A personal experience

Welcome, Phil!

I was reading this thread with much interest, because I too am a former miffed rejected editor. I did receive comments, but the comments I received were along the lines of 'the category you are applying for is well-represented'. The category I was applying for had over 100 sites, half of which were poorly described, and a quarter of which were dead links. I was extremely miffed at ODP for saying this category was well-represented when it obviously wasn't - there was no editor listed, and hasn't been for months. The category [which I now edit] is something close to my heart, and I was upset that it was in such a shoddy state, and no one at ODP seemed to care. I fumed for a week, then I thought what the hey, let me try a subcat. Presto magic, I was accepted. /images/dmoz/purplegrin.gif

After I'd made some edits and cleared out the unreviewed, I applied for another subcategory, cleaned it up, then applied for another, etc. If you are doing a good job and are following the Guidelines, and are applying for categories of reasonable size, you won't have a problem being accepted for more categories. Then there's Greenbusters and Blankbusters. /images/dmoz/purplegrin.gif

Hiya furiosity.

As donaldb and others have said, there is a lot of interesting stuff to read and getting the hang of it all will take some time.

You could empathize with my tale of woe then, even though the reasons were slightly different /images/dmoz/purplegrin.gif (I just had to try that smilie). One thing I've learned since yesterday is that there aren't all that many metas so, hopefully, these posts will have made a small difference.

I did feel a bit embarrassed at one point when, between the acceptance and the decision to stay, I saw the reviewer who approved my application reading this thread. I'd just posted the experiment 'confession' /images/icons/frown.gif

Anyway, I've made a start and I'm going to learn to walk properly before I make any attempts at jogging.

Phil.

>>One thing I've learned since yesterday is that there aren't all that many metas so, hopefully, these posts will have made a small difference. <<

As someone who just became a meta, I can say that this post and others in here have already influenced how I will approach my responsibilities. I know I will always try to give feedback on any application I deny.

There's nothing I want more than to see people succeed at being editors.

My life has been worthwhile /images/icons/smile.gif

Excellent theseeker.

Furiosity and phil (and whoever else is a disgruntled rejectee at one time or another): IT'S NOT PERSONAL. We reject applications for good reasons, and we don't have to explain them-- not even to our fellow meta-editors. We are trusted to have good judgement, those of us who review applications, and that's that. Sorry you don't like it, but almost nobody is banned from reapplying.

The "I'm volunteering so how can they reject me?" mentality is wrongheaded. Every volunteer group has standards and guidelines, ODP included.

It sounds as though you haven't read through this thread, kctipton. And nobody suggested that it was "personal".

>>I was reading this thread with much interest, because I too am a former miffed rejected editor.<<

This is what I was referring to.

"We reject applications for good reasons, and we don't have to explain them-- not even to our fellow meta-editors..."

This is BS.

What, exactly, is "good reason"?

For about 2 years I was a DMOZ editor and ended up one of the senior editors for DMOZ, and had several large categories (the entire electrical, renewables, Navy, and instrumentation sections) categories. Then I had to quit for a while due to extensive travel.

After about a year I came back and applied for a relatively small section (renewable energy area), and was told that I was not qualified "for such a large section" (all of about 400 links), and that the section had an editor.

In fact, the entire section was a freeking mess. There were numerous dead links, poor descriptions, multiple links to the same sites, links to sites that had NO relationship to the category (solar energy), and the category stated that it needed an editor.

You can understand my reluctance to go through the entire form again and spend 20-30 minutes (or more) to re-apply for a subsection of that area.

BTW, I have been in the renewable energy business for over 20 years, so it is not like the area is a mystery to me.

Here are the details:
The category I applied for was http://dmoz.org/Business/Industries/Energy/Renewable/

I just now checked it again. It has 329 entries. Of those, the first 2 are duplicates (same site, different URL) - not a good start.

Did you email a meta and ask to be reinstated?
If your inactivity caused you to time out you could be reinstated.

First, "good reason" is the meta's personal judgment as to whether the author of the application is likely to be helpful or harmful.

Obviously, this judgment isn't infallible. Obviously, two metas may make different judgments. Difficult cases may be discussed, and the meta may do whatever research seems appropriate. But there is no other way. These are the people who review allegations of abuse, and remove abusers. They are our best chance for recognizing patterns of abuse before it gets out of hand.

There's an automatic feedback loop here: Metas accept too many "suspicious applications", then they have too much abuse to investigate and don't have time to review applications at all...Metas accept fewer applications, perhaps rejecting the "borderline cases" out of hand -- they have more time to review applications, and can investigate the "borderline cases" further, perhaps finding sufficient evidence of bona fides to accept more of them.

