You completely missed my point. I gave them the information. They did not have to dig and do research.
Appeal of an appeal denied for ”natural features”, calling a Viking stone ship grave a ”common rock”
Knowledgeable about Viking burial customs? No, I don’t think that should be a prerequisite.
Dropping down into street view is expected when reviewing submissions no?
No, that should not be a given, I have no clue how many appeals there are per day, but I can imagine that there will be many. I don’t think we can expect them to know everything and/or investigate themselves
When I want them to verify something on street view, I indicate what to look for in my statement. If there are multiple street views, I even tell them which one shows what I want them to see. I point this out in my supporting text on my nominations in the first place. This was my supporting statement for a dog park that didn’t show on satellite view.
But when you are doing the reviewing of submitted wayspots do you not check street view? Is that not what is expected?
I have a hard time believing the UI is any less than the one for public submissions
Sure, I always check streetview, but mainly to check for the location, not as a source for historical relevance
There is even this on the map fyi
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Buqo6H6FHMy2Xqrw8?g_st=ic
Which does appear from a first glance on the map btw.
If the appeal personnel was competent they would not think this is a generic stone
The fact of the matter is that you did not prove your case in your appeal.
Don’t get me wrong, I do agree that it is a nice wayspot. But the problem is when someone is reviewing that if you fail for the “distinct” part, the reviewer won’t check the location.
If the appeal personnel can’t read, can’t take context clues, can’t check a map, can’t check street view, and doesn’t have knowledge they do more likely than not have the option to skip. I have had the same issue with a different submission where I included screenshots of the website the description of the article and a link t the article and they downed the it regardless. I have a hard time believing that it is not the same person and if they are unknowledgeable they still probably do have the option of skipping like every other reviewer has when reviewing.
There is a reason there is the option of pressing I don’t know and skipping for a reason.
All I am saying is they shouldn’t have incompetent appeal reviewers who can’t press the skip or I don’t know button if they are clueless and incompetent. It is okay to be incompetent and unkownledgeable as long as you don’t try to act on your unkowning.
There is also a reason why you review in regions and not globally as for most swedes and Scandinavian people this would not be ”not distinct”. In fact most Europeans would be knowledgeable about this. If not be able to take a guess.
Agree, and it is a shame that cases like this usually won’t be seen by the local reviewers, but only by appeal staff.
You can’t make assumptions like this.
I’m from the UK. I have Norse ancestry and I do happen know what this is and think it would make for a great wayspot. In fact I wouldn’t mind a postcard as a souvenir if you get it accepted eventually. That being said, I wouldn’t expect other people to have that kind of knowledge if I was submitting this.
As others have said, the onus is always on the submitter to clearly explain what their nomination is and why it meets the criteria. You have done a fairly poor job at this when it comes to your actual nomination. Reviewers are going to look at this and see rocks (assuming it gets past the Machine Learning and not automatically rejected). Your text might hint at what they actually are, but you’ve not really provided anything for reviewers to easily verify this, and a submitter’s word alone tends not to be good enough evidence without sources to back it up.
I can appreciate you’re frustrated by this, but there are definitely things you could’ve done to increase your chances of the appeal reviewer accepting your nomination. I am unsure whether staff here will reverse this decision based on this thread (you have definitely done a better job of educating people about what this is here than what you did on the actual nomination), but if they don’t overturn it, I definitely would recommend trying to resubmit it with better information and evidence provided. Make it as easy as possible for reviewers to see that this is actually a really cool place, despite what first impressions may give them.
This is the absolute key element in this entire conversation. Nothing to do with Google map pins.
I hadn’t a clue what this was.
The conversation has allowed me to learn more.
The penny dropped for me wan I started reviewing years ago that people submitting were making all sorts of assumptions about knowledge. I then looked at my own rejections and realised this was an issue I needed to fix.
Since then I have tried to walk through each nomination explaining details providing evidence and try to make it easy for the reviewer to say yes.
You cant expect people to accept your nomination when you intentionally try to make review harder. When you resubmit or appeal, you are supposed to give more evidence not more hassle.
Why go through the hassle of adding all that information if it’s not gonna be read, you did not read either I guess. What more info can you give than an image of the government map, the article number, the description of the article and the link to the article and if they don’t read it once why bother going through the hassle of adding it in future submissions, the appeal reviewers didn’t read it last time I submitted a similar with all of the aforementioned details. You did not read either.
This time I mentioned the source of my information as well as the specific article. I am not talking about identifying, I don’t mean that people will go ’ah that must be a ”skeppsättning”’. When I say recognising I am talking about recognising that a bunch of rocks standing upright in a certain shape has probably got some cultural significance.
I am not gonna be visiting in a long while and even if I were to submit all the different ones the bot has not once succeeded in identifying what it is, an appeal takes about 14 days to be received so it would take about a year to submit all of the ones in the small area and more if I were to walk some more.
If it got through to the normal queue instead of being denied by the bot I don’t think there would be a doubt in any of the reviewed mind as I stated what it was perfectly in Swedish. Is it not expected that the layman to be worse than the professional, in this case the appeal reviewer…