Editors and prospective editors

New thread started because I didn't wish to distract from anyone else's thread.

I just wished to comment on some reactions in this forum from present editors and how they might be viewed by prospective applicants. There have been a number of posts with the message "Well I did this or that, and I got accepted in five hours/five days/five minutes", which tends to imply that all people who haven't been accepted did not take these steps.

I accept that there are many applications which do not meet the ODP guidelines. I even accept the point of view that hints should not be given on how to improve to applicants who are rejected.

But, let us say, for the sake of argument, that my hypothetical application is a perfectly good one. It is made to an area, to quote from a meta in another thread, "which is already under close and competent supervision". I know nothing of this, it still has "this site needs an editor" under it, and wait my 8-10 weeks, receiving nothing.

Eventually, I decide to reapply. This time I make another perfectly good application to a different category and this time the category is due to undergo reorganisation. Once again, I wait my 8-10 weeks and hear nothing.

Finally I decide to reapply to a third category. This time, after an 8-10 week delay, my application is accepted because it is, as were the first two, an appropriate one.

Now if we add all this time up, we have a minimum of six month's waiting, as opposed to the almost instantaneous acceptance that some editors are claiming. At any point during those 6+ months I could have given up on the application and gone about other things. And the ODP, which has admitted it has an acute shortage of editors, has been deprived of the services of an enthusiastic newbie for that length of time.

All it would take is an email to suitable applicants which says: "Thanks for your application. It was fine but it was made to a category which is ............(fill in as appropriate). We would like to welcome you to the ODP and offer you one of the following related categories."

And I know that editors are volunteers and that you all have lives and the number of applicants is high. But also, judging from the comments that I have read here, the number of editor applications which reach the standards is relatively low (and I would assume the number of editor applications which reach the standard and cannot be granted for some reason is much lower than that).

So therefore why not make it a reviewing rule that applications that would be accepted were it not for other internal ODP factors should always receive an email such as the one above. The ODP gets the services of a suitable editor faster and, if no reply is received, the applicant realises that their effort was not good enough.

So therefore why not make it a reviewing rule that applications that would be accepted were it not for other internal ODP factors should always receive an email such as the one above. The ODP gets the services of a suitable editor faster and, if no reply is received, the applicant realises that their effort was not good enough.

Click to expand...

Without wishing to sound too cynical, and if you hang round this forum long enough perhaps you too can conclude, that most editor applications, like most web site submissions, have a hidden agenda, and therefore the first inclination is to reject rather than accept.

If ODP followed your suggestion, then a lot of time might be spent in undoing the problems of "bad" editors that had been too rashly accepted.

I am sure that none of us want (more) bad editors, personally I would accept more unreviewed than risk that<img src="/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

just_browsing, my point was regarding applications that would have been accepted for another category, but are not because of ODP internal reasons that the applicants are unaware of...(e.g. category undergoing reorganisation, category already being looked after capably, number of unreviewed sites excessive for new editor, etc, etc).

I am a regular editor, not a meta, but I'd like to address some of the issues above.

First I'd like to say that I think it would be a good idea to implement your suggestion. I believe, however, that the application responses (if any) are entirely up to each meta so it would be unusual in our culture to implement a rule about how to deal with this scenario. Hopefully your thread will generate some discussion among the metas internally and perhaps some will adopt this practice.

Secondly I'l like to address Just_Browsing's comment regarding "the first inclination is to reject rather than accept." I can speak with full authority regarding site submissions and I assure all who are reading this that we look at every submission with the presumption that it does belong. Of course some are rejected for reasons listed in the guidelines. But I don't know many people who volunteer to make the most comprehensive directory of websites assuming that submissions are misleading.

We most certainly do need good editors. And we appreciate the submissions we get. If a submission title and description are poorly written we simply re-write them; that doesn't get them rejected.

One more thing I'd like to point out to new users of the Resource-Zone is that often conversations are started here to resolve questions or issues. When there is no question or issue, nobody posts "hey, this thing over here worked exactly as it should have!" So, although you may see many posts highlighting confusion or problems, realize it's because those are the things that people need to discuss, but there are plenty of situations that are handled smoothly and to the satisfaction of both the submitter and the ODP.

Angela, I think that Just_Browsing's comment regarding "the first inclination is to reject rather than accept." was actually talking about Applications to be an Editor rather than about site submissions.

