Why was this not accepted? Photo from 3rd party source

Apparently the photo I took is from a 3rd party source

How do people come up with this.? In my supporting photo in the supplementary section you can see where the name plate is as well. And if you opened the photo in full size you can see the name is there. And ALL supporting photos should show the place.

Seriously reviewer - what were you thinking? Did you just make an arbitary decision? Rushing through to get your platinum badge so you can get another level....


Former Shelly Warehouse - and Substation 164 - Heritage industrial listed buildings on Clarence St

Sydney NSW




Renovated "federation warehouse" built 1909 with Chicago industrial influence. Used for warehouse and retail. Listed for local heritage significance in 2016. Conserved 2020 along with the next door Electricity Substation 164. In the publically accessible lobby a glass frontage looks into the substation. The building is now heritage commercial with cultural space and a new "cloud style lightbulb" extension above. Entrance is on Clarence. Fun fact - The Clarence basement is ground level on Kent Street side.


Clarence St at King St, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia

Supplemental Information

Safe to access. Building stretches from Clarence St to Kent. Great to explore the differing aspects. Social meeting space inside lobby where Sydney City Council heritage listing and building information is placed. In lobby orginal warehouse doors appears to float as the first floor was removed to create a large open lobby. The whole ste is Subject to Local Environmental Plan. The State Heritage Listing here https://bit.ly/3AFvIZu and the a background on the new architectual build overview here https://bit.ly/3uaPPMC Heritage criteria listing includes SHR Criteria d) [Social significance] Social significance requires further study to ascertain its value for the local community. SHR Criteria e) [Research potential] This former warehouse has potential to yield information on the construction techniques of Federation warehouses, the body of works by well-known architect Arthur Pritchard, and early twentieth use of hydraulic power and associated lift design in Sydney. SHR Criteria f) [Rarity] The exposed steel framework is rare as an unusual example of construction for an early twentieth century high-rise building. The building is also rare for its integrity, internally and externally, compared to warehouses of a similar period in Sydney. SHR Criteria g) [Representativeness] The former warehouse represents a good and intact example of an inner-city warehouse designed in the Federation warehouse style which makes reference to the ‘Chicago Style’, and the work of architect Arthur Pritchard. It also contains good examples of formerly hydraulic-powered lift


  • Ochemist-INGOchemist-ING Posts: 230 ✭✭✭✭

    If the building looks at all interesting itself, I'd consider using a photo of the entire building as your main image and then a close-up that shows the entire plaque as the supporting image. (I'm assuming it's visible on street view.) I've done that sort of thing successfully with historic buildings.

    I'd trim the supporting information way, way down. I like long-winded descriptions, etc. but this is very hard to read. Maybe include a link to a website that shows that the building is listed. Instead of the last two sentences of the description, I'd include more details about its history, including this kind of thing, which most reviewers aren't going to see at the end of what will be a truncated supporting statement.

    "The former warehouse represents a good and intact example of an inner-city warehouse designed in the Federation warehouse style which makes reference to the ‘Chicago Style’, and the work of architect Arthur Pritchard. It also contains good examples of formerly hydraulic-powered lift"

  • Ochemist-INGOchemist-ING Posts: 230 ✭✭✭✭

    As I scrolled back up, I realized that I was in the criterion clarification section not the nomination improvement section, so maybe you didn't want the feedback and suggestions. (I'd approve it, but I'd definitely prefer to see the entire plaque and a photo of the whole building. I'm also really into historic buildings and am likely to give more latitude about stuff than many.)

    As for the dumb rejection reason, I'd ignore that. It probably only takes a single reviewer to pick something stupid. Did you get other reasons, too? Those might be more reflective of what more reviewers think.

    My final two cents are that I'd make some photo and description tweaks and resubmit!

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,038 ✭✭✭✭✭

    FYI: I would never click on a bit.ly (or any other shortener) while reviewing.

