Nomination not excepted , why?????

Looking for a bit of help to understand why this nomination has been rejected as to me the reasons don’t make any sense

  1. Nomination is fake and does not exist at the submitted location - It does exist and is quite clearly visible on google maps used for review
  2. Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria - I feel it dose as it is a sports and social club which is covered in the eligibility criteria by “a great place to exercise” and “a great place to be social with others” I have also seen a lot of sports and social clubs in game already
  3. Nomination appears to contain extraneous objects or identifiers not representative of the nomination - Not even sure what this is about ????

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated to help me understand

should I resubmit?


Comments

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭✭✭

    so you say its a club, but in supporting info you call it a bar. If its a bar it would be judged as a business I would assume. Im just confused on what this nomination is. Could use more description on how the “club” meets exercise criteria, what kind of sports etc

  • 52cucumbers-ING52cucumbers-ING Posts: 218 ✭✭✭

    Building looks old, maybe there's some history around it that could be included?

  • silverkali-INGsilverkali-ING Posts: 92 ✭✭✭

    Likely one of the rejection reasons is linked to the fact we can see you in the main image (probably the third rejection reason)

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Some things are easy to get accepted because they pretty much explain themselves. A playground in a park is one example of this-- you don't need to explain what it is, how it's used, or much of anything about it. Some things require more investment on the part of the submitter because the thing won't completely explain itself with out the submitter's help. This is one of those things.

    I recommend pretending you're a reviewer and you have no idea what The UPS Club is. What could the submitter say in the description to help you understand the function of this place and why it meets the qualifications? Like others in this thread, it's not clear to me if this is a private social club, a public social club, a bar, a restaurant, or something else. Invest some energy in explaining this simply and clearly to reviewers and you will have a better chance of having it accepted.

    I repost this a lot, but here's a longer explanation about how to create high-quality submissions: https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/9890/how-to-submit-things-that-get-accepted

  • WikiBlue-INGWikiBlue-ING Posts: 73 ✭✭✭
    edited March 26

    I have no idea why this should have been acepted 🙈 but i also don't know what the ups club is, is it the cafeteria for the UPS truck drivers or what is it?


    PS: I know it's all written out in the extra info (and that's a very good thing to do), but I don't know the ups club, never heard of it before.... And that's the problem with upgrades who go well out of the local area for reviewing. Not everyone will look further than the (not so good looking to be honnest) main pictures & even less reviewers will go and check if that ups club is what you say it is.

    Post edited by WikiBlue-ING on
  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Your photo gives no real indication that this is a social club, it could be anything. Proximity to a hospital site may not help either.

  • SeaprincessHNB-PGOSeaprincessHNB-PGO Posts: 162 ✭✭✭

    Here's my thought process while reviewing this.

    "It's a bar where you go for sports at a hospital? I don't think that qualifies. 1 star, doesn't meet criteria."

  • Oakes1923-INGOakes1923-ING Posts: 368 ✭✭✭✭

    which is why there is supporting text.... and this is what is wrong with reviewers. People look at a photo and make assumptions. Reviewers don't read the supporting text. Some of you people are just happy to waste everyone else's time.

    Here's the real issue, you upgraded it. There are very few things that go through with an upgrade since that system is broken. If the picture doesn't look perfect then it's near immediate rejection with an upgrade. Its a great concept that the community has ruined. We all complain about it but as a collective we don't do anything about it.

  • WikiBlue-INGWikiBlue-ING Posts: 73 ✭✭✭
    edited March 26

    I can only agree with that, and i certainly agree with the last line.


    Without opening up the can of ''i am against it or not'', but trailmarkers are a good example of it. It doesn't matter how many clarifications Niantic makes, if the reviewers & the submitters do what they want to do it's going to be one bloody mess for some of us.

