Forum Moderators: open
somewhere to pull together information, hints and tips from WW members, both dmoz editors and non-dmoz editors.
This thread is not:
for discussion of individual circumstances.
for whining and moaning about 'why I didn't get accepted'.
for either dmoz bashing or dmoz glorification.
All opinions expressed in this first post are my personal opinions - I am not speaking on behalf of dmoz in general or other dmoz editors in particular. This information is partly gleaned from personal dmoz experience, partly from previous posts in this forum and others.
How to become an editor
I'm purposefully going to avoid creating an idiot's guide to becoming a dmoz editor. I don't think that it's productive to 'coach' someone through what is a fairly straight-forward process for someone with the right motivation and attitude. However, I'll make a few specific points and hopefully others will add useful information to the thread.
1.
The most important point to stress is that if you want to be a dmoz editor, you should want to be a dmoz editor for the right reasons. That is, to volunteer to help a project working to build and maintain the largest and most comprehensive directory of websites. If you want to volunteer just because you want to list your own site then you're applying for the wrong reasons. If you're fed up with seeing a particular category that seems to be out of date with some listings that no longer work and some important resources missing (not just important resources that you happen to own!) then please apply (having read point 3) and help us do something about it.
2.
Assuming you've passed point 1, step 2 is to read the guidelines thoroughly and understand the basic principles of what sites are eligible for listing and how their titles and descriptions are written. It's clear from the unreviewed queue that, despite specific instructions on the submission page, very few submitters even get close to a guidelines-compliant submission. It's my guess that a decent proportion of editor applicants don't do it either. If you want to stand a good chance of getting in then go on and read the guidelines!:
dmoz.org/guidelines
You'll need to adhere to them if you're accepted so demonstrating that you've grasped the core concepts in your application is important.
3.
Certain areas of the directory are unlikely to accept new editors for various reasons:
a.
The category is too big. You can't get accepted as an editor of a category with thousands of listings when you've got no editing experience yet. Most editors seem to suggest a guideline of around 30-100 sites in the category you've applied to, including all the sites in the subcategories as you'll be able to edit those too if you're accepted.
b.
Certain categories require experience of editing sites and specifically spotting things like affiliate links before you can become an editor of that category. One example is an online hotel booking category - you'll need to learn the ropes somewhere simpler for a while and then apply for that category when you've got some experience. If you really want to get involved in dmoz and you don't know where to apply then a good place to consider applying is your home town in the Regional branch of the directory.
4.
Common myths:
a.
"All categories with the 'volunteer to be an editor' link will accept brand new editors."
No - this text is also aimed at editors with some experience who are now looking to broaden their category space. Many large categories have that link but are far too large for a brand new editor.
b.
"I got rejected and never got an e-mail."
You should get an automated e-mail that you have to reply to when your application is successfully submitted. If you don't get this e-mail then it may be due to a filter on your e-mail program - try using a hotmail or yahoo e-mail account to apply.
c.
"You can't be a webmaster and a dmoz editor."
Yes you can, and plenty of dmoz editors are. You can be a professional SEO and several dmoz editors are. You can even list your own site. However, you must be completely open and honest about your affiliations - so that's your own sites, your clients' sites, your brother's site etc. You must also treat your affiliated sites no differently from anyone else's, so you can't give them a better title or description for example. Initial editor applications and future category applications are partly judged on these two points, as well as general demonstration of editing ability. Many editors choose to let other editors edit their sites. If your site is unreviewed in part of the directory where you don't edit then you won't get preferential treatment for being an editor.
5.
Questions?
If you have applied and want to know the status of your application, or to discuss how you might improve having been rejected, visit Resource-Zone (search in Google) where you can ask specific queries about your application. If you'd like to apply but want to ask specific questions before putting in your application then again Resource-Zone is a good place to go.
