Recent String Of Frustrating Rejections

[nonemusdingo]

To the community,

I am writing to express frustration about 4 recent rejections, which are the result of both New England regional reviewers (2) and in-house (1)/automated (1) review from Niantic. I will address all 4 submissions with the full nomination stub with provided rejection reasons and how I interpret all 4 as meeting criteria. With the exception of the automated rejection (which is also concerning), I am concerned that the other 3 rejections are the result of an inability for reviewers to read lengthy (~1,000 character) supporting information blocks or are not familiar with less typical submission entries. All of these are submissions from day trips out of the town where I currently live, and so these are not easy resubmissions, with some being over 40 miles away. I will take discussion about how to potentially improve these for resubmission, if they are worth resubmitting.

I will start with the 2 submissions that were rejected by the New England Regional Community:

#1. Wanskuck Park - Metcalf Estate Garden Ruins

(North Providence, RI)

Summary: This submission is for the only remaining ruins of the Metcalf mansion estate in what is now Wanskuck Park. The estate land was given by the Metcalf family to Providence in 1948 to become park land under the stipulation that the estate be torn down. These ruins of the gardens are the only trace of the estate that remains. The ruins are safely and directly accessible off of the walking path that loops through the park, as seen in the supporting photo.

Links in nomination card:

Open Doors RI (describes brief history of the park and showcases the exact ruins): Wanskuck Park Walk – Doors Open RI

Brown University archive (pages 75-89; I do not expect people to read this, but rather just cite that this estate and family is on the public record): “The Metcalf Estate.” – Rhode Island History Navigator

Explore RI (secondary link addressing the park): Wanskuck Park: Explore Rhode Island

Nomination stub:

#2. North Providence Goodwill Outlet Store

(North Providence, RI)

Summary: This submissions is for a Goodwill Outlet store. I recognize that this is probably the most controversial submission, and probably the one that is most likely for me to be told to not attempt to resubmit/appeal. As I stress in the submission, this is not to be confused with a typical Goodwill (or other national thrift chain) retail store, which is questionably acceptable as it lacks local significance and a notable social aspect. Goodwill Outlet stores (also casually known as “bins”) are both far less prevalent (only 3 in New England with no more than 1 per state; therefore unique/distinct) and possess a unique social aspect that I argue is significant enough to promote a waypoint. The purpose of the outlets are to be effectively a clearance/last stop for Goodwill inventory, before unsold goods are sent to landfills (therefore the outlet has a local impact in being a last bastion in selling goods before they impact local landfills). Items in the outlet are rolled out in bins, and sold by weight at far more affordable prices than the retail thrift stores. As such, this attracts a crowd of people who come to save money on these large discounts, saving thousands of pounds of items from seeing local landfills. The unique social aspect is that typically families or groups of friends come here and scour the bins together. Usually, people are looking for specific items, and communicate with each other to help each other find items of interest. This is a social behavior that is generally not seen in retail stores, but is driven by the more chaotic nature of digging through bins of goods at the Goodwill Outlet. Further (and it was a mistake on my part to not include this in the supporting information), but this location (not all outlets) is equipped with a rest/socialization area right next to the sales floor, equipped with vending machines, tables, and chairs. Shoppers regularly come to these tables to rest, parse through their finds, and share with anyone else in the groups they are with (or even just other strangers in the rest area). I believe this unique social shopping experience, along with outlets being far less prevalent, makes for an interesting Waypoint that promotes socialization gatherings. The two links attached are for blogs that further describe the bins experience: https://medium.com/@margaretkramer_46045/down-the-rabbit-hole-of-addiction-the-goodwill-bins-4b55363a3644 and Shopping At The Goodwill Bins And Advice For Beginners - The Fifth Sparrow No More

Nomination stub:

Next, I will move into the Niantic rejections. First, is the submission that was taken into manual Niantic review. I am worried about attempting to appeal this, as I would not be surprised if the same in-house reviewer got this appeal and rejects it again.

