My nomination is an officially listed historic monument (Denkmal-ID 09216984), not a business. However, the appeal response refers to “this business” and asks why it is a local hangout. This does not match my nomination. Could the appeal decision please be reviewed?
Hi and welcome, can we see your entire nomination please?
Sieht mir eigentlich zulässig aus, ideal wäre natürlich ein Screenshot aus der Denkmalschutzdatenbank bzw auch ein Link. Das ist wirklich eine seltsame Ablehnung
Welcome. You need to prove your claim. Simply saying its historical is not enough. If you review enough nomination, you will see that people tend to exaggerate to get their nomination approved.(i am not saying you did this)
Welcome to the forum 
It looks like you have fallen into the trap of assuming that your POI will sail through and get accepted automatically, so haven’t made any attempt to sell it to reviewers.
A nice looking house that people rent out (multiple residences) is not automatically worth exploring.
Hello,
Thank you. I understand that being a listed historic building alone does not automatically make it eligible. However, I did try to explain the relevance of the location in my nomination. I specifically mentioned that the building is located directly on the Saxon Wine Hiking Trail and serves as a recognizable point of orientation along the route.
I have now also provided the official monument database entry above.
Hattest du das auch in deiner Einreichung hinzugefügt oder nur den Satz im Zusatztext?
Die Denkmal-ID hatte ich mit angegeben, den Screenshot aus der Datenbank nicht.
Put yourself in reviewer shoes that know nothing about this nomination. I still dont know if the id number is correct or no. I try looking into your screenshot and i cant find the number. I am not scopely staff so i have no power to change the result. I am merely pointing out what i saw here as other wayfarer
Thank you, I understand your point now. I included the monument ID 09216984 in the supporting information of my original nomination. You are right that the ID itself is not visible in the screenshot I posted; it only shows the official monument database entry for Weinbergstraße 18. I’ll see if I can open the record in a way that also shows the ID number.
I found the direct link to the official monument record. The monument ID 09216984 is also included in the URL:
https://denkmalliste.denkmalpflege.sachsen.de/CardoMap/Denkmalliste_Report.aspx?HIDA_Nr=09216984
It looks better. There are no formal procedure to appeal rejected appeal. If staff doesnt comment after a few days, i suggest you to take all advise that you can get here to improve your nomination and resubmit. Put the weblink into suporting information
Thank you so much 
I followed the advice given here and submitted the nomination a second time, including the direct link to the official monument record and the additional context discussed here. The new nomination was automatically rejected, so I appealed. The appeal has now also been rejected.
Scopely’s response was:
“The nomination in question does not meet the Wayfarer criteria as it is a normal building. If this assessment is not accurate, please resubmit the nomination with additional context.”
For me, this decision is arbitrary and not understandable. The historical significance of the building was documented by the official listing of the responsible Saxon monument authority. Nevertheless, in the appeal it is simply described as a “normal building”, without addressing this official evidence.
The first nomination was discussed here in the Wayfarer forum, and I took the advice I received into account when I resubmitted it. The requested “additional context” was also provided through the direct link to the official monument record. Therefore, it remains completely unclear to me what I am supposed to learn from this decision for future nominations.
This is even more difficult for me to understand because a comparable historic residential building only a few streets away was recently accepted as a Wayspot. I understand that every nomination is assessed individually, but this makes it even harder for me to understand why this officially listed historic building is simply considered a “normal building”.
When decisions are made this inconsistently despite verifiable evidence and despite following Wayfarer’s own criteria, it gives me the impression of an arbitrary assessment that lacks any reliable basis or recognizable principles. This does not just make the game less enjoyable for me – under these circumstances, continuing to participate in Wayfarer simply becomes pointless.
What it is, is an assessment by people. Reviewers are people, people are inconsistent.
Appeals are completed by staff. Staff are also people, people are inconsistent.
Keeping this in mind always can mitigate the frustration slightly.
My personal experience is that unless something is a trail marker or a gym*, the appeal is going to need more proof than you would put into the initial sub. Appeals staff are unlikely to be locals, and will want even more evidence that the sub is significant enough to meet explore / social criteria. In fact, I’m actually not sure I’ve ever managed to get a cafe or restaurant accepted at appeal.
*Exploration criteria being pretty universal.
Did you use the same picture? ML tends to boot anything that was previously rejected if it sees the same picture again.
Thank you. I understand your point about inconsistent human decisions.
But this is exactly what I am struggling with: what more evidence could I realistically have provided? I included the direct official record from the responsible Saxon monument authority, confirming the building’s historical and architectural significance.
So I genuinely wonder: what could I have done differently to demonstrate that this officially listed historic building meets the exploration criterion?
Nein. Ich habe die Bilder neu aufgenommen.