|I have no words for DMOZ|
they refused my application for an editor without reason
I applied to become and editor for DMOZ. they advertised so I decided I can give my spare time and make their directory a more up-to-date place.
I filled out their form and waited.
Just got a reply.
The person reviewing my aplication was so lazy that they did not even provide comments to my application.
here is the quote from their e-mail:
|Due to the large number of applications we get every day, we are unable to provide personal responses to every application or to respond to inquiries about why you were rejected. If a reviewer chose to provide additional comments to you, they will be given in the "Reviewer Comments" section below. |
lack of such comments jus proves the laziness of the reviewer.
as i aplied to a popular niche, i believe the person reviewing my application is simply my competition.
I am really disgusted about what is going on with DMOZ. I am almost 100% sure my direct competitor is editor for my niche and stops all my actions.
It is "rather unlikely" (approaching certainty) that ANY of the meta-editors are directly competing with you. And ordinary category editors do NOT review editing applications.
It is a bit more likely (all right, approaching certainty) that anything you could call "a popular category" (in any sense of the word "popular") we would call either "orders of magnitude too large for a new editor" or "superconducting-cyclotron spam magnet".
And as for controlling all your actions: if I had that kind of power I wouldn't be messing around in forums, I'd just smite you with lightning for having heretical thoughts.
"Keep, ancient lands, your studied popularity! Bring me your rare, your obscure, your neglected topics yearning to be read. Send these, the unpromoted and unranked, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Some things the reviewing editors are likely to look at carefully include:
Spelling - was everything spell checked before submitting?
Were the sites appropriate for the category?
Was the category a reasonable size for a new editor, maybe something 75 sites or less, regional or not heavily commercial?
Were the titles and descriptions written in a similar style to the sites already listed?
Did the title contain the name of the site (nothing else) and the description a description of the site?
Was there excessive punctuation in any of the titles or descriptions?
Were the sites submitted new to the directory or already in there?
Since metas review new apps, it is not likely to be the category editor to which you were applying that reviewed the application so even if it is a competitor editing in the category tht is probably not the person who reviewed the application.
Make sure to follow the editorial and style guidelines when applying and if necessary pick a tiny little non-commercial or regional category to start with and the changes of getting approved should be greatly increased.
Dmoz is corrupt.
Since the value of a link from DMOZ is considered to be very high, at least some of the DMOZ editors are seeing to it that potential competition is not let in.
|lack of such comments jus proves the laziness of the reviewer. |
Once you're accepted as a DMOZ editor, there really isn't much (any!) hand-holding. There's a whole bunch of reading and learning required in order to get to the point where you can do things THE WAY they want things done. The editorial application process is a microcosm of that experience.
What would happen if DMOZ gave feedback to rejected editor applications, and spent time working with you to do whatever it takes to make you an editor? Well, then you would be an editor, but you still wouldn't be the kind of person who can, on your own, study other people's rules and learn precisely how they want things done. So you would proceed to do things some other way, degrading coherence in the directory, and making work for other editors.
The editorial application process is a logical test of a much needed ability: the ability to carefully read and follow someone else's instructions and philosophy. You didn't pass that test and, further, your reaction was not "gee, I better study my application and try to figure out what I did wrong" but "the fault must lie everywhere but with me". You can bet that's not a coping skill that serves a DMOZ editor well.
I would argue that, in this case, the acceptance procedure was entirely successful in identifying you as someone poorly suited to the thankless and tedious task of editing DMOZ submissions and carefully following the many DMOZ procedures and guidelines.
to me, it just seems you're trying to become an editor to add your site to the list, is that true? is your site already in dmoz?
in my view, it's easy to get into dmoz if you have a site people enjoy and visit often. I have my site in 2 different dmoz categories and i didn't need to become an editor to do it.
idolw, are you aware that both this post and your post about the topic in the other WebmasterWorld thread are badly misspelled and full of capitalization and punctuation errors? I truly don't mean any offense by this--there are many skills I happen not to possess and tasks I would not be well-suited for--but it could be that editing really is not the sort of task you're most likely to excel at.
|are you aware that both this post and your post about the topic in the other WebmasterWorld thread are badly misspelled and full of capitalization and punctuation errors? |
Took the words out of my mouth.
