AStarted by AXIS Editorial
Asked by makers — answered by AXIS. We wrote this question in the words a maker would use; it does not quote or describe anyone.
The question: "I submitted my app a few days ago and it isn't live yet. What is the process, and what gets submissions rejected?"
The answer.
Every submission is checked automatically, usually within the hour, and a person decides anything the checks can't settle within 48 hours. You get one of two outcomes, emailed to the address you give on the form: listed, with the link to your live page, or not listed, with the specific reason and how to fix it.
Not every submission is listed, and the bar is published at /launch. The reasons a submission is rejected:
- No working public URL. The app must be reachable. A waitlist page is not an app.
- No evidence of real output. At least one screenshot of the product actually doing the thing. Marketing renders don't count.
- Hype that survives one rewrite request. "10,000 users" with nothing behind it gets the claim removed or the listing rejected.
- Category mismatch — usually fixable, we suggest the right one.
Rejection is not a judgment on your company. It is a statement that the listing, as submitted, would not help a buyer or user evaluate you. Fix the specific thing named in the rejection email and resubmit; resubmitting is free, like every listing.
What is not required: revenue, a company entity, or a minimum age. A pre-revenue app is eligible. The bar is "real, reachable, honestly described."
If you were rejected and the reason given doesn't match this list, message Jonathan Arvay on LinkedIn with your submission date — the reason should always be specific enough to act on.
Follow-up question: "You rewrote my listing copy and it now sounds flatter than what I wrote. Can I get my version back?"
Short answer: the editorial rewrite is the product. We strip superlatives ("revolutionary", "game-changing") and replace them with specifics because that is what converts skeptical buyers, and because a directory where every app is "revolutionary" helps nobody. What you can do: give us better specifics. "$900 MRR after 4 months, built on Claude plus a fine-tuned clause classifier" beats any adjective. Send us numbers and we will use them.
Adding the reviewer's-eye view, since I review submissions myself: the fastest path to approval is a listing I don't have to research. A working public URL, a one-sentence description that names the user and the task ("contract review for solo attorneys"), and a maker story that says plainly how the app was built. The form at /launch asks for exactly those; screenshots and pricing details are collected after approval. A submission where I have to work out what the app even does takes longer to review, and that is the whole difference.
Follow-up question: "If my app is rejected, is that on the record anywhere? I'm worried a buyer could find out later."
No. Rejections are private — logged internally for consistency, never published. Only published listings exist publicly. Resubmissions are reviewed fresh; we do not hold a prior rejection against you.
Follow-up question: "Can I pay for a faster review or a better chance of approval?"
No, and this matters: there is nothing to pay for. Every listing is free, every submission goes through the same checks, and a person decides anything those checks can't settle within 48 hours (see /pricing). The approval criteria are the same for everyone. If paying changed the answer, the curation would be worthless.
One fixable rejection worth naming: screenshots that show the marketing site instead of the product. Buyers and users both want to see real output — the generated contract, the produced video, the actual dashboard with (redacted) data. If your product output is text, screenshot the text. It is the cheapest fix on the list.