  • DeDuckIsDees-INGDeDuckIsDees-ING Posts: 183 ✭✭✭

    Is the first one your main picture? Why is it just a little part of the sign and not the whole thing????

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 673 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NianticTintino @NianticDanbocat

    What would you guys say to creating a workaround something like these ideas:

    1. URLs don't count against the text count in the Supporting Text field
    2. creating a separate text field specifically for URLs
    3. automatically unwinding common URL-shortening domains (including bit.ly) so that reviewers never see those, only the original links

    URLs are often the best way to provide reviewers with more information, or confirm information from the submitter, but they do take up a lot of text

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,038 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Text length doesn't seems to be a real issue for the OP. The supplemental info that he provided is 1575 chars long.

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 321 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Just some thoughts looking at your nomination which may improve it:

    • Shorten the title, it is way too long. Maybe something like "Heritage Shelly Warehouse", or focus on the lightbulb architecturem, eg. "Famous Lightbulb Building"
    • Would recommend using a photo of the building if you are focusing on its architecture and history
    • In the supplemental photo, is that a plaque? If so, nominate the plaque above all else
    • In the description talk more about the architecture or history of the warehouse, don't repeat information, keep it informative and concise.
    • "Entrance is on Clarence. Fun fact - The Clarence basement is ground level on Kent Street side." is a waste of space, get rid of that
    • Supplemental information: Don't use buzzwords, just focus on the architecture/history. Cut down irrelevant information (eg. "The whole ste is Subject to Local Environmental Plan.") and make the supporting text concise. You could even move some of the important tidbits to the description.
    • That second bit.ly link shows the top of the building, the lightbulb, NOW that is interesting!! Get an image of that as your main photo, that will help a lot!
    • Also your supporting photo should show what is in focus on the main photo relative to the rest of the area. Currently you have two separate photos but as a reviewer, we cannot see how they are linked to each other.

  • rufoushumming-PGOrufoushumming-PGO Posts: 50 ✭✭

    AH. Thanks for the advice all.

    I may have placed my questions in the wrong forum apologies.

    I have tweaked the nomination based on your feedback. We shall see

    I found the rejection criteria so odd. I could not make head nor tail of it. It just seemed to have little relavance. I am finding it a nice challenge to balance too much information to validate the submission and short and simple that highlights the niantic criteria. But I think this last bit is really a trust that the reviewer can recongise these.

    Again. To you all thank you for your time and and effort. Very interesting and useful feedback.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 466 ✭✭✭✭

    I don't see where this meets any criteria.

    You didn't include the whole rejection email. I'll bet photo was a red herring reason - the real reason is that it doesn't meet criteria.

    You wouldn't get out and explore this sign. You wouldn't meet there or socialize there. It doesn't encourage exercise.

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 878 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It would meet criteria if the OP included everything that was cropped off: the history of Substation 164 and the site use in general as meeting the exploration requirements and discovering the area. But the original photo didn't do justice at all.

    Besidesssssssssssss... the specific area where this plaque is position is crowded with wayspots anyway (if you check Intel), so it's unlikely to go live anyway and it's going to be eaten by the Lightship. There's also a nearby submission to this in the CBD, someone has submitted The Grace Building and it is a terrible photo.

    I can't wait to go back into the Sydney CBD and check out the new development. Don't pay attention to the rejection reasons.

  • rufoushumming-PGOrufoushumming-PGO Posts: 50 ✭✭

    I see HaramDingo-ING it was you having a go at my photo of the Grace.

    OK I get it. ;-)

    I agree with all the POIs around here it will probably not become a Pokestop. But it still makes a great POI. It will be what it is. I have tried another photo. We shall see!

    I just want to be better at nominations.

    Thank you

  • HankWolfman-PGOHankWolfman-PGO Posts: 818 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I did actually ask about this in the November AMA and it did get answered.

    According to Casey, it was added to the road map for 2021. It would be nice to have confirmation from @NianticTintino or @NianticDanbocat if this is still in the pipeline or not.

Sign In or Register to comment.