Reject To Accept Idea

Since we’ve started up in our site relaunch last August 5th, 2004 — we’ve rejected 4,771 articles (about 10.5% of all articles submitted) that didn’t meet our posted editorial guidelines.

Today I had a crazy thought about creating a separate site to showcase the rejected articles …if for entertainment value alone as I hate the idea of throwing those articles into the digital bit bucket.

The only reason I haven’t begun plans to make this a possibility is because we do not want to create enemies on purpose.

In such a project, we wouldn’t include duplicate articles or plagiarized/trademark/copyright infringement works, but we would include articles that were too high in self promotional content, had affiliate links in them, were over-keyword optimized or had very poor punctuation, grammar, spelling, etc…

What issues or obstacles do you think we should address before making such a project become a reality?


Bill Haynes writes:

Why waste the time?

No one visits the city dump to look at trash.

Comment provided July 9, 2005 at 10:37 PM



Good point!

Let me share a quick story with you:

Last month I was researching a competitor and trying to understand what made them tick. One of the top results in the search engine I was using was a spam website that posted every piece of spam he received. You could call this man’s site as “garbage” as it was nothing but spam.

Within the post of spam that I found in his garbage site was a proposal including a private URL to access a proposal server designed for the guy who got spammed … by the CEO of a publicly held company… a publicly held competitor of mine.

My point: This guy’s garbage website that posted spam emails he received was a goldmine for me as it give me critical insight into how a competitor was growing his business. You’ll never find me doing what he did (mass unsolicitied emails), but it gave me an idea to create a similiar PHP based proposal server for a new project I had in mind.

Moral of the story: One person’s garbage is another person’s goldmine.

Comment provided July 10, 2005 at 6:36 AM



Hi Chris,

By posting these articles on the web aren’t you just rewarding these authors with exposure and visibility?

I would stick to what you’re doing – which is FANTASTIC. Save the rewards for those of us who ARE using your guidelines.

For educational purposes (i.e. here’s what NOT to do), you could create a fictitious article based on these “rejects” – demonstrating each of the reasons they were rejected.

Have a great day,

Comment provided July 10, 2005 at 7:07 AM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.