley, the founder’s wife, has already been approved. The one honoring Martin Shelley, the founder, has been rejected FOUR times.

I tried taking the picture from far away so it’s easier to verify the location, but then you couldn’t see the plaque. I tried submitting with a closer picture so you could see the plaque, but then it got rejected because of “insufficient evidence that the nomination accurately reflects the submitted real-world location based on comparison of the submitted photo and map views.” It also rejected because of “does not meet criteria”, even though the other bench has already been approved. I’m really losing faith in this community.

Attached are the photos of the rejected submission, and then the photos of the twin that has been approved. If you look closely in the supporting photo of the rejected submission, you can see the other bench.


  • donandlan-PGOdonandlan-PGO Posts: 201 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2020

    TBH, the second stop looks fake to me. It looks like a the exact same portable bench with a plate on it as the first nomination temporarily moved with the intent of creating more stops. The staining on the top is the same on both. I wouldn't have passed the first one. And if I was given the second one, I'd see the first one on nearby stops and not pass it either.

  • RGood-PGORGood-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    It would make a lot more sense if you were right. Unfortunately, you’re not, and I’m still stuck wondering why I’m struggling so much with this because you didn’t provide any helpful advice.

    The benches are solid stone or marble or something. The seat itself does look identical, I’m guessing that has something to with how they were manufactured? But these have been here for years and They are assuredly real.

    So, how can I submit this to show that they are real? Should I pick one up and slam it on the ground to show how it looks broken? Should I contact the church board to find out who the manufacturer was, then link the website of the manufacturer? Should I illegally paint them to make them look different?

    I would love some tangible, helpful advice.

  • RGood-PGORGood-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭
    edited November 2020

    Not to mention, you can see both benches in the supporting photo. So there’s evidence that it’s not just some fake bench I bought.

    Why would I go to the trouble of writing here if this was a fake bench?

    This community of reviewers has become so elitist that it’s toxic. A rural trainer, like myself, has to work so much harder to liven up their community. There are so few eligible submissions that I have to drive miles around to maybe find one or two. So when I have to submit a 100% eligible nomination and it gets rejected 3 times, I’m left to question the reviewers themselves. I know what’s eligible and what isn’t. I have reviewed a couple thousands nominations and have a “Great” way finder rating. This is a memorial bench that is historically/culturally significant as it directly relates to the history of the church. Their website doesn’t have a history section so I can’t reference that. No matter how I take the picture, the reviewers don’t like it. First, I’m too far away and they can’t see the plaque, then I’m too close and the location can’t be verified, even though the additional photo 100% verifies the location. It’s such a shame what this community of reviewers has turned in to. Sorry, I’m done ranting now.

  • donandlan-PGOdonandlan-PGO Posts: 201 ✭✭✭

    You asked for feedback, I offered. You're struggling because the benches look exactly the same. The mildew staining is exactly the same. If they are in fact different benches, it's going to be difficult to prove that, but that's what you need to do.

    Memorial benches are hard to pass even without your near miracle level duplicate mildew staining problem. To pass, a memorial bench needs to be:

    a destination or a placemark of local interest and importance and which makes our communities unique and shapes its identity. Somewhere or something that tells the unique story about a place, its history, its cultural meaning, or teaches us about the community we live in.

    That's a high bar to pass. Maybe your church founders meet that criteria, maybe they don't. Once again, that's your job to prove in the nomination. Good luck to you, but remember that some things just don't get to be waystops.

  • RGood-PGORGood-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    As I read the criteria for an eligible nomination that you just shared, I was left nodding my head in recognition that those benches absolutely meet the criteria. They are benches honoring the founders of the church. I see that as totally eligible. If you don’t see that as meeting the criteria, I would say that perhaps you have a skewed or entirely too strict perception of the criteria.

    I can at least understand your argument about them looking the same, but there is no way I can change that. It shouldn’t be my responsibility to do that, either.

    I appreciate you taking the time to reply to me, but I’m afraid it hasn’t really helped me, as there is no way I can change the way the benches look.

  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,622 Ambassador

    Maybe change the extra information. If they are the founders of the church, there should be any information about them on the internet. Also, the bench doesnt really look permanent. Memorial benches are only eligeble, What were the rejection criteria named in the mail?

    Under the Criteria 3.1, memorial benches are not eligible unless there is something particular about the memorial itself. Even under the previous criteria, memorial benches where only eligable if it was for a significant or historic person in the community. This is sadly very subjective.

  • RGood-PGORGood-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    This gives me something to try to work with, I appreciate it. So I need to try to find more information about the founders. I looked on the churches website and on their Facebook page but neither included a history section, so maybe I’ll have to dig a little deeper.

    I wouldn’t press this so hard if it weren’t for the fact that the other bench has already been approved. That one approved first try, and this one has failed 4 times. Unfortunately, the other bench is in the same cell as the church so it won’t appear in Pokémon Go. This bench is in a different cell, but, naturally, this is the one that continues to be rejected.

