applying twice?

I applied for an editorship a couple of days ago in the Travel section, primarily in a bid to help reduce the backlog of sites (including mine) awaiting review for inclusion in this section. I've since found a tiny subdirectory (Science: Social Sciences: Archaeology: Methodology: Surface Surveys and Field Walking, with 1 link only!), which happens to be in my professional area and is something with which I've had direct experience. I do realize that it's rather a fringe category and as such will never have a huge number of links; however, only having the one link seems a bit ridiculous. I think it would be fun and worthwhile to beef up this section, so I'd like to apply as an editor for it.

My question: Should I wait until my first application is sorted out, or would I be permitted to submit another application for a different area while the first is still pending? Alternatively, is it possible to revise a pending application?

Definitely wait. If the first one goes through, then you can get that sorted a little, and then apply for the second one. If it gets rejected, read the feedback you were sent - then you can reapply for the other category.

Usually the rule of thumb is that you stand the best chance with the smaller category, all other things being equal.

As far as I know, there is no way to revise a current application.

Many thanks for the advice, Alucard!

Now I wish I'd waited to apply - the Travel category I applied to isn't huge, but it's definitely larger than is usually recommended on this forum. Probably it would have been best to start with the Science category. Oh well, I'll wait and see what happens!

Don't wait to start doing something constructive!

Start researching the Archaeology category now. Submit sites with good descriptions. If the other category application gets rejected, when you apply again, mention what you've been doing. (You will get credit for it.)

Archaeology is in one sense a very "well-tended" category--submitted sites get reviewed quickly, so the typical unreviewed/reviewed ratio is under 1%. On the other hand, it is not all as "aggressively" tended as I wish it could be -- there are many sparse categories that could grow enormously with a bit of web searching and spidering. If I had to pick from all the categories with which I've had personal experience, I'd say that Archaeology is the one where outside submittals have the biggest and quickest impact.

Thanks for the comments, hutcheson. I do have a few links of interest in my bookmarks, so it's probably a good idea to just go ahead and submit them. Even if I don't make editor, helping to expand this category would be in itself a worthwhile enterprise, and definitely useful to many researchers out there.

There are two things that I have questions about, both of which I'm sure you're aware as you edit in one of these categories: 1) anth/arch can be (and usually are) quite multidisciplinary in approach, and 2) some of the most useful sites are included as adjuncts to a researcher's primary site. This site tends to favor top-tier submissions (i.e., the primary site only, rather than separate submissions for separate pages within a site), and for good reason. Is this true as well for sites in the directory? The problem here is that a geologist might have a very good discussion on concretions hidden away in his main site, which could be extremely useful for archaeologists/anthropologists doing surveys in East Africa for example. Does dmoz just trust that those researchers will know to look in the category for academic sites for geologists for that information, or can they be submitted for inclusion in relevant categories?

My apologies if these are stupid questions! I just want to sort them out before I begin submitting sites left right and center.

ljm, you have mail.

Hehehe, Congratulations!

Jeez; two new editors in the same night notified via messages in Resource Zone.

Are those taskmaster Meta editors going soft or something??



Well done and best of luck in your editing. Don't be overwhelmed with all the information you'll find on the other side; take your time, and always remember there are plenty of people out there to help you find your way if you get stuck with anything at all. Visit the internal forums; most questions have been asked before, some many times, but in the New Editors forum the rule is that no question is a silly one. All will be answered, or you will be pointed to some place where the answer is already written (as that saves typing, time, and repetition).


I'm sure that you will have been given some hints and pointers of where to start in the introductory email that someone sent you.

Congrats and welcome to the team, ljm <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Many thanks to you all for the kind words <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

*off to do a spot of recommended reading*

No, these are good and difficult questions, and the community is usually struggling for consensus on some form or another of them.

The guidelines say deeplinks are "the exception, not the rule." We try to help the users (our usual goal) by a combination of deeplisting exceptional pages, cross-listing pages or sites, and cross-linking related categories.

Good deeplinks in sites primarily about some "related" field (or whose breadth gets them listed in some parent category, but whose depth is uneven) are prime candidates for deeplinks. Single pages in sites that are already listed in a parent category are poor candidates. In between the two, a topical expert's judgment is welcomed.

A monograph on "analysis of a surface survey of Nether Furtheronia" might be listed in both a regional category and a technology category. (But if it was part of a site focusing on Nether Furtheronia, a separate regional listing wouldn't be necessary; conversely, if part of a site focusing on surface surveys, a separate listing in the technology category wouldn't be necessary.) Editors are encouraged to consider this kind of cross-posting even in categories where they don't edit (it works just like submittals from outside, except fewer 500 server error messages.)

We have three kinds of "related categories" -- categories in other languages, @links or "virtual subcategories", and "all other related categories." At some point we might have a category for "Concretions" that would be under "Geology" but also @linked from Archaeology (assuming it could be viewed as a subcategory from either place).

But, of course, that's just a survey. If we get you in, you can dig the forum archives on the subject.

These are good guidelines hutcheson, thanks for that. Probably it will be best for me to request a review from more experienced editors of potentially problematic links that I think are good for inclusion in other areas before I actually add them - hopefully this will help me learn the system.