homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.242.231.109
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

This 64 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 64 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Quality of Process; DMOZ Editor Selection
Is there a hidden editor selection agenda?
davidhart




msg:491372
 10:16 pm on Feb 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

I withdrew my Editor application today, the result of several distrubing incidents and what appears to be an unacceptable lack of accountability for process.

The final straw was the post by someone today, in the ODP forum, who had just been approved as an editor. According to the post, she works for a web design firm with 300 clients "not to mention my companies <sic> websites" and her job is "SEO."

Numerous people have been waiting months for application status. The last time I checked (I applied on January 7), I was informed "when we get around to it, we'll get around to it." Nice.

Doing some checking on the aforementioned new editor, I find that she was approved in about two weeks. Moreover, when she checked the status of her application in the forum, she did so prior to the mandated two weeks, could not recall the exact date of her application and gave the wrong user name twice. All apparent sins in the DMOZ culture. When the mess was sorted out she followed up with "I will check back in a few weeks if I have had no responce <sic>."

Given the poor grammar and spelling of her communications; combined with poor attention to detail and a failure to folloow procedure, does it strike anyone else as odd that a person whose job is SEO was processed and approved so quickly?

What is that all about? One also wonders if her employer (who derives a direct economic benefit) had anything to do with greasing the skids.

 

hutcheson




msg:491402
 6:22 am on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

OK, you say you've found a spot in the Sahara Desert where there's no Polar Bear. You say -- and I see no reason not to believe you; in fact, I do believe you -- that there are thousands of similar spots.

Where I fail to follow you is in the warp-9 leap from there to the presumption that the entire World Wildlife Federation is plotting to commit Global Ursine Genocide to make more room for Giant Awks.

I can't think of anything on earth less rational than to accuse the only people who are doing ANYTHING about a pre-existant problem -- for conspiring to create that same problem -- by inaction, no less!

But go ahead, believe it. Believe it with all your might. Get out and promote your site as if all 50,000 living editors and ex-editors derived their sole joy of life from expunging any evidence of your existance from the web.

And, you know what? You'll do as well for your website as if you'd been sane.

But it will do vile things to your personality.

You'd do better to ignore the ODP altogether. Believe that it's off doing something else, on the admittedly faint evidence that it, um, HAS been off doing something else. Promote your site as if you were responsible for it, whereas everyone else on earth would be perfectly happy to patronize your competitors even in your presence, not to mention your absence.

Take responsibility. Leave blame to the Union of Concerned Scientists. And volunteer at the local zoo.

victor




msg:491403
 7:50 am on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

The category I've submitted for (six months ago), and tried to edit for (4-5 times), hasn't changed one single bit in over a year! And it's only made up of 68 links...and there are thousands of webmasters who will tell you the same thing.

Do the math.

The ODP home page says it has 590,000 categories.

The usual quoted figure for net ODP growth is 1000 or so sites a day.

Assuming those 1000 are all in different categories (not a safe assumption), that means the average category is updated (meaning here new sites added) every 590 days. So once a year sounds about right for an average category.

Of course, the average category is updated more often as it may be edited or pruned.

Plus active categories -- those being built - are updated far more often.

Plus your category -- the one you tell me that thousands of webmasters will tell me they have been submitting to -- sounds like a spam magnet. No category you can submit to has 1000s of candidate sites.

It sounds to me like those 1000s of webmasters are creating your problem, not the 1000s of ODP editors who are actually working on building the directory.

g1smd




msg:491404
 1:56 pm on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> It has several years' tracks back through archive.org, not to mention out-of-date mirrors all over the place. All the sites it lists are visible. To anybody. How did they get there? <<

Not to mention the RDF dumps, at least several per month, archived at [rdf.dmoz.org ] and going back 5 or more years.

If a site fails to be listed, then it is because all of the many thousands of active editors failed to review it. Is that just a large community adding 1000 sites per day, in a random manner, in random categories, as they come across them, and as interest takes them?

Or, is it a mass-conspiracy against your site? How could anyone force several thousand editors, scattered across nearly-every country on planet Earth, to purposely ignore your site? It just ain't possible.

davidhart




msg:491405
 2:27 pm on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Some of this is selective observation. Much of this is inconsistent. Most of it ambiguous.

