alpine

No doubt you'll be sharing these wizard wheezes with your fellow editors, though?

Actually the "optimisation" refers to what is done to the sites and not to the search engines - but let's not allow that to get in the way of a good rant...

What is wrong with that statement? You ask for an intelligent answer - I would like one in reply which also doesn't insult anyone's intelligence: Perhaps you could explain why your information about Westgate Resorts is not covered by the listed company site (or indeed the numerous other sites which offer their properties), or why your information about the theme parks is not already covered by the listed sites of the theme parks themselves (or other sites which use the same text as yours)?

Ettore, can I just point out that it is against WebmasterWorld's TOS to give site reviews (although there are many other forums that do give reviews). This is to avoid URL-dropping and site specifics. Instead, discussions are based around the ideas behind the specifics (normally using the concept of "widgets").

It's been a long strange journey, but finally please could you change my title: http://dmoz.org/profiles/alpine.html

Hmmm, well, it hasn't stopped the simple answers taking place so I'm not sure about this rationale. On the other hand, I can see the objection being a)that prospective questioners are put off by the possibility of being drawn into a dispute about their site, and/or b)that the "rancorous discussions" reflect badly on the ODP image, and/or c)that comments are made in threads by non-editors which may be incorrectly taken to reflect ODP policy Once again, from my point of view, this forum and the discussions taking place in it, especially the free and frank exchanges of views, are some of the best PR that the ODP could have. Whilst I suspect some editors may be contemptuous of the concept of PR as it relates to the ODP, there are quite often comments made by editors that outsiders "don't understand", "don't appreciate" or "don't respect" what they do. This forum goes a certain way towards redressing that view of editors - and of the ODP in general. (NB. That would be Public Relations, not PageRank <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> )

I must say that I found some of the longer threads quite educational in the ways and the thought processes of the ODP, in both positive and negative senses (mostly positive). Whether or not you wish that to be one of the goals of the forum is, of course, up to you...

Is there are procedure for "outsiders" to report areas of the directory where they believe the editing standards are not up to standard? I note that there are procedures for abuse reporting, but am not sure if this would be included in that category. I am, in this instance, not talking about disputes over titles or descriptions but examples of the following: [*]incorrect spelling [*]duplicate entries [*]similar sites placed in different categories [*]inappropriate sites placed in categories (in one case, involving the completely wrong country) [/list:u] Since there is no editor for most of these categories until four levels up, I presume that the editor is possibly editing all categories (as well as their other areas). I have applied as an editor for a low-ranking category in this area and, as such, am reluctant to contact the higher editor directly as this person may in future be my "ODP boss" or, at least, we may be working together. Would the correct procedure in this case be to find a Meta editing in the area above and contact them via e-mail? Or are such observations from non-editors generally unwelcome? Disclosure. I have one site listed and one site pending in the area. Both would, however, be classified lower in the area were, in my opinion, the proper categorisation procedures followed.

Milada, I noted in a previous thread that one of the metas (who review editor applications) was mentioning that they normally look at applications in their field of expertise. As I have experienced the same as you in Regional, and, I believe, others have as well, it may be that the meta looking at applications in that area does not send email responses. Judging from the posts here, most do send responses but they are not obliged to do so.

Thanks for your replies. I think the radio button system covers most of the things I was thinking of and is a good system for those applicants who do receive a return email. Whilst I realise that these are internal details and you may not wish to go into the subject further, I was intrigued by the radio button "defer with no mail". Lately there seems to be a greater desire to provide a more detailed response and I (perhaps along with others) had assumed that the lack of a reply to an application indicated that it had been judged to be of a particularly unworthy standard...

just_browsing, my point was regarding applications that would have been accepted for another category, but are not because of ODP internal reasons that the applicants are unaware of...(e.g. category undergoing reorganisation, category already being looked after capably, number of unreviewed sites excessive for new editor, etc, etc).

New thread started because I didn't wish to distract from anyone else's thread. I just wished to comment on some reactions in this forum from present editors and how they might be viewed by prospective applicants. There have been a number of posts with the message "Well I did this or that, and I got accepted in five hours/five days/five minutes", which tends to imply that all people who haven't been accepted did not take these steps. I accept that there are many applications which do not meet the ODP guidelines. I even accept the point of view that hints should not be given on how to improve to applicants who are rejected. But, let us say, for the sake of argument, that my hypothetical application is a perfectly good one. It is made to an area, to quote from a meta in another thread, "which is already under close and competent supervision". I know nothing of this, it still has "this site needs an editor" under it, and wait my 8-10 weeks, receiving nothing. Eventually, I decide to reapply. This time I make another perfectly good application to a different category and this time the category is due to undergo reorganisation. Once again, I wait my 8-10 weeks and hear nothing. Finally I decide to reapply to a third category. This time, after an 8-10 week delay, my application is accepted because it is, as were the first two, an appropriate one. Now if we add all this time up, we have a minimum of six month's waiting, as opposed to the almost instantaneous acceptance that some editors are claiming. At any point during those 6+ months I could have given up on the application and gone about other things. And the ODP, which has admitted it has an acute shortage of editors, has been deprived of the services of an enthusiastic newbie for that length of time. All it would take is an email to suitable applicants which says: "Thanks for your application. It was fine but it was made to a category which is ............(fill in as appropriate). We would like to welcome you to the ODP and offer you one of the following related categories." And I know that editors are volunteers and that you all have lives and the number of applicants is high. But also, judging from the comments that I have read here, the number of editor applications which reach the standards is relatively low (and I would assume the number of editor applications which reach the standard and cannot be granted for some reason is much lower than that). So therefore why not make it a reviewing rule that applications that would be accepted were it not for other internal ODP factors should always receive an email such as the one above. The ODP gets the services of a suitable editor faster and, if no reply is received, the applicant realises that their effort was not good enough.

I'm sorry to disagree, totalxsive, but this is just blatantly incorrect. For example, a search of my local area reveals a sketchy summary of certain hotels, with incorrect information and spelling mistakes. When a customer tries to make a booking the following message comes up: "We do not currently have an e-mail address for the xxxxxhotel, so they will need some way to reply to you. Please complete at least one out of your telephone number, fax number or postal address." Despite the fact that this site ineptly copies out inaccurate information from who-knows-where in order to gain more than 340 listings on doorway pages, and despite the fact that it apparently has mirror sites listed, and despite the fact that its only functioning links on some pages are to affiliates, and despite the fact that it has zero local information outside its inadequate and inaccurate hotel details, it continues to enjoy "special treatment" in its class. I am quite shocked that you say that ODP editors have discussed this site and decided to take no action, especially when mirrors would apparently (and rightly) be grounds to expel many (most?) other sites. Just in case anyone is concerned, I am neither anne nor cabdriver... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for your reply, sthenbelle. The category was Regional: Europe: Austria: Travel and Tourism which includes 48 sites listed under that heading. However the Austria section seems to be a bit mixed-up, with, for example, Graz Airport listed under the section above but Salzburg and Vienna Airports under Regional: Europe: Austria: Business and Economy: Transportation. Likewise some towns or villages are listed under the category above and some under Regional: Europe: Austria: Localities. Thus my question about a possible pending reorganisation....

Additionally, does anyone have an idea whether categories in Regional:Europe:Austria require editors, or if they are soon to undergo reorganisation, or if an editor/editors from a category above are looking after the number showing without editors?

Is six weeks long enough to wait for a decision or a reply either way? Or is the backlog for new editors' applications increasing? Thanks for any information.