Good Morning, or Afternoon, or Evening.
I am considering re-nominating a Wayspot that got rejected previously.
It’s an information sign that is placed all around my local area. I have submitted 2 before the nomination that got rejected and they have both been accepted, both identical to the sign that got rejected.
The sign that got rejected was for “Not historically or culturally significant”
Should I try and re-nominate it? I felt like I got unlucky when it comes to who nominated by Wayspot.
All 3 Information signs are identical, and are used to show local events that are happening around the area.
Thanks a ton! 
It would help a lot to post screenshots of the rejected nomination to see what you are talking about. Something being accepted does not always mean it actually should have been. Community information boards at various locations in the community do seem like they could separately have value even though identical.
2 Likes
It happens, I would suggest re-uploading it with a better description of how it’s historical. Also if I understand, it’s a sign that shows upcoming events? If that’s the case then it’s not historical.
1 Like
Maybe it got rejected because it did not show that it had the “City Of Wolverhampton College” sign on it?
Hi @HeavyMetal420xx,
Being historical is not one of the eligibility criteria. If something is one or more of:
- A great place to be social
- A great place to explore
- A great place to exercise
It’s true that something historical may help something be a cool thing to explore. But not being historical is not a reason to reject.
I think that the event boards could be culturally important to the area so could meet exploring and possibly socializing.
4 Likes
Hmm… I think this would be worth a resubmit. Get the best, straightest photo you can. Be clear in the supporting that the community looks here for information, and the message displayed changes but is always something important to the community. No promises.
1 Like
Appreciated, all of you!
Thank you, I will attempt to resubmit it when I have free time. 
1 Like
HI hear you @LetsRollGirl but if in my opinion (me opiniated – nooo)
Yes you are right that it is not one of the three criteria – BUT - should a nominator claim heritage, historical and local importance. Prove it. As a nominator I do.
Otherwise the description is likely wrong. I don’t know about where you but those terms are used often from the UK to Australia to sway reviewers.
Of course heritage/historical or importance can be subjective. So in that vein - evidence is even more important.
I am not saying @JNRAwsome did that.
My own two pennies are that we need to see the nomination in full… @JNRAwsome if not accepted. Can you post into nomination improvement and ask the team to have a look. Generally you get a host of views that will help.
Good luck!
I may have missed that in their Description write up… but they pulled the pictures so I cannot see now. Oops.
I knew others were helping with the nomination itself and thought I was clearing up a misconception.
I completely agree that a reviewer needs to feel confident that the nomination is accurate and not just using buzz words for the sake of getting something accepted. And it is on the nominators to communicate those things through the different aspects of the nomination.
1 Like
I am just curious. This is an old rejection reason that I can’t recall seeing since the new review flow. Is it still showing that rejection reason, or has it updated to something else?
(We used to see that rejection reason when it appeared that reviewers couldn’t decide whether something was a duplicate or not and were split on the reviews.)
1 Like
This POI was rejected back in November ‘23
It does still show the old rejection criteria.
Guessing that due to its old nomination date is why it shows? It took me a while to decide if I should re-nominate this. 