Initially this was rejected as private property–it’s in a city park, so I appealed.
Next it was rejected as “The submission photo or information provided focused on a live animal instead of a specific object.” The photo is clearly not focused on the animal “instead” of the structure, nor is the goat the subject matter of the photo. The goat is not prominent or even a major part of the photo. I had to look pretty hard to spot it. The structure is the subject matter; that there is a goat to the side of it shouldn’t be too surprising given it is a goat enclosure. It’s not my goat and does not identify me as the submitter.
It is a goat enclosure. I’d expect to see goats. I do have a conspiracy theory that at any one point the average zoo is largely full of empty enclosures because you think it’s bloody difficult to hide a panda but I’m sure there’s only a few and they tour European zoos by bus.
Hi @seabelis
Welcome to the forum
I first thought there’s a crocodile in front
That would be extremely dangerours for the goats
Maybe the appeal reviewers did have bad eyes like me
IMO “has a live animal” is an incorrect rejection reason. An animal is not the focus of the photo.
I would be more concerned about where the pin is. Did you put it on the structure inside the pen where only employees are allowed to be? Pins are allowed inside restricted access areas if the location is safe for people who are allowed to be there. I would think it is not safe to be playing a phone game in an animal pen.
I agree with the appeal rejection reason here. Even if the goat was not intentional to put in the photo, animals and humans in the main photo are a rejection reason if I remember correctly (correct me if wrong).
(I do like the appeal note. The usage of “I” is something I have never seen before in an appeal)
It depends on what is being nominated. This is a goat enclosure, so you would expect a goat or 2 to possibly be in the photo. If it was a statue and your dog was standing next to it when you took the photo, that should be rejected for the dog being in the photo, as the dog has nothing to do with the statue.
There was a while there - I assume through a copying error - where the as the subject matter part was left off some of the places this was cited. I think they have corrected them all to read similarly now.
I think you should retry your nomination but instead of submitting the shed you better take the photo of the info board that shows the animal kept in there that would be way easier
The one on the pole advertises the summer concert series. The one on the fence says don’t feed your fingers to the animals or something along those lines.
I read it as “prominent” any of the three things listed. Especially in combination with the other phrasing of “as the subject matter”. But maybe you have identified why the appeal reviewer mistakenly rejected for any “live animal”.