  • Maxyme99-PGOMaxyme99-PGO Posts: 798 ✭✭✭✭

    Well, there is a lot to improve: There isn't much explanation what it really is, and both description and supproting text make reviewers confused, as first they heard it's sport club and next they heard it's a bar with sports classes.

    It should be explained more in description what it is. Add some history to description, and support text should add some good reasons why it should be accepted. For me, first part of support text should be put in description, plus it should be clearly marked what is nominated here - what is this club, what it offers, is bar the main part of it, or if the other part is more important etc. Support text should confim what it is, that it is eligible and then get some additional info about who use it or how it's a nice place.

    Your descriptions are really confusing for reviewers, you must be more clear :)

    Also location on map for it is bad. I tried to found it on map, but it was really hard to do. At first it looks like it doesn't have any pin, and google don't have anything about place called UPS club in this town. I even looked near hospital and after 5 minutes I found PH Bar near it, but it looked nothing like your photos.

    It took me a few tries to get to streetview that you showed us and I finally found it. So, on map it's called PH bar, so people can't check it. Next, your streetview is too far away from it for reviewers to get it because there is big parking before this building from this side.

    As it's not the closest streetview for your pin, I think reviewers don't get this one, but the one that show almost none of building, and it doesn't show this place. And even if people would get your streetview, then they would see this. I marked your place with circle so people would see your building:

    https://imgur.com/x827c8Y

    As you can see, it's not that easy to find on it as you showed us. You have to zoom in a lot to see it clearly. You must make better support photo from a bit further away, so it will show more of this building and roof of it to compare to map view too. You can also post link to correct streetview location in support text, so people will see this place on streetview. Without it people can reject it as fake (they can't find it and pin mention other place here).

    So I think you should improve a lot and it would have a chance of being accepted. You must change description, support text, support photo and mention correct streetview in support text. Without it it's really hard to see.

  • Oakes1923-INGOakes1923-ING Posts: 368 ✭✭✭✭

    Here's my issue with your entire write up. Per Niantic guidelines on how to vote on submissions you are reviewing incorrectly. You have mentioned a lot of what you see as unknowns or are not sure or feel its not clear. Per the guidelines you should review based on the following.

    Rating Scale

    You will be asked various questions about a nomination and answer by rating on a scale of one to five stars. In general, use the following guidelines when deciding how to vote:

    If you strongly agree, choose 5 stars

    If you are unsure or have no opinion, choose 3 stars

    If the answer is definitely no, choose 1 star and select a rejection reason

    From reading the submission it's fairly obvious to me that this is a sports/social club, with a bar for patrons; not that uncommon for a club to have a bar that is popular. Just like a golf course also having a tavern or the "19th hole" or something. They offer sports clinics/events. It's in the write up. However if you are still confused or unsure, its a 3*; PER NIANTIC. PEOPLE ARE REVIEWING WRONG! As a community we are doing each other dirty for NOTHING!

    Not every picture is gonna look like it was taken by Ansel Adams. That's ok. Review with a forgiving eye. If its an obvious no or an obvious yes then vote accordingly, but if you are unsure use the grey area that Niantic allows for and suggests. Guidelines are not cannon or bible verse. Everyone needs to stop cherry picking what guidelines they want to follow and those to ignore. Niantic does not require a TripAdvisor style write up for nominations. Stop expecting one.

    It took me a few tries to get to street view that you showed us and I finally found it. So, on map it's called PH bar, so people can't check it. Next, your street view is too far away from it for reviewers to get it because there is big parking before this building from this side.

    As it's not the closest street view for your pin, I think reviewers don't get this one, but the one that show almost none of building, and it doesn't show this place. And even if people would get your street view, then they would see this. I marked your place with circle so people would see your building:

    Submitters have no idea or any way to know what street view is going to be used by Niantic until after you have submitted everything (At least in PoGo). Again if you are relying on the street view to make your ultimate decision you are doing the rest of the community a disservice and reviewing incorrectly. Street views are not always accurate and can be out of date. Even a few clicks one way or the other may show different years of the same area. I reviewed a stop the other day I thought was fake due to the street view. I clicked around the street views and realized the first one was old (2013); as it showed a giant **** where the POI was supposed to be. After clicking round the view updated to 2020 and I saw exactly what was nominated in the exact right spot. I nearly rejected what should have been a 5*. We all need to be better for each other.

