Same resubmit question, different angle

I know you've heard this stuff a million times over, but let me hit you with my angle.

I submitted my website to DMOZ in early July, '09:

I'm pretty confident that I did submit to the correct category, and the submission was as per guidelines.

OK. The site has still not been entered which I believe means one of two things. Either they haven't gotten to it yet, or it has been rejected.

If it has not been looked at yet (which I have no way of knowing) all I should do is wait. But if it has been rejected, it seems to make sense that I should resubmit. Not expecting to get a kinder editor, but due to that fact that my site has come a long way since the first submission -- size, content, SEO, PageRank, community networking and so on.

I'm also confident that my site is truly better than several which are currently listed in the category.

What's your advice?

Thank you,

autotech

My advice is to do nothing (and to read my sig).

But if it has been rejected, it seems to make sense that I should resubmit. ... due to that fact that my site has come a long way since the first submission -- size, content, SEO, PageRank, community networking and so on.

OK. First of all, SEO, PageRank, community networking have nothing, nothing at all, to do with how far your site has come. That's all about personal self-promotion--which, good or evil or indifferent, is irrelevant.

Size, insofar as it's differentiable from content, is also irrelevant--well, actually, the smaller the site can be to contain its content, the better.

However, content does matter. So, putting aside all irrelevancies, let's suppose the site has grown since its first suggestion. What to do?

Well, the first thing to do is correct a misapprehension. There's ONE time when it's REALLY REALLY STUPID AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to suggest again. And that's ... right after a review.

Why? Suppose I'm an editor looking at a suggestion, and I see that an experienced editor has just reviewed the site -- and rejected it. Am I going to review it again, or am I going to just delete that suggestion as "a duplicate"? (Two guesses, the first one doesn't count.)

So the ideal approach, taking best editing practices into account, would be

(1) Wait, not only after the extra content has been added, but at least 3 months, preferably 6 months, more. (So, if an editor reviews the suggestion, it's more likely that he think "well, something may have been added to the site.")

(2) Be careful to mention, in the suggested description, that new content has been added--and what content it was. (The editor nearly always has to write the site description, but it is a BIG help to know what importent content to expect in a site!)

Now, so far as I can tell, nothing anywhere in the social contract promises a guarantee of a second review to any site (and of course, the submittal policy explicitly denies that there's anything you can do to get a site listed.) But this isn't about "procedures" or "guarantees", it's about people helping other people to find sites: site suggestors helping editors find sites, and editors helping surfers to find good sites. And this seems to me to be a reasonable way to help your suggested help get considered, without being a jerk about it.

On a post like this I should probably emphasize this is my own judgment, not an official policy (although, for what it's worth, I've posted similar suggestions before in this forum without eliciting violent disagreement.)