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 s…

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 exp…

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.

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 …

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. :man_shrugging:

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…

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.

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 :frowning:

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

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. Th…

[image] witsd: 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.

400-year-old listed building, converted into flats - appeal rejected due to lack of signage

General Discussion

ScopelyExpAaron August 21, 2025, 8:58am 11

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.

Url or html rejection

FYI: Links are allowed in the supporting section

Local reviewer(s) incorrectly rejecting for URL in supporting info

Topic		Replies	Views
Local reviewer(s) incorrectly rejecting for URL in supporting info General Discussion	3	109	July 17, 2026
Waypoint rejected Nomination Support	6	267	July 30, 2025
How to properly write appeals? General Discussion	7	190	October 8, 2025
Was this rightfully rejected? Nomination Support	6	183	September 8, 2024
Bad Appeal Decision General Discussion	23	471	March 17, 2025

400-year-old listed building, converted into flats - appeal rejected due to lack of signage

Related topics