| This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 (  2 ) > > || |
|becoming a DMOZ editor|
I got refused
I recently applied to become a DMOZ editor and got refused. :(
I am not sure what the exact reason was. Is there someone I can contact for
further explanations? I replied to the response but got no answer? Also,
does my refusal prevent me from applying for other catergories?
This was recently discussed in [webmasterworld.com...]
My suggestion would be to apply again and pick a category which is not too big, but not small enough that you'll never find listings for it. Also, make sure you are following the guidelines with your descriptions, and check your spelling and grammar.
If this doesn't work, try again.
[Fixed the hyperlink. Sorry about that.]
[edited by: Laisha at 3:25 am (utc) on Jan. 12, 2003]
I'm getting a 404 for Laisha's posted link, so...
you can ask about you editor request on resource-zone.com The DMOZ public message board.
The main thing is you can reapply. A common reason for rejection is the category is deemed too big for new editors. It is much easier to get larger categories once you are an editor, so I suggest you apply for a small sub-category of your interest area, and assume you will be able to soon apply to a larger one once you accepted as an editor.
If you really only have one interest area, and it is a single large-ish category, then try seeking out a Regional category for your hometown/state/province, apply there then go for the larger subject category once you have been accepted.
The 404 was due to the period at the end of the URL.
This one will work: [webmasterworld.com...]
Re-applications are not at all forbidden. Many current active editors weren't accepted the first time.
And read the rejection notice. If it specifically suggests that you re-apply (to a smaller or another category), then take that suggestion seriously. It may have been boilerplate, but it wasn't generated automatically: someone chose to send that particular boilerplate because they really wanted to accept you as an editor. After some experience and with some reputation-building, an editor can apply for additional categories.
Read the editors' guidelines, read the charter for the category you're interested in (and all the similar or related categories you can find). Find new sites that really belong in that category (or subcategories of it), and describe them according to the guidelines. (If you are rejected, as soon as you understand the guidelines better, you're in a position to write a better application.)
Full disclosure of real name and preferably a permanent e-mail address. You don't have to tell other editors your name or use that address for any kind of ODP communication, and it won't go on your profile (unless you put it there later), but the more accurate, checkable information you give to the meta-editors, the more likely they will be able to answer any issues that your application raises.
Full disclosure of sites with which you have an affiliation, whether or not they are relevant to that category. We hope you'll take an interest in other categories later; and subjects on which you've created sites are likely prospects. Plan for growth.
I got refused a few months back from DMOZ and received a response within that same day (which was pretty nice).
The reason I was refused was because I didn't include enough example submissions (or as I think the application termed it "URLs, that you would add"). I was a little "miffed" since I didn't actually have any sites to submit to that category but have some expertise in the field it covered. From my perspective, I was offering my time to help the cause and they'd be better off with me editing that particular category than someone who may have a somewhat biased view with their own sites to submit.
I'm sure that from their perspective, they don't know me from Adam (or alan... ok, dopey obscure reference with my dopey sense of humor) so it makes sense to ask.
So I should have gone out and searched other SEs for appropriate sites and used those, hey? Rhetorical since I now know the answer is yes, but posting it might save some other person in my situation the same confusion.
But then again it may just be a slight IQ deficiency on my part. 8^P
I kind of had the same thing. I've applied for a commercial category, suggested great URL's, did everything right, and still I was rejected twice (tried again a couple of months later). The category had no editor and I thought I would make a valuable contribution. However, I also had commercial interest, as I had a site that fitted in the actual category. It was a unique site that deserved a listing there, but this is not very easy to interpret from a DMOZ-point-of-view.
I realise now that they must have thought that I ONLY had commercial interest to be editor. Think of how many people apply daily for a category so that they could dump their websites there. Ofcourse there are a lot of people that are upright, and will do a good job, but it's not easy to distinguish them from the others.
I recently applied again for DMOZ-editor in another small, local category, and been accepted. I'ld say : go for a very small (maybe local) category, and work your way up. You really have to show that you will do a good job, and then you might just end up being the editor of the category you want.
