# 400-year-old listed building, converted into flats - appeal rejected due to lack of signage **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [August 21, 2025, 7:35am UTC](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/t/400-year-old-listed-building-converted-into-flats-appeal-rejected-due-to-lack-of-signage/107753 "2025-08-21T07:35:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![00witsd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/0/2acd7d/32.png) [@00witsd](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/u/00witsd)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 7:35am UTC](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/t/400-year-old-listed-building-converted-into-flats-appeal-rejected-due-to-lack-of-signage/107753/1 "2025-08-21T07:35:11Z")
At least, that’s the best I can work out from ‘show the placemaker sign’. It was originally rejected for for lacking uniqueness or historic value, which is insane given that I stated that it was the oldest building in the area by more than a century. My understanding has always been that physical signs (which don’t exist here) are not required for a successful sub? Images of rejection: ![xAcTFAE](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/wayfarer/original/3X/c/6/c622570e2a10162c8b0bd6df0d11c8cd6e02a304.png) And the original supporting info: ![5lJvEvk](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/wayfarer/original/3X/2/a/2a8fd54bd400d71e3df84e55109447fc1a883a99.png) The only other thing I could possibly have included is a link to the Historic Environment Scotland to confirm the age and listed status, but posting links in subs is generally not good form. > **[2 AULDHOUSE COURT, THORNLIEBANK ROAD (LB33913)](https://portal.historicenvironment.scot/apex/f?p=1505:300:::::VIEWTYPE,VIEWREF:designation,LB33913)** > > 2 AULDHOUSE COURT, THORNLIEBANK ROAD (LB33913) ---
**Author:** ![salixsorbus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@salixsorbus](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/u/salixsorbus)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 8:04am UTC](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/t/400-year-old-listed-building-converted-into-flats-appeal-rejected-due-to-lack-of-signage/107753/2 "2025-08-21T08:04:24Z")
Something being old does not make it automatically match the Exploration category, I suspect the appeal reviewer is saying that if there was a plaque marking the building, this would make it significant, but being an old building in itself is not. You need to say why **this** building is worthy of exploration, why anyone will come to it specifically to see it. It’s hard to tell from your pictures why anyone would do this, which is probably why it got rejected as not unique/no cultural meaning. Posting links in the supporting information is definitely allowed. A handful of reviewers will reject for this, but they are completely wrong and in the minority, so the benefit of links (in the supporting information) are higher than the downside. ---
**Author:** ![salixsorbus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@salixsorbus](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/u/salixsorbus)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 8:06am UTC](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/t/400-year-old-listed-building-converted-into-flats-appeal-rejected-due-to-lack-of-signage/107753/3 "2025-08-21T08:06:15Z")
Merely stating something in the description, which is key to acceptance, without providing evidence to back this up, comes across as meaningless fluff to a lot of reviewers. You can say it is 100 years older than anything else nearby, but that carries no value without support. ---
**Author:** ![elijustrying](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/wayfarer/user_avatar/community.wayfarer.scopely.com/elijustrying/32/25162_2.png) [@elijustrying](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/u/elijustrying)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 8:07am UTC](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/t/400-year-old-listed-building-converted-into-flats-appeal-rejected-due-to-lack-of-signage/107753/4 "2025-08-21T08:07:02Z")
Hi, I think the link to the listing to demonstrate its historic value is what was needed. The reviewers and appeal reviewers would not necessarily know where that is hosted…..the onus is on the submitter to provide the evidence in an easy to see form. So a link does that compared to just saying it could be found. ---
**Author:** ![00witsd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/0/2acd7d/32.png) [@00witsd](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/u/00witsd)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 8:07am UTC](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/t/400-year-old-listed-building-converted-into-flats-appeal-rejected-due-to-lack-of-signage/107753/5 "2025-08-21T08:07:59Z")
And yet you used to hear about people getting warning notices for manipulation when they’ve included links, so I generally try to avoid it. 🤷‍♂️ ---
**Author:** ![salixsorbus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@salixsorbus](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/u/salixsorbus)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 8:10am UTC](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/t/400-year-old-listed-building-converted-into-flats-appeal-rejected-due-to-lack-of-signage/107753/6 "2025-08-21T08:10:19Z")
Some people put links in the main description, which is rightly punished. A lot of people put links in the supporting text and a handful get rejections from reviewers who don’t know what they are doing or who are just looking for a reason to reject something. Some people talk trash on social media, make stuff up and lie about what they have done to make themselves look better and other people (or systems) worse. No-one is getting punished for putting a link in the supporting information. ---
