I have just been told that I need not apply again!

xx0033 said:

I have had an email back regarding my editor application stating that I need not apply again, as 'someone claiming to be my brother' applied a short while after I had.

It is true, I do have a brother, however, as he lives in the USA, is the Chief Information Officer for a large Insurance company, is married and has a child, I feel that at his time in life, he can do pretty much what he wants. He doesnt tell me everything that he does, and when he does it.As he works in IT, there is a mutual interest.

I have basically been accused of trying to apply to different areas as two different people. I was not questioned about this, I was just told that this was the case.

THIS WAS NOT TRUE. I DID NOT DO THIS.

Again, I feel badly treated, (this time quite rightly, previously, perhaps not). I thought I did the right thing by asking in an email to staff@dmoz.org, but its now a couple of weeks later, and I have not had any response, neither positive nor negative.

Could someone please let me know if I am able to apply again, and if not, why not?

I have worked in IT for nearly 20 years, I know my subject areas well, have a good grasp of English, and can even spell at a reasonably high level.

Give me a chance please Ed's and Mods.

Regards,

Simon

Click to expand...

jimnoble said:

Perhaps you'd care to share the entire message which gave several other reasons also.

Recent newapps 20051129799432 and 20051205833227 (metas only) and 4 earlier ones.
Brother's newapp 20051129799746

Click to expand...

xx0033 said:

Sir,

The email stated the following
"Reviewer Comments:

By a truly amazing coincidence, somebody claiming to be your brother applied to become an editor shortly after your previous application was declined.

We don't much like coincidences here.

Then there is the previously mentioned disregard of our submission guidelines and yet another failure to give a complete answer to "Please give details, including URLs, of any sites that you own or have designed or promoted, either in full or in part. Also, mention whether you have contributed content to any site, and give URLs as appropriate".

We've had enough. Please do not reapply.


"

It implies that this is a dodgy application. It is not. It states that I need to include all the sites I have input into. This was done. I get involved with sites all the time, (hence everytime I apply, the list gets longer).

My interpretation of your response sir shouts out ' its our party - you cant come and play '.

You have made implications about me that are incorrect. Rather than ask, you have jumped to conclusions. These are wrong. Rather than apologise, I get a response that doesnt actually respond to anything specific, and I am now left feeling like I am guilty of a crime I didnt commit, being hung drawn and quartered by someone who has not even looked into this matter.

My request is this, please play fair. If you want to discuss this off thread, then please do so. If I can get good feedback, I can do something about it. If I dont, then I cant.

FYI Responses to the original email
Then there is the previously mentioned disregard of our submission guidelines - I have tried to get my site listed where I deemed appropriate, however the eds do not think the same way as myself, therefore, I wrote an email saying that I would adhere to their guidelines and have done so having read ALL the info on the site and the FAQ's - and yet another failure to give a complete answer to "Please give details, including URLs, of any sites that you own or have designed or promoted, either in full or in part. Also, mention whether you have contributed content to any site, and give URLs as appropriate - This I believe was done?

Simon

Click to expand...

jimnoble said:

Thanks for sharing the email.

We don't discuss the details of an individual application here but I can repeat some general comments that I've made before.

We look for a number of attributes in a prospective editor, including the following.

* Communications skills, spelling, grammar and and the ability to comprehend a question.
* Attention to detail, which includes the abilities to read and adhere to guidelines and select appropriate websites for the category.
* Integrity.

From the email, it would seem that the reviewing meta believed you fell short in some areas.

Click to expand...

xx0033 said:

Jim,

Again, I stress that your, (the anonymous Editor/Meta), response to my last application was wrong. I have only ever applied for myself, no others. This means that the insinuation thrown at me incorrectly by the Editor or Moderator who denied my last application has abjectively harmed my chances.

This is exactly what gives some of you guys a bad name. If you are genuinly about being fair, then you cannot surely be judge AND jury, which is exactly what you have been in this case, not even allowing me to appeal, (which I have obviously tried to do, but have had thrown back at me).

I have not even got an appology for these slanderous comments - I have attached the full email I received below. See what you think?

Simon



Dear Simon XX0033,

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:

By a truly amazing coincidence, somebody claiming to be your brother applied to become an editor shortly after your previous application was declined.

We don't much like coincidences here.

Then there is the previously mentioned disregard of our submission guidelines and yet another failure to give a complete answer to "Please give details, including URLs, of any sites that you own or have designed or promoted, either in full or in part. Also, mention whether you have contributed content to any site, and give URLs as appropriate".

We've had enough. Please do not reapply.
Edit/Delete Message

Click to expand...

can I get another chance?

Click to expand...