@shauntagrimes, I think there is an underlying problem here: Either emailing the curators asking for a second chance at curation or re-publishing duplicative content hoping to get curated lends credence to the notion that curation is… well… arbitrary.

If it wasn’t curated the first time, what makes duplicative content worthy of being curated the second time? If the quality of the piece has not changed then it is the quality of the curation that is the dependent variable here…

If the same work does get curated upon a second chance this means that the first curation whereby your work was not distributed was a mistake. This is not a problem of your writing but of the curation system… and the curation system is cloaked in mystery. How many curators does it take to distribute a piece? How many does it take to deny distribution? Can you be denied distribution on the say-so of just one curator? Are there enough curators? Are they overworked? How much time do THEY take to read a piece?

What, in fact, is the ratio of active writers to full-time curators?

In a scenario of high-quality curation you could re-publish all the live long day and, modulo the occasional curatorial error in judgement on quality at the margins, your second, third and fourth curation would follow exactly upon the first and re-publication would wither and die because it wouldn’t be a valid method of achieving distribution.

So I think the issue of re-publication just highlights a possible lack of robustness in curation… which is understandable given the newness of what is being attempted… but I hope the powers-that-be don’t simply ban re-publication and consider that they have comprehensively dealt with the issue dealt. Rather, it is to be hoped, they also address the underlying issues.