Can an editor provide a straight answer to "what happens to a site once it is rejected?"
Maybe it would be clearer to look at it this way.
PROCEDURALLY, site rejection means nothing, nothing at all. Our submittal policy allows a site to be suggested once, perhaps twice. Our public contract says we'll look at it once. So, once it's been suggested, and we've looked, that's all there is. Even if in flagrant violation of the submittal policy, it's suggested a dozen times -- there's no PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT for the editors to do ANYTHING.
From that point on, we'll simply do whatever seems appropriate to find good sites, and whatever seems appropriate to keep other editors from having to waste time on repeated suggestions.
But there's a different way of looking at it. REALISTICALLY, if a site has been reviewed and rejected, it's almost certain (99% or so) to never be listed. Why? Simply put, the editor is usually right. No particular editor ever HAS to do ANYTHING, so we are free to focus on doing what we're sure is right. If an editor is not sure, he can ask other editors for help.
HOWEVER, suppose a site was created with no significant content, and suggested, and later the website owner realizes, "that was a pretty useless suggestion--everything on that website can be found somewhere else on the web..." So he adds significant content to the website, based on his own unique personal knowledge and experience.
NOW it makes sense to resuggest, not on the basis of "It's been nine-1/2 months now and no baby" but on the basis of "maybe surfers will be interested in this NEW content, even though it's on the same website as that old content that nobody really needed".
See, the whole process isn't about processing website suggestions. It's about doing whatever it takes, based on the editor's best judgment, to find significant repositories of unique information.