#3. Tribos Peri Peri Chicken

(Framingham, MA)

Summary: This submission is for a small northeast restaurant chain with 7 locations total, 3 in New England. Tribos is a small sit-down and to go location, with the site down portion being an opportunity to socialize with friends/family while dining. What makes Tribos Peri Peri distinct is it being a fusion restaurant of Portugese, African, and Southeast Asian cuisine. The restaurant also gets its namesake from the Peri Peri pepper, which is a unique spicy African pepper used in their dishes. I argue that the use of this pepper and unique fusion combination (being Halal helps too) makes the restaurant distinguished from others in the area and worth exploring to find. My understanding is that small regional chain restaurants can be acceptable if they meet other uniqueness criteria. The other 2 New England locations are in Sommerville, MA (~20 miles away) and Avon, CT (~90 miles away), so this location is distinct for the area. I linked the restaurant’s about us page, which is where I got most of the restaurant information from: Tribos Peri Peri About - Tribos Peri Peri

Nomination stub:

Finally, the recent nomination that was rejected by the automated system. This is my first submission that was rejected by the automated system in a very long time (I think I have had one other rejected this way, and it was over a year ago). I have gone forward with submitting an appeal on this, since I recently got an appeal charge back. I want to highlight how this rejection hurts my user experience.

#4. Ken’s Steakhouse Birdhouse

(Framingham, MA)

Summary: The subject of this nomination is a recently installed birdhouse that is a scale replica of the locally owned and renowned Ken’s Steakhouse (for context, this is the same as the national dressing brand; the steakhouse came before the dressing, and this is the one-and-only steakhouse). I had not realized this until after leaving the steakhouse, but google streetview is too old (2022/3) to show the birdhouse, however its location is corroborated by comparing the supporting photo to streetview data. As such, this birdhouse is fairly new (from what I can tell, installed around 2025), and maybe the automated system had issue with it being missing in streetview data. Ultimately, this miniature steakhouse birdhouse is a unique object thst promotes exploration on the grounds of an already notable location.

Nomination Stub:

Thank you to anyone who has read through this and will provide feedback.

[nonemusdingo]

Especially since no one has replied yet, I want to make a small addendum. First, addressing the submission of Peri Peri, it can be seen that it was submitted back in February. I had procrastinated filling out submission fields, and finalized its text yesterday. It went to Niantic review immediately, which seems like a common behavior for submissions that have been held for months. It was rejected this morning, which is why I am including it in this string of recent rejections.

To support my hypothesis that regional reviewers are making poor decisions and failing to read submission text, I would like to present a recent submission that was rejected for lack of significance, and accepted on appeal. The submission is for a scenic lookout bench in a park that commemorates the 50th wedding anniversary of 2 notable locals. I spent effort noting how the two were locally significant, as well as showing how this is a scenic overlook bench (such as in the supporting photo). This rejection appears to be the result of laziness in failing to read submission text and/or lack of education on acceptable waypoint criteria.

[pokemaster4u2]

In my view, the last one hast the best chance for an appeal, it was rejected by AI, so probably the AI could not recognize something interesting in the picture, I actually like this one, so I would appeal.

The restaurant may get approved in appeal.

The first two are difficult in my opinion. I would probably not accept them, as I don’t see why the meet acceptance criteria. Both the shop and stairs are to common for me.

[cyndiepooh]

@nonemusdingo

Thank you to anyone who has read through this and will provide feedback.

Your writing style is very difficult for me to read. I did try, but may have glazed over some points.

If the stairs are important, get to why the stairs are important, and stop there. I read through several times, or tried to, and still don’t see why I should accept these as a wayspot. Less can be more.

Outlet store: hard no from me. The dedicated social area, maybe. Did not follow the links.

Restaurants are always difficult accepts, especially chain restaurants. If you try again, I would suggest you take a new photo featuring the full building, as the photo you submitted with gives off fast food chain vibes. Their website also begins with pickup, delivery, and locations, which makes it seem more like fast food than a destination for exploration and/or being social. The shopping plaza clarification covers “businesses which on their own are not eligible, but together can become an interesting place to visit.” From what I see here, I would put this restaurant in the category of that kind of business.

