4 New Problem Article Solvers

In an effort to help our members better understand why their articles are being not-accepted yet, four new Problem Article statuses have been added to the list that our Editors can use.

1) Grammar/Spelling/Punctuation >> Article Body Cut-off

Please review your article body as it appears the article body ends abruptly. Please edit your article to close the thought, remove it, or add the missing language so that it is complete and resubmit for Editorial review.

2) Invalid Link >> Lack of Quality Content

Your article has been placed in problem status for linking to a page consisting primarily of advertising rather than informative content: In order to ensure a quality user experience, we can only accept links which direct to pages which are content-rich beyond advertising and products for sale. Please edit your article to link directly to the content-rich pages on your site, or edit the link to add additional informative content and resubmit for review.

3) Invalid Link >> Links to an existing EzineArticles article

You can link to EzineArticles.com in your URL providing you are linking to an article in a series or you are linking to your EzineArticles Expert Bio page. Your link does not fall into either of these 2 categories and will need to be changed. Please make the necessary changes and resubmit for Editorial review.

4) Resource Box Length

We would like to help you get this article approved but there is an issue which needs to be resolved first. Your resource box is longer than we recommend. Please keep the size of your resource box so that it’s no larger than 15% of your total article size and resubmit it for Editorial Review.

We routinely review our problem article status codes to fine tune them with the end-goal of helping our members know specifically how to fix an article so that it can be approved on the 2nd try.


Lance Winslow writes:

On #3 it might be nice to be able to refer to another Ezine Article Author, for instance; if I write a book review and compliment the author, it would be cool to link to their bio? When and if an article is rejected it would be nice to have the verbiage under the rejection reason or number.

It is my contention that the clearer the rejection notice is, the faster and fewer steps to rectifying the situation will be.

Comment provided May 19, 2009 at 1:29 PM


David Quimby writes:

I agree with Lance Winslow.

Comment provided May 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM


Thaddeus writes:

I think that the resource boxes should have to go through the approval process as well or at least be put into rejected status when it is the reason why an article is being rejected

Comment provided May 19, 2009 at 4:13 PM




The resource box DOES go through the review process but I think you may be saying that it’d be nice if we were giving a rejection notice that only had to do with the article body or the resource box that we’d delineate which is the problem that needs to be fixed.

Comment provided May 19, 2009 at 5:54 PM


Zack Lim writes:

This is great as we will be able to know our mistakes and quickly edit it so that the articles will be approved.

Thank you for the constant update to improve the user’s experience :)


Comment provided May 20, 2009 at 4:04 AM



Good point, Lance Winslow.

But as for me I think the worst is that there are too many directories to choose from – it’s a little confusing at times.



Comment provided May 20, 2009 at 4:55 AM




Here’s an older blog entry I think you may find valuable:

Comment provided May 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM


Esa Vainio writes:

Good point, Zack Lim. Clearing rules certainly improves quality and user experience.

Comment provided May 25, 2009 at 8:17 AM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.