Nomination Rejected | Help to get better future Nominations

[Chernobs]

Please provide:

• A screenshot of your nomination, including rejection reasons if it has already been rejected
  Rejection and contestation:
  
  

Main Image:

• 

Support Images:

• 
  
  
  

• Include the title, description, both photos, and supplemental information
  (EN-US)
  Title: Stone Ring Garden
  Description: Small ornamental garden with a circle of stones at its center, from which a beautiful aloe plant grows. Natural stones are scattered across the lawn, adding a rustic touch to the space, which is surrounded by other low, well-maintained plants.
  Supplemental information: This garden is located alongside the sidewalk on a public road that is frequently used by pedestrians for their daily walks. The space is easily accessible and clearly visible from the street, making it convenient for visitors to enjoy.

• Copy and paste the title, description and supplemental so others can translate them
  (PT-BR, original nomnation)
  Title: Jardim com Círculo de Pedras
  Descriction: Pequeno jardim ornamental com um círculo de pedras ao centro, de onde brota uma bela aloe. Pedras naturais estão espalhadas pelo gramado, dando um toque rústico ao espaço, cercado por outras plantas baixas e bem cuidadas.
  Supplemental information: Este jardim está localizado junto à calçada, em via pública bastante utilizada por pedestres em caminhadas diárias. O espaço é de fácil acesso e visibilidade a partir da rua, o que facilita a visita ao local.

• If you feel comfortable please share the location, as it is helpful (i.e. hidden duplicates), but you can mask it if you wish.

Location:

I am starting to submit nominations and, knowing that doing it right is important, I’d like to know if someone can help me. The nomination was initially rejected by Scopely’s automated system. After submitting an appeal, it was rejected again, this time for “not having any unique characteristics or historical or cultural significance.”

I’ve seen other garden nominations where I live, so I thought this one would be a good candidte. However, it was rejected.

Is there anything I could do better to improve my chances if I resubmit it? I know that the title, description, and photos are very important when it comes to getting nominations approved.

I’d really appreciate any advice or feedback and to improve future nominations. If there’s anything else I should add, I’ll be happy to provide more information!

[salixsorbus]

@Chernobs

I’ve seen other garden nominations where I live

A good way to approach submissions is to ignore what sorts of things are on the map already and concentrate on eligibility - Social, Exploration, Exercise.

To be a wayspot, something needs to strongly encourage and assist one of these. For this garden, it could only be Exploration, as it has no social element (nowhere to sit and communicate with other people).

It’s a nice enough space, but is it somewhere people actively seek out? I don’t see that it is, so I don’t see that it meets criteria.

[gorgi1978]

You’ll have to look at it from the point of a reviewer. They’ll make up their minds quickly.

What do they see? Some grass and rocks, and a ‘dress up title’. Nothing special, so deny, move on. Looking at the reaction of the appeal reviewer, he didn’t have a hard time to reject it.

Why is this place special at all? Which proof do you have, and can you reflect that in the image?

If not, it will be an impossible sell, both to the voters, and to the appeal reviewer.

[Chernobs]

Ok, think I got it. I really based myself in what is already an in game POI for my first nominations. And the idea of “thinking as the reviewer” is a good point.

Thanks for the help, will really help future nominations!

[salixsorbus]

It’s an easy mistake to make, and very understandable.

Unfortunately:

• some old wayspots were accepted using old criteria rules
• some reviewers don’t know the rules and accept things that are not eligible
• some submitters don’t know the rules and submit things without realising the criteria
• some submitters deliberately abuse the system to get more pokestops and gyms