I think the birdhouse is cool, but can understand why the machine learning model would reject it. I doubt it has been trained on many small building models in front of the matching building, and birdhouses don’t usually meet criteria. I think I would appeal this with a very simple statement, since a human has not seen this yet.

[cyndiepooh]

@nonemusdingo

I would have been tempted to reject this for photo. Take at least as much time on your photo as you do on your descriptions. I am surprised this made it past the ML model.

When the submission is a gray area, a great photo can be the deciding factor. Significance is relative. That view is awesome, though.

[nonemusdingo]

Thank you to those who have read through and provided a response, I have some questions or disagreements that I would like to address and get clarity on.

@pokemaster4u2

The first two are difficult in my opinion. I would probably not accept them, as I don’t see why the meet acceptance criteria. Both the shop and stairs are to common for me.

Would you be willing to elaborate how both of these appear to be too “common”? That seems to maybe be what the local reviewers pool is getting at, but I do not see it.

For the stairs/ruins submission, they are just that, ruins. They are the only tangible ruins and remains of the estate, which was donated to become a public municipal park. I felt it could be used as an anchor to tell the store of the estate that used to exist in the park, as there is nothing else. I feel that I outline this pretty clearly in my summary and the submission main text.

@nonemusdingo

Summary: This submission is for the only remaining ruins of the Metcalf mansion estate in what is now Wanskuck Park. The estate land was given by the Metcalf family to Providence in 1948 to become park land under the stipulation that the estate be torn down. These ruins of the gardens are the only trace of the estate that remains. The ruins are safely and directly accessible off of the walking path that loops through the park, as seen in the supporting photo.

It is buried, but I touch upon this in the supporting information for the submission. If I were to tell someone to meet me in this park and give them a distinct object to meet me at, these stairs are one of only two distinct objects in the entire the park that I could realistically use. The other is a park dedication stone and gate at the entrance that is a waypoint. There are only non-descript benches and a walking loop around the perimeter of the park with absolutely no markers. There is no signage marking the ruins, but through the use of online resources, there is a story to be told of these ruins and the park. My intent was to use these stairs/foundation as an accessible and unique anchor to tell that story.

@cyndiepooh

If the stairs are important, get to why the stairs are important, and stop there. I read through several times, or tried to, and still don’t see why I should accept these as a wayspot. Less can be more.

Likewise, while I do agree that less can be more, I felt that I needed to be able to assemble the story of this park and estate in order to out all the pieces together. The pieces are not as readily available, especially while actually visiting the park. While it could have been made shorter, I had used this length to detail the history and importance of this location. I came with receipts, and while it is my responsibility to present them as legibly as possible, it is on the reviewer to take them into consideration. I do agree that it may not be the easiest to read due to the volume of text. Further, it is a limitation and pain point in the nomination/review system that we can not appropriately display paragraph blocks. Paragraph blocks could make reading much easier.

@cyndiepooh

Outlet store: hard no from me. The dedicated social area, maybe. Did not follow the links.

Would you be willing to elaborate on why the outlet is a hard no? To summarize the walls of text associated with it, my argument is that there is a socialization and group gathering aspect associated with the outlet that is not associated with more typical large chain retail stores, which would block significance. I found it difficult to try to convey it in any other way, and the supporting photo did not seem to carry enough weight.

@cyndiepooh

If you try again, I would suggest you take a new photo featuring the full building, as the photo you submitted with gives off fast food chain vibes. Their website also begins with pickup, delivery, and locations, which makes it seem more like fast food than a destination for exploration and/or being social. The shopping plaza clarification covers “businesses which on their own are not eligible, but together can become an interesting place to visit.” From what I see here, I would put this restaurant in the category of that kind of business.

Does being fast food prevent an entry from being an acceptable waypoint? I can try to use a more zoomed out photo to show that the restaurant has a dining room, which the supporting photo already did.

