Hello Everyone,
Looking for advice on this nomination that was rejected. Is the nomination considered too generic? Not sure on which wayfarer criteria this nomination didn’t meet? There are not many lookout areas like this spot on island. Any suggestions would be greatly welcomed!
Hello and welcome,
Scenic lookouts make great Wayspots, as they encourage exploration of the area, and may make a good spot to socialize. Appears to be at -14.318131399821093, -170.7164658984638, from Google Maps satellite view.
Just wondering, what did your rejection email said: “our team” or “our community” rejected? If it was “our team,” that’s the ML/AI that rejected, so it wasn’t voted on by the community of reviewers.
While the main photo isn’t bad, I would take it a little closer to the entrance of the lookout, showing what one can see when there as well as the fencing and floor of the lookout.
Just checked the email and it was “our team” rejection. Thanks for the picture advice! Not really a good creative picture taker, so I will go back and apply what you noted! Also, is it better to appeal this or is it just faster to redo the picture and submit a new nomination?
Hello @AbyssSanctum
This looks a lovely spot, but I do think it was the automatic system that rejected it. There is a computer program you will see it referred to by the shorthand terms Emily or ML. It uses a Machine Learning programming to try and decide if a nomination would be something that is acceptable and they get accepted straightaway or if it thinks something is likely to not be acceptable it gets rejected.
You could appeal.
How long does it take for nominations to get resolved if the bot Emily doesn’t resolve them??
If its fast, then try a different photo…you are welcome to ask here for our views
and if you are doing that maybe a slightly longer description that talks about the view that you see from the view point.
The supplementary is fine, but if you are rewriting leave out the reference to trainers as some don’t like it.
If its slow then give the appeal a chance (unless you have a lot of htings to appeal)
I’ve taken to flagging such nominations when they use game-centric terms (like “trainers”) even in the supporting description. Mostly because those I’ve seen come in the form of “there are enough pokestops around”, which I interpret as trying to influence reviewers.
That is not influencing reviewers. At worst its useless information that makes no case for the nomination. If it was otherwise an acceptable nomination, all you are doing is stressing the system more by requiring to try again.
Even if you look from a look out point to a UNESCO world heritage, the rejected it even wit a appeals,