Ok, I'd like this thread to become a useful resource for people interested in applying to be an editor, so please feel free to contribute with constructive additions to the thread. Remember - no whines, moans, dmoz-bashing or dmoz-glorification please. :)
Regarding 3a... besides taking subcategories into consideration, it is also a good idea to take into account that sites waiting to be reviewed are semi-"in the category". There are some categories where no one has volunteered to deal with them for quite some time where there might be 40 listed sites and 400 waiting to be reviewed. While this might look like a good starter category, it actually is not. You won't know this information but it is a factor that is in play.
Then also, my personal view is that if a category has subcategories that a new person should apply to the lowest level where they can suggest three sites. It is far easier to get new permissions as an editor with even a minimal track record than it is as someone off the street with zilch track record. You are not embalmed after your first application. You may apply for greater privileges weeks or even days after you are first accepted and you show good work in your initial category. It seems to me that too many people who want to edit a 100 site category seem to think the best way to do that is apply to the 100 site category and settle for nothing less. Applying to the 15 site subcategory can be just a step to editing the 100 site category. Don't think "all or nothing". Think "pay your dues."
Pay your dues also relates to rejection. If rejected, apply again. You may be rejected for a reason you can't fully understand... like if the 15 site category has 500 sites waiting for review. You won't know that and the rejection will seem silly. Even if you only have one prime interest area it might be very hard for a new person to ever be accepted there, so applying to a Regional category for your hometown, even if the idea of that doesn't seem riveting to you, is another way to give something to the Directory where your work can be judged where you can then more likely move onto more difficult areas.
It's actually really easy and so obvious that sometimes it’s simply overlooked.
Titles:
* Contain only the name of the site or business, nothing else, no taglines, no keywords (unless they are part of the name of the site or company).
Good title:
* Webmaster World
There really is no other option here.
Incorrect titles:
Welcome to Webmaster World
Webmaster World Homepage
Webmaster World - News and discussion for the advanced web professional.
Webmaster World - Discussion of Webmaster issues
Webmaster World Webmaster Discussion Forums
Generally it seems that if the title you want is not in the logo on the site or the site does not regularly refer to itself as the title submitted, the title submitted will not be accepted. If on an editor app the title does not conform to spec, it'll probably get shot down. Its one of the easiest and most basic things an editor has to do over and over and over. Miss that on the app with the sample sites and the app may be headed to the bin. A rocket scientist would probably stand a good chance to get rejected from a rocket science category if he/she could not write correct titles.
Descriptions:
Again, fundamentally very simple but no matter the expertise in a particular field it doesn't mean much if the basics aren't mastered. Our rocket scientist buddy needs to learn to write descriptions the ODP way if he/she wants to contribute to that category.
Good description: Provides moderated forums for discussion of webmaster issues including search engine marketing and promotion, website design and development, affiliate marketing, and a subscription only supporters forum.
Might be a little long, depending on the editor and his or her editing style but its factual, contains a few keywords and paints an accurate picture of what one will find should they see the listing in ODP or anywhere else that uses the data.
Bad Description: Provides outstanding forums for webmasters to discuss search engine promotion, website technology issues, and affiliate marketing programs.
Reason - subjective "outstanding" doesn't fit. The editors’ job is to describe the site, not provide commentary or personal opinions.
Bad Description The Webmaster World forums cover topics including search engine optimization, pay per click advertising, website technology issues, and affiliate marketing topics.
Reason The title, Webmaster World is the title and should not be repeated in the description.
Bad Description On this site you will find forums for discussion of search enigne optimization, affiliate marketing, website technology issues and more.
Reason
Actually, three reasons this is wrong:
1) No first or second person pronouns, in this case, you
2) Descriptions should have some closure which and more does not provide. If the description cannot summarize the entire site [and most cannot], change it to something like:
Offers forums for professional webmaster and Internet marketers including.........[list 3-5 topics/keywords].
This essentially says and more but in a much better way, or at least one that adheres to ODP guidelines. It highlights some of the major topics one will find on the site, yet still lets the end user know that this is just some of what the site includes.
3) "On this site is not needed, of course the description for a particular listing will describe what is on this site.
