Editor Application Woes

Hello,

I have applied twice to edit the category "cat names". The first time I was declined, the editor sent me this note (apart form the generic message):
Please suggest at least two sites other than your own (I did),
*and* which are not already listed (they're not),
*and* which meet ODP selection criteria (In my opinion, they do),
to show that you can easily build this category with worthwhile additions unrelated to you.
Also, please use the editing guidelines to help you write acceptable titles and descriptions (I followed this to the letter).


For my second application, I went through the entire category I am applying to edit and made note of all the existing sites that are titled incorrectly and have non-functioning features. I also pointed out why several of the sites listed are not as useful to visitors as the ones I have suggested. I figured this was the only rational way for me to show that I know the guidelines and can suggest worthwhile sites.

My second rejection e-mail had exactly the same comments as the first.

I am definitely not giving up, but I just don't feel that I'm getting honest (or at least, very specific) feedback. I appreciate that ODP editors are very busy, but specific feedback would help prevent endless back-and-forth and hopefully make the process much more efficient for everyone. Also, could it be that my category is too small to be considered worthy of an editor but no one is telling me?

Thanks for any advice!
Maria

I just don't feel that I'm getting honest (or at least, very specific) feedback.

Click to expand...

Your three applications were declined by two different meta editors. I think it's very unlikely that both are dishonestly denying your applications. Why ever would they? What would be the point?

Also, the reviewer comments look pretty specific to me. We can't fill out the form for you; the idea is that you give us three examples of how you do the job. You can check whether or not a website is already listed by using our search for domain.tld without any http or www prefixes (eg google.com).

The category is a tad small, but that wasn't one of the reasons you were given was it?

Hello jimnoble,

Thanks very much for your response. To my knowledge, I have only applied to the Cat Names category twice - and both responses were by the same editor. I did apply to another category (also declined) which is the third application you may be referring to.

As I mentioned in my original post, I HAVE already checked that the three sites I submitted are not already in the directory, and truthfully, I don't believe that the editors comments are specific (they seem more like a generic response). If they were specific, why would he/she be telling me to make sure that I only submit one of my own sites (which I did) and to make sure that those sites are not listed (which they're not)?

I'm certainly not expecting anyone to fill out the form for me...I think I did a jolly good job of it myself! In fact, as I already mentioned, my application pointed out examples of existing entries in the cat names directory that are not compliant with the ODP guidelines. (Maybe they were the editor's entries?)

I am well and truly stumped as to why I was declined and that's why the only reasons I can come up with are a) the category is too small (but ODP suggests editors start small) or 2) it's something else that the editor is not telling me.

it's something else that the editor is not telling me.

Click to expand...

If that was the case, it would be easier for the reviewer to leave no specific comments at all. If you choose to believe that there's a conspiracy to prevent you from becoming an editor, there's not a lot I can do about it.

jimnoble said:

If that was the case, it would be easier for the reviewer to leave no specific comments at all.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much what the reviewer did with their generic "copy and paste" response. Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting there is a conspiracy to reject my application. All I am saying is that the reason is definitely not apparent to me, and the reviewer is not being helpful! In the other category I applied for, the reviewer told me exactly why my submission was rejected and I REALLY appreciated his/her honest feedback. Why is it so unreasonable to hope that an editor could write "revise your headings" or "I don't think xyz site applies" or whatever else the reason for the rejection might be? That would save everyone so much time! (Including you, I'm sure.)

Sigh, there's no pleasing some people, is there.
If the volunteer reviewing an application feels that one of the most common reasons applies, then there is no reason to add specific comments to the generic feedback. This upsets many people who are unable to accept that any of those reasons apply to them.
But if the volunteer spends extra time on specific comments, then it is because they wish to help the applicant identify those areas they need to address next time. Apparently that isn't good enough for some people either, and they want the volunteer to take even more time painstakingly pointing out each individual problem.

With hundreds of applications being submitted every week, and a very limited number of volunteers to review them, I can't quite see how this degree of hand-holding would actually save time.

Applicants are expected to be able to read instructions, the editing guidelines, the various other resources, and any previous feedback, and work out for themselves which aspects of their application(s) need improvement. If someone lacks the insight and understanding to follow such basic principles, it is unlikely they will cope with the requirements of being an editor.

Fortunately, many people do succeed with their applications, and we welcome new editors every day.

I would like to know how come there are only complaints about editor applications and directory submissions.
No one stepped up in the forum saying: Yeah I was approved no problem, here's how I did it. Or yeah my website is great and I it was approved no problem.

I understand that there are many applicants, but all I see as replies for these messages is replies from: "jimnoble" and "makrhod" just saying: Oh that's the way it works...

Everything is mystery!

@ marek2608:
When you buy a bad bottle of wine, you complain about it - but when you buy a good one, do you return to the store and compliment them?

Everything is mystery!

Click to expand...

It's only a mystery if you haven't read any of this forum's FAQ, its sticky threads or any DMOZ help pages. In actuality, our operating methods and principles are all made very clear in public documents - even down to the reasons why we won't give status reports.

replies from: "jimnoble" and "makrhod" just saying: Oh that's the way it works...

Click to expand...

We wouldn't have to keep repeating this if people would only read all the explanations, instructions and advice published in many places to help them.
If they do not even bother to read what is provided, they are obviously not interested in finding out anything.
There is little anyone can do to help people who remain wilfully ignorant and determined not to understand.