It wasn’t until I read the description about Pan Am that I twigged what I was looking at ( I’m old and not familiar with the Godzilla movie )
If I have to construct an appeal then I should stop think that ok what I provided before didn’t work I need to provide something more.
So in this case I am left with the impression that the appeal statement effectively just said the same sort of things as the original but “louder”.
I am as guilty as the next person for falling into this trap.
Perhaps if it had been posted on this forum at the point of rejection the experienced wayfinders could have offered advice. That emotionally detached view of something. I think we would have offered advice about constructing a good appeal that would have said provide some simple evidence. The discussion has revealed there is a Wikipedia page that is not referred to in the appeal. That would have been great.
As I said I think this would be a good wayspot. Was there a mistake on a judgement of a specific nomination and appeal is a different question.
Well its true. But it still work in op favour if he explain more. After all, the range of review might go beyond country. Not to mention if there are visitor or bonus location. Last, i dont know where wayfarer staff (appeal team) comes from. I am guessing US but i could be wrong.
Actually when it comes to an appeal for a postbox although I would never dream of putting it in an original nomination, I would provide links in an appeal…..but know it would fail.
Enough said about postboxes I think.
I’m not an expert, sure… but I have over 200 accepts, my longest acceptance streak was 35 days. This nomination blows away every. single. one. of my previous nominations, except maybe one. This was a slam dunk and the reviewers very clearly dropped the ball. That’s why appeals exist, is it not?
"It wasn’t until I read the description about Pan Am that I twigged what I was looking at "
Oh so I did the work, wrote the history and got you there?
(Notwithstanding that a reviewer personally being aware of a location is NOT a requirement…)
“If I have to construct an appeal then I should stop think that ok what I provided before didn’t work I need to provide something more.”
Theres a gym. There are multiple restaurants. Theres coffee shops. Theres open spaces. Theres art. It very clearly meets all three criteria, even if it WASNT a famous landmark building - if it was simply a strip mall this is enough… which brings me back to a strip mall sign in NJ that is literally next to a dumpster, that features a Dunkin Donuts and Walgreens - THIS was chosen by Niantic to be THE example of what a great place to explore looks like. I just want clarity so I know WHY a strip mall sign next to a dumpster is better suited to be a wayspot than this so I can ensure I don’t waste my 1 submission a day, because this very clearly meets all criteria.
Your frustration is evident and understandable. It is however best to avoid venting, however gently, at comments that are trying to help. The best thing at this point is to wait until after the weekend to see if Niantic are going to comment.
Even slam dunk can fail. It happen. People make mistake. Reviewer and appeal team are just human. I believe if you kept trying, you can get this through. But dont let this rejection kept you down.
I get your passion for this building, it’s your passion. Try to set those emotions to one side and listen to the points being made.
Perhaps there is something to learn here.
Anyway your question wasn’t about the nomination per se but about whether there was some extra criteria around long standing cultural significance. I think that is the point that people could discuss perhaps with other examples, but it’s not one that I would expect the wayfarer team to comment on.
I did mean to say that having looked into online information about this 60’s building there is a lot of interesting architecture points that could be made.
Thank you Cyndie.
I think we all thought it was a good building.
I thought it wasn’t just about the nomination but the wider question.
But @ragneGevoLI i hope you reflect on the feedback.
Still would like to understand what “not locally cultural significant” means - I suspect its as simple as “people didn’t vote on it” but as we know, not all reviewers are local…
It might be pointless trying to understand what this phrase meant using this wayspot as an example, since this phrase was completely nonsensical for this wayspot.
Treat it as an appeal reviewer mistake. These do happen and Niantic have told us to post here when we genuinely think a mistake was made by an appeal reviewer. Normally, we find out the appeal has been reversed when Niantic post onto the relevant thread.
I don’t think this is my experience. I tell people that, while there is no pathway to appeal an appeal decision, sometimes submitters will quietly receive a new email with a new decision.
There definitely have been times when Aaron has said that it was a bad decision, for sure!
I’m a great fan of admitting I’ve made a mistake and sticking my head above the parapet to say so. I do it with my work as well as on forums. Because of this, quietly fixing something without admitting an error or providing an explanation doesn’t sit well with me; leaves a bad taste.
First, I think this appeal was a mistake. The MetLife building should be enough of a landmark to be eligible and I’m glad to hear that the decision was overturned.
Second, I want to address what you wrote about the things inside the building making it be eligible regardless of it’s landmark status. I don’t think that’s quite right. I think the gym, any of the restaurants, the coffee shops - each of those could be eligible on their own. Those existing inside this building don’t automatically make it eligible.
I’m thinking of two types of buildings as examples on both sides of this issue:
Hospitals. They have coffee shops and many other eligible things inside them. But that doesn’t make the hospital itself eligible.
Shopping malls. I do think shopping malls are generally eligible as their own wayspots and they have eligible items inside them in addition to the whole entity being eligible.
That is not terrible clear, but nuance is a big part of Wayfarer. I just mention this because if this building were not a landmark with famous architecture, my advice would be to submit the individually eligible places inside it. I don’t want people getting confused that the sum of the parts always adds up to the whole being eligible.
Any non-democratic state would just be disqualified, some democratic countries too (politicians get voted on, not everything they build…) almost every historical object too… And dont get me started on signs, art or waymarkers.
Like.. The Eiffel Tower in Paris would be 100% disqualified, since when it was built people hated it and voted against ever building it, and then again to disassemble it ASAP.
)