----------------
When it comes to picking sites to submit on an app pick 3 [and add 3 not 1 or 2] that are nowhere in the directory. Don't go for deep links [not to say that they are always inappropriate or won't be accepted], but just find 3 fresh sites. It works better that way.
You're probably better off not to submit keyword-keyword-keyword-keyword-keyword.com sites on your app, IMHO but to the best of my knowledge that's not anything that would land an app in the bin, unless they are Spam sites :)
Small regional cats are often the best places to start as are small hobby, non-commercial type categories.
The more is at stake as far as commercial value, the less likely a new editor is to get accepted, again just my opinion, but if I were someone who really wanted to get accepted the first time around that's what I'd do.
Find the single best category. Take the time to look around. It is worth the time whether you are submitting an app or your site.
Check your spelling and save a copy of what you submit.
This is in no way intended to be anything official from ODP, just based on personal experience and observations
I have been seriously thinking about applying to be an editor when the problems are solved. This will be very helpful.
I did put in an application a few weeks back and I described two of my sites on the basis that they would want to see that I didn't over emphasise them. I am glad that it didn't go through now.
That means any website that you have any kind of personal, proprietary, or financial interest in: if you developed it for someone else, or you get recurring income or clients from it, or your wife or best friend or church runs it, or you've donated a lot of volunteer time to it ... whatever.
For a beginning application, mention the core sites -- those that would go in this category, and those you're most closely associated with. (Many editors, and this is strongly recommended for people with extensive internet commercial activity, set up a category in their bookmarks and make a more comprehensive list.)
Having affiliated sites will not get you rejected. Any hint of favoritism toward sites that you have an undisclosed affiliation with, will get you removed quickly! (We figure that if you concealed the affiliation, your favoritism must have been premeditated and deceptive.)
It is fairly rare for anyone to have two affiliated sites in the same category. If you have two different domains with material on the same subject, we consider that one website spread over two domains. It makes the directory look bad when an editor has multiple listings in the same category, and we expect editors to design their website navigation to avoid the necessity for it.
(Obviously the last paragraph doesn't apply if the proprietor of "Podunk Website Design Company" applies to edit the "New_Jersey/Podunk/Travel/Hotels" category, having previously created websites for the "Podunk Inn" and the "Hilton Podunk". So long as he'll also seek out the sites for the "South Podunk Motel" and "Podunk Towers Inn" which were created by his competitor "Graphicworkz of Podunk", we'll be happy to have him edit.)
As a way of "showing willing", I'd recommend providing two or three example sites you're NOT affiliated with. In the "affiliation" box you can say "I developed podunk-inn.com which also goes in this category."
Another good approach for web developers: "I own podunk-graphics-magic.com, and my list of clients is at "podunk-graphics-magic.com/portfolio/index.htm".
Evidence of altruistic tendancies (or at least impulses.) Ability to be fair, even if you're personally involved. Full disclosure. It's as important as taxonomic acuity and linguistic fluency.
In my case, the initial motivation to become an editor was frustration at not being able to get a site listed. However, I also understood that being an editor involved some degree of commitment and a willingness to treat my own sites no differently than anyone else's.
The sentence:
If you want to volunteer just because you want to list your own site then you're applying for the wrong reasons.
Item 4c helps explain this, but I felt a need to add my two cents.
-- Rich
I’d also like to point out that there should be no shame in being turned down for an editor position. There is no reason non-editors can’t make useful and productive contributions to the Republic of the Web in ways that fit their capabilities and talents.
The U.S. Military Academy (West Point) admits only 15% of applicants. Harvard College admits only 11%. Most applicants are denied but they often go on to productive lives as enlisted men in the Armed Forces or as secretaries and auto mechanics for the Harvard grads. Society needs people in the lower positions also. Indeed, a stable society is one with a majority in the lower rungs, and a small elite to run things.