I'm not trying to be arrogant or anything, but you have to be able to spell, use proper grammar and adhere to their guidelines.
|to me, it just seems you're trying to become an editor to add your site to the list, is that true? is your site already in dmoz? |
no. that is not my point. i get good SERPs for my sites by adding good content to them. some sites are in dmoz, some not.
i want to become dmoz editor for another reason.
|What would happen if DMOZ gave feedback to rejected editor applications, and spent time working with you to do whatever it takes to make you an editor? |
I only ask for 2-5 words explanation. information such as "bad titles", "poor spelling" or sth like that would be enough for me. sending out an automated e-mail is simply rude if the same e-mail says it has been sent by a human being. however, such actvity may be deemed rude in Europe and not the US.
flicker, yes, i do. this is a forum, nothing else.
i see there is no possibility to discuss that problem here. whatever you post about dmoz, a couple of members will come and repeat the same mantra: "back to the row! you wanted to cheat!"
they do not notice that "open" does also mean "receptive: ready or willing to receive favorably" in some way. thus, even information as brief as 2-5 words would be very helpful to anyone trying to become an editor. this may also lead to better applications in the future.
or maybe you wish to make me laugh and try to convince me that 2-5 words would be too time consuming?
|i see there is no possibility to discuss that problem here. whatever you post about dmoz, a couple of members will come and repeat the same mantra: "back to the row! you wanted to cheat!" |
True to an extent with any dmoz discussion. On the other hand, many of these threads start with something like this:
|I am almost 100% sure my direct competitor is editor for my niche and stops all my actions. |
which essentially starts the thread off as an arguement and always draws in people to defend ODP.
In order to make this a more constructive thread, maybe we would toss out some sample titles and descriptions and get some general feedback from anyone with experience with ODP.
Pick a well known site - WebmasterWorld or a specific forum, major news sites - CNN, MarketWatch, Yahoo! or a Yahoo! subsite, Google or a Google property, Amazon, Business Week, ICANN, FORTUNE, Ebay, Dmoz, AOL, Netscape, a non-profit, non-political organization - Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, write a title and description along with the unlinked URL (i.e. WebmasterWorld.com) and get some feedback on your proposed titles and descriptions.
No personal sites, no affiliate links, no adult sites, anything questionable may be removed.
It's simple --- follow the rules.
DMOZ listings should be unemotional, factual, "concise".
Here's one for WebmasterWorld.
WebmasterWorld.com - forum site with threads related to website design, programming and site operation.
WebmasterWorld.com - the best site to learn abuot website design. Intersting threads related to all aspects of website design, HTML, CSS, XML and other programming and website operation practices.
The "BAD" reasons:
1. spelling errors; (abuot, Intersting)
2. redundancy; (word "website" repeated 3 times)
3. superlatives; ("the best")
4. too many "extra words" (aspects, practices,etc).
In my opinion, most adverbs and adjectives have no place in a good DMOZ listings.
lexipixel, (a former DMOZ editor for 3-4 years)...
>sending out an automated e-mail is simply rude if the same e-mail says it has been sent by a human being.
Don't confuse boilerplate with automation. There is indeed a standard rejection response, to which the human sender (and it IS a human sender, there are NO automated rejection e-mails!) may add additional words.
Usually a bare-boilerplate rejection means the reason for rejection should have been obvious. And yes, you can think of it as a test. Read the editor guidelines, and check your suggested sites. Do they really belong in that category? Do they really contain unique content--authoritative information or genuine creativity, not warmed-over plagiarism or promotionalism? Do your suggested descriptions point the surfer to that unique content?
As for what you say about yourself -- it is not as important as what you do. I've seen lots of rejected applicants who thought that (1) they were the greatest thing since Mohammad, and (2) that all they needed to do was tell us so, (3) actually showing a sample of their work was redundant, as we couldn't properly appreciate it anyway, and (4) their rejection shows that we must not have properly appreciated their supreme virtues.
But blowing one's own horn is NOT the mark of a successful community volunteer! Thinking one knows everything ... isn't either. (The summer I was given editall rights, there were half a dozen group projects going around cleaning up after my earlier work. It hadn't been that bad, by the standards of the time, but we had all learned something. One thing I did NOT learn was that I needed to learn -- that, at least, I already knew. But that was for me a rather memorial demonstration of the fact.)
So, take it for granted that whatever you do, even if it's professional indexing or library cataloging, you need to learn something to be a good editor. And figure out what it is that you need to learn. That is part of the responsibility of an editor, and you'll have to demonstrate it, one way or another, up front.
"I am almost 100% sure my direct competitor is editor for my niche and stops all my actions. "
Rarely thats the case..