Another appeal rejected

[MMaximut]

Just a question: when someone files an appeal for their application, who exactly is supposed to review it?
I would have imagined someone with a bit of expertise and the will to actually check things and offer a thoughtful contribution.

“Hey you, yes you, come here, we need someone to rule on an appeal!”

Can someone please explain this appeal process to me?*

First application: rejected because it’s a “standard bench” and “not permanent.”
So I appeal, pointing out that it’s clearly not a standard bench and obviously a solid structure weighing dozens of kilos (anchored to the ground even if you can’t see it), and that it most definitely does not look temporary.

Appeal result? Rejected again, this time because “The proposal is located on an educational structure primarily intended for minors under 18.”

Except… it’s a public park, open to everyone. The school has nothing to do with it — it just happens to be next to the park.
Anyone can see that on Google Street View.
If they bothered to look.
But no — if the whole point is to find a reason, any reason, to reject the application, then sure, suddenly the school becomes a giant problem.

It’s becoming painfully obvious to me that these things are managed by bitter people.

Am I wrong in thinking that?

****Mod Edit to remove

---

This my appeal:

Proposta di Wayspot per Panchina Ovada

Ovada Piemonte

Ricorso non accettato

2025-04-25

Note del ricorso

Sono 3 panchine in tre parchi diversi. Molto particolari col cuore al posto della O. Che formano la scritta ovada. Molto belle. Molto pesanti, non sono destinate ad essere tolte o spostate. Quindi non vedo motivi di respingere la proposta dicendo che non e’ particolari (lo sono eccome non e’ certo una panchina che si vede tutti i giorni) ed e’ permanete (e’ li’ da un mese e mezzo (fissata e in sicurezza) non puo’ essere tolta o spostata anche volendo.

Nota di Niantic

Thanks for the appeal, Explorer! The nomination is inside a school, which makes it ineligible. Hence, we are unable to reverse the decision. We recommend you review the Wayspot rejection criteria before submitting any more Wayspot contributions: Rejection Criteria — Wayfarer Help Center

I revisori hanno fornito questi motivi principali per non aver accettato questa proposta:

• La proposta si trova su una struttura educativa destinata principalmente ai minori di 18 anni

Descrizione

Bella panchina con cuore e la scritta Ovada

Posizione

Via Duchessa Galliera, 13/2, 15076 Ovada AL, Italia

Informazioni supplementari

[elijustrying]

Hi I am moving this to the general discussion area as this appeals category is for specific types of appeals and this is a query around the outcome of an appeal.

To be clear when you appeal the rejection of a nomination it is reviewed by the Wayfarer Team. They are humans and therefore like all of us mistakes can happen. So although it is frustrating please remember that. I have edited out some inappropriate comments.

[MMaximut]

Yes, but this happens every single time. So to me, there are only two possibilities: either there’s a deliberate intent to reject everything, or something’s seriously off with how this is being handled.
Because it always ends the same way — the appeal gets dismissed.

I genuinely believe that for appeals to be meaningful, they must be taken seriously.
Not treated like a checklist item, not weighed out “by the kilo,” not just rubber-stamped to move on.
Otherwise, what’s the point?

When someone files an appeal, it’s with the hope of saying:
“Please take a careful look — if you do, you’ll see this is a valid submission.”
And if that doesn’t happen, then yes — it’s all completely pointless.

And when you submit three appeals and get these kind of embarrassing results, the conclusion becomes crystal clear: this process is being managed terribly.
Not a momentary mistake, not an isolated lapse.
We’re talking about systemic neglect.

Then, if you try to resubmit the application, it becomes a lottery: maybe this time the AI blocks it; maybe next time some other nonsense happens — and the never-ending loop of bad management drags on.
All it does is exhaust people who were genuinely trying to contribute to something they enjoy.

Which is exactly what’s happening to me right now.
The sheer pettiness and tediousness of this process is completely over the top.

[elijustrying]

Like I guess most people, I have had appeals rejected and I have had appeals accepted.
The ones that were rejected I accepted that I was either submitting something that was just not suitable or more usually I had a long hard critical look redrafted and gave new photos to present a different case to reviewers.
Yes it’s frustrating but it is better than having no appeals process which is what we used to have.

