I accept that the angle of the submission could have been better… but can someone tell me how the rejection reason is accurate please?
There is little black sign on the building that says very blurry that this building is post office, at least what I can read from it. Since this sign is not readable the community can’t know if this building is actually a post office which is why they putted this rejection reason is my guess. I am not sure, just my guess at this.
Not a reason for the rejection. The sign wasn’t the focus of the submission.
1 Like
Just get a better photo of the sign than it’ll be accepted
2 Likes
I assume you took the photo from that angle to avoid any car license plates? Are you able to take a photo when the cars aren’t there so it can be face onto the building?
Here’s an example of a post office I successfully nominated:
I had to crop out the shop front and show just the signage due to a constant flurry of people, cars and building works getting in the way.
2 Likes
What answers would you choose if presented with this nomination in review?
The title says this is a Post Office Sports Club in Surrey Hill, but how can we tell if it is any of those things? Perhaps only reviewers familiar with the location should vote on it and everyone else should skip it, but usually reviewers want to be able to read a sign or confirm from a linked web-site or something, and your reviewers could be anywhere.
1 Like
Precisely what I meant. Perfect answer
Google Maps satellite labels it as such. So even if you are not local, it’s not an unknown location on Google.
Also provided a link in the Supporting info to confirm that it exists.
So I am still confused on the rejection reasom(s).
1 Like
In my limited experience of nominating, I find that some reviewers will apply a test with a higher bar than “beyond reasonable doubt”, which means that if there is the slightest thing wrong with a submission it gets a rejection. In your case, the less than perfect photos make the rejection button irresistable, irrespective of whether other information provided helps to identify the existence and purpose of the building.
On my current community rejection list I have:
- two nominations rejected for apparent typos in the titles that nobody on the forum can see;
- apparent non-distinctive or non-permanent wildflower meadow with signage and referenced and plotted on the council’s website;
- apparent non-distinctive or non-permanent 140-year old parish boundary stone shown on contemporaneous historic maps; and
- undisclosed reasons for rejection of riveride mooring sign with local visitor information on a national trail, when three other identical signs in different places on the trail were accepted in the same batch of nominations.
Be prepared to become a lot more confused!
This is a harsh critique of your image. When I look at that photo, I see a traffic cone, a couple of parking barriers, some cars, and oh! there’s some kind of building in the background.
Anything in the foreground that distracts from the building should be removed. I think you could have stood next to the white car and aimed at the building to get a much more clear view of what this building represents.
1 Like
Well i agree that sometimes if i see things like car i want to reject it. But at the same time i also remember my own pain of waiting days or weeks coming back to same location waiting for the area to be cleared of car or people
I get it isn’t the best picture in the world, but that can be repllaced at a later date. It doesn’t deserve the rejection criteria.
Yes, maybe it can be replaced later. But the process to replace it might take long time . i worry other people might view it as example during that period of time. Its might be faster to resubmit with better photo
Having to guess that ……
reviewers saw this as a reject and decided that bad photo was the message they wanted to send to you and selected accuracy and bad photo, some clicked blurry photo maybe a misclick.
As a reviewer it is sometimes hard to reject in a way that will effectively send a message to the submitter. In this case I think they have achieved their goal in spite of a system that doesn’t make this easy for the reviewer or for the submitter receiving the message.
So to decode it.
This sounds suitable but hey it looks like an ordinary building not distinguisable from anything else. Where is my signfarer 
So the little black sign that denies responsibility is not useful. Is there any sign.
If not does the building look better from the sports field side?
You are going to have to tackle the lack of a sign in the supplementary.
It’s a good location.
Unfortunately the Sports Field side was not accessible as there was an event on, so couldn’t check. There is no sign that specificly identified it as A Sports Club from where I took the photo.
I agree. That’s a terrible, unclear photo. I’d probably vote to reject it on that basis.
Appealed it and Niantic have approved it.
6 Likes
Congratulations!
I didnt check this thread before but I did not agree that your photo meant it should be rejected.
Yes its not the prettiest angle but it was clearly a picutre of the building you were nominating
I think reviewers often misuse this rejection so the accepted appeal is very good news
I agree it’s not the best photo. Absent of a sign, which not all Sports Clubs have, it’s not always possible to provide a prettier / appropriate picture.
2 Likes