I’m respectfully confused on what the purpose of the language “locally longstanding / cultural hotspot” means in relation to a wayspot nomination appeal rejection. I assume it is meaningless canned response from Niantic when they don’t want to make a decision on appeal. But, if Niantic is overriding their own internal “locally longstanding / cultural hotspot” criteria for every single strip mall sign in America on appeal, what difference is a building that actually IS a longstanding iconic building, that has been featured in dozens of movies, has an 80+ paragraph Wikipedia page dedicated to it and has components that meet all three actual criteria (explore, exercise and socialize)?
Rejection on a fourth, internal criteria called “locally longstanding/cultural hotspot significant” when the building is more longstanding and more iconic than all those strip mall signs. If you asked 100 New Yorkers to draw the MetLife building, or where its located - I bet they 100% would be able to respond accurately because it is literally a NY icon PLUS it meets ALL THREE criteria since it has public space, public art, a gym, multiple restaurants, a coffee shop, the largest privately owned outdoorspace in NYC…
I guess I’m just looking for clarity on what WOULD meet the internal Niantic definition of a local longstanding cultural hotspot if this doesn’t.
I’m not sure you going to find an explanation for why Niantic said this isn’t a “locally longstanding / cultural hotspot”. Niantic don’t generally provide detailed explanations, and it seems hard to justify the phrase in this case because the MetLife building is both longstanding and a cultural hotspot (speaking as someone who lives in the UK).
Remarkably, there is an empty cell there where a wayspot for this building would appear as a pokestop.
I think it’s eligible and you have a good description. Shopping malls are eligible even though they contain elements which are separately eligible, as is the case here.
Since this was rejected by the community, you might have better luck finding something eligible inside, such as the lobby or a coffee shop. Just make sure you choose something that is in the empty cell (legitimately)
Even though having the building as the pokestop would be better.
Appreciate the feedback. I took a day off of work, took a 90+ minute train ride solely to nominate the MetLife building… because it’s the MetLife building. I don’t plan on going back to NYC any time soon.
I am confident that I nominated something that met all criteria so I used an appeal and instead of giving me a reason why it didn’t meet a criteria, I was told that the Met Life building is irrelevant.
So rather than waste a day taking trains in order to fill a cell with a pokestop I’ll never spin, I’m trying to get Niantic to explain why a strip mall in Harrion NJ is is a locally longstanding/cultural hotspot but the Met Life building is not. I’m guessing it’s because the Harrison Strip Mall has a Dunkin Donuts, UPS store and a Walgreens.
I hope you receive a new email overturning this rejection. Instead of trying to compare to other points of interest that were not rejected as not being hotspots, I would try to strengthen the case that this is one. Maybe some links to tourist guidebooks, etc. I believe I would have accepted this with the case you originally made.
But the original point was about where it is written (or is it) that something has to be a hotspot in the first place. I don’t have a link to that specific wording, but (as I said on WDD) I believe it is what is meant by the wording in the eligibility criteria
A great place for exploration
A place you love to venture out to; a destination or a placemark of local interest and importance and which makes our communities unique and shapes its identity. Somewhere or something that tells the unique story about a place, its history, its cultural meaning, or teaches us about the community we live in.
This reddit post seems to back up that this is the current wording for the same idea
Thanks Cyndie, while I appreciate the feedback I believe that 100% of people who live in NYC know that this building exists, where it’s located and what it looks like without a tourism guide. If you don’t need a tourism guide for the Harrison Mall, requiring a tourism guide for this seems like you’re creating arbitrary approval criteria.
I believe you need you need to take point of view from people who arent from NYC . after all we dont know who is the one doing review or appeal review.
I would have expected a landmark building would be an easy slam dunk nomination, readily acceptable under the exploration criteria. That “local” reviewers first rejected it surprises me. But also remember, especially in very large countries like the US, the pool of reviewers can include people who are not local (almost guaranteed) to this nomination and may not know or believe this is a landmark. I’ll still scratch my head over it.
As for the appeals reviewers, IMO… respectfully… I have seen many disappointing decisions. Also, given the time of day that appeals reviews tend to happen, I have convinced myself they are not located in the US. They may have seen this as just an office building.
Perhaps resubmit this if you’re once again close enough to do that. Artwork inside, if it’s permanent, may be the easier submission.
Niantics “locally longstanding/cultural hotspot significant to your community” is only requirement for their appeals process and is not required for nominations.