Also a recent thread here threw up the information that you can get rejected if there are too many unreviewed in the category that you are applying for.
The fact that you have no idea how many unreviewed are in the category you are applying to seems to have got lost in the logic, but there you go!
As they say, try again. They do need more editors (and help cut unreviewed :) )
|I was a little "miffed" since I didn't actually have any sites to submit to that category but have some expertise in the field it covered. |
The job of an editor is to add sites. If a category is so narrow that there are no sites on the Internet left to add, you would not be able to get any edits "under your belt," and you would be stuck there forever.
Laisha, very good point when considering choice of categories. In this case however I wouldn't have had this problem of finding sites... I just didn't understand the role of, as you said, "adding sites" as opposed to verifying submissions when I applied. My internal response to the application fields for site's I would add was "but I'm not involved in any sites for this category!" A simple misconception on my part.
Thanks for bringing that up because I think that clarifying that the responsibility is not *just* verifying submissions may help new people applying for editorship (is that a word? ;).
The FAQ on the resource zone doesn't make that clear and you have to do a lot of (way too much IMO) digging to discover that point. Either that or I seriously missed something.
BTW, I'm pretty sure I'll re-apply one day.
>In this case however I wouldn't have had this problem of finding sites... I just didn't understand the role of, as you said, "adding sites" as opposed to verifying submissions when I applied.
The basic logic of the 3 sample sites is that this just proves you are capable of adding appropriate sites with titles and descriptions that comply with the guidelines.
I'm a personal injury lawyer with 30 years experience and I applied to edit a small legal services category but was rejected on the basis that I had some sites that were not in the directory. I thought the reasoning was very small minded. If I had wanted my sites in DMOZ I would have submitted them! However its their loss, old boys with bags of experience and a computer are hard to find.
>> was rejected on the basis that I had some sites that were not in the directory <<
Hmm. Is that "the whole truth and nothing but the truth"? Seems mighty odd to me if it is.
G1smd, suggest you read the post from trix999 above before you make any more scurrilous suggestions. I too received a reply on the same day and the reason was unequivocal. As a matter of interest my sites are still not on DMOZ as I haven't submitted them, because I get all the business I can handle already. As I said, their loss, they still dont have an editor for that category.
My situation was a bit different than Judge's. I think a little more clarification on the application would be nice and maybe one day I'll dig up where I should submit such a request.
Meanwhile: Reading replies brings up an implied question that I don't see a definitive answer to (and maybe there isn't one) Can someone who knows how this works answer this question?
Should a person *not* apply for a category that fits one of his/her own sites. And if it is ok to do so should the applicant use their site in the application?
|Think of how many people apply daily for a category so that they could dump their websites there |
There seems to be a lot of truth in that remark. Perhaps DMOZ has become too paranoid (or perhaps always has been paranoid) about people only applying to be editors in order to gain advantage to themselves.
Anyone running a web wide facility seems (probably correctly) to reach the conclusion that (most) people are dishonest. You only have to read a few of Brett's posts here to see the problems that WebmasterWorld has with spammers of various ilks.
Unfortunately in DMOZs case that means that they prefer to reject applicant editors unless you can prove you are squeaky clean, just in case they run riot. If they had a better system for "probationer" editor training/judging, then perhaps they could attract more "expert" editors who only wanted to edit in their own speciality.
>> Perhaps DMOZ has become too paranoid (or perhaps always has been paranoid) about people only applying to be editors in order to gain advantage to themselves
If you could see the applications you'd be surprised about how many of these clearly show that the only and solely intent of the applicant was to drop in his site/s, a mirror of his site/s, and a doorway of his site/s... :)
>> Should a person *not* apply for a category that fits one of his/her own sites.
No. That is, yes, you can apply for a category that fits one of your sites. Provided that the chosen category is small enough for a new editor (if not, choose a smaller one down the path), you should therefore show us that you can be a good editor and you're not applying only to promote your own sites. How can you do that?
