Jules wrote:

Many current editors were rejected more than once. The goal is to learn from the information given in the 'rejection' (Lord, I hate that word.) email and apply again.  I, please note, do not review or approve editor applications.

Noted,
I do not recall the exact wording of the e-mails I received, and unlike WS I deleted mine. They were just short, scripted something along the lines of, "At this time your application to be an editor has been turned down. Please review our guidelines and policies and feel free to reapply."

Jules wrote:

<dmoz hat off>I mention black-hat SEO because being a member of this forum and reading threads about SEO has taught me a lot about how honest SEO works. If more people would read some of the SEO threads in this forum, (there are some incredibly honest, helpful people here involved in SEO) they would realize that DMOZ and SEO aren't actually that far apart.<dmoz hat back on>

<slightly off topic>
My reason for sticking around as well in addition to the fact that unlike a couple other forums I originally joined to share my experiences and knowledge with. I haven't been flamed because I am not an actual web designer for a living.</slightly off topic>

I disagree with you, I think you could write a quality article without the biased jargon.

More to come after a little absorption.

ColoEagle wrote:

They were just short, scripted something along the lines of, "At this time your application to be an editor has been turned down. Please review our guidelines and policies and feel free to reapply."

That doesn't sound like the 'standard' email that many, many receive.  What you should have received was an email that offers a list of possible reasons why your application was not accepted. As many of our meta editors explain in RZ, if an applicant doesn't receive a specific "Ya, know? If you'd only . . ." (paraphrasing heavily) message, then one of the items (which are the most common reasons why an application is not approved) in the list is appropriate.

What the ODP is looking for are people who are madly in love with a topic / region and want to make the information in that category the best that can be found on the web. No editor is expected to be an expert on the subject where they want to edit - IMHO, it doesn't hurt an application, it just doesn't help an application.

For example:  My fiance had a liver transplant in 2004 - so I have an interest in finding sites that will help me deal with his condition. And I presume that there are others out there (based on fora I've visited) who feel the same. Then, four weeks after my fiance was released from the hospital,  his youngest son moved in with us. That son, who was diagnosed with ADHD, presented another category in which I had a vested interest. Whether there are websites out there that have unique information for people interested in these topics is what keeps me searching.

Now - given what I've told you about just 2 of the topics in which I have a personal interest - does anyone not understand why I (or any editor) wouldn't list sites from people who have simply copied information from the original source and created their own website?  They don't offer 'unique' information - do they?  But, according to the black-hat SEOs - they NEED to be listed, because they are 'valid' websites. According to DMOZ guidelines, most of these sites aren't listable.  This goes much deeper and is much more complex than that simple statement, but . . .

Again, I'm sharing a PC, so I need to log-off for a bit. 

Thank you so much for letting me answer questions -

I submitted my 2 core sites years back and NEVER heard anything... with such a 'usefull' service... I never looked back and don't actively refer clients to nor submit to DMOZ as part of our marketing programs.

To me it is a service. Like any other. The site is tough to get around and results are alphabetical if I remember (means spammers creating sites with A-A names)... I find it too clunky to effecctively use as a research tool and too long IF EVER (mine are certainy NOT spam sites) to actually get into.

I gave up on DMOZ years ago I am afraid...

jmarkafghans wrote:

That doesn't sound like the 'standard' email that many, many receive.  What you should have received was an email that offers a list of possible reasons why your application was not accepted. As many of our meta editors explain in RZ, if an applicant doesn't receive a specific "Ya, know? If you'd only . . ." (paraphrasing heavily) message, then one of the items (which are the most common reasons why an application is not approved) in the list is appropriate.

What the ODP is looking for are people who are madly in love with a topic / region and want to make the information in that category the best that can be found on the web. No editor is expected to be an expert on the subject where they want to edit - IMHO, it doesn't hurt an application, it just doesn't help an application.

Understood, you are probably correct about the e-mails. That was about three years ago and I have slept since then. All I remember for sure about the e-mails is, I was turned down three times. Never tried again.

I also understand the passion or knowledge thing. I applied to edit the category for my state. Haven't checked since then but there was no editor for Colorado at the time.

