USA version of already submitted site

[disklabs]

Fair enough. I will wait and see. Thanks for all the time and effort you have put in trying to explain this too me.

 

Although I understand that rankings and optimisation are dirty words to you and your fellow editors/moderators, I also think believe that although you dont worry too much about this, you must have some annoyance that some of these issues of duplicate/triplicate/quadricate(?) site submissions benefit the specific sites, and undermind the DMOZ to a certain degree. People can financially gain by getting multiple submissions to the directory.

 

Its people like me who are trying to get a fair chance in business, and as such HAVE to inform yourselves. We both want the same thing - that the DMOZ works as well as it theoretically can, you for the reasons of goodness on the web, me for professional business reasons, (and believe it or not because I also believe in this Directory too).

 

Wishing you all the best,

 

 

Simon

[UniRecovery]

Banning rules are not clear

 

I have two websites, one for the UK, whereas the other is destined for other location with different languages including German, Italian & English.

Seemingly the UK web <url removed> has been accepted, whereas the worldwide web <url removed> has been either banned or rejected!!

Would you kindly elaborate on the reasons behind the rejection. Thanks

[hutcheson]

>would you kindly elaborate on the reasons behind the rejection. Thanks

 

No. Not ever in this forum, check out the TOS for why.

 

I will address the "seemingly" part. Since a site suggestion doesn't force anyone to do anything in any particular time frame, you should not assume that anyone has done anything in any particular time frame.

 

You've suggested the site.

 

If a site IS rejected, the reason would be because (1) the webmaster had been REALLY abusive, or threatened serious abuse (and where that applies, which isn't often, the only rational solution would be to avoid further contact at all costs, right?) , or (2) because the site didn't seem to contain unique content (and the webmaster always knows the uniqueness of his content better than the editor can, so there's nothing we can tell you that you don't know already.)

 

The third possibility, that the editor made a mistake, can best be handled by waiting a time (I'd suggest six months) and resubmitting. Once. That will get a re-review WITHOUT providing an opening for the webmasters with abusive tendencies (which, unfortunately, we can't tell from the others. And true, the vast majority of webmasters don't get physically abusive, but ... fact is, the vast majority of rejected sites aren't errors either. Bitter experience says entering discussions about rejected sites is much more likely to find abusive webmasters than editing mistakes.)

[pvgool]

whereas the worldwide web <url removed> has been either banned or rejected!!

or is still waiting review