Shelley Warehouse - rejected again - a Living object and poor quality photo

NOT ACCEPTED AGAIN

Unless I cut the tree down I am screwed for trying to do this one. Also why a poor quality photo? The last rejection was for a live animal (there were no animals in view (including humans as humans are animals)).

I do not know about anyone else. But 50% of all stops seem to have trees, grass, flowers etc of some kind in the photo. So what the actual?

This photo is poor? Why? I took it with a S21

I have finally resulted to appealing.

I was in inside it the other day. I sat in a glass alcove looking into the substation with its enormous vaulted room. Walked around the building where they have exposed and explaind the various heritage listing criteria. Such as the hydraulic lift. The extraordinary high ceilings and so on. You really get a sense of why listed.

Sigh :-)


2021-11-15

Rejection Criteria

Low Quality Photo

Natural Feature

Description

Renovated "federation warehouse" with Chicago industrial influence built 1909 for Norman Shelley. Heritage listed 2016 as significant in terms of historical and rarity value - in particular the intact original fabric of the Clarence and Kent Street façades, external pavement lights, interiors and basement. Conserved 2020 with next door Electricity Substation 164. In the lobby a glass wall looks into the substation. Listed as heritage commercial with cultural space with new "cloud style lightbulb" above.

Location

183 Clarence St, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia

Supplemental Information

The building is also rare for its integrity, internally and externally, compared to warehouses of a similar period in Sydney. The warehouse also represents a good and intact example of the Federation warehouse style which makes reference to the ‘Chicago Style’. There is a meeting space inside lobby where Sydney City Council has placed heritage listing and building information. In the lobby the original warehouse doors to the substation appear to float in the newly created large high ceilinged open lobby. The State Heritage Listing here https://apps.environment.nsw.gov.au/dpcheritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5062496 and a background on the new architectural build here https://www.ttw.com.au/projects/183-185-clarence-street/

Comments

  • RNSaga-PGORNSaga-PGO Posts: 33 ✭✭

    As a casual reviewer, history is difficult to prove with just a photo of a building even if you write a novel on the description, unless its smacked straight in my face, like maybe a plaque, or a sign, or something special. Otherwise it just looks the same as the one next to it.

  • RNSaga-PGORNSaga-PGO Posts: 33 ✭✭

    As you said, not all reviewers go hardcore. Most of them are just bored. Does that make them bad reviewers? Yes. it's not avoidable-there will always be bad reviewers. We live in a time period of instant gratification. Where there is online shopping, food delivery, uber, amazon, you get my point.

    So we have to adjust our nominations to make it easier for everyone. For reviewers and you as a submitter. Make it so obvious that they have to give 5*

  • RNSaga-PGORNSaga-PGO Posts: 33 ✭✭

    Agreed. It's frustrating for some when you do everything correctly while others don't. But as I said it's unavoidable. Here and IRL. Reviewers especially on their phone sometimes can't be bothered to check out links and scrutinize everything. So they just look at what's there. So it's best to have it all clearly in one place, the photo, the description, the map.

    I guess it's what the cooldowns are for, so that reviewers have to actually take time to review stuff.

    Maybe mandatory justification when giving 1* can dissuade people from falsely giving rejections.

    Or tracking the disagreements and not just agreements would let the moderators know when someone is just being an a$$ and rejecting everything.

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 1,060 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I've compiled a long post earlier today with examples where I put effort into convincing these people, to no success.

    Mandatory justification was a thing for quite some time and people just typed "a" to continue. The only thing that would work is if Niantic actually decided to care and put some effort into quality control.

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,289 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is just another example where moderation absolutely fails. Posted something last night with an image of a plaque that represents the OP's building, still not up by now. Why do I need to be moderated?

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,289 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Former Shelley Warehouse. Plaque. Approved and already in the Wayspot database. You're probably getting the information from the actual plaque, but why aren't you even attempting the plaque?

    You got lucky with The Grace building getting approved, but its beautiful Art Deco facade is a standalone feature. The photo of this building isn't really focusing on anything and is very unclear, resulting in the low quality photo reason.

    You should be considering what is already a wayspot, looking at the nearby duplicates screen and seeing whether it's approved or not, and whether its inclusion may benefit you or others. I don't think you play Ingress, but given the closeness of literally every other building in the Sydney CBD, this will not create a new point in Pogo. Also please don't attempt the Electricity Substation No.164 building as well, I currently have the plaque in queue!

    Intel is your friend (that is, until Niantic ever releases the Lightship map), but you probably won't take the advice like you did here and here, you stated there was a heritage plaque on the outside yet submitted the building again anyway.

    ...on second thought, it seems as if someone else had given you advice to submit the actual building itself. Good luck with the appeal.

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

    Tbh. This picture does look bad so i can understand why you got that rejection. Unless you already knew what this place was a very angled upward photo does not help. If theres a plaque like others suggest submit that

  • rufoushumming-PGOrufoushumming-PGO Posts: 145 ✭✭✭
    edited February 14


    Thank you everyone.

    This is being rejected for some other reason than the valid Niantic Criteria.

    I spent a lot of time to back up my assertion. I submitted several attempts to get it up. None of the excuses for rejection stacked up for most of them (poor photos/living creatures etc). I also did the plaque months before. It was rejected as a poor photo not as a duplicate - which in hindsight I concede to as I could have done better.

    So something else has to be going on.

    To HaremDingo. Lucky for the Grace Hotel. Jaw on ground. But yeah. That one is a gorgeous building. Almost impossible to photo!

    And Harem. As for getting the information from the plaque. I researched this one again and again. I have read and included from the heritage listing let alone the builders/architect report or media stories on the build. Such as the urbandeveloper.com, commercialrealestate.com.au, architecture.com, thefifthestate.com.au. Local government documentation from Cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au (minutes of meetings to building inventory lists). University library documentation such as library.usyd.edu.au. Let alone the key building heritage listing at hms.heritage.nsw.gov.au

    Personally. It is clear people are resorting to plaques as the only safe way to get nominations accepted. And that is happening as reviewers look for the quick and easy way out.

    But in my humble opinion I believe that if the photo is clear, the criteria met and with valid data backing it up in the supporting information then it should be accepted.

    And nearly every building round this area has a plaque on it for something. Yes I could have gone for it. But this building is what is protected for being a particular type of building and with its associated built internal and external parts. It makes it more unique. Not because of who or what happened at that spot. The plaque becomes irrelevant. The heritage database listing is of the building not the plaque.

    When I review nominations - I read all the supporting information. I will even search on google. Particularly for borderline entries just to make sure. I am sure I still will not get it right. But if you make the effort to submit I will go to the effort to check. I make no apologies for expecting the same of others.

    If you are going to get rejected it is nice to know it is for a valid reason so you can do better. As for poor photo in this post - when I copy and paste into these conversations the quality of the photo is reduced. However in the real nomination it is HD photo with every little detail ;-)

    But if you go to the NSW Heritage database. The first photo of Shelly warehouse is near identical to my submission.

    I also feel that in some games like Pokemon Go - making reveiws as a way to get succss Medal is not wise as it encourages poor behaviour. It become more important to review as many as possible rather than look to the quality.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The plaque is simply easier for reviewers to believe. Once the plaque is a wayspot, you can add a picture of building. If the wayspot has a silly (or no) description, you can nominate an edit.

  • exculcator-INGexculcator-ING Posts: 67 ✭✭✭

    I would do the opposite. Submit the building, but submit the information board as the second photo. Yes, you are "supposed" to show the surroundings for the second photo, but that is a complete waste of a photo for stocking great POI like this. The reviewer doesn't need that second photo to prove where it is...

    I do this reasonably often with building submissions.

    (Ironically, I got a photo rejection today for the information board to go with a particular building that had been accepted. I submitted an additional photo of the building, from a different angle: accepted; I also submitted the information board: rejected simultaneously. I should have included the board as my second photo for that nomination...)

