Thoughts On This Bakery Nomination?
AScarletSabre-PGO
Posts: 754 ✭✭✭✭✭
It's on the verge of being within 20m of another Wayspot so I had to be really careful when nominating it, but it is a really nice bakery and I want others to know about it! As it says on their website, the founder has worked for Middle Eastern royalty.
Comments
I like it, though I think youre gonna have a tough sell with others.
A couple of points.
The main picture isn't the best, I can see from the support pic why you did it like that, but it does nothing to help the nomination, and may actually cause some to reject it for low pic quality and makes the shop look a bit drab.
Is there always cars there? Maybe an early morning late arvo pic may help, or a Sunday? .
Also consider a re write of the description and support statement. The key points are there but it doesn't read as snappy as it could be.
Apart from that id say its a good sub of a quality local business.
On the chance it is accepted (and so I don't waste a nomination), I'll make every change except for the photograph, seeing as that cannot be edited. If it's rejected then I'll go there on a Sunday. It's not as though I'm nominating a big chain.
Thanks for raising this.
I have a similar local bakery in the pipeline, not with awards but certainly recommended by travel websites
It really shouldn’t be that hard should it, and I don’t hold out much hope for mine. Mine has the disadvantage of not being in a great high Street location.
Personally I have no issue with your photo for the waypoint. A little brighter would help, a sunnier day? but I like when the focus is on the name and in some areas buildings just aren’t bright and sparkly but that shouldn’t mean it’s rejected. There is a lot of subjectivity so if it fails because of the photo don’t get put off.
I think the advice about making the description snappier is worth the effort.
Good luck with it I hope it gets through.
I shall endeavour to keep people updated on this nomination!
Sadly bakery was rejected within a matter of hours. Oh well. Reasons given are "photograph contains a body part instead of a valid object" and "photograph contains a live animal instead of a valid object". Apparently the photograph is blurry too. Okay then...
The former is probably your finger in the supporting image. Not that it should have been a reason to reject.
Did you by chance upgrade it? Or let it go through local
No 'Upgrade'. I suppose I was unlucky in that some people were expecting a Da Vinci and I could not provide that. Oh well.
I think upgrades in U.K. are problematic at the moment. My experience is that they can be very quickly rejected - a matter of hours. I think ( no proof) that these are being 1 starred and that it doesn’t take many of these in a short space of time for them to reach rejection status. There is no chance for something to get say a 3 star rating and see if there is wider support. I think there are some very active reviewers that don’t like submissions like this, cafes or trail markers and just 1*.
I would take on board the advice try again but don’t upgrade.
Yes, I agree... People shouldn't reject because of the supporting image, but it happens all the time.
I think you should try again with a better supporting image.
A bakery nearby me has been around for nearly 50 years and is a gym. The photodisc image even has people's faces in it. Don't give up!
Re: supporting image
For me, despite the finger, it is one of the better supporting images I have viewed as it allows the bakery to be easily placed alongside other buildings in the area to verify its likely existence.
Text is too much about a person and not a bakery so I would 50/50 it. :/ But I review in Spain where the amount of text written is a lot in comparison to what people want.
Text being too much about the person than the bakery would be fair enough if the reasons given for rejection were something other than the photograph. As it stands, I am of the impression people were expecting a photograph from an expensive DSLR camera taken by a professional photographer. I simply cannot provide this. People can see from the supporting image there is a lot of foot traffic and parked vehicles, limiting the angles an image can be taken from.
Having been subject to many rejections, the reasons never made sense so I would be careful reading too much into it.
There may be misclicks. There may be searching for reasons but nothing is quite right. When I get the same main and support photo with no 360 on maps, and no street view, I have started dinging with third party photos. I might have passed it had they had an actual supporting photo where I could verify things... but alas. And that reason cannot be easily transmitted, other than doesn't match. I have used text to mean, "could pass otherwise but text description doesn't give me the least clue why. Your extra info says not a private residence but nowhere do you say what it is when it looks like that."
So yeah. I would be cautious on reading into things.