>If I request a move and the editor for the current cat removes the listing from the public gaze and then passes the request to the next editor to be listed in their category. Will the RSS feed you give to the SEs be missing the listing in question until it is added to the new cat?
The process you describe SHOULD not happen (very often). But when it does, the site does disappear from the RSS feed.
>If I am not aware of a move and I see that the listing is missing then re-submit the site. Will that be considered spamming and will the listing be blocked?
That should not ever happen.
>How harsh are you guys in regard to multiple submissions? Will you ever remove a listing that has already been added because someone has sent multiple requests for it to be listed in a different category?
As harsh as we have to be, to stamp it out. The submittal policies are pretty explicit about multiple submittals -- there is no limit to the damage you can do to your reputation, and the reputation of everyone connected with you. A persistent submitter can get sites associated with himself removed, just by aggressively suggesting some other site.
On the other hand, if a lesser response than ultra-dirty nukes has a possibility of protecting the editors from harassment, while preserving some useful information for the surfers, then we'd prefer that approach.
>Will a listing be blocked if there is another listing that is submitted that has duplicate content to a current listing and was submitted after the original listing?
Suggesting multiple sites associated with the same entity and/or person, even with non-duplicate but similar content, automatically puts editors in the mode of thinking "how can we protect ourselves and our users from this kind of spam?" We'll do whatever it takes.
Which raises a question: if someone has multiple unlinked (but related) sites, could a competitor cause them trouble by suggesting the various "fraternal mirrors"?
And the answer is, nobody will care a whole lot if that happens (because an honest businessman wouldn't be doing that in the first place: someone proud of his reputation is going to make sure that all his sites contribute directly to his reputation, and vice versa.) Now, I've never seen it happen. I've never looked very hard for it either. I don't THINK it happens very often.
But anyone can easily make sure it doesn't happen, just by setting up his websites as if he were an honest businessman. I heartily recommend that approach, even though it is NOT what a lot of SEO professionals do. (people who aren't willing to stake their reputation on each one of their websites, deserve the reputation of a fly-by-night fraud.)
>Is a site ever denied listing based upon the aesthetics of the editor?
Editors have been warned, and even removed, for doing that. It is a form of abuse. Which is to say, it happens, but apparently not very often.
Concerning the more general question of inappropriate site rejections, the "negative error rate" for the ODP is, so far as I've been able to tell, around 1%. Which means it is just flat not worth systematically reviewing each rejection to catch those errors, when there are so many good sites that have never received even a first review. If the world were different than it is -- if we had too many editors and too few people generating websites -- then obviously the most important aspect of the system would be to duplicate editor effort to maximize website coverage. But the world is not that. We have too many people creating websites, and editors are the critical resource. Therefore the most important aspect of system design is: how efficiently can editors find and add good sites? It's better to fail to list 1% of good sites by accident, than to fail to list 50% of them because editors were systematically duplicating work!
As it is, we seem to be failing to list maybe 20-30% of obviously listable sites, through a combination of (mostly) failure to review, and (very rarely) failure to list after review. Which sounds bad, but is still better than anyone else is doing.
