Site submission status

I understand that one can not check the status of the websites submitted. I have been reviewing various threads relating to site submissions. I also understand that many of the categories have not accepted any new submissions for a while. Stiil, when one submits a website, the guidelines state very clearly about two weeks time period for review by the editor. Now to my questions: 1) After two weeks, should the person submitting the site assume that it was not accepted, 2) Is there any written notification to the person submitting the site of the final status accepted/denied via email?, and 3) Should the guidelines be changed to take out any reference to two weeks?

1) After two weeks, should the person submitting the site assume that it was not accepted

Click to expand...

No. You can never assume that - it can take years for a review to happen.

2) Is there any written notification to the person submitting the site of the final status accepted/denied via email?

Click to expand...

No. The confirmation of the site being accepted is that it is listed so keep an eye out.

3) Should the guidelines be changed to take out any reference to two weeks?

Click to expand...

Probably! In this forum we long ago stopped giving out estimates and averages.

Stiil, when one submits a website, the guidelines state very clearly about two weeks time period for review by the editor

Click to expand...

Actually, it states very clearly that "it may take up to 2 weeks or more for your site to be reviewed", not "about two weeks".

You are technically correct about the guidelines. They do state "it may take up to 2 weeks or more for your site to be reviewed", and not "about two weeks". My questions still stand as I stated. A webmaster when submitting a website should have an idea of the time frame whether itis up to 2 weeks, or more like 2 years to avoid mistaken spamming.
My apologies for paraprasing the guidelines.

>A webmaster when submitting a website should have an idea of the time frame whether itis up to 2 weeks, or more like 2 years to avoid mistaken spamming.

No, to avoid spamming (whether mistaken or deliberate) a webmaster need merely follow the guidelines. Submit once. Wait a few weeks. Submit once.

Fortunate indeed is this the case, because NOBODY has an idea of the time frame. It depends on the number of websites (not submittals!) unreviewed, and the number of surfers interested in volunteering to review them. And even we don't know the latter ahead of time.

hutcheson said:

No, to avoid spamming (whether mistaken or deliberate) a webmaster need merely follow the guidelines. Submit once. Wait a few weeks. Submit once.

Click to expand...

Just to make sure I'm reading that one right, you're repeating "Submit once" at the end of that for emphasis, right? It's not a series of of steps to follow, which in would imply that we should submit one more time after waiting a few weeks?

No, it's really "submit ... wait ... submit".

The situation is: a submittal might get lost or damaged in transit -- not very likely, a few percent maybe. So the policy used to suggest waiting three weeks, and then submitting again if the site wasn't listed yet. The chances of BOTH submittals going awry is negligable....or so goes the theory.

Now, the wait time is IMO unrealistic -- many sites (maybe 10-15%) do get reviewed that quickly, but most don't. I think 6 months is more realistic.

This doesn't mean that a site is guaranteed a review in that time: submittals 2 or 3 years old are not that hard to find. But if _I_ were pulling a number out of a hat, that's the number I'd start with.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for a kick in the right place. We DO need to discuss the wording of the submittal policy there, and your question this time, coming after the changes in the forum here, may be trigger to do it. We'll discuss it in the internal forums.

You know how long consensus can take to form, so don't expect a publicly visible change tomorrow. But we are seriously discussing it -- to see if we can get something better than a random number out of one editor's hat.