We're told that editors have defined category responsibilities. Now we're told that, when a site doesn't get listed, it's because NONE of the thousands of ODP editors wish to list it. Another poster informs us that editors add only a minority of sites (the "vast majority" being added by "editalls and above"). Then there's fun with numbers (x cats, x sites per day "do the math") which is statistically irrelevant. We're infomred that the quality of ODP is depicted by the quality of sites that ARE added which is a non-sequitur.

Aside from the falacious logic, none of this can be independently verified which is one of the basics of logical affirmation. Indeed, such information is not only unavailable but withheld. It's all secret. Get over yourselves. You are not curing the sick nor feeding the hungry. You are not contributing to world peace. You seemingly lack the collective organizational skills to be a secretive fraternal order. Much of the deference that you enjoy is the artificial product of fear that sites won't be listed. To that extent, the emperor's clothier has been very busy of late.

Why so much is so purposefully obfuscated is inexplicable. Given the potential for abuse it is spectacularly nonsensical.

g1smd




msg:491406
 3:10 pm on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> We're told that editors have defined category responsibilities. Now we're told that, when a site doesn't get listed, it's because NONE of the thousands of ODP editors wish to list it. <<

What you seem to forget is that categories are not listed from A to Z, all 600 000 of them, with a single "owner" for that category; they are actually arranged in a tree strucure and editing permissions "inherit" down the tree.

An editor for: /Shopping/Widgets/Green/Rotating/Large/ can only edit that category if it is the lowest level in the tree.

However the Editor named at: /Shopping/Widgets/Green/ can edit in:
/Shopping/Widgets/Green/Rotating/Large/
/Shopping/Widgets/Green/Rotating/Small/
/Shopping/Widgets/Green/Non-Rotating/Large/
/Shopping/Widgets/Green/Non-Rotating/Small/

The editor named at: /Shopping/Widgets/
can edit all the colours and all lower levels, which numbers hundreds of categories.

The Editor named at /Shopping/, (and any Editall, or Meta Editor for that matter) can edit the whole of /Shopping/, all of it.

A Meta Editor can edit anywhere in any of the levels in any of the branches, and all of the branches.

So your "enemy", the evil editor of: /Shopping/Widgets/Green/Rotating/Large/ cannot sit on suggestions, and cannot prevent the editors named in /Shopping/Widgets/Green/Rotating/ and /Shopping/Widgets/Green/ and /Shopping/Widgets/ and /Shopping/ and all the Editall and Meta Editors from reviewing and listing your site.

Nor does it prevent the editor of /Recreation/Sport/Football/Amateur-Clubs/ from seeing your site somewhere and being inspired to use it as a suggestion (both new and existing editors have to use 3 example sites when applying to edit a category) to gain persmission to edit a category where your site could be listed, gaining that permission, and then listing it; irrespective of you even having submitted it. That's right. Your site could be listed without it ever being submitted by you or your associates!

Those are the facts; and they do not contradict anything any of the other editors has already said.

motsa




msg:491407
 4:53 pm on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm still not sure why you're so hung up on the fact you can't know all the inner workings of the ODP. We've never promised to share all of our confidential information with everyone on the planet. In fact, our guidelines go so far as to spell out some of the confidential information that we will not share with non-editors. You're tilting at windmills.

davidhart




msg:491408
 8:47 pm on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> I'm still not sure why you're so hung up on the fact you can't know all the inner workings of the ODP. <<

I'm not. What you have said repeatedly - by inference - is that ODP is not going to become more forthcoming. You haven't responded with any defense of the policy.

Moreover, you haven't challenged any of the reasoning except to say - in essence - that it doesn't matter. ODP is not going to become more forthcoming.

That attitude depicts the very arrogance and self-importance that seems so prevalent. In the end you are correct. This is pointless. Frankly, that IS the point.

cbpayne




msg:491409
 9:20 pm on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

>that it doesn't matter.

IT DOSEN'T MATTER!

>ODP is not going to become more forthcoming.

You continue to characterize DMOZ as something that its not and attack that characterization. What DMOZ is has been explained ad nauseum ... I fail to see how and why you choose not to grasp it, instead resort to calling those doing the explaining:

>arrogance and self-importance

that says it all...

hutcheson




msg:491410
 9:50 pm on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Reality. It's all there is.

