Well there is a guideline that says it is forbidden to submit multiple related sites (it is on the Suggest an URL form). What we are trying to tell you is what is meant by related. Here is an answer I gave once before.
Related, in this context, means a business that markets/sells related services and products, but elects to market them on separate websites. Hosting, web design, content management, domain names, etc. etc. are all (for our purposes) related products and services. If there are 4 websites belonging to the same business selling each of these products separately, we will only list one of those sites. Why should Business A get 4 listings because they have put up separate sites for each services, when Business B gets 1 listing because all their services are on the same site. In fact, Business A is risking getting no listings at all because spreading their content too thin may in fact give each site insufficient content for a listing. Business in this context is taken to be the entire business portfolio of a particular entity regardless of tax and legal corporate distinctions.
So we are talking related in terms of content AND beneficiary (owner/operator/etc.)
Sites that are related in terms of content only will almost certainly fall foul of other provisions such as lack of original content, affiliate, etc.
Sites that are related *only* in terms of beneficiary are not subject to rejection on those grounds alone, though many fall at other hurdles.
Examples:
Andy owns a web design site, Ben owns a web design site, they are direct competitors, both may be listed subject to having sufficient original content, even though they are both selling more or less identical services.
Carl owns a web design site and a web hosting site. They are selling related services (web services) for Carls benefit. David, his nearest competitor, owns a site selling web design and hosting services on the same site. Carl and David are entitled to *one* listing each, subject to having sufficient original content.
Ernie owns a web design site and another selling teapots. These are entirely different business areas and even though the sites may have reciprocal links each would probably be considered independently.
Frank owns a site selling retail teapots, and another selling wholesale coffee. Very careful consideration would be given as to whether to treat them as related or separately. Each site would be scrutinised very carefully and maybe several editors would get involved.
Gary cuts a deal with Frank and becomes a reseller of Frank's teapots. Frank rehashes the content of his site and gives the rehashed version to Gary as part of the deal. We don't list Gary's site - it lacks original content.
The more clear cut the lack of a relationship between the content: teapots, web design, etc. the easier the decision to treat them independently. The same the other way around, the closer the relationship the easier to make a decision to treat them as related. From Internet the circle of "related" may well extend into all things technological - telephony, hardware, networking, etc.
But you also hit a point where a business is so diverse: teapots, tennis balls, computers, furniture, that we would look at them as general merchandisers.
Now relate that to your business. If the content is so closely related they are both suitable for the same category then we would deem the sites related almost certainly. We cannot physically stop you submitting a second URL we can only tell you that if you do, and it is deemed by us to be a related site to the first then you risk of the consequences of that action.
Related, in this context, means a business that markets/sells related services and products, but elects to market them on separate websites. Hosting, web design, content management, domain names, etc. etc. are all (for our purposes) related products and services. If there are 4 websites belonging to the same business selling each of these products separately, we will only list one of those sites. Why should Business A get 4 listings because they have put up separate sites for each services, when Business B gets 1 listing because all their services are on the same site. In fact, Business A is risking getting no listings at all because spreading their content too thin may in fact give each site insufficient content for a listing. Business in this context is taken to be the entire business portfolio of a particular entity regardless of tax and legal corporate distinctions.
So we are talking related in terms of content AND beneficiary (owner/operator/etc.)
Sites that are related in terms of content only will almost certainly fall foul of other provisions such as lack of original content, affiliate, etc.
Sites that are related *only* in terms of beneficiary are not subject to rejection on those grounds alone, though many fall at other hurdles.
Examples:
Andy owns a web design site, Ben owns a web design site, they are direct competitors, both may be listed subject to having sufficient original content, even though they are both selling more or less identical services.
Carl owns a web design site and a web hosting site. They are selling related services (web services) for Carls benefit. David, his nearest competitor, owns a site selling web design and hosting services on the same site. Carl and David are entitled to *one* listing each, subject to having sufficient original content.
Ernie owns a web design site and another selling teapots. These are entirely different business areas and even though the sites may have reciprocal links each would probably be considered independently.
Frank owns a site selling retail teapots, and another selling wholesale coffee. Very careful consideration would be given as to whether to treat them as related or separately. Each site would be scrutinised very carefully and maybe several editors would get involved.
Gary cuts a deal with Frank and becomes a reseller of Frank's teapots. Frank rehashes the content of his site and gives the rehashed version to Gary as part of the deal. We don't list Gary's site - it lacks original content.
The more clear cut the lack of a relationship between the content: teapots, web design, etc. the easier the decision to treat them independently. The same the other way around, the closer the relationship the easier to make a decision to treat them as related. From Internet the circle of "related" may well extend into all things technological - telephony, hardware, networking, etc.
But you also hit a point where a business is so diverse: teapots, tennis balls, computers, furniture, that we would look at them as general merchandisers.
Now relate that to your business. If the content is so closely related they are both suitable for the same category then we would deem the sites related almost certainly. We cannot physically stop you submitting a second URL we can only tell you that if you do, and it is deemed by us to be a related site to the first then you risk of the consequences of that action.
