>Have the policies changed over the last few months?
No, the policy on affiliate sites hasn't changed within the last few months.
>If the site was approved before and nothing has changed with the format or the individual pages then why would we have lost our odp listings.
Logically, there are at least four possibilities:
(1) Site should never have been listed, was listed by error, and has just now been noticed and corrected. (this seems most likely, if you're entertaining the possibility that it was recognized to be an affiliate site.)
(2) Site was listed long enough ago that the affiliate guidelines HAD been tightened since then; the first time it was reviewed under the newer tighter guidelines, it'd be removed. (this is also possible)
(3) Listing has been moved instead of removed (or alternatively, has been partially moved and so hasn't shown up in the new place yet.) (This also is extremely unlikely if there are affiliate sales.)
(4) Site has been removed in error. (This happens, but is pretty rare. If the site is primarily about affiliate marketing, this possibility can be eliminated out of hand.
Don't underestimate the possibility of human error: I'd guess the rate of inappropriate listing of suggested sites is higher than 1%, which could mean tens of thousands of sites.
>Is there any sites that are out there that receive approval through the ODP that are uniquie and that does not have duplicate content?
Actually, yes, they are. But your "not having duplicate content" isn't a requirement at all! The real requirement is "having significant unique content", which is a completely unrelated issue.
(1) A site may have no duplicate content, but not enough unique content either. (e.g. the business-card sites for some local businesses)
(2) A site may have some duplicate content, and some unique content (e.g. Project Gutenberg, which contains thousands of books digitized by their own volunteers: where some of the books have also been placed online by other websites. Or a real estate salesman's site containing unique information about himself as well as duplicate information about his neighborhood.
(3) A site may contain unique content but no duplicate content -- like a business site describing the services it offers (other people may copy that content as it was at any particular time, but nobody except John Doe can authoritatively say TODAY what JD's Handiman Service will do for money TODAY.)
(4) A site may contain duplicate content but no unique content (e.g. an affiliate doorway.)
Both categories (2) and (3) are listable -- no matter that one has duplicate content and the other doesn't. Categories (1) and (4) are not listable -- no matter that one has duplicate content and the other doesn't. The duplicate content just doesn't matter (unless it's so prominent that we can't ignore it.)
The trick of reviewing (as an EDITOR) is to ignore duplicated, derivative, or promotional content -- and look for the unique, uniquely authoritative, informational content.
