Forum Moderators: open
But I dont want to give 3 more links for the category because the additional links would be my competitors - who are not smart enough yet to be listed:)
Will the 3 new links be added?
Can I complete the application and not list 3 new links and yet have any hopes of becoming an editor?
Amen.
While there is no obvious way to tell this from the categories, if you can apply deeper, you almost certainly should. While six or seven site categories may seem absurdly small, those are places to apply, add three sites, deal with any queue, see that all descriptions are good, look around the internal forums, then apply for broader permissions.
Update: My revised application has been dropped as far as I can tell. I was not notified. I posted in Resource Zone and my post has been deleted without reply or comment. (Yes, it was all courteous and civilized).
So... After three attempts I am not sure what more I am supposed to do to try and help.
[edited by: Laisha at 10:24 pm (utc) on Mar. 3, 2003]
[edit reason] Please read the forum charter [/edit]
So... After three attempts I am not sure what more I am supposed to do to try and help...
I find it rather disconcerting that while another active thread in this forum is discussing ways to get more editors I continue to see posts such as that one.
The categories I applied for before were all too big or too busy to trust a new editor with. I see that dmoz are very big on structure and hierarchy. When you are new you can only scrub the decks and peel potatoes. Interesting culture. I just want to edit dammit. :)
Quite strange. The only deleted post at RZ in the last 5 days are:
- 4 (four) occurrences of the same "MAKE THOUSANDS OF $$DOLLARS$ IN LESS THAN A MONTH!" spammed in different sections
- 14 (fourteen) posts by the same member, in German language, who registered several different membernames and posted in blatant infringement of the TOS, after being repeatedly warned.
I see that dmoz are very big on structure and hierarchy. When you are new you can only scrub the decks and peel potatoes. Interesting culture. I just want to edit dammit.
Well, let's compare it to another area that most of us have an interest in, then...
Say you were taken on as a trainee SEO in a web marketing company, would you expect them to give you a premier online supplement-retailing account first, or something like a Wisconsin woodworking company to cut your teeth on?
Well, let's compare it to another area that most of us have an interest in, then...Say you were taken on as a trainee SEO in a web marketing company, would you expect them to give you a premier online supplement-retailing account first, or something like a Wisconsin woodworking company to cut your teeth on?
No, and I did not imply that I had expectations of editing /Computers/Shopping/ in my first week. But the stuff I did apply for this month was pretty straightforward. Nothing too busy. Oh well. My fourth application will work out, I am sure of it. I am choosing a regional category with small number of links, no current editor and I can contribute two dozen appropriate links that I am not affiliated with. Now if that doesn't work out I'll give up :)
I did.
Awlane: Goodluck on your new app, if you get in this time feel free to sticky me if you need help, I may not have years under my belt at DMOZ, but I still understan the frustrations of being new at it.
I find it rather disconcerting that while another active thread in this forum is discussing ways to get more editors I continue to see posts such as that one.
This takes us back to the nub of the problem. A large percentage of applicants being turned down, becoming disillusioned, and not being likely to apply again.
On the one hand picking out all the unworthy applicants, on the other hand accepting the applicants that are likely to be honest/hard working/knowledgeable.
Such a selector would have to combine the Wisdom of Solomon and the Clairvoyance of a psychic. They are bound to make a few mistakes!
But if the selection process were made "better" then perhaps DMOZ would not loose so many aspirant editors.
It is possible that due to a browser/Internet glitch he clicked submit, yet the post wasn't made. If his application had been binned, rather than delete his post, I'd expect he'd just get the stock answer that there was no application from him in the queue, and thus the meta who reviewed with must have declined it.
I have been rejected again because my sample URLs included a few credit unions and the meta who reviewed me feels that credit unions are deliberately not listed there.
The category description for /Regional/Oceania/Australia/Business_and_Economy/Financial_Services/Online_Banking/ is "This category contains online banking sites for Australian financial institutions."
So I submitted two credit unions and one bank. I don't understand....
Ok. So a clerical eror killed my app. I will try a fifth time just for the humour.
Wish me luck...
Ok. So a clerical eror killed my app. I will try a fifth time just for the humour.
I'm just curious, awlane, have you mentioned in your second, third, or fourth applications that you've applied before?
Maybe DMOZ have just set some kind of a record but I submitted my application to become an editor (of a small, local category) at 5.13PM this afternoon and it was approved at 7.09PM (local time). Admitedly I did spend hours reading their guidelines and finding appropriate sites that I had no commercial affiliation with to form part of the application, however, I did not hide my commercial affiliation with the category. It can be done if you want it enough.
Just as editors are people, so are metas people. Your application happened to fall under the mouse of the right editor at the right time. Under two hours is probably not a record, but it's pretty good. Admitting your commercial affiliation is (IMHO) essential. Not only does the application specifically ask about it (at least it did last I knew, but that was a long time ago), but if you are found to have been hiding a commercial affiliation, your edit records will be closely scrutinized. (I'm not saying you'll be kicked out just because you have hidden your commercial affiliation. Any out-kicking would be related to your edit history, but it would be the dishonesty that got your history examined and that could result in removal of editor privileges.) Meanwhile, though, welcome to the editor-side.