- use the "affiliation" box to provide URLs of sites you own or you are affiliated with, explaining the kind of affiliation. Be honest and upfront with your affiliations.
- use the "why" box to explain why you think you could be a good editor, and why did you decide to apply for editorship.
- suggest 3 sites you are in no way affiliated with, with guidelines-compliant titles and descriptions (take your time to read the ODP Guidelines [dmoz.org]: how could you convince us that you will be a good editor and follow them if you can't show us that you could spend some time reading them right before applying?)
You can always list sites you are affiliated with if you are accepted, provided that they really fit the category you have been accepted for (in case they don't, you can send them to the unreviewed queue of the proper category working through the editor interface) and you treat them the same way you treat the ones you are not affiliated with. Just notice that you will always have other editors "around you", and your editing behaviour will be watched. If your intents are honest from day one, you will have no problems and you will enjoy your time at the ODP reviewing submitted sites, looking for new ones to add, and adding yours in the meanwhile.
And if it is ok to do so should the applicant use their site in the application?
As I said, you have plenty of space in the affiliation box of the application form (which is there for this very purpose) to list sites you are affiliated with and explain the kind of affiliation (owner, webmaster, designer, cousin of the sister-in-law of the owner, whatever). The 3 sites suggested should better be sites you are not affiliated with. Why? You should convince us that you can contribute to the category with good, valuable sites, that you can write proper, guidelines-compliant titles and descriptions, and that you are willing to contribute to the growth of the directory, not only list your sites.
>There seems to be a lot of truth in that remark.
That is certainly a common belief. I happen not to share it.
>Perhaps DMOZ has become too paranoid (or perhaps always has been paranoid) about people only applying to be editors in order to gain advantage to themselves.
This is always a concern, but from personal experience I can say that most rejections are from some other reason.
>Anyone running a web wide facility seems (probably correctly) to reach the conclusion that (most) people are dishonest. You only have to read a few of Brett's posts here to see the problems that WebmasterWorld has with spammers of various ilks.
A little nuance here. Most people -- the vast majority -- are honest (at least within the meaning of the act here). Most unsolicited e-mail, most ODP website submittals, are dishonest. That's because the dishonest people are such rude jerks, not because there are so many of them.
But whether or not "most" people are honest is not a useful datum anyway. The question is "of all these applications, pick all the ones that are likely to be from an honest, able, willing person?"
>Unfortunately in DMOZs case that means that they prefer to reject applicant editors unless you can prove you are squeaky clean, just in case they run riot.
I think a lot of applicants honestly believe they found three good sites for the category, and described them using standard English -- therefore they must have been deemed dishonest. "I created a perfect application," they say. But there are half a dozen mispeled words, the caPitalization Is random, the: punctuati-on is worse, and/or the suggested sites belong in some other planetary system.
Now, in spam-prone areas, most editor applications probably are self-interested. And so we probably wouldn't accept Mother Teresa into Shopping/Health/Dietary_Supplements. It doesn't matter how honest she is: the chances of her being able to recognize the spam well enough to edit that category ... are negligable. Notice that this still comes back to a competancy judgment.
>If they had a better system for "probationer" editor training/judging, then perhaps they could attract more "expert" editors who only wanted to edit in their own speciality.
The three suggested sites are the first probation. If someone shows (not "expresses") interest by finding and reviewing websites, then there are other probationary systems. But you show willingness to edit in a category by finding good sites for it.
>Should you apply for the category where your site should go?
We're looking for editors who can be fair with their own site, and who are willing to do much more than just add their own site. You can give basically three pieces of information: 1) Why you want to edit, and why you think you could; 2) What sites you have some personal or financial connection ("affiliation") with; 3) What are the first three sites you'd add to this category?
What I'd do...well, what I'd have done under slightly different circumstances... is say, "I have a web page at xxx. It has a page of unrelated sites on the same subject at xxx/yyy.htm. I want to make sure all those sites are properly listed in the ODP."