  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,622 Ambassador

    For extra information, maybe ask someone from the church or check a local archieve. A friend of mine got an exclusive tour around a normally not acceble skulpture park, because ha asked about the meaning of a sculpture once. It can give you chances you didnt think about. Ang giving such information for a waypoint is always a motive of quality and will more likely get accepted.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I also agree with the others. Try putting more information other than just the founder of the church. Provide links n such

  • cyndiepooh-INGcyndiepooh-ING Posts: 864 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I liked the first comment because that is the same thing I saw as a reviewer. Then I saw the pin in a parking lot with the portable bench not there. Strike two. I kept going, and did not see any persuasive argument as to why this should be an exception to what I see as a generic moveable bench. I did not see both benches in the photo. Please don't be angry about that - trying to let you know why I would have rejected it so you can fix it.

    I continued on through the one that did get accepted, and frankly saw the same issues. Plus the supporting information that you need another pokestop as the reason I should approve it almost always gets a rejection from me if that is the only reason the nominator can come up with that this is important.

    But I did notice that the one that went through was NOT upgraded. For some reason, when I upgrade even a perfect 5* (to me) nomination, it only has a 50/50 chance of going through. I guess that might be that fewer people actually look at those before a decision is made, so I would recommend you not upgrade this one.

    The only thing I can think of that would make me approve an uninstalled (moveable) bench is a link to a story about the church dedicating it in the supporting information. It could be a news story, a Facebook post, or a church website. Something that proves this is more important than it appears to be at first glance. Also mention that your supporting photo shows both benches, not just that it has a partner, for reviewers like me with reader glasses. Even with your comment later that both benches were in the photo it was hard for me to see.

    My only other suggestion would be to get a close up of the plaque if the words are legible to submit as the nomination photo. That would make it clear that this is a separate bench. I can see this is very important to you and I hope you are successful. And I hope I have helped you see this as a reviewer might.

  • donandlan-PGOdonandlan-PGO Posts: 201 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2020

    I'm sorry you're upset. Like I said, just giving you the feedback you asked for. You keep blaming the community for your failed nomination, but you've failed four times and gotten the feedback here for a reason, and it's not about toxicity. Your nomination is weak. You stated it's not your responsibility to prove they aren't the same bench. It absolutely is your responsibility to establish: (1) this is an authentic nomination, (2) that the location is real, and (3) that the person being memorialized is significant enough to warrant the acceptance of a memorial bench. I'm just telling you that you have failed to do that in your nomination, and have again failed to do that here in your grievance thread.

    (1) is it an authentic nomination? The benches look identitical; like impossibly identical. It is a small bench that would be easy to move. It's not even straight in the first nomination photo. As a reviewer, those are significant red flags.

    (2) is the location real? You say you can see the first bench in the supporting photo. I can see the first bench in satelite images, but can't see the second. It's obviously an old bench and if they are matching his and her memorial benches, why would one be present and the other not? As a reviewer, that looks fishy to me and I'm even more suspicious.

    (3) does it pass the significant person test? You claim the benches are memorializing the founders of the church. The first nomination makes it clear they founded this church, the second makes it sound like they founded the United Methodist Church, an obviously dubious claim. Even if I feel the founding of a church is eligible (there are 18 other churches within 5 miles of that church), I see no evidence to support this claim. None. I can't even read the plaque.

    These are the issues I see that you have to address if you want to improve your chances of getting the second bench passed. I'm sorry that you're having a hard time with this nomination. It is not my intent to antagonize you here.

    Can you post legible photos of both plaques here?

  • RGood-PGORGood-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    I appreciate all of the feedback I have gotten here. I apologize for coming off a tad hostile. I just feel defeated. I have tried and tried for what I see as an eligible nomination only to see it fail time and again. I’m pondering giving up on it. I wish I could submit 10 additional photos with my nomination, as that would provide me ample opportunity to prove the validity of both benches. I hope you can at least understand my frustration at the sentiment that the benches are fake. They’re solid stone. They probably weigh like 300 lbs. Unfortunately, the only way I could get them clearly in the same picture (easy to see) would be to move one. The church would never let me do that, and I don’t even know if I could.

    The plaques are very very hard to read, as they are warped. I can try submitting photos of them tomorrow to this thread if I get a moment.

    But I’m considering abandoning the nomination, altogether. What I hoped would be a simple Pokéstop has turned into a major fiasco involving interviewing the church, moving the benches? At this point, I’m wondering why I let myself get so worked up about this and why the stakes are so high, haha.

    Again, I appreciate all of your feedback.

  • Mokorus-PGOMokorus-PGO Posts: 22 ✭✭

    People don't check anything, if the photo it's similar to another one, they rejected.

    I got one rejected because look similar to another one close.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You can do a photosphere on google maps to help prove locations, the other comment about “we need more stops” I completely agree with. If i see a nomination that needs to have supporting info and I see that I always reject it. As those nominations ie benches, and businesses beed supporting info and its not good enough to essentially ask for a gimme

Sign In or Register to comment.