All this is fine - but when are DMOZ going to get their act together and actually allow submission to their directory again !!

If the big SE's are going to give DMOZ so much Kudos - they need to offer a greater service component to what is becoming an outdated "project"

thegyspsy wrote:

I submitted my 2 core sites years back and NEVER heard anything... with such a 'usefull' service... I never looked back and don't actively refer clients to nor submit to DMOZ as part of our marketing programs.

To me it is a service. Like any other. The site is tough to get around and results are alphabetical if I remember (means spammers creating sites with A-A names)... I find it too clunky to effecctively use as a research tool and too long IF EVER (mine are certainy NOT spam sites) to actually get into.

I gave up on DMOZ years ago I am afraid...

Could not have said it better.

Hi

I tries three times to be an editor, the third time I even did not receive an email back by them.

Hi folks,

It's refreshing to see rational discussion about dmoz for a change. I've a feeling that most editors are shy about joining forums because of the rabid responses found elsewhere. Kudos for being more open-minded.

Although DJ may not feel so, I think she is doing a good job representing the majority of editors. Please don't let RZ be your only source when forming your opinions. Not all of us bite! If you don't mind, I'll stop in every so often to try to help DJ with your questions, with one caveat- If I feel like a duck in a carnival shooting gallery, you may not get a response.

Oh, and Nic, thanks for posting at RZ. I'm not sure what an article could accomplish that hasn't already been said. For instance, you are aware of http :// dmoz. org/ newsletter/, aren't you? (remove spaces). I think many questions are answered there- if not, feel free to ask!

trueblue
Volunteer editor, ODP
(and yes, I received rejection letters before being accepted).

Hey Blue,

Welcome aboard and thanks for your contributions!

Hope you'll never feel like a "duck in a shooting gallery" here and we can all talk about our different opinions in a meaningful and positive manner.

"Not sure what posting an article would do?"- As you say- many questions are answered in the RZ- problem is the RZ is 1 forum (and newsletter). Not everyone that has questions about the ODP visits the RZ. (I know some editors go out of their way to discuss issues on their own sites and I think that's great). An article would give the ODP greater exposure. Our articles are often picked up by 100's (if not 1000's) of sources (including very popular places such as Digg and Slashdot for example). This would allow the OPD to reach many who may not otherwise be exposed to editor comments expressed in the RZ. As you say people shouldn’t “let the RZ be your only source when forming your opinions”.

“Not all of us bite!” hehe…well said! Without starting a lengthy debate here, IMO 1 problem DMOZ faces is it has TOO MANY editors in a system that cannot monitor their performances efficiently enough. Whenever you get 75,000+ people in a group you’re bound to:

a)    get some bad apples- corrupt, dishonest, etc
b)    people who do they “responsibilities” on their own terms (not under OPD guidelines)
c)    people who move on and forget their responsibilities
d)    people who are simply lazy
e)    the list can go on but I hope you get the point…

What this means is out of 75,000+ people there will be enough “unfit editors” that problems will arise which may give the whole group a “bad name”. This is a very unfortunate outcome but apparently a real one. The worse part of it is that the good editors (which IMO may be 99% of them) are left to defend the acts of the others. To me it’s no surprise that the good ones get tired of defending the same attacks over and over and may “bite” sometimes. That’s human nature.

To editors such as yourself, DJ, and others that have been very helpful, I thank you. 

Nic

Greetings all!  I wanted to just agree with truebluedmoz's comments above on all points.  I haven't had a ton of time today to view as much of the forums as I would like to, but from what I have seen thus far I am impressed. 

truebluedmoz wrote:

It's refreshing to see rational discussion about dmoz for a change. I've a feeling that most editors are shy about joining forums because of the rabid responses found elsewhere. Kudos for being more open-minded.

I would agree with this as well, although I must admit to not being shy about joining.  I have seen (and been victim of) some pretty bad editor beatings, and have survived so there's no fear here but its nice to see that doesn't seem to take place here.  Also wanted to say thanks to nic for some enlightend posts and comments. 



Thanks for the opportunity to participate.

Regards,

johncricket wrote:

Hi

I tries three times to be an editor, the third time I even did not receive an email back by them.