@nonemusdingo

Nomination stub:

As for being part of a plaza, the restaurant would have some trouble fitting into that. It is in an awkward position of being a standalone building along a stroad with lots of either standalone buildings or small plazas. I’ll link to the Google streetview: Google Maps

Basically, there is a sign with no plaza/location name that has Tribos and the connecting Dunkin, which I would think would not fit significance criteria. It is not considered a part of nor connected to the adjacent Village Plaza.

[cyndiepooh]

@nonemusdingo

Would you be willing to elaborate on why the outlet is a hard no?

Generic business.

[cyndiepooh]

@nonemusdingo

Does being fast food prevent an entry from being an acceptable waypoint?

Generic business is a rejection reason.

This is the tool tip which reviewers will see under the Appropriate section if they choose to expand it:

This is the clarification that reviewers will see if they check further:

@NianticTintino

Restaurants
Restaurants can be great places to be social and great places to explore, and should not be rejected in all cases. Local restaurants and cafes in all areas often have interesting backstories, exceptional menus, or are highly rated places that someone might recommend to an out-of-town visitor.

In more rural areas, a chain restaurant may be an extremely popular local hot spot. Supporting information should make this clear in all instances, and it is helpful to provide links to newspaper articles or reviews, if available.

So, no, being a fast food restaurant does not prevent an entry from being an acceptable waypoint. But if at the first glance the reviewer sees what looks like a fast food restaurant sign and way too much text to read, the easiest thing for them to do is to hit “Generic business” and move on.

[CostcoShopper13]

One “workaround” for generic businesses and restaurants is, if they have non-generic and non-advertising artwork, submit that as the artwork itself, not the business.

I’ve done this with three different Mexican restaurants (am in southern California), a national chain burger place, a grocery store, and a transit bus maintenance building.

Also, yes I said non-advertising, but one of those is a vintage advertisement that is permanently mounted as decoration. (It’s a 1950s era poster with address and phone number of the chain’s location #1.) The rest are murals, or in the case of the transit building, a portrait of the person the building is named after.

[pokemaster4u2]

Okay, about the ruins, I’m not of the opinion that everything that is old is really something I would like to explore. If you feel the estate is really worth exploring, I would recommend so search for something else, like a welcome sign, or a map. But it is difficult to see why this estate is something I would like to explore, based upon the old stairs.

About the shop, to me it is just a generic business, nothing special, I usually accept shopping malls, but very rarely individual stores. Shopping malls can be great to explore (at least that is what my wife thinks), and often have places to get a coffee or some food (so they can be a great place to socialise).

[wooperIooper]

For ruins, they are really only eligible if they are preserved for touristic reasons

Via the criteria clarification:

Ruins

Ruins that are historically significant, preserved for heritage or tourism, and safe to access can be great places to explore. Submitters should provide context and information in their titles, descriptions, and supporting information. Referencing historical registries and news articles can be helpful when it comes to verifying your claims.

Ruins with no sign, but that are well-maintained and safe to access can be considered eligible.

In the example above, the supporting text provided evidence that these were barracks at an early French fort in Illinois.

[nonemusdingo]

@cyndiepooh

Generic business.

Can you or someone else please further elaborate? I have gone into great effort detailing why the Goodwill Outlet is not a generic business or typical thrift store that on its own would be a generic business. Objectively, there is not another type of thrift store like this within an 80 mile radius (closest one is in Nashua, NH; there are only 3 in all of New England). My argument for why this is not a generic business is because of the means that shopping is done at this store (you typically do not dig through bins of miscellaneous items and purchase by weight) and the social bartering aspect of shopping at the outlet. The Goodwill Outlet is effectively a “third space” type of location where people come, shop, and socialize often for the better part of their day. If you go there, you go to shop, but there is opportunity to sit down at tables, socialize, and rest. Please correct me if I am wrong if this is a typical experience at other intelligible generic businesses. I disagree with any notion that being a store under the Goodwill brand automatically disqualifies the store as a generic business, when the shopping experience is far from generic.

