Application Status

Hello,

I submitted by application on 3/24/13 and have yet to receive a response. Is it possible to get an update?

Editorname: jirmany
Category applied for: http://www.dmoz.org/...Basque_Country/

Thanks!

Still awaiting evaluation.

[166880]

Please give this guy editing privs. There's no English in the first and second listings, and the third and fifth entries have grossly inappropriate descriptions.

wbeckman3, you have been told several times that we hae a special forum for quality control issues, http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showforum=11
You keep hijacking other people threads. For me that is like spamming the forum. Please post in the appropriate forum.

Almost 2 months have past since I first inquired about my application status and I still haven't received an answer. I know the evaluations are done based on a volunteer basis, however, I have noticed that the category I applied for was updated on April 17th and several bad links were removed. These were some of the same links I noted in my application that were either not working anymore or, as another commenter pointed out, not in english.

I would very much like to get to work and help fix and add good sites to the category I applied for and hopefully be granted permission to work on further categories in the future. It seems like the DMOZ project has tons of old links to websites that aren't around anymore and in addition, websites that have been created in more recent years are not included. This is the same with Yahoo's directory but there is nothing that can be done by volunteers to fix it. With DMOZ, the possibility is there for sure. It can be improved and still be valid resource as the web moves forward.

What is obvious is that there aren't enough editors. Why is there such a backlog of editor applications though? I don't think saying that everyone is a volunteer is a valid excuse. There are plenty of organizations that are volunteer based and don't have such a problem accepting others who want to join in with their cause. I am not trying to personally attack anyone who contributes to DMOZ. I am just giving a critique. If DMOZ is to be a valid aid to the internet in the future, it would seem it needs to get its act together. Growing the editor base seems like it should be a major priority.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

Any information regarding my application, whether its accepted or not, would be greatly appreciated.

It's still awaiting evaluation by a meta editor who feels competent to do so.

If DMOZ is to be a valid aid to the internet in the future, it would seem it needs to get its act together.

Click to expand...

Most metas, myself included, are self policing and refrain from evaluating applications in sectors that they don't fully understand.That's the right and proper thing to do isn't it?

jimnoble said:

Most metas, myself included, are self policing and refrain from evaluating applications in sectors that they don't fully understand.That's the right and proper thing to do isn't it?

Click to expand...

I would have to kindly disagree with you. By that rational, a headmaster at a school would not be able to evaluate an application from a potential new teacher if he didn't fully understand the subject that the teacher would be in charge of. Let say it is an art teacher and the headmaster has very little knowledge of art. His evaluation of whether the teacher is fit for the job is not based on his knowledge of art but rather on other criteria such as the teachers experience in art and their education.

I don't think one needs to be an expert in a given category to be able to evaluate an application. A basic knowledge is helpful. Maybe reading a for a second on wikipedia on the topic would be sufficient. But chances are, if someone is applying for a category, they have interest in it and maybe they wouldn't be the best editor, but in the DMOZ's current state I would rather have someone that is interested and trying to improve a part of the project as opposed to have the part dying because of neglect.

By the way, I got a response now, so thank you. It was rejected. The reviewer's comments were helpful. One link was fine apparently, but another 404'ed. I just tried the site again and it worked. So I am not sure why the reviewer got a 404.

You seem to misunderstand how DMOZ operates.
We have categories and editors in all kind of languages.
I for instance speak Dutch and English but have no clue about languages such a Russian and Chinese.
As a result I will not evaluate applications in such languages, except for those that are 100% clear that they will be rejected.
But even in English I will not handle all subjects, f.i. I try to keep out of anything related to USA Real Estate. The reason is that we get an enourmous amount of spam for that subject and many not so honest people try to become an editor for it. Evaluating such applications needs much more knowledge about the subject than I have.
But that is all not a problem. We have meta's native in Russian and Chinese and we have meta's from the USA who have over the years gained a load of experience with our real estate categories. As a result all applications will be handled in a reasonable timeframe (although reasonable is always discutable, you would have liked to have a response sooner but we did not see a big problem in the time you had to wait).

The same is valid for all websites that are suggested. Editors will only work in those categories they feel comfortable. With the many editors we have all categories will get some attention one day. Is this soon enough for those people who suggested the website. Most probaby not. They want action the same day. They only look at the one small category. Editors look at the whole directory. Does the directory grow in quantity and quality. This can result in some categories not growing for many months and some quality issues to slip into such categories. Is this bad. Not realy, although we would like it not to happen.

Being interested in the subject can be of help for an application but is not something we look at in the evaluation. Knowledge about the subject van be of help but is also not something we look at. Understanding DMOZ and being able to write descriptions according to out guidelines is important. And even more important is honesty, soemthing many people do not show in applications (this is just a common comment I have not seen your application)

I resubmitted my application yesterday and got a response now saying that it was again rejected. This time the reason given was "because we believe you already have (or had in the past) another editor account."

I do not understand why the reviewer would think that I had an account in the past. I used the same username that I did on my original application and indicated that this was not my first time applying. Everything was done with 100% honesty. Can someone please check into this issue?

I can see it was rejected. I do not see why the reviewing meta thought you had another account in the past. Did you by mistake forget to set the switch "been an editor before" to no?
But based on what a first glance on your application I probably would have rejected it for other reasons.
Poor descriptions for the example websites. On http://www.dmoz.org/docs/en/guidelines/describing.html you can read how to properly describe a website.
And missing affiliations. You should list all websites you have or had a personal or professional relation with. I had no prioblems finding some more domains/websites you are affiliated with.

pvgool,

I went and looked at the form again. I am pretty sure I did tick the box for "have you ever been an ODP editor before." I misread it and was thinking it was asking "if I have ever applied to be an editor before."

I will make a full list of sites I have been affiliated with for next time. I listed my affiliation with a site that I have in the category I applied for. So hopefully you can see I wasn't being dishonest.

I applied once again with the same three URLs after re-reviewing the guidelines as was suggested to me. This time I was rejected based on "suggested URL's do not fit the category scope."

I am not sure why this is the case. One of my links was for a regional tv station, the same region as my applied category and for the other two, I would actually place into the sub-directory of "Travel & Tourism." If the reviewer also thought that, is that grounds to say that my links were inappropriate? It was my impression that if I was accepted to the directory I applied for, I would be able to add sites within the sub-directories. Thus any URLs that I suggested could also be suitable to the deeper sub-directories as well. Can someone please clarify that for me? Thanks!

..but you requested an entirely different category! A website has just one perfect placement within Regional so how could your examples ideally fit two different categories?

We ask for examples so that we can see how well you can seek out appropriate websites for the category and write guidelines compliant publishable descriptions for them - because that's the job .

If you're applying for a category with subcats, it's a good idea to mention which subcat an example would go in [like this]. Be aware that Somecategoryname@ isn't a subcat but a link to elsewhere where you wouldn't have permissions.

jirmany said:

I would actually place into the sub-directory of "Travel & Tourism." If the reviewer also thought that, is that grounds to say that my links were inappropriate? It was my impression that if I was accepted to the directory I applied for, I would be able to add sites within the sub-directories. Thus any URLs that I suggested could also be suitable to the deeper sub-directories as well. Can someone please clarify that for me? Thanks!

Click to expand...

Your thoughts are coorect. When you have access to a category you will also have access to all of its subcategories.
But you must have made some mistake. This time you applied for Regional/Europe/Spain/Autonomous_Communities/Andalucia/Travel_and_Tourism/Travel_Guides

Oooops! :blink: That is embarrassing!

Sorry about that!

I submitted again...double...triple checked....hopefully, 4th time is a charm

Thanks for the quick answers too.