When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:
Wayspot Title:Skogsgömda Skeppsättningen i Gnisvärd
Location (lat/lon): no clue
City: Gotland, Gnisvärd
Country: Sweden
Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
Additional Information (if any)
I hope the person who is (handling the appeals is what I meant) appealing gets their appeal privileges removed as this is the second time I’ve had something like this denied for a natural feature for an appeal. They clearly have no understanding of local areas and would not have understood that the stone henge would have any significance whatsoever if they saw it in person even without being told so.
I decided against adding the website and pictures as last time they did not check that so I just posted the article number and the information and said you can check for yourself in the appeal. The description describes this specific one perfectly yet they did not read it.
I feel as if the appeal personnel should have more knowledge or at least read the submission before doing an uneducated denial maybe an educational quiz they do before being put into their roles. Like I have no idea how you would deny this for a natural feature from all given information.
”Common rock”… ’most structures are made of common rocks I guess…
the photos I guess could be improved but it’s hard to photo such a long object without a drone.
If you want your appeal to actually succeed,i suggest you to get weblink proof of this nomination. Just word only is not enough because people are known to say anything to get their submission approved.
It sounds like you made the reviewers job harder by deliberately removing evidential links that would have supported your case. You had the links so you should have used them, even if your appeal failed last time.
I notice you starting your appeal with “Viking Ship from Viking Period, I hope I don’t have to say more”.
This is categorically not a viking ship, so you have immediately presented this as something it is not. It might represent a viking ship, but is not itself a viking ship.
You also said how you had included the information previously, but as that was in a separate submission it has no relevance to this.
To most people, a ship is something that goes in the water. It cannot be made of stone.
With the appeal reviewers, you are describing something to someone who doesn’t know about these viking ships. Although a quick search for “viking stone ships” showed me what this actually is supposed to be, I couldn’t tell that from your narrative alone.
Explain what a viking stone ship is, how it is culturally important (which it is) and then provide evidence (links) that this is a viking stone ship.
If you are writing in English, call it a “viking stone ship” or “viking burial stone ship”, not just a “viking ship”, as the latter misses out key adjectives.
I have added links priors, I have added screenshots of the link so they don’t even have to go off site, I have done all of that before on a similar and it was denied for being a natural object, I would not be surprised to learn it is the same person who denied this
the bot can’t recognise these at all. So I just wait and use the appeal as it should be a surely guaranteed way yet I am baffled by the appeal handlers once again.
Usually you can’t appeal an appeal decision at this forum. The normal procedure is to follow the advice as given by the appeal reviewer, submit again with more context.
I do expect that it will again be rejected by AI, so you may have to appeal it again. You can link to this post in the appeal.
Sometimes however, if you are really lucky, a staff member will approve a wayspot as a result of these kind of posts, as they do read everything.
We do see appeals overturned after posting on the forum when the decision is clearly wrong.
I do not see evidence here that the appeal reviewer made a mistake based on the evidence given them. It is always on the submitter to make the case, no matter who the reviewer is.
The supplemental information section translates to this for me:
From the Viking Age L1976:8699 1) Ship settlement, 36 ml (N 10cg E-S 10cg W), 4 m broch 0.3 m h, filled. In the bows several raised stones. In the Wst in S 3 pieces, 0.4-0.7 m h and 0.4-0.5 m br and 0.25-0.4 m tj. The long sides otherwise consist of tightly laid lump stones, 0.1-0.2 m h and 0.2-0.4 m I. Partially peated filling, but on the surface visible 0.1-0.5 m st stones, some of which are loosely laid. 7 m S 35cg Vom N bowstone and 0.8 m W if the W long side is
I have no idea how any of this proves the location or how it meets criteria. Or explains what this is.
I had no idea what these stones were supposed to be until @pokemaster4u2 linked the wikipedia article.
If I wanted the reviewer to “check the website of the government entity and search up the article number to see it,” I would give them the link and the article number.
I realize that you are frustrated, but you need to step back and see how this looks to others.
If your goal is to get your nomination approved, you should kept on improving your nomination. Step back and look your nomination from point of view of foreigner that have no idea about your nomination.
Frankly i am not sure what are you trying to explain with your supporting information. It looks like some data, but whats interesting about it? Your nomination should be exploration category. But i am not seeing the explanation here in nomination.
The issue I have is I have added links to a prior but similar even taking a screenshot of the map yet they didn’t pay attention to any of that so I decided to skip the hassle of going off site and giving them the info from the source.
And it did work I appealed one slightly before and it got through without any links meanwhile the one I had with links and screenshots didn’t.
If I bother to make an appeal, I send every detail that I think would help my case. I use a rejected one to see that I need to provide more information. For example, I had to appeal this twice to get it accepted. I added more evidence and more links the second time. This was successful.
Yeah but a restaurant being not generic is subjective, this is objective. The personnel in charge of this appeal would probably deny the stone henge or Petra because it is just ”regular stone”. There are multiple submissions nearby in the map that have been approved as well as a k informational sign explaining how the people lived during that time, all available to a normal reviewer.
And then the person handling appeals should at least be knowledgeable, shouldn’t that be a given?
