Hi everyone,
I recently submitted two handmade insect hotels in the shape of a cross as Wayspot nominations. They are placed in public green spaces, permanently installed, and have a unique design.
However, these new submissions were rejected with the reasons:
“The nomination lacks originality or historical and cultural significance”
and in one case even:
“The text or photo contains abuse, hate, or harassment toward a specific group or individual.”
This confuses me, as these are meant to be positive, self-made objects that support biodiversity in the neighborhood.
Has anyone experienced something similar, or does anyone have tips on how to better describe or support this kind of nomination for an appeal or re-submission?
Thanks in advance for any help or feedback!
1 Like
Hi and welcome to the forum!
Did I get this right that this is an object you made/acquired yourself and put up in a public space? Or am I misinterpreting your uses of “handmade” and “self-made”?
Nomination Title:
Insectenhotel kruisvorm (Insect Hotel Cross Shape)
Description:
A unique, handmade insect hotel in the shape of a cross. This artwork contributes to biodiversity in the neighborhood and provides nesting space for bees, beetles, and other beneficial insects.
Supporting Information:
This insect hotel is handcrafted and placed in a public green space. It serves both as an artistic object and as a contribution to nature. It promotes biodiversity and offers educational value for passersby, children, and nature enthusiasts.
Note to reviewers:
I would prefer not to provide any further explanation or context at this time. I’m specifically looking for objective feedback on the nomination itself based on the information that was submitted.
If you were to come across this nomination in your own review queue, how would you evaluate it, purely based on what’s written and shown?
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
I don’t get it at all - providing further explanation and context is literally the only thing we can do to get good results in Wayfarer, no?
Thank you for your reply! I understand what you’re saying — and I agree that supporting context can often help clarify a nomination.
That said, my intention with this post was slightly different: I’m trying to understand how this nomination is perceived as-is, without extra explanation that could influence the way it’s judged.
Sometimes I feel that when we over-explain or justify too much, the focus shifts away from the actual object. I’m curious whether the nomination, in its submitted form, is strong enough to stand on its own.
So I really appreciate any honest feedback based on just what’s shown here. 
i can’t begin to guess what reviewers were thinking to mark this as “generic business” which is what links to that “historic or cultural” rejection reason. some people misuse this reason to just mean “generic” which is one of the reasons it had been removed in the previous review flow. i that that niantic brought it back.
reviewers could have chose “abuse” which links to the “hate or harrassement” rejection reason if they thought you just put it there temporarily to create a pokestop. i do kind of see that one without any evidence of permanence.
1 Like
If I was reviewing my worry would be that someone has placed it there trying to get a “Home Stop” with it being so close to the houses and nothing proving it is permanant.
If an home owner decided to erect it and it isn’t official there could quite easilly to forced to remove it.
As I don’t have any clue either way I would have likely “Skip” unless the Supporting Information included evidence that it was official…
Thank you for the insights so far.
One of the rejection reasons given was related to “harassment or intimidation of a group,” which surprised me a lot.
I don’t know the exact reason behind that judgment, but I can only speculate that perhaps the shape or something else might have been misinterpreted.
For now, I prefer to keep the discussion open and avoid assumptions, as I’m genuinely interested in how the nomination is perceived by different reviewers.
Just to clarify: the insect hotel is permanently installed in a public green area and was created with positive intentions — to support biodiversity and serve as an educational and artistic contribution to the neighborhood.
that is what shows if “abuse” is selected. no matter why the reviewer thought it was abuse. i explained why they may have chosen that rejection reason, not because of any hate speech.
these updated rejection reasons still need some work imo
1 Like
If by permanant you mean that it was installed by the local council you may be able to add a link to show this.
If it was unoficially installed then there is the likelyhood that the council will force it to be removed 
2 Likes
Thank you for your honest feedback — that’s really helpful.
I fully understand the concern about possible “home stops” or temporary placements.
In this case, the insect hotel is not on private property but in a public green area, near a walking path, and it has been there for quite some time now.
It is a permanent installation, not something placed just to create a PokéStop, and I completely agree that supporting photos showing context are important — that’s great advice for the future.
I’ll make sure to include better evidence of permanence and setting next time. Appreciate your thoughtful response!