If anyone wants to more in depth investigation into the specific location, this is the outlet. As can be seen, it is in a warehouse on its own: Google Maps

@cyndiepooh

So, no, being a fast food restaurant does not prevent an entry from being an acceptable waypoint. But if at the first glance the reviewer sees what looks like a fast food restaurant sign and way too much text to read, the easiest thing for them to do is to hit “Generic business” and move on.

That is good to know, especially about the tool tip, thanks! This sentiment here is the problem I am encountering. “Too much text to read”, especially in the title+description is not a valid excuse for rejection. If you can not read an up to 128 character title (which are rarely ever that long) and an up to 512 character description, you should not be reviewing. Period. The reviewer is not responsibly reviewing submissions and giving them a fair shot if they can not take the effort to read that short of a body of information. Whether that text is legible is the onus of the submitter, but likewise the goodfaith effort of actually reading the submission is on the reviewer.

I do not expect the reviewer to read the full supplement. However, I write it in a way to provide as much reasonable context as possible for anyone who does scrutinize the submission for legitimacy and importance, providing external links for validation if possible (which again, I do not expect most to follow). I expect reviewers to read the title and description, and look at the supplemental photo(s). That does not appear to be a given.

@CostcoShopper13

One “workaround” for generic businesses and restaurants is, if they have non-generic and non-advertising artwork, submit that as the artwork itself, not the business.

Thank you for addressing this. This is my general go-to method. There just was not any for the Goodwill or restaurant.

@pokemaster4u2

Okay, about the ruins, I’m not of the opinion that everything that is old is really something I would like to explore.

That is a subjective opinion that I subjectively interpret as against Niantic’s message of promoting exploration. You may not think everything old is something to explore (and agree that not everything is). However, notable objects with a recorded history (even if not recorded on-site) and safe access could be of interest to others living in or exploring the area. I absolutely agree that if there a were a history sign, it would be a submission that would be unreasonable to reject, and likely a better object to anchor a waypoint to. However, there is not, and the park itself has remained undeveloped for years. Within the context of playing a Niantic game, there is minimal reason to visit this park, and this informative nomination on the park’s history would provide just that. That is the purpose of the ruins nomination. I will say it again, there is no signage marking the ruins. Literally, the only signage of any kind at this park (which simply marks the park and its founding) is at the entrance to the park, located on the opposite side from these ruins.

@wooperIooper

For ruins, they are really only eligible if they are preserved for touristic reasons

Via the criteria clarification:

Ruins

Ruins that are historically significant, preserved for heritage or tourism, and safe to access can be great places to explore. Submitters should provide context and information in their titles, descriptions, and supporting information. Referencing historical registries and news articles can be helpful when it comes to verifying your claims.

Ruins with no sign, but that are well-maintained and safe to access can be considered eligible.

Thank you for this clarification. Again, what frustrates me is that the ruins I submitted follow all of these criteria you mentioned, and I did everything to provide context and information about these unmarked ruins. The ruins are safely accessible, located next to a walking path and safe to walk upon. The ruins preserve the last tangible piece of the Metcalf estate, the estate of locally significant mill owners in the 1800s. The ruins and the surrounding greenspace are kept free of excessive overgrowth, showing a degree of municipal maintenance. I provided multiple sources describing the history of the family and estate, including how the rest of the estate was torn down in agreement of converting the estate to park land. The problem appears to be a disconnect both in my ability to relay all that information, and a goodfaith effort from the regional review community to consider the evidence. My experience with other rejections listed here seem to indicate that there is a large enough body of lazy reviewers in the region who are not making the effort to read the submission description text at a minimum.

[SlimboyFat71]

@nonemusdingo

Can you or someone else please further elaborate?

IMO: This is still generic. The items for sale are still the same items that will appear in other Goodwill stores or other “charity shops”.

It does not meet any of the big 3…

Exercise: Definitely Not.
Explore: No.
Socialise: No.