  • Maxyme99-PGOMaxyme99-PGO Posts: 798 ✭✭✭✭

    Wow, it looks like you didn't understand anything I just wrote so I clear it up to you: I DIDN'T REVIEWED THIS NOMINATION, I LOOKED AT IT AS REVIEWERS MIGHT SEEN IT AND ONLY GAVE ADVICE WHAT MIGHT HELP TO IMPROVE IT SO IT WILL GET ACCEPTED NEXT TIME, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PERSON HERE TRY TO DO. Did you get it now?

    I only told what I see from this nomination and from what I saw when I looked for it on map. Description might be confusing for many reviewers, as other players mentioned before me. That's what I said it must be more clear. Adding better support text will help for sure too. I clearly wrote that this place have pin with another name on it, so it doesn't look like the same place for reviewers when they get to map view.

    As for streetview, I didn't get clear location of this place from OP so I searched by myself based only of this hospital name and title of nomination. With trial and error method I found it, and I saw what chances are for reviewers to get streetview that show this place - it's very low chance, and pin with different name on building doesn't help to get it accepted too.

    I know that submitters don't often known what streetview reviewers would get, but thanks to our help this submiter might known now and do something to make it easier for reviewers to see at next try. As the only streetview that show this place is from far away, and any nomination photos don't show full building, I posted schreenshot from this streetview to show it might be difficult to saw this club even if reviewers get correct streetview. Because of that it's really important to make support photo a bit further from club, so a bit more of this building would be seen, I thought I explained it clearly.

    I only used what I found to explain why OP got rejection reason he/she got in rejection mail. As many reviewers are lazy and don't check anything apart from what they got in submition, it's very important to make it easy to find for them.

    As for my reviewing proces, I know what I'm doing, I don't need your help, thank you very much. I always check my nomination very carefully before I accept or reject them (just like in case of getting OP of this thread help, I check more than just what I get from submitter to be sure of everything). I also know criteria, my rating never dropped and I din't got any cooldowns so far, so it looks like I know what I'm doing.

    I also didn't wrote ANYWHERE that I would reject this nomnation. I wrote why other reviewers possibly rejected it and why OP got all these rejection reasons in mail. This forum and this thread is to help other improve they nomination so it will be accepted. I only did just that - posted what can be improved so it would be accepted. I hope everything is clear for you now.

  • Oakes1923-INGOakes1923-ING Posts: 368 ✭✭✭✭

    @Maxyme99-PGO wasn't trying to personally attack your review process. I wasn't saying you personally reviewed it, my write up was more in line with the collective "you" or "us". Your write up points out things of why people reject things. Fair enough, but to my point most of what you wrote shouldn't, in my mind, be an issue. You claimed it was confusing for reviewers. I disagree, to me it was fairly obvious what this place is, so as I am also a reviewer and found it obvious, I can only assume you found it confusing. My argument is not against how you, @Maxyme99-PGO, review, but more how the collective "you"; or more precisely; our community, tends to review and vote.

    I read it time after time in these forums, people expecting much more then Niantic suggests to folks that nominate. Perverting guidelines to bend to their own preconceived, biased, or jaded opinion, or cherry picking what guidelines or what Q&A from a quarterly AMA to accept. I see folks honing in an the smallest imperfection they perceive on someone's example nomination they dared to share, which turns a perfectly acceptable submission into a pile of burning trash that should never have been submitted in the first place and how dare they waste our time even mentioning such an abomination.