Now _that_ shows willingness to work on listing other sites, ability to find and describe them, interest in and knowledge of the subject, ability to treat other people's sites fairly, as well as revealing your own affiliation with a site. And, to come back to the _other_ subject:
So, you want probation? Set up your own site, and probate yourself! That's the way volunteering works. We'll be happy to consider your probationary program on its merits.
Thanks ettore (and everyone else)!
Just what I was looking for and I hope it can help some other prospective applicants also. It's great to have a place that can offer good advice without it turning into a b* session.
Now I'll have to think about whether to switch to a category that applies more to sites I'm affiliated with (providing, as you say, they are small enough).
cross posted with hutcheson and just wanted to add a thanks to that too (I hate "thank you" posts that don't add anything but.... hey) ;)
Thank you for your illuminating reply.
To take a couple of your remarks out of context and boil them down (unfair maybe)
|most ODP website submittals, are dishonest |
|we probably wouldn't accept Mother Teresa into Shopping/Health/Dietary_Supplements. |
is the nub of the problem. The average (honest) applicant for becoming an editor hs no idea how wide the spread is of such categories that would exclude Mother Theresa.
And if you go to Shopping: Health: Nutrition: Dietary_Supplements
you will see tht they are actually asking for volunteers to edit it ;)
[edited by: Laisha at 2:58 am (utc) on Feb. 27, 2003]
[edit reason] delinkify [/edit]
The Mother Teresa's of this worldn't want to edit Shopping/Health/Dietary_Supplements. Hell, even *I* wouldn't edit that category. ;)
That's a standard bit of text on just about any category that doesn't have a listed editor (a change from the old "this category doesn't have an editor" text), not a sign that the category in question is right for or even suitable for a new editor application.
|And if you go to Shopping: Health: Nutrition: Dietary_Supplements |
you will see tht they are actually asking for volunteers to edit it
I know the ODP can turn off that standard text asking for volunteers to edit a category, and perhaps they should do so in these spam/abuse prone ones. The problem there is there may be exceptional cases where a new editor might be approved when they normally wouldn't. Such as a case where the person edited a cat with the same topic in another directory, and could cite that cat as a model of what they think the ODP one should look like.
>>To take a couple of your remarks out of context and boil them down (unfair maybe)
>>>>most ODP website submittals, are dishonest
>>>>we probably wouldn't accept Mother Teresa into Shopping/Health/Dietary_Supplements.
>>is the nub of the problem. The average (honest) applicant for becoming an editor hs no idea how wide the spread is of such categories that would exclude Mother Theresa.
>>And if you go to Shopping: Health: Nutrition: Dietary_Supplements
you will see tht they are actually asking for volunteers to edit it ;)
Not unfair at all, and true on both counts. When I reject an applicant because a category is too abuse-prone, I usually remember to turn off the "volunteer to edit this category" flag. But, as you truly say, the number of "abuse targets" is large, growing, and sometimes very surprising: and many of them aren't yet marked.
I applied three times before they let me through the door. I edited in a small regional category for 3 weeks then applied for the parent category and got it.
I would add though that I was rejected alot sooner than I was accepted, was rejected with in one day.. it took me 3 weeks to be accepted!
"And if you go to Shopping: Health: Nutrition: Dietary_Supplements.."
Nobody in their right mind would want to edit those cats except someone wanting to put their own site in there.
And that is part of the problem with volunteer editing. The interesting cats get all the attention. Which may not be a bad thing, as there are probably more than enough supplement hucksters around already without adding more...
I applied because I thought that it would look good on a resume. Not because I have a huge stack of sites that I can slip in!
LOL, what kind of job would you apply for that the hiring manager would think being an ODP editor was a good thing? ROTFL
SEO Spammer Firm?
I would not be too cynical about using DMOZ editing in a CV if I were you.
In the time I spent online, I have seen many instances of people getting a benefit from being an ODP (and similar) volunteer editor when applying for a job.
No doubt some of them can vouchsafe for that here. Why not become an editor there and improve your CV ;)
I got accepted within 2 hours since I submitted my application. I guess it's all to do with the category you apply for (it's type, the parent category etc).
| This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 (  2 ) > > |