**Author:** ![elijustrying](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/wayfarer/user_avatar/community.wayfarer.scopely.com/elijustrying/32/25162_2.png) [@elijustrying](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/u/elijustrying)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 8:11am UTC](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/t/400-year-old-listed-building-converted-into-flats-appeal-rejected-due-to-lack-of-signage/107753/7 "2025-08-21T08:11:40Z")
Links inthe supplementary info are absolutely fine…..a high percentage mine have them - for example a link to the sustrans website or national trust etc They can’t be in the description. ---
**Author:** ![00witsd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/0/2acd7d/32.png) [@00witsd](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/u/00witsd)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 8:14am UTC](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/t/400-year-old-listed-building-converted-into-flats-appeal-rejected-due-to-lack-of-signage/107753/8 "2025-08-21T08:14:00Z")
I did see someone get a warning for a link in the additional info section, but admittedly this was about 4 years ago, so hopefully that’s been dealt with. I guess I’ll resub with the link ☹ ---
**Author:** ![elijustrying](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/wayfarer/user_avatar/community.wayfarer.scopely.com/elijustrying/32/25162_2.png) [@elijustrying](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/u/elijustrying)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 8:17am UTC](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/t/400-year-old-listed-building-converted-into-flats-appeal-rejected-due-to-lack-of-signage/107753/9 "2025-08-21T08:17:02Z")
Please do resubmit I think it looks a good place. Hopefully your description contains some of the details from the listing as to why the design etc is of interest. Good luck ---
**Author:** ![elijustrying](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/wayfarer/user_avatar/community.wayfarer.scopely.com/elijustrying/32/25162_2.png) [@elijustrying](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/u/elijustrying)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 8:23am UTC](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/t/400-year-old-listed-building-converted-into-flats-appeal-rejected-due-to-lack-of-signage/107753/10 "2025-08-21T08:23:41Z")
what you previously saw might have been the old so called “ education. Email” which was meant to warn you that you had done some thing wrong but did feel very strong. As far as I am aware they should never have been sent even a warning for a link in the supplementary info no matter how long ago. There was a time when we didn’t have the supplementary info,only the description so mMaybe from back then? ---
**Author:** ![ScopelyExpAaron](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/wayfarer/user_avatar/community.wayfarer.scopely.com/scopelyexpaaron/32/56681_2.png) [@ScopelyExpAaron](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/u/ScopelyExpAaron)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 8:58am UTC](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/t/400-year-old-listed-building-converted-into-flats-appeal-rejected-due-to-lack-of-signage/107753/11 "2025-08-21T08:58:10Z")
> [@00witsd](#): > > you used to hear about people getting warning notices for manipulation when they’ve included links This is as incorrect as it can ever get. We have never punished anyone for including links. Infact, we encourage including links in the supporting text. ---
**Author:** ![TrungLatias](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a183cd/32.png) [@TrungLatias](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/u/TrungLatias)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 9:05am UTC](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/t/400-year-old-listed-building-converted-into-flats-appeal-rejected-due-to-lack-of-signage/107753/12 "2025-08-21T09:05:03Z")
\ > [@00witsd](#): > > And yet you used to hear about people getting warning notices for manipulation when they’ve included links, so I generally try to avoid it. I always include link (google map link, facebook link, social media link, newspaper link or government link) in the supporting info for 20 submissions on various stuff such as Coffee shop, restaurant, or historical building and I didn’t get banned at all. It is encouraged and is a sold, hard-cold proof that would convince the reviewer to think “it is real” , “the stuff they say is true” and might swinging into approving. The only incident I can think of is providing link that is not related to submission and can be flagged as “submitter identification”. But that is just influncing reviewer. ---
**Author:** ![hankwolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7feea3/32.png) [@hankwolfman](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/u/hankwolfman)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2025, 11:48am UTC](https://community.wayfarer.scopely.com/t/400-year-old-listed-building-converted-into-flats-appeal-rejected-due-to-lack-of-signage/107753/13 "2025-08-21T11:48:22Z")
When I’ve been submitting listed buildings or structures, I’ll always include a link in the supporting info, and most times I’ve never had any issues getting them accepted. The few issues I have experienced have always been for other reasons. Links in the supporting info are fine and make the reviewer’s job a lot easier!