In reality, the policies for everyone, from submitters to administrators, are publicly available. Anyone can read how editors do what they do, how meta-editors process editor applications, how submitters are recognized as spammers and how spamming is counterproductive.

The weekly ODP RDF's are publicly available. Anyone can access them, count listing changes, count categories, track or estimate mean time between category updates.

Editall activity is publicly visible -- but all of the numbers could have been easily estimated to within a very close order of magnitude by any statistician.

So it's doubly irrational to say there's any secret here: there isn't, and if there were, anyone with a statistical clue could have guessed it anyway.

And it's not rational to get paranoid over one category which hasn't changed in a year -- and darkly mutter about thousands more just like it -- when you know perfectly well that on average, there are 300,000 categories that you perfectly well KNOW CAN'T have changed in a year -- based on that publicly visible editorial activity.

And it's irrational to build whole persecution fantasies on the non-disclosure of policies or plots that simply don't exist. How can we tell you about what ISN'T THERE?

There's no overall control over where editors work (within areas they have privileges in). We are happy to have their help WHEREVER they work; we are happy to extend privileges as they establish a reputation. That's all there is. If you're looking for the Secret Manual to Invading Poland of the Storm Troopers, there isn't one. Sure, some editors may be wandering across the steppes; meanwhile, some may be drifting back another way. We can't tell anything about which, because we don't know. It's not a secret; it's a mystery.

That's all there is. We don't need no stinking global conspiracy to edit. We each do what we have time to do, based on our personal inclinations and knowledge and time and energy.

Do you want to know what editors do? Look at what they have done. It's all public. There are no secrets.

Do you want to know what editors would do if they had more time and energy? If they could do what they wished? You'll have to ask each editor separately, because nobody else knows. There isn't any forth to come!

David, you haven't mentioned a single fact about the ODP that doesn't obviously follow from the simple facts outlined above -- which are publicly available -- EVERY ONE of them, contrary to your baldfaced claim. You haven't mentioned a single thing about the ODP that we COULD have an explanation for, but haven't fully given. There isn't any forth to come!

You're apparently expecting someone to break down in a Perry Mason moment and confess to participating in a worldwide conspiracy to suppress you personally, and nothing else will suit you. If there is such a conspiracy, _I_ wasn't invited to join it. And I've got better things to do than start one. So ... there isn't any forth to come!

Reality. It's just editors, each working individually to bring order into a small part of the web.

The reason it works so well is that it doesn't have any of the organizational trappings you're looking for. The reason it doesn't work any better is that it doesn't have enough of the people we're looking for.

[edited by: hutcheson at 9:56 pm (utc) on Feb. 22, 2005]

nzmatt




msg:491411
 9:56 pm on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Where I fail to follow you is in the warp-9 leap from there..

Point taken - maybe it just seems this way sometimes from the outside. The conflict of interest is there, however,...but it's another thing for an editior to take advantage for their own gain, I suppose.

hutcheson




msg:491412
 10:05 pm on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Conflict-of-interest is always a potential issue in any kind of organization.

The ODP handles it by being, um, OPEN. Actions editors take that are detrimental to the ODP can be seen by ANYONE; when reported, they can be fixed. Administrators can trace them back to the perp.

Anyone can contribute to this. There are multiple ways of reporting inappropriate editor actions; and in many cases, you can actually see quick responses (unlike, of course, anything else in the ODP -- many editors are highly motivated to fix problems QUICKLY.)

So -- mutter about abuse if you want. But if you can't cite any actual examples, it's just your foetid fantasy, and barely retes a curled lip from anyone else on earth. And if you won't cite any examples -- well then, just WHO is being closed?

Real. Open. Knowable.

g1smd




msg:491413
 10:21 pm on Feb 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

How much more forthcoming do we have to be to get it into your head that what you perceive as a problem, just really isn't a problem? It doesn't exist in reality. You now know how many editors there are, how many categories they are, the wide category permissions that many editors have, the randomness to the pattern of editing, yada, yada, yada; you have access to archive.org and the RDF files to verify the last 5 years history of editing - you can see what has been added, deleted, and moved. I'll grant that you can't see the unreviewed queue of a million suggestions, but be equally assured that many of the millions of other sites on the web that aren't in the queue could still be listed without ever having been submitted by their owner, so access to that information couldn't tell you a lot anyway.

