No reason for denial

ronniestander · Sep 29, 2003

Is it possible to just get denied for no specific reason? I've applied a couple of times for different directories over the past month, and mostly got rejected by the same editor in two minutes or less.
I later used an application of a current editor for the same sector, with exactly his wording - He was accepted for a much bigger directory, but was denied when I used it for a directory which currently contains one entry, which is a wrong entry.
Is it possible that some editors just don’t want to allow new editors, and in the process is hurting ODP?

bnorbs · Sep 29, 2003

Yeah, I think your right. Some editors are being territorial about allowing new editors into their categories. I think this is killing the ODP when they are obviously so desperate to have editors.
I have attempted to become an editor, without sounding like I am blowing my own trumpet

I am more than qualified to edit the category I applied for. The category I was applying to has not been updated since early this year!
It makes me angry when all the excuses for the problems in the ODP are blamed on a lack of editors. People are applying!
END OF RANT

windharp · Sep 29, 2003

Some editors are being territorial about allowing new editors into their categories

This is a myth, a fairly old one. And again: Editor applications are NOT processed by local editors. They have NOTHING to do with it. The very experienced editors (called Meta-Editors) are the only ones who have the permission to process new editor applications.

motsa · Sep 29, 2003

I later used an application of a current editor for the same sector, with exactly his wording

You don't think that maybe meta editors are smart enough to notice that you "cheated" on your application? Why on earth would you think that it was a good move to reuse someone else's application as your own?

The default rejection letter pretty much covers every reason why an application will get rejected. Sometimes meta editors include a personal note but sometimes they don't simply because the default letter says it all.

motsa · Sep 29, 2003

I am more than qualified to edit the category I applied for. The category I was applying to has not been updated since early this year! It makes me angry when all the excuses for the problems in the ODP are blamed on a lack of editors. People are applying!

You may be more than qualified about the topic but that doesn't mean that your application demonstrated that you would be a good editor. Knowledge of the topic isn't a critical factor in determining who is accepted and who isn't -- it's more important for you to demonstrate that you can write using proper English, that you can title and describe sites according to the ODP's style, that you understand what belongs in the category you're applying for. While we welcome and encourage new editors, we're not desperate for them and it wouldn't be to anyone's benefit if we were to relax the criteria that we use for screening applicants.

ronniestander · Sep 30, 2003

This has absolutely nothing to do with how smart the meta editors is. And yes, there would be now way, or let me correct myself, the chances are 1/1000 for someone to see if it's a duplicated application or not, accept if, which I sincerely hope not, there is only something like 50 new applications per day.
Also, the only reason “on earth” we used the duplicated application was to see what the response will be. From what you are saying it seems that you want to make the point that there is no possible way “on earth” that a good application can be denied and a not so good application can be accepted. In this case I can’t wait to become an editor because it seems like this will mean I will also be perfect.

John_Caius · Sep 30, 2003

Then re-read the guidelines, write a better application and apply again.

NB not meaning to be rude but there were two spelling mistakes and one grammar error in this sentence from your post:

"And yes, there would be now way, or let me correct myself, the chances are 1/1000 for someone to see if it's a duplicated application or not, accept if, which I sincerely hope not, there is only something like 50 new applications per day."

- 'now' way... --> no way
- 'accept' if... --> except
- there is...50 applications per day --> there are

*If* (and I'm not a meta editor and haven't ever seen your application) your application had similar errors on it then that might be grounds for rejection - that's something to consider.

flicker · Sep 30, 2003

>And yes, there would be no way, or let me correct myself, the chances
>are 1/1000 for someone to see if it's a duplicated application or not

Uh, well, I don't review applications, but the chances are more like 1000/1000, for reasons that would probably be obvious to anybody intelligent enough to, well, not mail in an application copied word-for-word from another person's. Honestly, what in the world were you smoking to think that was a good way to get accepted as an editor??? :crazy:

[edited to remove slightly-too-revealing specifics about spam-identifying techniques]

motsa · Sep 30, 2003

From what you are saying it seems that you want to make the point that there is no possible way “on earth” that a good application can be denied and a not so good application can be accepted.

