Reasons for site rejection

i heard that some sites are rejected because for some editors is hard to accept better sites . it is true? ( please give us the same chance for better ranking )

As you phrase it, no, it is absolutely not true.

Sites are rejected if they do not add anything to the category. This includes sites that are broken or under construction, sites that contain the same content as other sites that are already listed, and other sites that don't give the surfers any information of value. Very occasionally, a site may also be rejected if the site owner has behaved very badly in relation to the directory, but those are rare exceptions and most editors will never encounter a site like that.

Ranking is something that never should play any part whatsoever in the editor's judgment of a site, positive or negative. Remember that we do not list sites for the site owner's or webmaster's sake, we do it for the surfers.

Many people who suggest sites for review believe that their site has been rejected, when in reality it simply hasn't been reviewed yet. Not having been reviewed is a very different thing from having been rejected for inclusion, but the action from the person who suggested it should be the same: Don't suggest it again.

Hope this helps.

I'm not sure exactly what you asking here, but the editorial guidelines which govern which sites are included and which are not are publicly available, so you can read them for yourself:
http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html

Also of interest may be the section on confilcts of interest: http://dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html

Editors found not to be following the guidelines will be helped / warned as may be appropriate, and continuing failure to follow them can and does result in editors being removed from the project. See: http://dmoz.org/guidelines/meta/abuse.html

To pre-empt a possible next question, if you have proof that an editor is abusing his/her position, then please submit an abuse report via http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/. However, "I submitted my site over a year ago and it still hasn't been listed; the editor must be a competitor." is not proof of abuse. We receive many site suggestions from the public (and they are just that -- suggestions). There is much more to editing than reviewing such suggestions, and editors will spend time on other tasks (such as checking existing listings, and building new categories) and are also free to find sites to list by other means too. While we do aim to review all of the public suggestions eventually, we can offer no timescale for such reviews to take place.

We don't focus on reasons for rejection, because any site that has no reason for listing doesn't NEED a reason for rejection: it should get rejected automatically.

We have one reason for listing: unique content. In that context, "better" and "worse" have no meaning. A small and ugly site might well be the uniquely authoritative expression of a person's artistic, commercial, political, or personal inclinations--and therefore obviously visible. A huge and expensively-designed plagiary is of no interest to anyone except the plagiarist.