LizardGroupie




msg:491414
 4:01 am on Feb 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

People who complain about problems in the editor selection process remind me of people who actually believe in global warming.

Oh, wait, there's no proof for global warming, so let's start calling it "climate change"! ~insert giant rolleyes~

motsa




msg:491415
 12:13 pm on Feb 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> I'm still not sure why you're so hung up on the fact you can't know all the inner workings of the ODP. <<
I'm not. What you have said repeatedly - by inference - is that ODP is not going to become more forthcoming. You haven't responded with any defense of the policy.

Moreover, you haven't challenged any of the reasoning except to say - in essence - that it doesn't matter. ODP is not going to become more forthcoming.

That attitude depicts the very arrogance and self-importance that seems so prevalent. In the end you are correct. This is pointless. Frankly, that IS the point.

At last! Maybe you're finally getting my point. We don't need to defend our policies to anyone, including you. They is what they is.
hutcheson




msg:491416
 4:41 pm on Feb 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

As another example of the sort of fishbowl environment in which the ODP operates ... how do you know whether sites are being unfairly rejected?

This too you can test with public data. Not for all sites (there are too many for any human to do that, of course!) but for a representative sampling. In the forum which must not be named, go back as far as you want, picking out all the sites that have been reported rejected.

Then go and look at those sites.

And you can ask yourself: are the sites commercial, promotional, or informational?

If promotional, ... you know where they go already.

If informational, ... how much actual information would be lost if this site dropped off the web forever? See if you can find that content somewhere else; see if that same webmaster has other information on the same subject but is ashamed to link to it himself. If so, you know where it goes.

If commercial, ... what actual enterprise -- what actual collection of persons working in a situs with their own hands under the control of their own minds -- does this site represent? Is this the sole or primary net representation of that enterprise? Can all this be verified at the website? If not, then ... that's insufficient information, no?

So: as nearly always with the ODP, you don't have to believe me. Take your own sample. Make it as large as you want. Check it as carefully as you want, until you're convinced there isn't a problem. Or until you find even a single instance of a problem.

My experience, with a rather larger sample than you'll have the patience to check, is that about 1% of rejections are editor error, and that only a small fraction even of those represent abuse. But ... all the data is available to you. You can check.

kctipton




msg:491417
 1:34 am on Feb 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Editors become editors by a combination of a good application, choice of initial category, apparent forthrightness, size of their electronic "footprint" on the web and what that footprint shows, and certain intangibles related to a meta's "gut feeling" about a person's ability and desire to further ODP as a quality resource. Some metas do extra due diligence, some do very little (sadly), but they are expected to be something other than haphazard in their reviews of applications. It's a little bit the luck of the draw as to who reviews an application, but there's so much information on the web (and at RZ) about applying that it shouldn't be hard to satisfy the more fact-based criteria. However, if you seem to not be shooting straight or can't avoid appearing unenthusiastic about helping others, you aren't likely to be accepted no matter how perfect other parts of the application are.

A well-connected meta with a good memory who visits multiple SEO-ish forums will probably know more of you than you want them to know. Don't be so surprised at the rejections that some of you WebmasterWorld regulars get.

ODP wants the best, most enthusiastic, most selfless editors possible. Sometimes it becomes clear that that didn't happen with one person or another, but that doesn't invalidate the goal.

BillyS




msg:491418
 12:33 am on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

I tried to report inappropriate content three times at the forum they run. Each time, my suggestions were ignored.

To me it seems that someone has a stake in the websites I mentioned or perhaps they were simply ignored. One site I tried to report on three occassions had exactly one article in it, about the spelling of whiskey (or is it whisky?). It was in a finance section. Enough said.

This is why I have suggested earlier that Google create their own directory or hire people to clean up Dmoz. It is sad to say, but the quality control is lacking at Dmoz. There seems to be no problem escalation process or accountablility. (and I know it is run by volunteers).

If there are any editors here that doubt my story, just sticky me, I will be more than happy to show you where the posts are at the zone.

hutcheson




msg:491419
 2:39 am on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

>To me it seems that someone has a stake in the websites I mentioned or perhaps they were simply ignored.

OK, first of all, the facts. I found the post just now. I did verify the mis-listing, and removed it. Anyone (well, any editall or Business editor) could have done it earlier, and nobody did.

