Applying for editor, and suggesting own site wasn't a good idea!

Hi editors

A couple of months ago I suggested my website to the Arts-online-ezines-fiction category. At the same time I applied to edit the category, as I couldn't see an existing editor for that category or, indeed, parent categories.

During the editor application process I used my own website as one of the three websites requested. I assumed as these were examples to show how I assessed websites to be of the Dmoz standard, it wouldn't be an issue.

I then received a message from Dmoz suggesting that I was being underhand, and trying to get my own website listed by unconventional means. Consequently my application to be a Dmoz editor, and my suggestion to list my own website, were rejected.

I can see why the person vetting my application might have judged me as he/she did, but it honestly wasn't the case. Yes, I wanted my website listed, and yes, I fancied trying my hand at editing on Dmoz. It said nothing about not listing one's own site on the editor application form. If it had I wouldn't have.

But I would have to be pretty stupid to think that I could use my own website in the application, a website that fitted the very category I was applying to edit, to get it listed in an unorthodox way. I like to think I'm not that stupid

It was an innocent move. I would appreciate your thoughts and opinions.

Thanks.

Vic

Assuming that it's listable and relevant, it's fine to use your own website as one of the three examples. We do like to see two independent ones as well though.

I then received a message from Dmoz suggesting that I was being underhand

Click to expand...

I can't trace your application from the info given so I can't double check what was actually said. I'd be amazed if one of our meta editors was as rude as you suggest though.

Curiously, the domain name of your email address on your profile here appears to be parked and I can't find that it was ever declared as an affiliated website in an editor application.

Thanks for getting back to me.

The email address on my profile here - <Domain removed> - is parked. I only use it for email. The email domain I used for my application is <Domain removed>.

No, the meta editor wasn't rude at all. He listed reasons why an applicant would be rejected. I eliminated the reasons that dealt with insufficient information, improper spelling and grammar, and submitting URLs inappropriate to the category. All information was provided, the text I input was proofed, and I meticulously checked the URLs against other sites in the category.

That left me with the following:

*Not properly disclosing affiliations with websites that are, or have the
potential of being, listed in the category.

* Titles and descriptions of sample URLs (and other information provided)
were subjective and promotional rather than unbiased and objective. ODP
editors do not rank or write website reviews. ODP editors provide objective
and unbiased descriptions of websites and their content.

* Self-Promotion. Application which leads us to believe that the candidate is
interested primarily in promoting his/her own sites or those with which the
applicant is affiliated. The ODP is not a marketing tool, and should not be
used to circumvent the site submission process. If this is an applicant's
motivation for joining, then we ask him/her not to apply. Editors found to be
inappropriately promoting their own site will be promptly removed.

What do you think, RZ?

Of course, if you manage to dig up my application and it contradicts my points above I'll back out quietly in embarrassment. Can't see that happening though.

We do not mind that editors own a website. As long as they are honest about their associations and do not give their own websites any prefered treatment.

application 153517 (reference only for other editors)

- you are affiliated with 2 of the example sites (as you declared yourself)
and
- reread the guidelines for writing proper descriptions http://www.dmoz.org/docs/en/guidelines/describing.html

there could have been more issues but these two were very obvious

Okay, thanks. I'll read up on descriptions. In fact I'll read up on everything again. I suspect I've misunderstood a couple of things - the term 'affiliate' being one of them.

I'll pop back later when I'm clued in.

Thanks to both of you for your help.

Also, we use the standard English language rules of capitalization - just sentence starts, proper names and abbreviations such as FAQ.