    Again sorry you took it personal, but what I would love, as someone who very much enjoys the game within our games, of mapping the world and improving my community game play, is for all of us to reevaluate how we review, myself included. If you @Maxyme99-PGO aren't willing to do that as a contributor in these forums and someone whom I assumes reviews regularly, then why should any one. Do we want to fix the problem or do we all want to keep shouting into the void?

  • Maxyme99-PGOMaxyme99-PGO Posts: 798 ✭✭✭✭

    Again, your way of writing sounds like you have some problems with what I do. And not only with what I do, but what all community do. You don't know me, don't know how I review but only after reading my one post with my explanation how reviewers might seen this nomination you think I'm a bad reviewer and use made-up rules while voting and should reevaluate how I review. Don't do that, don't judge people because you think most community is like that. I can guarante you, most reviewers knows rules and review accordingly, but bad reviewers are easier to spot as we don't get threads about accepted POIs, only about rejected ones.

    If you really thinking about all this reevaluate of voting, do as you wrote - start with yourself @Oakes1923-PGO, find what are your most common erros in reviewing and make a thread about it here - show some guideness to people so they can see what they do wrong. Start with yoursel and after that try to teach others. I'm learning new things all the time, that's why I use this forum. I read all topics about nominations, I read new guideness and am up to date with criterias, I discuss in new threads about criterias, I am evaluating my review process all the time. I also want to help others in any way I can, so I try to do it here too. OP don't have to listen to us, but he wanted some help so he got it.

    I pointed to you that I wasn't the only one person that thought description in this nomination is confusing. If it's not only me, then it's like that for many people, so imrpoving it is a good idea. I would also want that all good nomination were accepted without any issues, but with current system it's impossible, so we can't just sit and do nothing about it. Sometimes we had to do a lot more to get something accepted, so every help to get it accepted is good.

    I agree with you that system is broken and many reviewers are really picky and reject things they shouldn't. But there is also many fake nominations that submitters don't get any punishment for creating, so reviewers are really distrustful on each nomination that has unclear information. And this one does have things that might make it suspicious for reviewers, that's why it need to be more clear to them. Until Niantic won't do anything to change system, the only things we can do is trying to improve nominations in a way that even people that are really suspicious or try to reject as many things they can couldn't find reason to reject it. I never wrote this nomination is ineligible. I wrote that with what reviewers got it could be confusing for them, and because of that they rejected it. That's why it need some improvement.

    If OP nomiantion was sent to many people like you, that trust other more and do more reasearch in case they're confused about something, I'm sure it would get through at first try. But sadly it have more chance to go to people that are different, and need more evidence of this place. Not everyone take much time while reviewing. We need system that would be easier for reviewers and would encourage more people to review, that's for sure. But until anything in system change, we need to do what we can to get good nomination accepted. That's all.

  • Oakes1923-INGOakes1923-ING Posts: 368 ✭✭✭✭

    I don't disagree with much of what you said but really the last part I take issue with. No system will be perfect, there is nothing that Niantic can do or create or rework that will change the system as much as it needs to if the reviewers themselves aren't willing to change. And I do start with myself. The more I read these forums the more I change how I review. if you read most of my posts , nearly all of them are asking others to do the same and I site examples and criteria and guidance. But many (not all) folks have a similar reaction, "My reviewing is fine, don't worry about me, I know what I am doing, I know the criteria" Hey I get it, its human nature, but I would argue, and these the forums show us, that collectively we don't know and we are doing it wrong.

    Your post focused on your perception of what people see and why they rejected something that I think we all agree ultimately should go through, and you mentioned ways to deal with those rejection reasons. And while those things may be helpful to one nomination it doesn't address the problem and that strategy plays to the lowest common denominator. It doesn't fix this system. Don't fight the symptoms, fix the problem that is causing them.