It is only logical that DMOZ similarly have a low acceptance rate. People need to remember that there is a difference between a democracy (mob rule) and a republic (ordered rule with rights and responsibilities for all). I also thought of the chorus from “The Ballad of the Green Berets”:
Silver wings upon their chest
These are men, America’s best
One hundred men will test today
But only three win the Green Beret
Apart from the sexist language (DMOZ editors include men and women) the Green Beret analogy is quite apt.
Another myth:
Dmoz is hard to get into.
No, actually, it's not. Dmoz is not a place exclusively for the 'editing elite'. Look, there's not a lot to write on the form and therefore there aren't that many mistakes you can make. A lot of people make mistakes simply because they don't prepare properly, i.e. they don't read the guidelines before applying. But if you read the guidelines then it's pretty straight-forward.
You don't need to be perfect to get in. It's precisely because you don't need to be perfect to get in that you're not allowed a big category straight away. It's understood by all concerned that you need to be in and editing to get close to a complete understanding of how the guidelines operate. You're learning all the time. Most editors, at every level of seniority, would probably acknowledge that they are still learning new things from time to time even a year or two into their editing experience.
However, it is expected that you can demonstrate that you've grasped the basics, like making the title the same as the title of the site or the business. So if you're writing the entry for Disney Corporation, the title is 'Disney Corporation' and not 'Disney Corporation - Mickey and all his little friends'. Honestly, it's not rocket science. There's no one right way to write titles and descriptions but there are plenty of wrong ways.
And Rich, yes I was interpreting 'just' narrowly. ;)
There are two conflicting concepts here: (1) ODP is easy to get in, and (2) NOT.
The truth is, um, somewhere in between. Editing requires full literacy and fluency in informative communications: not universal skills anywhere in the world! (except apparently, we are told, in Cuba) Many people who can read "well enough to get along" in their chosen profession, and can write "well enough to fill out most forms," simply don't write well enough (or painlessly enough) to do well at (and enjoy) editing. You have to like to give information: this eliminates most professional marketers, who prefer to be persuasive -- which almost entails a different language, not to mention different purposes and techniques. (Some people, of course, are bilingual.) You have to care about getting the spelling and grammar right (according to someone else's rules). This eliminates a lot of public-spirited applicants.
Rejection is not an ethical, personal, or value judgment. It simply means "you haven't [yet] shown you could do a good job with this." That's why re-applying is not discouraged (and is often specifically encouraged.)
------------------
More practical perspective: we are looking only for skills, not at all for credentials. Many people think saying "I was the president of the premiere industry association for 15 years" will get them accepted as editor without the necessity of showing any skills (i.e. sample site descriptions.) That is absolutely wrong. "I want to work in this industry when I get out of elementary school", coupled with three good site descriptions, makes a far better application.
Millenium Widgets
A range of products specially adapted for left-handed short people. Includes a discussion forum, price list and international shipping information. Based in Paris, France.
I know nothing about widgets or the widget industry. However, I can see what the company name is, I can read the blurb and see what the company produces, I can list the features available on the site and I can see where the head office is. That's how easy it is to write a title and description.
If I couldn't describe the content and features of the site in this way then it wouldn't matter if I was the Grandmaster of the Worshipful Order of Widgets, I wouldn't be a good editor for the widgets site.
Knowing the subject and being a good editor can be mutually exclusive.
Therefore you will not get accepted as an editor just because you are an expert, although it may strengthen your application if you have written good titles and descriptions for your three sites.
Is there a typo, or am I having a dim moment?
Another point is just because you were rejected doesn't mean it's permanent. I believe my uncle was rejected once, but he submitted another application for another cat and was accepted. You might be rejected for a heavy spam load on the cat, a lot of greens (unreviewed sites) or some other reason. You can always polish up an application, you don't need to send it in immediately. And, of course, as no one can stress it enough...read the guidelines. All of them. Then print them out and read them again while you're waiting for your application letter. And...yeah...just keep reading them :P
But remember that they're not set in stone. :) Even though it's good to read the guidelines, they're not the Law of the Land(tm), they're the guideposts.
