Curious as to Why I Was Denied

Hi Folks!

I know you seem to get a lot of these questions, but I'm genuinely unsure of why I've been rejected twice to become an editor. I would appreciate any insight that you may have.

I am a wedding photographer in Nashville TN, and I have noticed that this category is missing nearly all of the established market leaders in this field:
http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Arts_a...Events/North_America/United_States/Tennessee/

My editor name was the same as my screen name.

All of the top wedding photographers in the state (as measured by reputation, web presence, awards won, prices charged) are being omitted from the listings in this category. For this reason, I offered to edit this category, in order to make it more useful for individuals who seek to use the directory.

In my last submission, I submitted three studio websites from around the state:
<URL removed> (a VERY well known direct competitor of mine in Nashville)
<URL removed> (a well known Memphis studio)
<URL removed> (one of the top studios in Knoxville)

My descriptions were as objective as one can make a description of photography, and I went out of my way to choose market leaders from diverse regions within the category. I was very careful with grammar and punctuation.

I was also scrupulous to disclose all of my websites, and that I am a photographer who also belongs in this category.

I am interested in whether I am being rejected due to a perceived conflict-of-interest, or if there is something that I am completely missing. I received the same email response to both of my attempts at submitting an editor application, which directs me to look at the sites I am suggesting and my descriptions. I can't imagine that my selected sites are the problem, and I modeled my descriptions as closely as possible along the lines of those already accepted into the category.

I'm genuinely at a loss as to why I was rejected this second time, and would appreciate any feedback on why I might have been rejected, and whether it would be worth crafting another application. Regardless, I appreciate the work that all of you at DMOZ do, and thank you for taking the time to look at my post. I would really like to help bring this category up to date, but I can understand if I'm not viewed as an appropriate person to head up this project.

Below is reproduced the email I received for both of my attempted submissions:
*****************************
Dear Evan Baines,

Thank you for your interest in becoming an Open Directory Project editor.
After careful review, we have decided not to approve your application at
this time. The most common reasons a reviewer will deny a new application
include, but are not limited to,

* Incomplete application. Insufficient information has been provided in some
fields including reason, affiliation and/or Sample URLs.
* Improper spelling and grammar.
* Sample URLs are inappropriate for the category which one has applied to
edit. They may be too broad, too narrow, completely out of scope, poor
quality, or in a language inappropriate for the category. All non-English
sites are listed in the World category. Applications for World categories
that include sites only in English will be denied. Likewise, applications
for World categories that include sample URLs in languages other than the one
appropriate for the applied category will be denied.
* 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.

Due to the large number of applications we get every day, we are unable to
provide personal responses to every application or to respond to inquiries
about why you were rejected. If a reviewer chose to provide additional
comments to you, they will be given in the "Reviewer Comments" section below.

Your willingness to volunteer is greatly appreciated and perhaps we will be
able to utilize your talent in the future.

Regards,
The Open Directory Project

Reviewer Comments:

We hope you re-apply, because we need keen editors, and this category certainly needs some attention! However, unfortunately there are a couple of points on which your application failed, so we suggest you read the following carefully before you re-apply.

One of the primary roles of an editor is to find and add good new sites to the directory, and the application is your opportunity to show that you can do this. Please suggest sites which are not listed, and which belong in the specific category you apply for.

Also, editors are expected to follow the editing guidelines, and you are advised to read and follow them in your application as well. In particular, your attention is drawn to the section on descriptions, which can be found at http://dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html#descriptions .

Finally, be sure to list ALL your sites (including those you have owned, designed or promoted) in the section asking about associated sites.

We hope you re-apply once you have considered these points. Good Luck.
******************************

We don't get into the details of declined applications here. If the reviewer didn't add any specific comments, one or more of the list of common reasons will apply.

You're welcome to make another application but do evaluate it yourself before pressing the button .

I understand Mr. Noble. Thank you for taking the time. I'm just frustrated because I'm racking my brain as to how I could adjust my application to meet your criteria. I recognize that I am missing some aspect of the rules or guidelines, but can't get what it might be. My guess is that its something to do with the way I've been writing my descriptions: it is challenging to write something informative about a photo studio in the site description while remaining completely objective.

In this case the reviewer did take the time to add specific comments to the list of general reasons.
Those comments are found under the heading "Reviewer Comments", and provided more specific details to help you prepare a more successful application the next time.

Thanks.... I've gone down the list and resubmitted my application with specific and careful attention to the issues underlined by the reviewer:

1. I submitted three relevant sites to the category, none of which are listed.
2. My descriptions were purely objective, and formed in gramatically correct complete sentences.
3. I have disclosed all of my websites, and those websites where I contribute most frequently

Hopefully, I have addressed the relevant issue!

Again, thank you for your help.

Really, really confused. Is there any way that an editor can check to make sure that my submission form is coming through with all the correct info? I got denied again, and received the exact same response.

"One of the primary roles of an editor is to find and add good new sites to the directory, and the application is your opportunity to show that you can do this. Please suggest sites which are not listed, and which belong in the specific category you apply for."

I submitted three TN wedding photographers from around the state, who are all market leaders, but who are not currently listed. They couldn't be more relevant.

"Also, editors are expected to follow the editing guidelines, and you are advised to read and follow them in your application as well. In particular, your attention is drawn to the section on descriptions, which can be found at http://dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html#descriptions ."

My descriptions were all purely factual, gramatically correct, and followed all guidelines as far as I can tell. I've taken three cracks at this: the first application I tried to make my descriptions informative, but perhaps sacrificed objectivity. My second submission I mimicked as closely as possible the descriptions that were already in that and similar categories. This submission I kept purely factual and brief.

"Finally, be sure to list ALL your sites (including those you have owned, designed or promoted) in the section asking about associated sites."

I did list ALL of my sites, even the forums that I frequent.


I understand that you won't provide feedback on my submission, but can someone at least confirm that the sites and descriptions are coming through the system in my application?

Applications are reviewed by one or more meta editors or catmods, so you can be sure that any feedback comments come from very experienced volunteers. Unless you were advised not to do so, you are welcome to re-apply, but it would be wise to spend time carefully evaluating your suggestions, because if you received the same response after your second attempt it implies that you did not address the issues raised the first time.