Staff got it wrong

Wayspot Appeals
1

I was surprised (annoyed) that my following nomination was pulled into Scopley, née Niantic:

  • Wayspot Title: Ranch Store Facade
  • Location (lat/lon): 43.821216, -101.900270
  • City: Philip, South Dakota
  • Country: United States of America
  • Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
  • Additional Information (if any):

Below is my email submission confirmation:

20084
200841080×1639 269 KB

Of course, I edited it into the nomination as follows:

20087
200871080×1175 181 KB

20090
200901080×1156 119 KB

Unfortunately, staff reviewing got it wrong:

20093
200931080×1101 182 KB

20071
200711080×2086 237 KB

Additional context, dear readers:

This is located within Badlands National Park in South Dakota. Cattle, as shown on the building, plays homage to the legacy and culture of the region and prairie dogs, native to this area, are as culturally important as they were problematic to ranchers.

The building facade featuring a bull has been relevant since before Scopley, Wayfarer, before OPR, before Ingress:

20096
200961080×2086 196 KB

The Pink Prairie Dog (I’m gonna keep on motorcycling) was a mildly more recent addition, some time between 2013 and 2021:

20099
200991080×2086 251 KB

20068
200681080×2086 380 KB

But it should be noted that even prior to the pink clad motorcyclist, the stout ground burrowing squirrel was proudly featured.

I’m kindly pointing out that the staff reviewing process got this wrong and the rejection should be overturned.

Thanks!

2

I would have approved this nomination. So in this case, my advice would be to follow the same process as everyone, and appeal.

3

It is better to think of it as the reviewer having a different opinion than the reviewer being wrong, unless you have a perfect submission for a 100% eligible POI.

Your options are to appeal or resubmit. You can’t ask staff to reconsider this way, so I am surprised you have done so.

4

I think the reviewer was clearly wrong here. This is a destination people would seek out, not a generic business. It is clearly both permanent and distinct. Thank you for sharing this.

I know that in house review can choose to put something back into community review rather than deciding it. I hope that similar can be done with this nomination, even though they decided it. We have very occasionally seen cases of re-review, where rejected nominations have been reevaluated.

5

No. This was not a difference in opinion. This is two pieces of unique art. Not generic business, not temporary or not distinct.

I’m well aware of the appeals route and have long pushed that Niantic Scopley staff should not reject subjective nominations and leave the hose to the community. When they get it blatantly wrong, we the community absolutely can and should push for actions outside of the appeals.

6

I don’t immediately see this as something worthy of a wayspot. It’s a probable, not a definite. This is why I describing this as a difference of opinion as opposed to being categorically wrong.

You appear to have implied both that this is a nomination that should be definitely accepted (first paragraph) and that it is a subjective nomination which should have gone to the community (second paragraph).

I understand the reasoning behind you wanting subjective nominations to go only to the community, but think it is flawed, as there is no objective way of looking at a nomination and going “this is too subjective, I won’t make a decision” vs “this isn’t quite subjective enough, so I can make a decision”.

7

In my view, certainly the ambassadors should try the official route first. It would be a bad example if we advice everyone to appeal first, but have a shortcut for ambassadors.