[SlimboyFat71]

In regards to the restaurant and this is a UK view so may differ Acceptance seems to work on…

Major Chain = No
Eat In = Yes
Family Friendly = Yes
At least reasonable review scores (try to avoid places you are likely to get food poisoning )

I am unable to confirm that this location has “Eat In” so without that I do not see how it meets criteria.

Edit: I do see that you have stated it does Eat In but I see no evidence on their website or Street View (not clear enough to determine).

[pokemaster4u2]

You are right, my opinion is just my opinion and that is by nature subjective, but then again, that is also the entire idea about the review process. It is a community consensus whether or not something is interesting enough.

In this case, I’m not convinced that it is worth exploring, so I would probably not accept it. Maybe also because in my opinion calling it a ruin is a bit stretched.

The park itself I would probably accept, the stairs not likely.

I strongly disagree that it means the reviewers are lazy, it just means that not everyone agreed with you.

Edit: the good news is, that if you really think that the community made a mistake, you can always appeal or resubmit.

[wooperIooper]

@nonemusdingo

If you go there, you go to shop, but there is opportunity to sit down at tables, socialize, and rest. Please correct me if I am wrong if this is a typical experience at other intelligible generic businesses.

You can sit down and socialize at any generic fast food restaurant but they aren’t usually accepted

@nonemusdingo

I do not expect the reviewer to read the full supplement.

You should only write as much as an (enthusiastic) reviewer would be expected to read. Being concise is a virtue. If you need to write an entire novel to convince someone, it may not be a strong submission

@nonemusdingo

Again, what frustrates me is that the ruins I submitted follow all of these criteria you mentioned, and I did everything to provide context and information about these unmarked ruins.

I understand your frustration, I am also known to explore ruins and last remains of historic structures. However, there is an entirely different level to proving something is explicitly preserved as heritage. If there aren’t any signs or national/regional databases or a ton of evidence to support they’re promoted to the general public/tourists, they wouldn’t really meet criteria in my opinion.

Also side note, it’s hilarious that all images of this park on google maps are either pictures of “no dogs allowed” signs or pictures of dogs in said park

[cyndiepooh]

@nonemusdingo

“Too much text to read”, especially in the title+description is not a valid excuse for rejection

Actually it is a valid reason to reject if the reviewer feels it is a bad description.

@nonemusdingo

Can you or someone else please further elaborate?

I went into more detail about the Generic Business issue here:

Recent String Of Frustrating Rejections

Generic business is a rejection reason. This is the tool tip which reviewers will see under the Appropriate section if they choose to expand it: [image] This is the clarification that reviewers will see if they check further: So, no, being a fast food restaurant does not prevent an entry from being an acceptable waypoint. But if at the first glance the reviewer sees what looks like a fast food restaurant sign and way too much text to read, the easiest thing for them to do is to hit “Gener…

[cyndiepooh]

I hesitated to post on this topic. I can see you are passionate, and I love that. But the fact is that some nominations are much easier than others. These are hard. I don’t fault you for submitting them, but I don’t fault reviewers for rejecting them.

The top tips I can give you are to take the best photo you can manage. Get the reviewer leaning towards “that looks good” from the first image. Then focus your statements more so they aren’t turned off by a wall of text. I assume you know that you can put a submitted nomination on hold to edit the text until you have it just right. It feels like you have put a lot of research into these, and want to include everything you found. This is the opposite of the issue we more commonly see, where reviewers have done no research.

Trying to get reviewers to change their reviewing habits is just going to leave you frustrated. Instead, try to figure out how you can make your nominations more appealing to reviewers. I have had to give up on some I thought were cool, but got rejected. I have also had ones I was certain were good nominations that I kept redoing until they were accepted.

This forum, or the Wayfarer Discussion Discord, are two great places to bounce ideas around or get feedback on how a submission looks to others.

Apologies if my replies were too short earlier.

[CountKnick]

I’ve been reading through most of the thread and I am curious is there by any chance an information board in the vicinity of the stairs explaining the history of them? If there is and you are adamant that you want the stairs as the wayspot, then you could include the information board (if there is one present) as strong supporting evidence, ideally you would want a supporting photo showing bothe the info board and the stairs in the same photo.