    My post is focusing on the other side of the coin. Change the behavior of the reviewer. Yes Niantic can help with changes to the system but if we as a community don't except the change it doesn't mean anything. Fake nominations are going to happen whether either way. Let Niantic deal with that problem. Hell they make enough from remote raid passes now to pay for it.

    Start with yourself, and then get others to follow. That's what I've done and will continue to try and do.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 26

    @Oakes1923-PGO writes:

    I read it time after time in these forums, people expecting much more then Niantic suggests to folks that nominate.

    I think there are two different things going on here, and one side of the discussion is talking about requirements while the other is suggesting things that aren't mandatory but will improve the probability of something being accepted. I've thought and written a lot about this. I've also helped hundreds of people understand why their submission was rejected, and the common thread is that it was hard for reviewers to understand the submission well enough to make a solid judgement.

    Reviewers are human beings, and they are imperfect. Some will be lazy. Some will make quick decisions. Some will make mistakes. They will have emotional biases. I can't change that, but as a submitter I have two choices-- I can rail against their human foibles and demand that they do better, or I can accept that human nature isn't going to fundamentally shift and figure out how best to work with the reality that exists. I can also think about ways that Niantic can make the process more effective, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

    As a submitter, I'm the subject matter expert on the thing I'm submitting. If I've decided that it's worth doing then I've already done an assessment in my head about the value of the candidate and why it would be an excellent addition to the wayspot database. I now have a choice to make-- one option is to fill in the fields during the submission process and lob it over the fence to reviewers and hope that they figure out what it is and why I'm submitting it. Alternately, I can spend an extra couple of minutes on my submission to explain what it is and why it's a good candidate, rather than expecting them to research it themselves and come to the same conclusion I did. It is absolutely certain that I will have more knowledge about the candidate than the average reviewer, so why wouldn't I invest a couple of minutes in sharing that knowledge? Factor in the human nature of some people being lazy or hasty and that makes an even stronger case for the submitter spending a little extra time in making the submission clear.

    Now, because I'm going to make a nerdy argument because I'm an engineer whose job includes dealing with system capacity and throughput. We have seen a constant stream of complaints lately about things taking months to go into review. It's clear that we currently have more submissions than review capacity, and the problem is getting worse. Let's posit that each submission is seen by 10-100 reviewers-- I'm obviously making that up because we don't know, but let's roll with it. If I submit something that requires each reviewer to spend an additional minute to understand the submission, then the cost of that is an additional 10-100 minutes of review system capacity. It might take me 2-5 minutes to improve my submission enough to save that 10-100 minutes. I don't have a PhD in math, but I don't think I need one in order to see that it's worth investing my time to get my submissions and everyone else's through the process more quickly. As a reviewer I occasionally encounter reviews that take ten minutes or more to really understand. If you had to invest ten minutes of a reviewer's time would you rather they spend it studying one submission or reviewing 20 easy-to-understand ones?

    The TL;dr: If I submit something I want it to be approved. It's worth investing a couple minutes of my own time to make it as easy as possible for reviewers to understand and accept my submission.

  • Maxyme99-PGOMaxyme99-PGO Posts: 798 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 26

    As I pointed I do evaluate my reviewing all the time, so this part of your post is pointless. I wrote to you about how my reviewing is fine, because your first post got completely off-topic from this thread and you got completely wrong conclusions from my post to tell me or anyone of how bad we reviewing if we give advices like that. If you didn't get to off-topic reasons, you wouldn't get this answer. I think it should be the end of this part, because we're not going anywhere with it.

    Yes, my post focuses on my point of view, because it's the only I can give here, like everyone. That's way it's important to get answers from a few people to get full picture why something got rejected. I like to check streetview of nominations, because it's often part of problem. I know my help doesn't fix the problem of system, but it can fix problem for this nomination, and this is a thing that matter now. In this moment we can't fight the symptoms of bad system as we don't have any cooperation from Niantic for it. I don't belive that only reviewers are the problem, in my opinion much bigger issue is nominating system and too little education for submitters.