[quote=“SlimboyFat71, post:10, topic:87890”]
If by permanant you mean that it was installed by the local council you may be able to add a link to show this.
If it was unoficially installed then there is the likelyhood that the council will force it to be removed
[/quote
Thanks again,
The insect hotel was not placed by the municipality, but it is part of a local community initiative. It’s a deliberate and permanent installation, placed in public green space that is accessible to everyone.
The municipality was aware of this project, which is why we initially felt that adding informational signs wasn’t necessary — we wanted to keep it natural and preserve a bit of the “magic.”
Looking back, I now understand that signs or markers could have helped demonstrate permanence and context to reviewers.
The structure is built solidly, with the intention to remain long term and support local biodiversity and education. I’ll take this feedback into account for future nominations — thank you for the thoughtful input!
In regards to the reviewing we have to remember that there has been many occasions where people have tried to set up a nomination just for the chance of a “home stop”. A case of the few making it harder for the many.
You state “The municipality was aware of this project”, do you have anything official authorising it such as an email that you can screen grab (cover any personal info), upload then link to in any future re-submit / appeal.
1 Like
OK sure. As-is, as several people above have already said - just at face value, it is unclear to me if it is a permanent one installed by the city or property management, or a store-bought / self-installed one. I’m the biggest insect hotel fan, as I’m sure many people on here know, but with one like that I would want to know it is installed with permission of the local authorities, both for permanence and for legality. Many large and sturdy ones that are permanently anchored to the ground in an obvious way don’t really raise these questions, this one does.
Thanks a lot for thinking along with me — I really appreciate the suggestion about including proof in a future appeal or resubmission. That’s a great idea, and I’ll definitely keep that in mind.
I just want to clarify that in the rejection reasons I received, there was no direct statement saying the object was not permanent. That’s something I could definitely address more clearly in future nominations.
The reasons listed were that the nomination was “not original enough” and that it was “offensive or intimidating to a group of people.”
I personally find the object quite original, as it is handmade, not a mass-produced item bought in a store.
And most importantly: it was absolutely never intended to offend or intimidate anyone — the design was simply artistic and meant to support local biodiversity.
Thanks again for your thoughtful feedback — it helps a lot!
I actually don’t see an abuse rejection in the screenshot - but be aware that while you seem to be focusing on the “intimidating or offensive” part of the wording, the full phrase you are quoting does not imply you did “all of these things at once”. The text for rejection reasons has been recently updated so we’re still looking at what these expanded rejections mean, but if it looked fake or whatever to someone and they rejected for abuse, then the sentence you get can include all of the ways something can be rejected for abuse, including really bad things. Similarly, people take extreme offense at something being rejected as not “permanent or distinct”, while the reason they got rejected for is that it’s actually a permanent, but generic object. Rejection reasons, especially the recently updated ones, incorporate an umbrella of terms, so that can sometimes be confusing.
1 Like
Thank you for the explanation — I really appreciate the perspective.
I just double-checked the rejection message I received for this nomination, and it does literally state:
“The text or photo contains abuse, hate, or harassment toward a specific person or group.”
That’s why I focused on that part — not because I believe that I did something wrong, but because I wanted to understand how reviewers might have perceived it that way, and how I could avoid that in future nominations.
The other rejection reason listed was that the nomination “lacked originality or historical/cultural significance.”
Personally, I feel that a handmade, self-designed insect hotel is original compared to mass-produced store-bought objects, but I understand that it’s up to the reviewers to decide whether that uniqueness comes across clearly enough.
I truly had no intention to offend or mislead anyone, and I’m grateful for the feedback and suggestions here — they’ve been very helpful in figuring out how to improve future submissions.
Not all home stops are located on home property. Some are strategically placed off home property but far enough to be reached from home. I am not saying this is the case in your scenario, but hopefully can be seen from this perspective.
1 Like
Don’t dwell on the reasons given, these are new and need some work.
IMO the main problem is that some of the answers reviewers have to give such as “Is it permanent and distinct” seem like 2 complete different questions to me but if reviewers selected No for either the nominator gets the same statement in the refusal…
1 Like
Could it be the car at the background? It is hard to see the licenseplate and i also zoomed in and i still can not read that plate but, could that be what they say about harassment towards a person?
