Poor appeal review: statement not read at all

[forzacomo]

Just wanted to air out after getting an appeal rejected where the reviewer clearly did not read the statement nor investigate the appeal at all.

Wayspot Submission for Kummun koulun muistokivi
(Memorial stone of the Kumpu school)

My appeal Statement:

Memorial stone of the three Kumpu school buildings that have been built in 1940, 1960 and 2009. The memorial stone itself is NOT located on a school property, but at the pedestrian sidewalk in front of the library, next to a public bus stop. It can clearly be seen from the supporting image that this is in a safe place and not at the school property. The school (yellow building) can be seen in the main photo at the back, behind a fence. Memorial stone is part of the municipality’s local history and an interesting to place to explore and should thus make a great wayspot.

NOT ACCEPTED
Rejection Criteria
School (K-12)
Abuse

Niantic Note:

Thanks for the appeal, Explorer! The nomination is on a school which makes it ineligible. Hence, we are unable to reverse the decision. We recommend you review the Wayspot rejection criteria before submitting any more Wayspot contributions: Rejection Criteria — Wayfarer Help Center

So this is a memorial stone for the former and current schools, but it is not located on the school property itself but on a public sidewalk. I knew it would be a tricky one for lazy reviewers who find the easiest way to review it by rejecting such an object by flagging it a K-12 school. I expected a bit more from the people doing appeals though, but seemingly this was just rejected as there is the word “school” in the nomination.

Now the wording of the Niantic note clearly shows that my appeal statement was not read or at least nothing was investigated at all. If it were read and the monument actually was on a school [sic], I’d expect my propositions to be disproved somehow. Now this is just a copy & paste rejection for something that has “school” in it.

It wouldn’t take that much of an effort to check the satellite image to see, that the school is somewhat 100 meters northwest from the monument. The fenced school area can be seen from the main image exactly as I said in my statement. The supplemental photo shows the common sidewalk, bus stop and nothing there hints this being on a school property.

I would have understand getting my appeal rejected with a note saying this is just too close to the school property. It would have been ok to get a note saying that they can’t confirm if this is on a school property or not. But getting a note that clearly shows that my statement was not read and/or understood nor responded makes me a bit frustrated.

This appeal was reviewed in less than 24 hours. I’d be happy to wait a week or even a month to get my appeal reviews properly investigated.

[MargariteDVille]

Are any of the schools nearby, or were they all demolished? Maybe reviewers think that a group of people hanging out at that monument could disrupt the schools. Administrators would wonder if you’re up to no good. Traffic could be affected. In the U.S., school staff don’t like people hanging out in front of a school, and could call the police.

The second picture makes it look like there’s no pedestrian access. But the first shows that there is. Seems no one flagged pedestrian, but it could have had a bad impression.

Monuments for former schools are tough to get through. You have to start with something like “Monument to former schools that used to stand near here”. Include when they were built, and when they were decommissioned.

[forzacomo]

Dear @MargariteDVille, you clearly did not read my entire post but I’ll try to answer your questions and the points you made as polite as I can.

Are any of the schools nearby, or were they all demolished?

Yes there is. As written in my post, the school and its fence is visible in the background of the main image. It can also be clearly seen in the satellite photo I added.

Maybe reviewers think that a group of people hanging out at that monument could disrupt the schools.

Could be. My issue however was not the public reviewers but the Niantic reviewer not reading my appeal statement. If this person would decline my appeal because of the fear of people hanging out, then he should have written that out in his note.

Administrators would wonder if you’re up to no good. Traffic could be affected. In the U.S., school staff don’t like people hanging out in front of a school, and could call the police.

This ain’t US, this is Finland. There literally is a public library for hanging out next to the monument and the school.

The second picture makes it look like there’s no pedestrian access. But the first shows that there is. Seems no one flagged pedestrian, but it could have had a bad impression.

The asphalt road that fills the entire 2nd photo, coming from the bottom of the image and continuing to the pedestrian bridge and the parking lot IS the pedestrian access. The road for cars is on the right side of the photo where the bus stop is. By looking at all the photos combined should make this clear and a person getting a “bad impression” should have his wayfarer license revoked.

Monuments for former schools are tough to get through. You have to start with something like “Monument to former schools that used to stand near here”. Include when they were built, and when they were decommissioned.

Yeah, they are hard. Because people reviewing them are lazy. Which was the point of my post: Niantic shouldn’t be as lazy as the common reviewers.

Oh, and Niantic just overturned the decision to reject my appeal and the memorial is now visible in Lightship map so I got more than just my right to rant.

[Mystogan5097]

Dear OP,
@MargariteDVille was genuinely trying to help you identify the issue. There is no need to be hostile towards him .

Moreover, claiming that Nia reviewer did not read your statement is a little over the top since you do not have that information. May be they read but decided that the information is not accurate. Whether that assessment is right or wrong is a different debate.

My point is that we should not be making accusations on anyone we cannot prove.

PS: glad that your nomination was approved.

[MargariteDVille]

I was just trying to explain what reviewers could have seen and thought. No one had answered you, and I tried to help.

Having schools nearby is problematic. Reviewers haven’t been there. Most would rather err on rejecting something that could affect a school, than err on accepting it.

Appeal reviewers aren’t in Finland. They’re probably in India. They have a job with specific rules to avoid schools.

You don’t have to insult people by calling them lazy, when they see themselves as being careful.