Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
Additional Information (if any): I would like to understand why my appeal was not accepted, despite the fact that the Wayspot submission fully complies with all eligibility criteria. The object exists at the real-world location and possesses clear artistic, traditional, and cultural significance.
The stated reason for rejecting the appeal was:
“The submission lacks uniqueness or historical and cultural meaning.”
This reasoning cannot be accepted in the context of this object. The sculpture undeniably carries uniqueness, historical value, and cultural meaning rooted in Southeast Asian heritage.
Therefore, I respectfully request that the decision be reconsidered. A 360-degree scan of the sculpture has also been provided to support the evaluation.
This submission was accepted by the community. The community can make mistakes and wrongly reject or accept something.
These submissions you provided are almost basically the same, the difference is the reviewing. Your rejected submission was reviewed by the appeals team, while your accepted submissions by the community.
Objects like these don’t meet the acceptance criteria IMO, since it doesn’t meet one of the core criteria. Why would I explore this specific decoration instead of other one?
I suspect these are far enough apart that they are not comparable and that one shouldn’t be traded off against the other. The issue of “explore this one instead of the other one” doesn’t feel applicable here.
It’s a statue with significant cultural value that marks the entrance to a religious establishment. This makes it equivalent to the lychgates that routinely get accepted in the UK separate from the church that they mark the entrance to.
It would need to be unique and not mass-produced, of which I suspect the former.
I understand that community reviews and appeal reviews can lead to different outcomes, but I believe the cultural context of this object may have been overlooked.
This sculpture is not just a simple decoration. In Thailand, artworks like these are part of our local cultural identity — they represent traditional craftsmanship, symbolism, and the heritage of the community. For people in this area, this type of artwork is considered a recognizable landmark, not just an interchangeable decoration.
Wayspot criteria do allow culturally or artistically significant objects, even if they are not globally unique. This is why similar sculptures have consistently been accepted.
The question of “Why would I explore this?” can be subjective, but many approved Wayspots are appreciated because they reflect the local culture of the area they belong to.
So my intention is not to challenge the process, but to understand why my appeal was rejected despite meeting the same criteria that allowed similar culturally significant submissions to be accepted.
This shows that in Thailand, these kinds of sculptures are not considered simple decorations. They are meaningful cultural and spiritual landmarks that reflect local identity, and they clearly meet the “Explore” criteria within our cultural context.
So when reviewing Wayspots from different regions, it’s important to recognize these cultural differences. What may look ordinary in one country can hold significant artistic or cultural value in another.
Only staff could detail what they didn’t like with the appeal, and they are highly unlikely to provide any more comment than the rejection text you already received. Keep in mind, they do say you can resubmit with different context if you feel their rejection was incorrect. Your course of action was the correct thing to do.
As explained, every nomination is reviewed just a little differently and sometimes even the same people change their pattern throughout a reviewing session or from day to day. A friend once told me “win some, lose most.” We certainly don’t like “losing” the nomination game, but nearly every time we have a rejection something can be learned.
Are the images a little “better” or more inviting? Did you use different phrasing or address the concerns from the initial rejection?
I’m happy this was approved for you - clearly you appreciate the culture provided. I have had some candidates I feel meet criteria that maybe I’m just not good at explaining or maybe I misunderstand what my local reviewers appreciate.
I also understand what you explained. Honestly, it was just a small issue that the community didn’t approve it the first time. I could simply resubmit it as many times as needed until it went through. There might have even been some small mistakes on my side — like the title, the description, or the Street View placement.
Since I still had some appeal quota left, I decided to give it a try. But the outcome was a rejection with a reason that really didn’t feel right at all
In the end, that’s all it is. Different places, different countries, different cultures — if we can understand these differences, things wouldn’t feel so complicated.
I almost wish I could say that directly to whoever reviewed my appeal, haha.
