“decorative object”
Isn’t that art? The frog is quite small, but the size of the artwork is irrelevant, especially as it is quite solidly attached to the stone seat. I’m cautious to re-submit, but this seems eligible.
Size does matter:
I agree with them that you have not made it clear in what you have shown us as to how this is significant.
2 Likes
“we recommend you use the supporting photo and description to provide more context on the nomination’s location”
The supporting photo is quite clear in doing this.
Maybe to you, it does. It did not to the appeals reviewer. Or to me. Idk if it was rejected by the community or the ML (machine learning ai) model originally, but if in community review, then it didn’t convince those reviewers either.
Why is this brass frog significant? Is it by a famous sculptor? Is it an art installation by the town? Maybe you have a statement as to why this is more than just a decoration in your supporting statement which you haven’t shown us? I can’t even tell if it is permanently mounted.
It is difficult for me to rethink a nomination I really like. If you do try to resubmit, be sure to address those concerns about it being permanent, and an art piece with significance.
1 Like
There was a similar case recently where a small sculpture was rejected as a fake nomination, the submitter uploaded a video of it and demonstrated that it was bolted down which helped.
So some supporting information would help, else it really does look like something that someone left there.
1 Like
How do we know if its not someone’s attempt to make fake pokestop by using frog statue bought somewhere. U nd to highlight this in supporting note.
2 Likes
No one has made it clear why it was rejected.
Location is in a park, which is a social/exercise location.
Is permanent, now idea how else to prove it, I did mention it is attached
Is safe and public, seems clear via supporting photo as well.
I guess I’ll resubmit and really yell that it is permanent, maybe changing the supporting photo to be closer to the frog so its more obvious?
Try not to yell. 
The chances are high that the people that review this did not review it previously, so shouting at them is not helpful. It might actually put them off. 
If there is anything online that shows the frog - pictures of when this was installed? Then put those links in the supporting info. Anything to demonstrate that it was a one-off piece of art will also help.
Your description is quite short.
The benches are clearly set out in a way that enables socialisation.
So perhaps it’s worth a try at a more creative description.
Something along the lines of…
This tiny frog relaxes like everyone else on these benches. Nobody notices that they are listening in to all the gossip that takes place, but the frog keeps an eye on what is going on.
You get the idea. Maybe the title could be more creative too. It pulls the frog into a wider context about the bench arrangement. Describe the frog as sculpted and cast in bronze.
You can draw a circle around the frog on the supplementary to draw attention to where it is.
Worth a try?
If rejected be prepared to make a short video showing it is permanent.
2 Likes
Honestly, id have accepted this, its unique to the benched, it looks quite cool, my only issue would be if it is permanent, but thats hard to prove with just pictures and supporting info.
As for size, i completely disagree with sayjn things bejng too small ahould be rejected, so long as it cam be seen in supporting then its acceptable
1 Like
How small is too small is a matter of opinion. But Niantic does state in the FAQ that size does matter as I quoted already above.
Should the size of a nomination be taken into account?
Yes, a good Wayspot nomination should be relatively easy to locate in person. If a Wayspot is too small, it may be difficult to verify its real-world location. If you come across a high-quality nomination that’s small in size, we recommend you use the supporting photo and description to provide more context on the nomination’s location.
More context is needed to prove a small nomination is a “high-quality” nomination.
Its submitter job to prove that the frog is really permanent.if not, most people will probably think that it is fake frog planted by submitter. Yelling wont prove anything, it will probably only make reviewer reject faster.
Which i dont agree with, if the rhing is a point of interest, even if its the sice of a penny, if its there, its interesting. Ill even give you an example, in a park near me, they did a thing clalwd the solar system walk, it was badically a walk with each olanet and the sun, and each of them was done to say 1 trillionth scale, they were o the ground and things like mercury were no bigger than a 50p coin. It had a website for it and everything, would yoh try and say that doesnt meet criteria? Its educational, its a marker on a trail, its absolutelty a cool thing to find while exploring etc. So long as i proved it was there using my supporting info, supporting photo and maybe a circle drawn round it in the supporting photo, theres no reason it should be rejected
I personally agree, but submitter nd to prove this. Otherwise how to distinguish it from other people submitting fake wayspot. I can buy fake frog in market, put it in one of the bench and just scream its permanent.
1 Like
Was that the fish in Krakow?
Yours sounds like it was backed up with plenty of evidence of the importance of the installation and something I most likely would have accepted. That’s all I am saying.
Just mentioning is not enough. If i am submitting fake wayspot, i would say the same. There were other submission about small frog like this. It have website and many link talking about it. I personally would say yes to that.
Yes. That one have quite solid website. But its submitter job to provide this information. Just mention and promise that its permanent is not enough. It nd to be proven
Yes, that was the one.