So: thanks. Again.

As for the suspicions: which is more likely, an editor's stake in the website ... or a dropped post?

The website doesn't HAVE any purpose right now, so anybody with a stake in it hasn't bothered even to add content, let alone try to protect its listing.

And secondly, as I mentioned, any editor that investigated could have removed the site -- nobody did. And yet, they couldn't ALL have had a stake: for instance, I certainly didn't. I can add that nobody ACTED to preserve the listing, so there's no positive indication of a stake.

How about the possibility of a dropped post?

Pretty likely, I think: despite the number of editors (dozens) monitoring the forums, whole threads do sometimes drift out of sight, even three or four times, without getting an answer. (Luck of the draw -- I try to make sure to answer stuff that's bounced once, but I don't always notice them either.) The vast vast majority of stuff gets answered, but with enough activity even a small 5-10% leakage adds up to real cases.

Three morals to this story:

(1) Multiple ways of communicating with editors, each with their own natural failure modes. Site "Update URL" requests almost never accidentally get dropped without being acted on; but they are slow. The forum thread is fast -- if something drifts off the second page it is by accident. We try to cover everything, but on the other hand there's no procedure for making sure nothing gets passed up.

(2) So -- how do you make sure something gets done? Make sure it's something editors care enough about to drop what else they're doing to do it (rat now!) And follow up. How many universal classes of issues are there that editors can realistically be expected to care about each instance of -- that much? Only one: bad listings.

Anything else, is likely to wait on an editor to do in his normal rounds (whatever they are, and nobody knows that either). Oh, sure, you MIGHT happen to ask about a cactus nursery or a symphony orchestra or a Plano doctor when I'm checking -- or the equivalent for other editors.

But most of the work, day in day out, is done by "highly active editors" who are working less in areas because of personal topical interests, than because of a desire to keep the ODP well-rounded. And I won't drop working on Washington Kiwanis clubs to deal with an artisan widget crafter, or vice versa. (It's more efficient for me to finish up the WKs, or WCs, whichever. And that's what matters in that mode.)

(3) The real world consists of editors who aren't doing this job eight hours a day, with five-minute breaks on the hour. They're doing it on their own time, however that is chunked. Even with the best will in the world, don't expect seamless activity. It's like a beehive, not a SS division. Some nearby flowers get passed up ... multiple times. Some faraway flowers get visited twice. On the average, it works better than any more directed approach. In specific, expect oddities. There's no need to postulate abuse -- and (in a case like this) it's OBVIOUS that hundreds of editors who DIDN'T do anything COULDN'T have been abusing. So why suppose that any one of them WAS?

Stefan




msg:491420
 2:56 am on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

As an editor of only one rather obscure category, I might not be the best to comment on this, but I will anyway.

It's not all sweetness and light in the ODP. As much as anything, it reminds me of high-school cliques that I experienced many years ago, where you were either one of the group, or one of the kids who were on the outside. It's certainly not a democracy. It's more of an oligarchy of the in-crowd.

That said, I'm very glad the ODP exists, but those who dump on anyone who questions the process are perhaps being somewhat disingenuous.

hutcheson




msg:491421
 5:18 am on Feb 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

You're confusing community with process.

The community is critical, and ... when you get a worldful of people passionate about an ideal, ... no doubt the mass goes critical also. So the internal discussions are nothing if not vigorous. But considering the heterogeneity of the community (if you think about it, and actually look at it, it's about as far from the "clique" attitude of "I'm OK, and anyone just like me is OK" as I've ever seen. But if you think in terms of cliques, you really won't get along there.

There is always an inside and an outside. At the ODP you can get inside by making sensible contributions in the forums and good edits in needy categories. I don't know anywhere the inner circle is easier for a literate, honest person to enter. (OK, not everyone's literate; not everyone can appear honest; and not everyone who appears honest is. So it's not the millenium, and it wasn't intended to be.)

But it's the one of the most fascinating communities on earth, if you're into ideas.

kctipton




msg:491422
 4:01 pm on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)

(I could have sworn that the above post by Hutcheson was much longer last time I looked at it.)

hutcheson




msg:491423
 8:42 pm on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)

No, I think that's all I said.