    We agree here, we just have different point of view about system :) We both want to repair it but with different ways. I for first want to start with changing nominating system, from simple fixes of text in mails and riding of word "pokestop" from PoGo nomination page to finally giving more responsibilities to submitters too - they should need to read first what is a good nomination and see some example of good nomination before they nominate they first POI - they should see at least one nomination from wayfarer reviewer eyes too - with all descriptions and photos that reviewers see, so they known how to make supporting photo that also include they nomination or just how to post real reasons for it to be accepted and not "need more stops here". They don't have to log in on wayfarer for that, they should get one example as screenshot to see how it looks like. I know from my local example, how seeing what reviewers see helped two persons do much better nominations. They just needed some examples that were easy to reach :)

    For now it's pointless to try teaching on this forum, as most players don't know this forum exist or don't even know other users review they nominations. We help here as much as we can, but we can mostly help maybe 1% of players of all games - I think, that even less than 1%. I hope that anyone wo will get here will read some threads and got answer they need, but I know it's only a wish. But I personally saw how much amazing job did adding to rejection list reason about watermark. I started with getting to review at least 4 nomination of 10 with watermark to almost zero nominations with watermark after watermark was added to rejection list. Sometimes I don't even see one watremarked nomination on 100 nominations I review, that's amazing improvement that we got by simple system change.

    Of course I think we should educate reviewers more too (or watch them more efficiently), but getting better education of submitters is the big part to change reviewers, as all reviewers are submitters but most submitters aren't reviewers. We should start with bigger group so smaller one will get better too :)

    But I think we should end here as we got really off-topic :D

    @Hosette-ING I agree with you 100% here, I couldn't said it better :) Really well explained.

  • Oakes1923-INGOakes1923-ING Posts: 368 ✭✭✭✭

    Now, because I'm going to make a nerdy argument because I'm an engineer whose job includes dealing with system capacity and throughput. We have seen a constant stream of complaints lately about things taking months to go into review. It's clear that we currently have more submissions than review capacity, and the problem is getting worse. Let's posit that each submission is seen by 10-100 reviewers-- I'm obviously making that up because we don't know, but let's roll with it. If I submit something that requires each reviewer to spend an additional minute to understand the submission, then the cost of that is an additional 10-100 minutes of review system capacity. It might take me 2-5 minutes to improve my submission enough to save that 10-100 minutes. I don't have a PhD in math, but I don't think I need one in order to see that it's worth investing my time to get my submissions and everyone else's through the process more quickly. As a reviewer I occasionally encounter reviews that take ten minutes or more to really understand. If you had to invest ten minutes of a reviewer's time would you rather they spend it studying one submission or reviewing 20 easy-to-understand ones?

    Its an interesting argument, I tend to think of most things in numbers and patterns as well so I love the logic. However I think you need to go back to the human element you mention earlier in the post and then tie it to this thought process.

    Lately I have read from several people, and also know several personally, that have stopped reviewing because the system is broken. Its not enjoyable, upgrades are useless or even detrimental to some of their submissions. And not that Niantic broke it but the community has broken it. Siting all the things about queue ties and rejection reasons you mention above, think about all those people who have left the review pool because of everything else you wrote, which to my earlier point, means you are asking us to placate to the lowest common denominator (with, I might add, very mixed results). How many review hours is that? How many good reviewers are we losing because the system and the review process is broken. If you can include that to your calculation I think you get much closer to the root of the problem. If the system worked and it truly encouraged people to come back and review even a couple times a week think of the reviews hours we would get back to fix all those other problems taht plague the system. Its a domino effect. Right not the dominos are falling in the wrong direction.

    I also can't think of a single review that would take me ten minutes to get through using the standards Niantic has set forth (heck three or four minutes is probably too long). To me that would fall into the "I am unsure" which according to the help page I should mark a 3* and move along with my day.