If you didn't receive an email then the application was either not reviewed yet or the response was trapped in a spam filter.  At least those are the two most probable scenarios.  One thing I would add is that once you apply, an automatic confirmation email is dispatched to the email address you applied with.  That confirmation email must be replied to for the application process to be completed and the application delivered to the holding tank for new applications waiting review.  Often this is where applications go astray because either this confirmation email is trapped by spam filters or was not understood that it needed to be replied to. 
My advice is that if you think you would like to help and it might be interested to try editing, please apply and don't be discouraged by a rejection or two or three.  It helps you learn what to look for and if you aren't being rejected for the common reasons, the reviewer will give you some specific comments to help you out on the next attempt. 

Hope that helps.

Nic - I like the "no flaming rule"

A couple of comments that I would like to make (I already made one at r-z so don't beat me up for repeating myself)

ColoEagle wrote:

I also understand the passion or knowledge thing. I applied to edit the category for my state. Haven't checked since then but there was no editor for Colorado at the time.

Disclaimer :  I don't review or approve applications, but I've been an editor for awhile and am familiar with some of the reasons why applications are rejected.

Applications should be made to a relatively small category - typically this means a category that contains less than 50 sites, but could be as high as 100.  The category should also not have a large number of subcategories.  Colorado is a large category containing almost 14,000 listings (based on the current view of the directory) and multiple subcategories.   The city of Pueblo has over 200 listings and also contains numerous subcategories.  Drilling down into Pueblo, there is Business and Economy (still rather large with over 100 listings). 

But inside Business and Economy - I can see a few categories that look like they could use the help of an editor.  For example, there's the Restaurant and Bars category - please tell me that a city of Pueblo's size has more than three restaurant websites.    I counted ten in the Chamber membership list, but some of those are chain style which wouldn't be listed unless they had significant regional relevance (one example that wouldn't be listed in Pueblo Restaurants is the website for Wendys). 

An alternative to beginning with editing a subcategory of Pueblo, would be to edit one of the smaller towns around Pueblo, like Avondale or Rye. 

When I first started editing, I applied for a category containing twelve sites (half of them broken ), that category now has 49 listings and now (after a few more applications for larger categories) I can edit in categories that have close to 5,000,000 listings.  The state of Colorado is not an unattainable goal for editing - you just have to start out small and work your way up.

Nic wrote:

Whenever you get 75,000+ people in a group

The 75,000 figure on the front page of the directory refers to the total number of editors who have contributed to the project over it's life.  Currently there are ~7,000 active editors.

Nic,

I'm bringing the conversation back to your home turf, lest you feel any intimidation at RZ. From my perspective, nobody was trying to be condescending about a "magical supply of editors".  We're the first to admit, we need more good editors! I think the remark was meant to convey, if you know of an overlooked source, please let us know.

Now, many may point to the fact that their applications were denied (so were mine!). It's really no mystery about how to get accepted.

First, an applicant should do a gut check on their motivations for applying. Is it really to contribute to the directory, or is it really about getting your own site listed? I do not review applications, but I have to believe an applicants motives are apparent by the application they submit. Remember, the reviewing editor must be able to trust the applicant based on what they submit. Not an easy task, I would imagine. If you're only applying to list your own sites, it's probably best to simply suggest the site(s) the conventional way. It will save all of us unnecessary frustration.

However, if you are truly applying for the betterment of the project:

Select url's that are relevant to the category you're applying for. Make double-sure they fit the category, and that they are not already listed. You'd be amazed at how many suggestions are sent to incorrect categories simply because something on the site briefly touches on a topic. We review sites based on the whole, rather than which snippet *could* fit another category. Also, please make sure the sites contain substantially unique content. Plagiarized sites benefit no-one.

Titles and descriptions should be guidelines compliant. Meaning, we do not purposely list hype, plain and simple. Titles and descriptions are a dispassionate verbal assessment of the site (some call it objective ). A rule of thumb- description = subject + content. I think many applicants fall into the trap of trying to describe the entity behind the site- which is not our goal. We do not promote businesses (or museums, or churches, or ...), we collect and describe unique websites, period.

Finally, spelling and grammar count. Running the proposed description through MS Word is sufficient to find these errors.