I cut it short because my previous post had incorporated the Great ODP Novel.

martingale




msg:491424
 9:11 pm on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)


So, submitting to ODP does not guarantee you a listing. Your
site has to be worth including. Of course everyone thinks that
their site is worth including--some people have landing pages
that point at some other site and they think the one para
of text they put on their page, and the fancy graphics they
created, make their site "content" worth including.

I disagree with one comment above that said if a site is not
listed it is because every one of 1000s of editors didn't think
so. When I see a site that is obviously crap in the submissions
and I know there is no-one out there who is looking for that
site I delete the submission.

BillyS




msg:491425
 1:16 am on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

If there are any editors here that doubt my story, just sticky me, I will be more than happy to show you where the posts are at the zone.

g1smd took up my offer and did sticky me. I will admit that I was wrong. But as I explained to g1smd, there was more to the story.

I posted in resource zone three times. Prior to that, the first thing I did was contact the category editor directly several months ago. I also submitted to the section in the directory itself to report abuse (again, several months ago). All together I tried five times to report the abuse.

But the bottom line is that you guys (or gals) did come through, and I am thankful.

BillyS

helleborine




msg:491426
 12:05 am on Mar 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I find this comment by kctipton especially revealing:

"Editors become editors by a combination of a good application, choice of initial category, apparent forthrightness, size of their electronic "footprint" on the web and what that footprint shows, and certain intangibles related to a meta's "gut feeling" about a person's ability and desire to further ODP as a quality resource."

Apparent forthrightness: is an applicant that has no site affiliation to declare automatically branded as untrustoworthy?

Size of electronic footprint: if an editor's footprint grows dangerously during their tenure as editor, can they be dismissed for that reason, inasmuch as a large electronic footprint is undesirable?

Intangibles - gut feelings: no wonder.

kctipton




msg:491427
 12:56 am on Mar 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

There is no "too big" or "too small" electronic footprint.

There is no minimum number of affiliations that anyone would expect to see on an application. It's more common for people to have one or more than to have none, though.

If you thought that only what's _on_ an application is what gets reviewed, you were wrong. Any sensible internet investigator would do what they could to verify an applicant's claims as well as flush out affiliations and background details that weren't disclosed. If you want to be trusted enough to be an editor, being honest about yourself and actually giving out details that can be verified will go a very long way in support of an application.

The ultimate goal when it comes to reviewing editor applications is to find people who are honest, enthusastic, can write good applications (and of course can read, understand and follow the documentation for editors), and are clueful about details like punctuation and sentence structure. That combination is hard to find.

helleborine




msg:491428
 2:03 am on Mar 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm sorry kctiption, but I'm now quite confused.

If the SIZE of the electronic footprint is considered, then how can there not be a footprint too large or too small?

hutcheson




msg:491429
 2:26 am on Mar 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's a judgment call, based on experience and the knowledge that cleaning out inappropriate editors is the responsibility of the same people that accept applications.

Forthright integrity is the desiratum. Inconsistency is an indication (not a perfect indication!) that forthrightness or integrity is missing.

The size of the internet footprint is one factor that may be -- not "too large" or "too small" but -- simply inconsistent in some way with the applications's self-claims.

And, just as hardly anyone writes the best application they can honestly write, meta decisions aren't perfect. Lying jerks do sometimes get in; socially inept people sometimes fail to. So many rejections are not only "without prejudice" but even accompanied with an invitation to re-apply!

kctipton




msg:491430
 2:53 am on Mar 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

If the SIZE of the electronic footprint is considered, then how can there not be a footprint too large or too small?

It's more along the lines of, if a person claims X, Y, and Z, he surely has a footprint on the web that will corroborate most if not all of those things.

helleborine




msg:491431
 12:17 pm on Mar 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have a sinking feeling that you were candid and forthright when you initially stated that the size of an applicant's electronic footprint was important, that you now regret having said too much, and are trying to do damage control.

My impression might be wrong.

The Contractor




msg:491432
 12:46 pm on Mar 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

My impression might be wrong.

Yes, your impression is wrong. It takes nothing more than a sincere wish to help out, decent grammar, choosing the correct category in both size and knowledge, candidness of affiliations, and submitting a few decent sites (that are not already listed) in your application with guideline compliant titles and descriptions.

Believe what you want, but the above is all there is to it. There are no secrets to becoming an editor or getting a site accepted.

This 64 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 64 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved