When was the site last submitted? We show no record of it.
If it has been rejected for any reason can I be notified with the reason(s) so I can adjust the site appropriately?
No, and if you think about it for a bit you'll realize how absurd the question is. How could we KEEP you from adjusting the site, appropriately or not?
And it's not as if our guidelines are secret -- they are very public. And of the thousands of submittals we reject daily, all but a miniscule fraction are for the same reason -- the editor couldn't find enough unique relevant content to make it worth listing. So what's to fix?
If you had had relevant content in the first place, why did you not publish it? Are you trying to see just how little content you can get into the ODP with? Are you trying to build a reputation as a lowballing spammer?
And if you don't have unique relevant content, how could you "fix" the site anyway?
And the fact is, most non-unique-content-site spammers get very abusive when they are told the reason. (As you can probably figure out for yourself -- it is not benevolent altruists who copy someone else's content and promote it as if they deserved some credit for it.)
So answering such questions would be pointless, futile, and painful.
Very occasionally -- well less than 1% of the time -- there is some reason to suppose that a site could be fixed, and in those cases we may make suggestions. (It's still a tossup whether suggestions will result in abuse or thanks. And we are taking a big risk, which doesn't benefit the directory much (after all, even if that site isn't listed, millions of other sites are.)
And this gets back to the bizarre notion that the ODP requires "adjustments" to sites. Why would we do this? A site either provides value to our users, or it doesn't. If it does, we list it without requiring adjustments. (Even if the webmaster doesn't have a clue about web standards and manages to create a site that looks like a drunkard's collage on some browsers, we list it if it has content. Even if it won't work on some browsers, we list it with a warning if it has content.) And if it doesn't provide value for our users, then what difference would "adjustments" make?
No, there is no benefit to us, to you, or the directory to discussing sites that don't provide value to users. There are millions of sites that do, and our time would be spent much more profitably reviewing and listing them.
But ignoring the unrealistic assumption "if adjustments are needed"...
The way you "request a review" is by "submitting". Every submittal is "from scratch."
We ought to have some way of making sure that re-reviews get a lower priority than any other reviews -- to be fair to the people who DID comply with the submittal policies, and DID complete their site with useful information before submitting. Unfortunately, we don't, and so an incessantly submitted site may get multiple reviews (and a very bad reputation) before another site gets reviewed for the first time.