It is understandable to feel frustration at not being accepted. But it is only fair to aim that frustration at all the deceptive applications submitted by malicious would-be abusers -- sometimes, as you've seen elsewhere in these forums (and that's not a unique case), hundreds of applications from a single life-form: THAT'S what forces metas to review ALL applications more skeptically.

Re: A personal experience (former editor)

Hi, wlauzon. It's been a long time... /images/icons/smile.gif

When an editor who "timed out" or resigned wishes to be reinstated, the proper approach is to request reinstatement under your old name. Contact a meta editor by e-mail. An editor with an expired login name should not try to get a new login -- this is "verboten."

Decisions on reinstatement will be based on review of your prior editing record and any other information you provide. Because things change over time, old editors may not be reinstated to all the categories they edited before.

-- orlady

Re: A personal experience (former editor)

For me your request posted above shows your will to come back - so I reinstated your account with slightly trimmed list of categories. Please take a while to read our current guidelines, check current category charters etc. and then ask for wider priviliges.

Also I gave you a new type of priviliges to one category: 'greenbuster'. You are allowed to review and edit entries from unreviewed but not to publish them. For this acceptation from higher level editor is required.

This new feature is tested now and in your case it is probably a temporary limitation.

I got the same I applyed may time 100% regection. They regected my site as well http://www.palmi705.co.uk I think it's because i'm a girl.

Actually justin it's probably because your spelling let you down. In the above post there are 5 spelling or grammatical errors. (applied, many, rejection, rejection, I'm)

I'm a girl. There are lots of girls/women/females/not-males here, like orlady, enarra, lissa and the list goes on and on...

Thanks for the reinstatement. The categories I have will be be plenty for now - I no longer have the free time that I had before, so currently am not really looking for more. I just want to keep active, as this Fall I will probably have a lot more time (we have a very seasonal business).

I attempted a few weeks back to apply for reinstatement, but apparently the form, or email, or whatever was not working - or it went to the wrong person. Or maybe I filled it out wrong... ;/

BTW, Orlady, long time no see /images/icons/smile.gif Surprised that you even remember me, been a while !! I recall the many discussions we had on whether to combine all the solar/renewables into one area... I see that still has not happened /images/icons/smile.gif

Will take me a few days to get up to speed here.. I see the interface has changed a little.... and also don't want to step on anyone's toes until I see exactly what the "state of the section" is.

... Holy Cow!!! is this right?? almost 300 unreviewed sites in a fairly small category?? EEP!

Warren Lauzon

Re: A personal experience (former editor)

(back to the original topic)

It's funny in a way. Almost the exact same thing occured to me when I applied to be an editor. There it was, a category with no editor, and for a subject completely related to exactly what I do.

I applied.

I was turned down because of these issues:
1. The category was already taken care of (apparently).
2. The category was too broad a subject for someone new.

In the e-mail, I was asked to either re-apply, or apply for another category.

Now, in the back of my head, I began wonder why DMOZ would think that I would want to apply for any of the other categories for which I did not originally choose to apply. Furthermore, I was left to question how the act of re-applying would be of any use to the process of becoming the editor for something that I was already told I wasn't suitable for.

I was confused. So, I e-mailed back. And, I recieved no answer.

I understand why DMOZ must be ever vigilant about who edits for a category. Having said that, there is no appeal process in place in the event that a decision is made in error.

Or, is there?
Open Directory application - Request 23380

With Regards,
Chile
Owner-Artist-Student
Visualcues.com

[Edited to delete extraneous line breaks at the end of post - apeuro]

Re: A personal experience (former editor)

Chile, when you're fresh out of college, no one is going to hire you to become a CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

In the ODP you start at the bottom and work your way to the top. The rejection letter you received meant that you applied for a category that was too large for a new editor. Usually new editors aren't accepted to categories that have more than 60-80 sites.

Re: A personal experience (former editor)

I think there are two factors at work here:

1. the Meta or whoever made the decision felt that they did not have the time to make a reply as to why, or any suggestions.
2. Getting more experienced and good editors would seem to be a good thing - it reduces the load for the Meta or whoever made the decision.
3. #1 conflicts with #2....

For example, if whoever had originally replied to me and simply stated that I could apply for reinstatement, it would have saved time and avoided some frustration. It took me around 30 minutes to fill out the application, what with looking for sites that were not listed etc - yet whoever rejected me the first time probably spent a lot less time than that - but also expected me to go back and completely fill out the new app again.

I can certainly understand that sometimes editors feel pushed to the wall when they have 94,584 sites to be reviewed - but often the best solution is to get some help /images/icons/smile.gif

Re: A personal experience (former editor)

Y'all go take a look at the new editor application instructions. Here's a link to one (for a particular category of course; if you're going to actually apply use the form at the category you want):
http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/apply.cgi?where=Society/Disabled/Disability_Studies

This page has a link to the new editor reinstatement request form, too.