    Good conversation everyone. I like the dialogue!

  • saffagrl-PGOsaffagrl-PGO Posts: 20 ✭✭
    edited March 26

    Hi. When I read the title, the word club was very clear to me and it was clear in my cultural framework that it is a place to be social. I didn’t understand the UPS bit, but that was clearly just a proper noun - the name of the club.

    When I read your description, it was crystal clear to me what this is. Because we prob have the same cultural framework. I could very clearly picture this place in my head, as I spent my childhood and youth in places like this, watching my dad take part in the sports event, staying on for social time with his mates at the club bar; or going to a social evening or function at the club; etc.

    The problem is that reviews are not necessarily done by people local to you. I’ve learnt that the hard way. You cannot rely on this cultural understanding - for instance, I knew when you say “bar” in the description, you mean the section of the club building where there are tables and chairs and a bar counter of some sort, maybe a dartboard and pool table even. You didn’t mean the entire building is a bar.

    You have to just make it as unambiguous as possible. Think of describing it to someone who has never even heard of such a thing as a sports club.

    Do resubmit. This is a great wayspot. Encouraging excercise and a place to be social. 2 out of three. Only 1 is needed. Good luck. And yeah, don’t upgrade.


    Def make the supporting photo a bit of a wider shot to include reference points for matching with streetview if this is hard to find. And also upload a photosphere if you can, using the google streetview app.

  • Hosette-INGHosette-ING Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Oakes1923-PGO It is rare for me to spend ten minutes on a single submission, but it happens occasionally. There's one that stands out in my memory, and I can talk you through why it took so long.

    The submission was an exquisite piece of art, one of the best public murals that I have ever seen. The general layout of the area was a large rectangular cluster of buildings with storefronts on the outside and a parking lot in the middle of the rectangle. The mural seemed to be on one of the inside walls of the rectangle, facing the parking lot, but the pin seemed wrong and I was having a hard time figuring out where it should go.

    The submitter had made the classic mistake of just turning around and taking a supporting photo of whatever was nearby rather than using that photo to show the submission in context. Thus, what I had to work with was a pretty generic photo of a fairly large parking lot and absolutely no clues for finding the mural itself. (Educational note: DO NOT EVER TAKE A SUPPORTING PHOTO LIKE THIS BECAUSE EVERY REVIEWER WILL CURSE YOU TO 30 DAYS OF STUBBING THE SAME TOE REPEATEDLY.)

    The mural was extremely cool, though, and I was on a mission. I would not give up until I tried every possible avenue for confirming the location. I tried a reverse image search on the mural itself but found nothing useful. I did a whole bunch of web searches hoping to find someone who had posted a photo of it. I checked other mapping services. I tried a whole lot of different web searches looking for clues. I ended up with nothing.

    There was street view for the area, only it was all outside the rectangle of buildings. Maybe there were gaps where I could catch a glimpse of the area with the mural? I tried as many places as I could, but they were all too far away.

    If it hadn't been truly extraordinary art I would have given up much sooner, but it was so cool that I really wanted to give it the best effort I could even though the submitter hadn't done so themselves. If they had just taken a useful supporting photo it probably would have been an easy 5* and that would have been that.

  • FlyingScotsmanN-PGOFlyingScotsmanN-PGO Posts: 3 ✭✭

    Just to thank everyone for there feedback/advice it is very much appreciated!

    Im new to all this wayfarer/nominations stuff and didn’t really think about a lot of the points raise. I assumed, wrongly apparently that nominations were reviewed by people that were relatively local in comparison to their home destination/address, also the name isn’t a acronym for anything it’s just ups like the direction, it dose have a story behind it which I will include when I resubmit

    About the point of it being upgraded. I did realise it if you hadn’t already mark a nomination to be upgraded next it would just randomly select one. Given a choice I wouldn’t have pick this one which is a bit annoying but you live and learn!

Sign In or Register to comment.