If that is the case why do sites like consumersearch(dot)com have many multiple listing.
Editors search for material on topics, and sometimes the best material is found on a larger site. Also, there are certain large aggregate sites with tens of thousands of contributors, that editors know to look to, for information on esotoric topics. Website owners suggesting their own sites is ... counterproductive. I spent some time today tracking down multiple sites from the same entity, specifically because they had suggested another site (and it smelled fishy.)
I have 3 sites that have over 6 listing. But with those sites I have waited until each category has been accepted before trying to add another one.
What you describe is specifically against the submittal policy.
I'll say, very carefully here, that the following is my personal opinion. And it may not be shared by any other editor on earth. In my opinion, what you are doing is helping the editors some (because the sites are listed several times, so the editors are agreeing that the material is unique and significant). And what you are doing is NOT harming the editors much at all (because you are being limited by waiting until each suggestion is ACCEPTED--that algorithm will stop you immediately if a suggestion is rejected.)
So, again in my opinion, that's all right. Others may differ--some, probably vehemently. But the reason I think it's OK is, using that rule you can't commit spam more than once. (And, frankly, in today's world, a single spammy suggestion of marginally-listable material is hardly worth notice--if every stock scammer sent out only one e-mail, e-mail spam wouldn't be a problem!)
------------------------
But trying to push BEYOND that -- taking of the self-imposed limit of waiting for each suggestion to be confirmed -- would destroy the protection you're giving the editors against overenthusiasm, and take you into obvious, blatant, malicious, spam territory. And in THIS part of the opinion I think I can safely assume I'm speaking for the community!