Declined or pending? Submissions lost since crash?

hypnoticvibe · Dec 29, 2006

Hello.
I know you don't want people to ask how long it will take but is there any way I can check whether my site was declined or not? I know it can take an extremely long time, but at this point I actually don't know whether it's taking long or just simply declined.
Also, were site submissions lost since the last period where DMOZ had hardware issues? I'm thinking that might be the reason.
Thank you for your time and any support you may provide.

spectregunner · Dec 29, 2006

ut is there any way I can check whether my site was declined or not?

We not longer give status reports...no matter how you frame the question.

Please do not reword your question and ask again.

donaldb · Dec 30, 2006

You also need to get past this idea of the ODP is a listing service. We thank you for helping us build the directory by suggesting a web site, but we're in no way oblidged to ever list it. If it's a site that fits in with the ODP, and if an editor is interested in working in that area, it may be listed someday. If people would realize this basic fact, they would stop worrying about whether their suggestion was declined or not.

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

If that was every variable, I'd agree. I tried to help a project for free (when the people at the top are getting paid) by becoming an editor but nobody could level straight with me and say, "This is the problem..."
Instead, I have no clue to this day why I was declined. It's a completely disrespectful and uncivil operation.

motsa · Dec 30, 2006

If that was every variable, I'd agree. I tried to help a project for free (when the people at the top are getting paid) by becoming an editor.

There are very few paid AOL staff members associated with the ODP and most of them spend most of their time on other AOL tasks. Everyone else is a volunteer.

but nobody could level straight with me and say, "This is the problem..." Instead, I have no clue to this day why I was declined. It's a completely disrespectful and uncivil operation

If you know you were declined, then you must have gotten an e-mail. If there were no personal comments on that e-mail, one or more of the suggested problems applied to your application.

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

motsa said:
If you know you were declined, then you must have gotten an e-mail.

Yes, an E-Mail that they took the time to copy and paste before sending.

motsa said:
If there were no personal comments on that e-mail, one or more of the suggested problems applied to your application.

That's a crock (not you saying it but the policy itself). I'm not a number. I'm a person.
Again, nobody could level straight with me and say, "This is the problem..." Instead, I have no clue to this day why I was declined.

pvgool · Dec 30, 2006

Finding out yourself which of these standard mistakes was made by you in the application can be seen as an extra test. Editors must be able to make such investigations alsmost daily. If you aren't able to determine what was the problem (maybe more than one) it might be that you are not the editormaterial we are looking for.

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

pvgool said:
Finding out yourself which of these standard mistakes was made by you in the application can be seen as an extra test.

So you're telling me that's the reason?

pvgool · Dec 30, 2006

What is the reason for what?
You must write more clear to understand questions if you want answers.

The extra test is not the reason for a rejection of a first application. Else I wouldn't have made it in on my first attempt. But if the application is not good enough (it needn't be perfect as that is impossible) you are given the opportunity to correct the mistakes.

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

"Given the opportunity"? That's hilarious wording.
When someone applies to sacrifice loads of their time and 5 minutes isn't taken to explain why they're declined, it's a complete lack of decency (on the behalf of the policy, not you personally).
There are more civil ways to test people.

makrhod · Dec 30, 2006

When someone applies to sacrifice loads of their time and 5 minutes isn't taken to explain why they're declined

This is not a sacrifice, it's a hobby.

Each application is reviewed individually by a meta or catmod, and each review can take anywhere up to an hour of that volunteer's time. In many cases, specific advice is given to the unsuccessful applicant to help them prepare their next application. If the reason for rejection is one of the very common problems seen, then there is no need to re-invent the wheel and spend even more time writing them out for the "nth" time. The form letter is polite and comprehensive, and many of today's editors were able to use it to complete a subsequent, successful application.

If the reason for rejection were not already on that letter, there would be extra comments. If there were no extra comments then the reason is there for you to read. It's so simple. There is no trick.

It is very easy to become an editor, which is why (barring technical problems), we accept thousands each year, of all ages and all educational/skill levels.

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

makrhod said:
It is very easy to become an editor

If someone hits the lottery it's easy to say, "Hitting the lottery is easy." In your personal experience I'd imagine becoming an editor was easy.
However, if you meant as far as the average person; all respect intended, I really don't believe you. What is the ratio of accepted applications (not applicants) to rejected applications?

photofox · Dec 30, 2006

In your personal experience I'd imagine becoming an editor was easy.

That is a factor as well, some people are just not a good fit for editing. As makrhod stated, it is not difficult for the average person to become an editor, it just requires some background reading, a little research (reading the guidelines, perhaps posts on this forum) and attention to detail.

As far as accept/reject ratios go, that would be internal information that is only available to those who review the applications.

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

photofox said:
As far as accept/reject ratios go, that would be internal information that is only available to those who review the applications.

Wouldn't that include you or any editor? If they (again, not you personally, whoever created the rule) feel the need to hide it, it proves something shady is going on.

photofox · Dec 30, 2006

No, it's nothing to do with hiding information because there is something bad, it's just that information is really not useful to anyone other than those who have access to the applications (i.e. catmod and meta editors).

makrhod · Dec 30, 2006

Just because information is not readily available to everyone does not automatically mean "something shady" is going on.
This applies to all fields of life, but sadly there will always be those who believe that unless they are told everything they want to know, it is because of a conspiracy.

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

Being readily available and being secret are different.
In this context, the ratio directly reflects the concept that was disagreed upon. If it is required to keep the ratio hidden from the public, it's fairly obvious why that is.
Let's face it - almost every single application is declined and virtually any unbiased person would agree if they saw the ratio.

donaldb · Dec 30, 2006

hypnoticvibe said:
Let's face it - almost every single application is declined and virtually any unbiased person would agree if they saw the ratio.

That's quite an assumption. What information are you basing that on?

I'm not sure what use the number of declined applications would be to anyone, but as you can see from our published reports we accept hundreds of new applications every month.

hypnoticvibe · Dec 30, 2006

donaldb said:
That's quite an assumption. What information are you basing that on?

numerous people I know who are very articulate and polite that were *all* declined
someone feeling the need to keep the ratio secret
a former meta

donaldb said:
I'm not sure what use the number of declined applications would be to anyone, but as you can see from our published reports we accept hundreds of new applications every month.

Without a denominator it's not a ratio and shows nothing concerning how difficult it is to be accepted.

makrhod · Dec 30, 2006

"Numerous people I know" and "a former meta" are no more reliable or verifiable than the legendary "anonymous tip-off" or even "sources close to the President".

And I'm afraid "someone feeling the need to keep the ratio secret" exactly fits my conspiracy comment above.

Declined or pending? Submissions lost since crash?

hypnoticvibe

Member

spectregunner

Member

donaldb

Member

hypnoticvibe

Member

motsa

hypnoticvibe

Member

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

hypnoticvibe

Member

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

hypnoticvibe

Member

makrhod

Member

hypnoticvibe

Member

photofox

Curlie Admin

hypnoticvibe

Member

photofox

Curlie Admin

makrhod

Member

hypnoticvibe

Member

donaldb

Member

hypnoticvibe

Member

makrhod

Member