The only requirements for nominations are: great to explore, great to exercise, great to socialize. I listed the multiple on property restaurants, coffee shops, the gym, the public and private spaces built to socialize, the publicly displayed artwork for exploring, it’s history being in movies. It has an 80+ paragraph Wikipedia page, it’s so obviously significant.
So I don’t really follow what requirement you’re referring to about out of towners, that’s only apparently an internal Niantic appeals requirement.
I am in favour of this nomination approved. But Its in your best interest to provide evidence that even outsider people can know instead of saying all NYC people know this place because whoever review this nomination may not come from NYC.
If this isn’t enough to meet one of the three criteria and there’s suddenly a fourth criteria like you’re describing, then Niantic needs to change their official stance of strip malls that host a Walgreens, UPS Store and Dunkin:
“One of the 100 Tallest Buildings in the United States, it towers above Grand Central Terminal helping define the NYC Skyline. This icon has been in many movies and tv shows, including Catch Me if You Can, Armageddon, Godzilla, Kingsman and PanAm. The public lobby connects to Grand Central and features famous works of art, including Richard Lippold’s “Flight” and Josef Albers’ “Manhattan.”” captures that well enough. famous building that is easily recognzable and iconic to the NYC skyline make it a cool thing to explore. The lobby is public and features famous artwork that is also great to explore. The lobby also has public seating to meet up and socialize with colleagues and there’s a ton of restaurants on the concourse level such as the capital grill, point seven, cucuno and coffee shops like Jacks Stir brew which are all great to socialize at."
I am not the one doing review. Like i said, to me its enough. But ranting about how all NYC know this, is irrelavant since i also dont know this building until you said so.
Anyway such rejection is common in wayfarer. You are not the first and certainly wont be the last. Your option now :
Wait staff if they are willing to overturn decision. You might need to wait a while.
Resubmit
In the mean time, its in your best interest to get more data about this building if its possible
This is a very good information. I dont know this if you dont tell
Most people who review may not come from same background like you and may not posses the same level of information. They certainly wont see it at the same view like you. If i know its the building that godzilla make hole, thats like +100point to me.
There are no such thing as fourth criteria. The onus is on submitter to provide enough information to convince reviewer
It is interesting feedback on an appeal that you have provided with your example.
I’m not sure whether you were wanting your example to be “reviewed” as some have done, or whether it was simply to address the question you set?
It is hard to address this without drawing on your submission.
Through the discussion you have started to refer to this as a fourth criteria. I can see how you got to this point but it is not a separate criteria at all.
If you look around the forum you will see multiple examples of fellow wayfinders explaining that various phrases generated in relation to rejections are not ideally phrased.
For example the phrase not permanent or distinct frequently confuses people as they focus on the not permanent part.
Emails that list a huge range of reasons including harassment when at the root of it is a 3rd party picture.
And I have had appeal rejections where I am left wondering “what???”
So my take on this is not to get too tied into the exact words used. Not to think of this as something new.
It is intensely frustrating when our nominations are rejected by reviewers and then again on appeal. It is easy to put all the blame on those reviewing. But you do need to reflect on what you have presented to them. I have a nomination where in the summer I will be trying again and having been indignant that I couldn’t possibly have got it wrong, I will have reflected try new pictures and approach the text and I formation differently ( I think the multiple web submission images will really help my case).
I think it’s an interesting building but I think the message from both sets of reviewers is that your passion for this is not enough. Be clear is it the building and/or how it functions and provide evidence to back up what you say. As someone based in the U.K. I am surrounded in city centres with buildings that have interesting architecture and stories to tell of how they have changed usage. But I would expect someone to link to evidence ( historical listing in the U.K.) or perhaps a current website about usage. I wouldnt expect reviewers to just take my word for it.
TL:DR
Is this a new criteria - no.
As wayspot I would like this to become one. Did all the reviewers necessarily make errors based on what was provided? I don’t think so but happy to be wrong.
I don’t think it should be necessary to prove with links that the MetLife building is iconic and a strong piece of the fabric of NY. It’s like the Flatiron building (which, thankfully, is a wayspot).
It has only been 12 hours; hopefully Niantic provide a comment.
I believe you need. Not all reviewer will be familiar with the nomination they review. Since i am not US based, i have no idea about both building before today. I might have seen it in movie. i was not convinced before until i saw the building with hole in godzilla movie.
Hmm. I don’t think a US submission needs to target reviewers outside the US. There may be some, but the vast majority will be from the US.
That’s like having to explain to a non-UK reviewer with a UK Postbox is significant. I’ve never seen a single postbox submission bothering to do that, as it is always assumed that the reviewers know why UK Postboxes are special.
