Its my understanding that if the older deal is expired, then no matter how similar they may be, that the new one is granted originality in terms of submission.
Its been this way the last year at least, and yet today I had two deals rejected as duplicates, even though the older posts had expired.
The first was with restaurant.com, where the company issued a coupon set to expire on the 5/25, but then after expiration, re-issued the coupon to expire on the 5/30. In effect they issued a new coupon for the same amount but a new expiration. Had I chosen not to submit the coupon with the new date, it would have remained dead.
Now, I was gonna suck that one up initially, but then this came about...
The old offer had clearly expired, with an expiration set for 5/03/09, and then the company apparently issued a new rebate using the same URL with a new expiration of 6/30/09. However, despite this my deal was still canceled as a duplicate, even though the old offer had been expired for almost a month. Even if the previous submitter had simply messed up the expiration first time around, that is hardly my fault, and I should not be penalized for their inaccuracy that was only caught 22 days later. Had I chosen not to submit the coupon with the new date, it would have remained dead.
Call me crazy, but I think I should get "original submission" status for introducing two decent deals, which had previously expired, and were no longer available on Buxr. Unless a change to rules occurs, but even then I think treating my posts in an ex post facto
manner is rather unjust in light of previous rulings on such site matters.