I’ve submitted a little free library in a public campground twice and it keeps getting automatically rejected for not meeting criteria. Usually I’m able to appeal that and then the stop to get accepted but I’m not able to appeal these ones. It’s a permanent little free library in a campground next to a path so it is public and there is pedestrian access. I don’t understand what’s wrong with this. Every other campground I’ve stayed at has had a little free library that I nominated with no issue. I edited the pictures so that there isn’t a lot of sky or trees in the background but it’s still getting rejected. I tried to see if the rules have changed but I don’t see that they have. What is going on here and why can’t I appeal it?
Can this be moved into Nomination Support
People from the forums will attach some criteria about little free libaries
If you want our help with this nomination could you please provide photo’s of your full nomimation?
At last, LFL are ineligible when they are on SFPRP
You have 2 appeal. Each with 15 days cooldown. Anyway if you can show your full nomination(photo, surrounding photo, supporting information, location), we can see if there is anything wrong with it.
I’m not sure what sfrpr is.
I’m allowed to appeal other nominations right now but these don’t have the option.
Hello @mellywalker
Welcome to the forum! I have moved your discussion under Nomination Support as that is more aligned with your question/situation.
It does seem odd that this is rejected without the option of an appeal when you have an appeal available for other rejections. I’m going to keep an eye on this.
For ease of us helping, could you post screenshots of your nomination (title, description, support info, photos).
Oh and SFPRP stands for single family private residential property
1 Like
It does seem very weird that you can’t appeal this nomination.
Staff will probably take a look and give some support as to why you can’t appeal this or if this was a bug.
We would like to see the full nomination if you are comfortable sharing. Thank you
When you say it’s getting automatically rejected, is this happening immediately upon submitting, or is it taking up to 24 hours to tell you that it’s been automatically rejected?
SFPRP stands for single family private residential property, but SFPRP shouldn’t apply to this nomination if it’s at a publicly accessible campground. Wayspots aren’t allowed on SFPRP, but are allowed at other locations that may be eligible, and public campgrounds typically fall under eligible locations.
I, too, would be interested in seeing the entire nomination. Seeing the entire nomination may help us determin why this keeps getting rejected, and, if eligible, provide feedback on how to improve on it.
I don’t think that it’s immediate but I’m not sure. For whatever reason I don’t get emails about them, I have to check the website and sometimes I forget to do that right away. I think it’s taking 24 hours though.
It’s definitely not single-family or residential. It’s a public campground with like 200 campsites. I’m still there so I don’t want to post any identifying information but I’ll try to edit that out. I have a scary ex-husband and I don’t want him to know where I am. You’d think he wouldn’t find that information here, but he’s found everything else.
That’s what I thought too. The first time it was rejected I didn’t have an appeal but I did for other things. When I googled it I saw someone say that if you include too much sky in the photo it will get automatically rejected it so I cropped it in really tight and blurred the background more. There are two, one is a little free library for books and the other is a little free library for dogs. It’s a treat box but people also put other things there like bandannas or toys. I’ve seen those approved before but I wasn’t 100% sure if it would get approved. But I was very surprised about the little free library. I’m going to edit our identifying information or wait until after I leave the campground since I’m still there.
Your submission has been declined by the wayfarer bot (this happens within the 24Hours of the request)
I don’t think Emily (The wayfarer bot) recognises this as a LFL. Usually changing the main picture helps is what we have noticed, but those are speculations. We don’t know how Emily works exactly, we just know it doesn’t like a lot green on a photo.
So this could be rejected by reasons we don’t know since Emily rejected this and we don’t how she works.
I would maybe include the name of the campground in the title to make it more personalized to the area. Just saying it’s at a campground makes it sound like it could be anywhere, and may not actually be at this campground.
To me, the main photo looks AI generated, like it’s a fake submission. I think taking a full photo of the full LFL would be better instead of a close-up of just the part that holds the books, or taking one at a side angle, which may help avoid any reflections of the submitter that could be picked up in the glass/plastic.
I would also take a horizontal/landscape photo for the supporting photo to show more of the area. Vertical/portrait photos are not required, and phots can be taken in either horizontal or vertical. I have taken many main photos in vertical, but then take the supporting in horizontal to show the POI with more of the area. Here’s an example of a LFL I submitted last year, where I show most of the LFL in the main photo, and in the supporting took a horizontal photo to show the area better.
Note how I also described some of the places in the background of the supporting photo to help locate it, as it’s not on Street View currently.
here’s another example; note the main photo was taken from a side angle to avoid my reflection from showing, and I noted it was next tot he park sign, which was already a Wayspot, and the ice rink is in the background, which also was already a Wayspot.
The first one I posted showed the whole thing and was also rejected. I speculated it was because there was too much green or blue in the background like I saw somebody else mention so I took this one that was way closer. I’ll try taking it at an angle. I had a longer description the first time as well but somebody said that maybe it was too long so I made it shorter the next time.
I wonder if they are tweaking something on the ML (machine learning) process to try to stop the acceptance by the community of LFL’s on SFPRP. I also had this one at a pool originally rejected by the team, but then the rejection was overturned.
I thought the main photo had plenty of context to show it was in front of a community building without having so much in the photo that the ML model would be confused.
The supporting photo makes it clear that it is at a facility. If the ML model isn’t looking at the supporting photo, too, maybe it should.
I don’t think the description being short or long would be an issue, as long as it was accurately describing the LFL.
To me, the background of the main photo is somewhat blurred out, as if the focus was set to focus in on the LFL. This could make it appear like it could be a fake photo, something created by AI. You may also want to check the focus settings on your phone, as auto-focus may better than other options.
1 Like
Yeah, i can see the pool through the gates of the bath house.
I haven’t found any LFLs on eligible locations as of late, mainly just ones on SFPRP (and keeping my fingers crossed that they don’t get submitted by someone else). I think there has also been more fake nominations for LFLs that have AI generated photos, and many are pinned on SFPRP as well.
So, yes, maybe ML is getting a bit more training when it comes to LFLs due to some of the issues with those on SFPRP still being submitted, or fake ones. Who knows?
Hello @mellywalker
I have edited your post remove the location picture since you expressed concerns. I don’t think the information is essential.
When you don’t have an appeal available that is how it looks. Within 15 days the appeal button should appear, and you can appeal.
If you want to try again then it would be worthwhile.
I agree that the photo looks slightly false because of the background and the style of the library. So not quite such a close crop.
I’m also not clear if this specific style is easily movable which may be an issue.