I never made reference to previous applications. I use my real name there and I figured that if it was relevant, it would be tracked and identified as a repeat application.
Either way, the last time round I was accepted :)
Right. Sort of like with submitting sites. If you happen to submit a site to a category where the editor logs in once every 3 month to review submissions, it obviously will make a big difference if you submit 2 hours before they log in then if you do 2 hours after they log off.
>Admitting your commercial affiliation is (IMHO) essential. Not only does the application specifically ask about it (at least it did last I knew, but that was a long time ago), but if you are found to have been hiding a commercial affiliation, your edit records will be closely scrutinized. (I'm not saying you'll be kicked out just because you have hidden your commercial affiliation. Any out-kicking would be related to your edit history, but it would be the dishonesty that got your history examined and that could result in removal of editor privileges.) Meanwhile, though, welcome to the editor-side.
Since the application specifically states to list affiliations, I'd presume hiding them is potential grounds to be booted. I've seen editors that have gone to the lengths of creating special categories in their bookmarks for affiliated sites, or list them all on their editor home page. Both of these are publicly accessible. This can be particularly helpful in those cases where the affiliations occur after the appliction is made and approved.
I started with a category that had about 17 links and was allowed in. Also You should read the faq's on what they want in the descriptions before you submit to become an editor.
Also it is crucial that you spell check everything.
I think I have about 20 edits to date, I want to keep builing up my edits so I can someday edit a larger category.
"I've seen editors that have..." - odd phrasing to use when you are one of the editors that do it.
It is of course allowed to list your sites either on your editor profile page or in your bookmarks. The bookmarks are the recommended place partly because Google spiders the editor profile page but it doesn't spider editors' bookmarks. Putting your sites on your editor profile page might be construed as a less than honest way of increasing your site's PageRank rather than an altruistic way of declaring your affiliations. If you want to be absolutely fair and above board then you should create a category in your Bookmarks called Affiliated Sites and list them just there.
See msg #10 here:
[webmasterworld.com...]
I didn't mention me specifically to try and emphasize the fact that it is not unusual for editors to do this. Otherwise it might come across as I am some rare exception to the rule.
>Putting your sites on your editor profile page might be construed as a less than honest way of increasing your site's PageRank rather than an altruistic way of declaring your affiliations.
If you check, the software for creating the editor profile page has a box where the editor can add a URL for their site, and this shows up listed as "Home Page:" The ODP has actually hard coded it so even an editor who doesn't know how to create a clickable hyperlink can put a link to their site on their home page. The whole idea behind these editor profile pages was so that the editor could tell the world something about themselves. This would naturally include on the WWW that they would want people to know their sites. Thus, if anyone doesn't like the way Google handles this, then they should complain to Google about it. Why should the ODP change what it does because of what Google does? Now in egregious cases, such as if an editor were selling links on their editor profile page this is something that would cross the line of abuse. However, I wouldn't consider it abuse if editor Jane Smith put a link on her editor profile page to her amateur site about growing petunias because she wants the world to know about it. However, I can see how it might be seen as more questionable if the editor were linking to sites they made a profit from.
I did this and the top position on google had 11 entries in DMOZ. Out of those 11 entries, 7 had the same editor. If this doesn’t sum it up, I don’t know what does.
Now what?
I did send email to their feedback. They may already know about it which is why the editor is not listed, but if that is the case, why didn't they fix what was done? How often does this happen? They say one listing, why don't they only allow one editor per cat? Why don't they have a script that will not allow the editors to enter a site if it is already listed? That would solve the problem. You don't have to work at rocket factory to figure that out. It is primed for abuse. It's silly.
But the questions I ask I believe are still valid. I'm afraid to do more than I have for fear I'll have my one listing removed. You have to admit, it’s pretty darn suspicious.
If humans are involved, then there is a certain probability that corruption will follow.
jim_w, I'm not sure why you included this - perhaps I'm not understanding its relevance to your questions. The simple answer, though, is that there is no way one editor could handle some of the larger categories. These are all volunteers working on their own time, and some categories take as many hours as a couple of full-time jobs! Also, having more than one editor per category (note that not all do) allows for checks and balances, preventing the situation you seem to be concerned about.
Right. Before you complain about abuse, you should read the guidelines, and see whether or not the specific case you have found violates them. For example, search for all the listings cnn.com has. The guidelines do allow multiple listings in certain cases.
Not to mention, with lots of people complaining about how long it takes for sites to get reviewed, it would be a good idea to add restrictions that would limit the number of editors that could possibly review certain cats? The ODP doesn't have an editor surplus.
Have a look at this thread, [webmasterworld.com]which goes into it in some detail