Good point. Sorry about that misunderstanding. I'll let a meta reply to whether they are inclined first to reject an editor application. Somehow I doubt it. I just think that the requirements are so stringent that it may seem like their first inclination is to reject.

My comments are still applicable, though, in response to: "most editor applications, like most web site submissions..."

Thanks Giz.

would have been accepted for another category, but are not because of ODP internal reasons

Click to expand...

Alpine

That is so blindingly obvious, that I wonder why I did not think of that. It is a cracking good idea.

I hope that someone "on high" has seen this thread and is giving it consideration.

ODP undoubtedly needs "good" editors, and should not be "putting off" editors that do apply by the sort of response that they do get to applications.

I understand that dealing with editor applications is not one of the "fun jobs" for Metas.

Perhaps by offering a smaller/different category to applicants, then everyone would be happier

Without wishing to sound too cynical, and if you hang round this forum long enough perhaps you too can conclude, that most editor applications, like most web site submissions, have a hidden agenda, and therefore the first inclination is to reject rather than accept.

Click to expand...

Angela
I put my original quote in full.

I would admit to being provocative, in order to stimulate a discussion on the thread subject of "editors and prospective editors" which is one of the most important questions facing ODP today. The bottom line is that if there isn't a substantial increase in the number of editors then unreviewed cannot be controlled - but if you get the wrong guys then the quality goes haywire. <img src="/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

On reflection the only thing I would alter from that original quote of mine, would be to change the emphasis from all web site submissions to DMOZ, to the ones that come through this forum. I'll get round o a statistical analysis one day (feel free to do it yourself) but a gut feel is that over 50% of the sites that submitters chase up here are untimately going to be rejected because they are outside guidelines.

I would accept that sites that are brought up here are not a necessarily a representative cross section of all sites submitted to DMOZ, but I suspect they are.

I would stand by the comment that the first inclination is to reject editor applications. From memory a couple of the meta editors who frequent this board have given the figures in their own cases. My memory is not deep enough to drag out the exact quotations - perhaps one of them can oblige ( I seem to recall 10% acceptance, but I may be way out there!)

Most metas agree that they accept between 10% and 15% of applications. But this is simply because the other 85%-90% weren't good enough (or could potentially be spammers, for example) - any meta who thinks "well, I've declined 9 people today so I'll accept this one" isn't doing their job properly...

I like the idea of adding information to the form rejection letter.

IMHO the amateur volunteer -- non-spammer, non-gamer -- who applies to be an editor would be most encouraged/helped by fuller explanations on the rejection letter. Perhaps 85% of the applications are inadequate or mask spammers, but I think ODP would be best served by encouraging unsuccessful applicants.

The spammers are going to keep trying anyway. The true-hearted novice is more likely to give up.

So therefore why not make it a reviewing rule that applications that would be accepted were it not for other internal ODP factors should always receive an email such as the one above. The ODP gets the services of a suitable editor faster and, if no reply is received, the applicant realises that their effort was not good enough.

Click to expand...

We do this already, although the way the system works we add a message to the rejection email explaining why we rejected the application and urging them to reapply to a smaller category (for example). Its not a requirement, but us metas want to get as meny good editors into the ODP as we can, so I cannot see anyone not using this option that we already have -- Foe

There are several hundred applications waiting at any given time, covering categories from Adult to World_Languages_I_Can't_Understand <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> I certainly can't handle them all, nor will I try.
<p>
There are some default radio buttons we meta-editors can click:
<blockquote>Approve
Reject
Narrow your focus
Cat under revision
Already an editor
Defer with no mail</blockquote>

There is also a field to type in any comments for the submitter, whether an acceptance note or a rejection comment. I'm sure that not everyone gets a personal comment, but the radio buttons are, in my opinion, clear enough.

I agree with foe that we don't want good editors to give up after a single application. There are sometimes good reasons to reject people but still encourage a re-application. i certainly try to get folks to try again, but I don't know if everyone does.

Thanks for your replies. I think the radio button system covers most of the things I was thinking of and is a good system for those applicants who do receive a return email.

Whilst I realise that these are internal details and you may not wish to go into the subject further, I was intrigued by the radio button "defer with no mail".

Lately there seems to be a greater desire to provide a more detailed response and I (perhaps along with others) had assumed that the lack of a reply to an application indicated that it had been judged to be of a particularly unworthy standard...

Sometimes you have someone apply twice with 2 different nicknames. You defer one of them.