Having looked on streetview I agree that the appeal rejection reason of a school is wrong. This is a park area with lots of benches and shade to relax in.
The initial reviewers reasons of temporary or not distinct often actual mean not distinct, but the object is different. You say there are 3 of them in the area, is there a website about this that shows it is limited to 3.
I was a little confused as sometimes objects like this are just for display, marketing the town or city. I can see that you could sit on it. I think a photo that showed that more clearly (showing the area you can sit on, would have sorted that doubt that reviewers might have had . Local reviewers may know more than I about this sort of object. I guess that enough original reviewers had enough niggles and doubts to question if it was acceptable. .
You have done the right thing bringing it here to discuss. Sometimes people find the outcome changes.

If you have other nominations that have caused frustration do post in nomination support and we will help to see if improvements can be suggested.

[Panthers07]

if i had to guess why, its due to the fact that the garden/park where your nomination is located is right next to a K12 school so whoever reviewed your appeal thought that it was part of school grounds. and some schools do have nice decorated lawn areas as part of their school property so i can see why the reviewer judged it as school property. whether or not thats true i have no idea since im not from there, and if its not part of school property i can see why you would be upset. but due to how close it is to a school i wouldnt call this a bad review but more of a gray area review where reviewers could go either way and this time it didnt go your way.

[elijustrying]

It is actually very clear on street view that this is an open park. There is no signage or barrier that would link it to the school. The school is the building which is not an unusual city centre arrangement in Europe.

[Panthers07]

Im not saying you’re wrong. and i wouldnt know im not from there and havent done a deep dive of the area, just saying how the result of the k12 rejection probably came to be and that due to its close proximity to a school how some reviewers might assume it is part of a school.

[DTrain2002]

There are improvements that can be made for this nomination. First off, the title doesn’t accurately describe this as a bench. Piemonte translates to piedmont in English, which is a gentle mountain slope leading to flat land. You do describe it correctly as a heart shaped bench, but the title needs to be correct as well, and this in no way is a piedmont. Maybe the park has a slope, but that’s not what’s being nominated.

I’m also interested in what you put down for the supporting info, as I see that wasn’t provided. This would have been where I would have noted this is in a public park and isn’t a part of the school; this info would have been helpful for the appeal as well if it wasn’t in the supporting info. Noting this in the supporting info may have helped the reviewers see this as a park and not connected to the school in the first place, even if these small public parks are near schools in many areas of Europe.

I would have also tried to find some additional info about the 3 benches in the area that have this heart shape, such as if they were made by someone locally.

[MMaximut]

That’s exactly the point — an appeal shouldn’t stop at appearances and just move on. It should involve a careful look, without feeling the need to find a reason to reject the application at all costs.

Yes, there’s a school nearby — but it’s not part of the school. It’s a small public park, and that’s clearly visible.

And I’ll say it again: the original application was rejected for other reasons.
Instead of acknowledging that those reasons weren’t valid, the process just looks for new, equally invalid ones — unnecessarily and mistakenly.

And in my opinion, during an appeal session, these kinds of errors — which in my case happen far too often — simply shouldn’t happen.

[Panthers07]

Yeah i get you, we’ve all been victim to poor decisions from the community or otherwise. but we cant control who reviews our nominations and the amount of time or effort thats done when our nominations are reviewed. just do our best to try and prevent any problems we might see from our nominations. like i pointed out, in this situation where its so close to a school i would have assumed that lazy reviewers or those who review fast might just mark it as school property due to its proximity to the school, so like dtrain said, in the supplemental area I would have made it a point to say its located in a public park and outside of school property and then added some context to the artistic heart shaded features of the benches that make it unique. the more effort you put so reviewers have a harder time finding a reason to reject your nomination the better chance you have at is passing. but yeah… sorry you in this situation.

[MMaximut]

Yes, I should have specified that it was a public park.
But in this case, it honestly didn’t even cross my mind — I thought it was obvious.

That said, with the kind of sloppy, superficial approach being used here, I seriously doubt things would have gone any differently even if I had written it.

[eneeoh]

@MMaximut

Panchina Ovada

Ovada, Piemonte, Italia, was the location.

Ovada Bench was the title.

I’d like to say welcome to the forum, Original Poster. It can certainly be frustrating when communication doesn’t go smoothly, but it is going to happen sometimes.