If there is not a info board onsite explaining what it is, then it will be a tough sell unfortunately. I do actually take the time to read through all the supporting and will check links, gps etc, but unfortunately a lot will look at it, see the photo and the supporting info and think TL:DR and reject.

I don’t agree that is the right way to go about it but when submitting I try to look at the submission from a reviewers side. Some like me will read everything, some won’t.

Another thing I have done in the past which may help is, check if the stairs are protected structures, you should be able to find this with a quick search of your local council website or by just searching protected/listed structures+your area. If it’s protected it would generally have a reg number and it is solid evidence that you can submit a link directly to which may sway some reviewers.

Playing devil’s advocate just to be fair, looking at it from a lazy side, I would see stairs and reject. That’s just being honest, nothing against your opinion. It will be a hard sell though.

[nonemusdingo]

Ok, I needed to take some time to step away to process what you all said and do some reflection myself.

I do appreciate the responses, and there are some tangible tips and perspectives that I will consider moving forward. These include perspectives on accepting restaurants and ruins, as well as needing to improve both photo quality and avoid submission text.

I still don’t agree with all of the community sentiments, like how the specific Goodwill Outlet is a generic business or that I feel the garden ruins are a distinct relic on park grounds that are worth exploring. I probably will not attempt to resubmit or appeal the Goodwill Outlet, given the resoundingly negative reception by the community here. I may try the ruins again if I go out that way and have a submission to burn. Same for the restaurant, with a new set of pictures.

I think part of what really frustrated me on all of this is that all of these were done while out exploring towns 20-40 miles away from where I live. In this thread, I was even told that I can go ahead and just try to submit again. Any attempt to resubmit will take a dedicated effort to travel out at least 15-35 miles and use nomination submissions that could otherwise be used on other new points of interest. I really wish the web submission form was not as restrictive as in-app submissions with regard to where you can submit from, and it is a huge pain point as-is. It is unhelpful, and I feel the whole system’s potential is wasted, because we are to restricted to submitting within 10km/~6 miles of the nomination location. This means that I have to be nearby for my initial submission and any resubmission attempt. As we are all probably aware, the cost of fuel to go anywhere in the US and mostly globally has recently substantially increased, reducing any motivation for me to go out and submit at all, let alone try to resubmit these rejections. If the web submission system already uses photo metadata to ensure that the photos are near the nomination pin, then it would greatly help submitters who travel longer distances to explore to not have to submit while out exploring, so we may focus our time getting pictures when in the field and selecting pictures when at home or any other comfortable place to submit from.

I am still convinced that there is an ongoing issue with uneducated and/or lazy reviewers in New England. I’ve been in contact with another local submitter who has encountered some questionable-at-best rejections. This includes getting 2 of 4 restaurants accepted by the local community (I do not have additional details on these to speak on what could have caused 2 to fail). More concerning, was a submission of a 100 year old building that was originally a school, which was later converted into apartments and is on the local historic register. The submission was very clearly labeled as formerly being a school (including from the title), but was rejected as both being a school (unquestionable laziness and ignorance) and as SFPRP (ignorance of PRP nuance at best, laziness at worst).

A bittersweet victory here is that the birdhouse was approved on appeal. It is still frustrating that it was initially rejected, so I had to spend time and an appeal charge to appeal. I still firmly believe that the appeal system could be better by giving the submitter their appeal charge back immediately when they successfully appeal. At the very least, this should be the case if we successfully appeal an automated rejection, because a human never even saw the submission (and hopefully the appeal is used to better train Emily).

I’ve been doing this since 2018, hovering a little under an 80% nomination success rate with over 2,000 accepted nominations. This also means being used to failure, with over 500 failures. I’ve still gained some constructive new information and insight from this discussion, which I appreciate. These recent trips that include these mentioned failures have been below my overall success rate, which when coupled with higher gas prices, has been demotivating. I think I probably just need to step back to take a break to reflect further on what I’ll do next.