Are redirects to an eBay store allowed?

Too disturbing an image?

Only if you are a male person.

motsa said:

Too disturbing an image?

Click to expand...

Not at all...
As long as I'm not the one on the receiving end of that stiletto!

Getting "off" my Off Topic and back on the topic at hand, I would like to know something else.

When I follow the progression of:
Top: Shopping: Sports: Memorabilia: Autographs
I notice that there are editors in Shopping and it's not until I get to Autographs do I see another editor listed. Realizing that there are editors that may edit anywhere, does this indicate that there are no specific editors in Shopping > Sports and Shopping > Sports > Memorabilia:?

If there WERE "specific editors" in those categories, that would just be more examples of "editors that MAY edit there" ... from the point of view of "editor permissions", both cases are treated alike. From the point of view of "where editors are likely to edit next", a firm conviction of agnosticism is the only realistic faith.

hutcheson said:

If there WERE "specific editors" in those categories, that would just be more examples of "editors that MAY edit there" ... from the point of view of "editor permissions", both cases are treated alike. From the point of view of "where editors are likely to edit next", a firm conviction of agnosticism is the only realistic faith.

Click to expand...

Geez...maybe I should stop asking questions, I think I was more content when I was in the dark.
I just can't seem to help myself, so here goes...
Let's go back to this:

After monitoring the ODP for a while and not really seeing a change in a category I felt it was time to reapply. Difference this time was I did have a vested interest in the section. OK, I’ll reapply! The response, (paraphrasing) “category to large for a novice editor, pick something smaller (under 50 listings) and reapply”. Mind you this category had 74 entries at the time. OK, I pick a category with 36 entries and reapply! Again, (paraphrasing) “sorry but that category is well covered, thanks for applying”.

Click to expand...

Why would the ODP tell me that a category was too big or had too many requests in the queue for a novice editor when there is clearly nobody editing or even listed to edit that category. As motsa has said, "We're volunteers and we choose how much or how little time we spend doing ODP-related tasks. Tasks aren't assigned, they are sought. If no one chooses to spend their time editing in any given category, then that category doesn't get edited." then why wouldn't the ODP give someone a shot at editing if they find an interest in a particular category. Wouldn't that be better than allowing it to stagnate? Isn't some form of editing better than no editing, especially if there are editors with the power to edit the editors above them? Or perhaps I should just take it as a polite way of the person reviewing the application saying "Buzz off you loser, there's no way you're qualified to edit this category".

I am unaware of your specific situation but from this last post it sounds to me as if you took a snippet from the standard list of reasons an application isn't accepted (which is sent in letter form to denied applications when one or more of the most common reasons apply) and are singling them out as the cause. Could it be one or more of the the other common reasons were the cause of a denied application? 74 listed sites isn't in its self particularly too large for a trainee, but that does depend on the category to some extent. As for the reason of "sorry this category is well covered", the paraphrasing is bit off (missing the point) but regardless it rarely is going to be the sole reason for denial of the application. If there were no specific reviewer comments it quite possibly was a combination of several of those most common reasons vs. one of the two you mention on their own. Again, though I don't know the specific situation so its just a personal impression I am getting.

HeartOfTheOrder said:

Isn't some form of editing better than no editing, especially if there are editors with the power to edit the editors above them?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Poor editing is never acceptable, including (and especially) when it is meant as a substitution for no interested editors. If a category isn't considered a good candidate for a trainee, putting one in there could lead to bigger problems. Fixing problems that could be caused by an enthusiastic new editor not following guidelines is much, much tougher and time consuming on a category that is too large or subject to large amounts of spam, etc. In particular if the category already has low editor interest at the current time, the damage caused could go unchecked for a while before someone notices and begins the cleanup. The potential harm there is serious editing problems could remain on the live directory for extended periods of time before they are cleaned up. Had the trainee begun in a small category it would be much more likely they had someone mentoring or checking in on them to insure they were developing within the editorial guidelines.

Why would the ODP tell me that a category was too big or had too many requests in the queue for a novice editor when there is clearly nobody editing or even listed to edit that category.

I'll take a stab at this. Maybe it's because the category is too big (or had too many requests in the queue) for a novice user.

This fact could be true regardless of how many editors are (or are not) already editing there.

And there are categories that are too limited in scope also. (Note that both of these characterizations include more parameters than just "number of sites".)

"Polite" is NOT, here, a politically correct term for "not telling the truth." If you got a laundry list of reasons, then the reviewer really thought at least one of them applies. (Figuring out which ones, is left as an exercise to you. After all, ALL of those reasons would impact your editorial responsibilities.)

Not necessarily. Poor editing is never acceptable, including (and especially) when it is meant as a substitution for no interested editors. If a category isn't considered a good candidate for a trainee, putting one in there could lead to bigger problems. Fixing problems that could be caused by an enthusiastic new editor not following guidelines is much, much tougher and time consuming on a category that is too large or subject to large amounts of spam, etc. In particular if the category already has low editor interest at the current time, the damage caused could go unchecked for a while before someone notices and begins the cleanup. The potential harm there is serious editing problems could remain on the live directory for extended periods of time before they are cleaned up. Had the trainee begun in a small category it would be much more likely they had someone mentoring or checking in on them to insure they were developing within the editorial guidelines.

Click to expand...

Point taken!

"Polite" is NOT, here, a politically correct term for "not telling the truth."

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to insinuate that anyone was lying, just maybe trying to spare some feelings.

Anyway...
I've taken up plenty of your time, I shall have to respectfully disagree on some points, but some I do see more clearly now. You have all been more than patient and polite with your replies and I thank you for your time here and with the ODP project. Barring a divine intervention I don't think my site will ever grace the pages of the ODP, so it's time to stop chatting and go press on and discover other ways to promote and develop my site.

Until our paths cross again, be well and stay safe!
HotO