The review process was designed to make reviewers take at least two views of any nomination:

One view asks "What is it, and does it satisfy the Acceptance Criteria?

The other view asks if any of the Rejection Criteria apply.

A good reviewer sorts and weighs these two issues, and then accepts, rejects or skips the nomination. If too many reviewers are confused or make the wrong determination, a mistaken outcome will ensue.

The official Appeals reviewers may not be permitted to skip, since theirs is a single pass/fail vote. I think you are correct that they are expected to use greater care than a regular reviewer, but they may be less familiar with the analysis than we are, and they are still human beings and subject to all of the same fallibilities as anyone else.

I feel your frustration.

[cyndiepooh]

I wanted to thank the op for bringing up issues with the appeals process. Niantic has said they want to know how they are doing:

@NianticTintino

Niantic Appeal Decisions

Thank you for your continued feedback and examples of instances where we didn’t quite hit the mark with your appeals. We know we’re not perfect and our team members working on appeals may have different views however that is not an excuse to not improve based on the feedback. We are in the process of updating our staff training on criteria, removals, etc in hopes to improve the community sentiment around more than just appeals. Please continue to share your feedback on your experiences as we continue improving our performance and hope to reach a good state soon.

I do think they care about getting it right, fwiw.

[DTrain2002]

The rejection reason for this one says it was rejected for being on school grounds, per the info you provided.

You even noted that the reviewers and the appeals team both rejected for being on K-12 school grounds, not just the appeals team. Your previous nominations were rejected for other reasons, but you haven’t provided that nomination for us to see how you presented it.

The appeals team, we assume, have more resources than we do, or are told to find additional resources if possible. However, it’s still on the burden of the submitter to provide proof that the nomination meets criteria, not leave it up to the reviewers and/or appeals team to search for that info. With the info that you have provided, this bench could fall into a grey area, as some may not see it as distinct, while others will see the school nearby and think it’s on school grounds. Nothing in your nomination really helps prove that it’s a distinct bench and that it isn’t on school grounds.

Yes, Cyndie brings up a good point about staff wanting to know about when we disagree with appeals decisions. However, there is still things that can be learned from this in regards to being more thorough with your nominations in the future.

[MMaximut]

Ok, I get it — you’re right, the application could have been written more clearly. I’ll try to do that next time.

I would, however, like to propose two simple questions:

First: if I had written that it was a public park and had nothing to do with the school, wouldn’t it still not have been checked anyway?
Second (forgive the rhetorical sarcasm): so now, do I need to add “this is a public space” to every single application I submit?

The answer to both, in my view, is this:
If the person reviewing is in a rush and not really interested, the application will be rejected no matter what.
And that’s precisely the point of my post — because, from my very personal point of view, that’s exactly the pattern we’re seeing.

[TjoeMi]

@MMaximut

Second (forgive the rhetorical sarcasm): so now, do I need to add “this is a public space” to every single application I submit?

Its not mandatory but i believe whats more important is the supporting photo that show the park is public. U know the phrase “picture is worth a thousand words”

[DTrain2002]

If someone has a pattern of reviewing in a hurry, not thoroughly looking at each nomination, the system could flag this for staff review, and if deemed appropriate, get a 24 hour cooldown, a warning, even be banned if they’ve done this before. The system can detect odd reviewing patterns, and, if needed, staff may intervene.

So, regardless of this, the burden of proof that a nomination is eligible and meets criteria is o the submitter. I do both, and I always appreciate getting reviews where the submitter put in the work, such as providing links in the supporting info or a supporting photo showing the area is safely accessible to the public.

My least favorite nominations are those where the submitter puts in very little info, and then I have to spend more time searching to ser if the nomination meets criteria. If someone nominates a locally-owned restaurant and that’s all they say it is in the description and supporting info, then I have to actually find out if it is a locally-owned restaurant and if it meets criteria.

Put your mind into that of a reviewer who does a thorough job, not one that rushes through, as again, bad reviewing patterns can be detected by the system. When you do put yourself into the mind of a thorough reviewer, you’ll see how appreciative a thorough and well explained nomination is. Reviewing has helped me be more thorough with my nominations, providing as much info as possible and making sure before I upload the I’ve met the burden of proof.