By a show of hands, how many think they could do this? How many want to do this? If your hand is still raised, what's stopping you?

Polly-want-a-cracker time- I have received the rejection letter, too. The information I needed to gain an editor position was contained in the letter. The rejection letter is not personal- it gives information about where the application was deficient. Lack of personalized comments means that a common error was made, and will be found somewhere in the boilerplate response. Cast a critical eye on your application, I'm sure you'll find it if you're honest with yourself. Give the reviewing meta something to hang their hat on, I'm betting they will.

Sorry if this is off topic, I'm kind of responding to some of the posts above.

Blue.

[add] Wow, two more posts since I started composing this. I really need to learn to be brief 

IMO 7,000 editors is still far too many and still subject the problems Nic raised - wouldn't you agree?

SiteReference wrote:

IMO 7,000 editors is still far too many and still subject the problems Nic raised - wouldn't you agree?

7,000 editors isn't close to enough to be able to list as many sites as we want to list.  Unfortunately, right now I have to go do some "real" work (as opposed to DMOZ work) , but I'll come back later and try to address the problems that Nic raised (if someone doesn't beat me to it).

Blue, Imocr

Great points once again! It's been very valuable for us to have you here and help shed some light on a few issues.

Imocr- perhaps I didn't explain my point well enough...

Although 7000 is a far more manageable number then 75,000+, IMO the SYSTEM (the system was the point I was trying to make) is not adequate to handle even that number.

By that I mean, for example the 4 month time-out rule is one that should need to be reconsidered. To allow an editor to check in one every 4 month seems a bit crazy to me.

These particular rules such as the one above aren’t what I wish to discuss, but again the system as a whole. I think it need tightening so a better level of service can be provided.

Please refer to my last post in the RZ to see my thoughts on “service” and “responsibilities”

BTW- blue, imocr

i hope you guys stick around here. even though there have been a lot of DMOZ related discussions lately there are also a lot of helpful webmaster ones which you may like to take advantage of!

Blue- looks like we'll be jumping from one forum to another on the DMOZ topic

If everyone who ranted about DMOZ got together and created something that they wanted..........

No one's doing it though, are they?

that shows just how fickle people are about things.

If I'm wrong, and people are trying to make a competitor to DMOZ, then they're not doing it very well; which shows that dmoz still has value and needs help if we want it to be something bigger

good point Northie....If i spent more time doing the newlsetter today as opposed to talking about the ODP there may be a newsletter tomorrow....

(JK) i'm doing it now....

Nic,

For personal attention, I'll come over here. They'd hang me in a second if I made RZ all about you!

In all seriousness, you posted about an unmanageable number of editors. Just what number did you have in mind? Yes, we have around 7,000 active accounts open, but I think there are fewer than 1,000 who are very active. I believe the vast majority are content to tend to their niche categories. And I, for one, am glad to have them. It's no secret that we're undermanned in relation to the exponential growth of the internet- any help they volunteer to provide is good with me.

It seems to me that if the public's true gripe is the lack of prompt listings (assuming the sites are listable in the first place), more editors would be the obvious answer. Those of us who do trudge through the spam ridden categories do it out of a sense of responsibility- there is certainly no enjoyment there. No offense meant to anybody, but how delightful do you suppose it is to wallow through thousands and thousands of here today - gone tomorrow, multilingual, slow loading clothing manufacturer site suggestions? I was part of a team effort to get that one cat under control, and it took months (please realize that all listings were concurrently subject to re-review, updates to current guidelines, subcategorization, etc.).

So, immediately I was not pleasing someone- what was the priority? New suggestions? Weeding out link rot? Not paying attention to other categories? Quite a lot of responsibility to place on one editors shoulders, wouldn't you agree? With almost 700,000 categories, I'm sure you'll realize what a daunting task it can be. And I'll be honest with you- there are places I will not go to in the directory (adult, gambling, and viagra shopping categories to name a few). Some editors enjoy those categories, I do not.

We do the best we can with the resources we have at our disposal. The most valuable resource are the editors themselves- so, IMO, more is better in this instance.

If this does not answer your question, please feel free to be more specific.