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,289 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I guess communities are very different in terms of what they prefer. Naturally, with a lot of reviewers locally around my area, we like plaques. Unless the plaque really doesn't have much information, then we'll go for the building. Or, we'll try both.

  • rufoushumming-PGOrufoushumming-PGO Posts: 145 ✭✭✭

    PS @HaramDingo-ING I keep calling you Harem. Sorry. ;-)

    you are right Intel is good. Support is everything. I get your point on Plaques. I still, personally, like to see the building or feature that is the heritage listing. I will try the building with plaque as supporting technique. But let us see how the appeal goes. I will let that run its course then. If not I will go the inside view using the hydraulic lifts with its supporting plaque

    I don't know if you visited the place. I got into the next door substation the other day. Standing where the equipement stood is amazing. Just this huge tall atrium. I was lucky no one else there and I could hear the echos as I walked. I will see if I can submit this separately the next time I go by.

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,289 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Thanks. Harem is absolutely different from Haram. Do you play Ingress by the way?

    I barely have the time to visit these buildings when they're open because I have a working week and they're not usually open on the weekends. I might have to sometime and see if there are more things within buildings, although security will often question...

    By the way, I've noticed a lot of nominations in Cooper Park. They look very familiar to your style of nominations. The "Fe. Fi. Fo. Fum." footbridge is going to strike a bad chord with reviewers.

  • rufoushumming-PGOrufoushumming-PGO Posts: 145 ✭✭✭
    edited February 21

    @HaramDingo-ING

    Ahh. Guilty as charged. I just went to update it and Fe-Fi-Fo-Fum is in voting. Sometimes I just write like that. There were a load of kids playing down there when I was creating the nomination and I pictured trolls and billygoats when I did the nomination. Need to detach myself a bit more - not everyone has a mind like mine (thankfully).

    I will re-submit as appropriate.

    No I don't do Ingress. I guess because the family does not and Pogo has been a family activity. If that makes sense!

    Post edited by rufoushumming-PGO on
  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,289 ✭✭✭✭✭

    HaraBaMon, no idea who that is ahah!

    Creative minds are nice, don't lose that individuality! It's nice to have a family activity like Pogo.

  • rufoushumming-PGOrufoushumming-PGO Posts: 145 ✭✭✭

    @HaramDingo-ING Spot on. Rejected for Title. Have re-submitted and updated to exclude Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum

  • rufoushumming-PGOrufoushumming-PGO Posts: 145 ✭✭✭

    @HaramDingo-ING FYI Appeal for Shelly Warehouse went through. :-) Quietly chuffed. But really underscores get all your supporting information correct!. Leave no stone unturned in validation. Thank you again to everyone for their help and guidance. My submissions today are so much better thanks to all the guidance I got and get.

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @rufoushumming-PGO When you say your appeal went through, you mean Niantic approved it or you resubmitted with some changes and reviewers approved it? (Just to clarify)

    As someone who vastly prefers buildings to plaques, I'm very interested in knowing if this was a Niantic pass or not.

  • rufoushumming-PGOrufoushumming-PGO Posts: 145 ✭✭✭

    @JillJilyJabadoo-PGO Niantic approved. Taking all the feedback I was given I honed the nomination. I backed up every assertion I made. I dug up every bit of supporting information from the heritage listings (plural), newspaper/media articles, industry articles, Local government information etc. This took a while and I was re-submitted a few times before I finally appealed.

    It was clear from both description and importantly the supporting information what it was and why it should be nominated.

    I do not doubt a lot of the comments here about plaques getting in first time as it is a lot easier to review. I do get that. I don't like it. But I get it. We live in a fast paced always on me based world. But I like things. Where a plaque refers to a building - or a thing - I like to nominate the thing. But I have learnt - if you do not hone and fine tune and back yourself with every supporting bit of information it is a slog. And I accept the knock backs and nominate again and again fine tuning every time.

    And it was taking on board all the great feedback that helped that honing. Good luck with yours.

Sign In or Register to comment.