Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Did you not ask about this site in the last day or so, since I remember this questionand looking at your site. Did you delete the original post and the answer?

 

As far as getting a visitor, it's totally meaningless, it was probably me looking at it when you asked the first time. And I'm NOT the editor that would review your site.

  • 5 weeks later...
Posted

It appears that one editor reviewed it and listed it, another saw that the listing was not done properly and put it back in the pile for further review, and a senior editor determined that not only was the listing improperly done, but that the site should not be listed at all.

 

You can read our Site Selection Criteria here.

  • Meta
Posted

The link gives the reasons. In sites like this, the editor's reaction must inevitably have been something like: "Sir, your product has both good sections and original sections. Unfortunately, they seem never to be the same ones."

 

It is possible that such a reaction was incorrect but directly caused by a poor website design strategy: that in order to give the impression of comprehensiveness, you (1) collected the vast majority of your content from other sites, and (2) blurred the distinction between original content and collected content. Or it's possible that the impression was correct. Only you will know which of these possibilities applies: the editor can't know whether "unique content" was absent or just well concealed. But you must know that.

 

So I'm puzzled. What is it that you think an editor could conceivably have helped with?

  • 2 months later...
×
×
  • Create New...