Um, I never said that. My point was that reusing someone else's application is a pretty good way to make sure you don't get accepted...ever.

tweedy7736 · Oct 1, 2003

Wait, so you're telling us that you applied using another person's exact application for an entirely different category? As smart as that sounds, I'm thinking that it probably wouldn't work, and it didn't.

ronniestander · Oct 1, 2003

It was not a good idea to do that if the only thing in life that you want to become was an editor, but, if not becoming one isn’t the end of the world for you it is interesting to see the replies it generates. I mean what could be so different between, e.g.:
Regional: North America: Mexico: States: Campeche: Localities: Campech and
Regional: North America: Mexico: States: Campeche: Localities: Ciudad del Carmen
And now for the shocking thing: The editor that reviewed my application was kind enough to reply to my email – telling me that everything on my application checked out fine with him/her except for the fact that it was “to much of a spammy” area for a first time editor (Regional: North America: United States: Washington, DC: Travel and Tourism). This, I do believe. Seeing that it seems they haven’t realized that it was a duplicate they should probably fire him/her and use a couple of other, well spoken, guys to do his/her job.

ronniestander · Oct 1, 2003

Funny enough just yesterday I was reading a review study of one of the professors form Oxford University where it stated that a study they made revealed that when people immediately mentioned phrases like "not intelligent enough”, “intelligent enough”, etc it is most likely (68%) that they are trying to hide there own incompatibility – just a thought. Again as I said earlier I didn’t say it was a good way to get accepted – it was just to see what the reaction was. After my email from the editor that reviewed my application it seems that it was not 1000/1000.

flicker · Oct 1, 2003

Re: Excellent reason for denial

I have a new experiment for you. I invite you to photocopy the resume of a friend who just got a job at a local company, paste your name over his, and send it to the same company. See if you get the position. See if when you call them back about it they say "We're sorry, but we've determined that you're an ethically suspect moron so that's why we're not hiring you." See if they get into a nice specific discussion with you about exactly how they discovered your ham-handed attempt at subterfuge. Or see if they just say "Sorry, we filled that position, good luck elsewhere" and hang up on you.

I think most unsuccessful applicants to the ODP are, as you say, incompatible with the organization rather than too dumb for the job. You've provided all of us with MORE than enough evidence that you're not one of them!

ronniestander · Oct 1, 2003

Re: Excellent reason for denial

It is a totally different scenario, but let me degrade myself and get into this. I’ve been working for a telecoms company as IT Communications Manager till middle 2002. There were only 20 different IT departments under me and all of them had an employment director for each sector, each sector had there own developers and different webs that was all part of the main web. Developer 1 in the broadband division could easily being employed with almost the same (modified) CV than developer 49 in the satellite communications sector if the decision was to made in less than 5 minutes, since the same people didn’t see all the CV’s (100+ per day).

But again I can see that you immediately go to for terms like dumb, moron, etc, so I must apologize if my previous statement about the professors findings was a little bit to close to home – that was not my intention. But not to worry I’m sure there will always be people that once they are in a certain position they get some kind of a God complex and go on some silly power trip.

jimnoble · Oct 1, 2003

Re: Excellent reason for denial

This seems a fairly fruitless conversation, there being no point arguing with editors who don't review applications. As you've already been told, only metas (and catmods) do that.

If you'd still like to be an editor, first of all read http://www.resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=9620 very carefully and then put together a credible and truthful application.

To have been previously rejected in 2 minutes as you claim, there must have been some very obvious and serious errors or omissions. This time, please treat the process as seriously as you would a job application, because that's what it is.

ronniestander · Oct 1, 2003

Re: Excellent reason for denial

Thank you for a sensible reply. I agree this was getting a bit silly and going nowhere. Basically I just want to make the statement that it is possible for a not so good application to be accepted, whereas a, “might be”, good editor can be denied – like it is the case when applying for a job.

jimnoble · Oct 1, 2003

Re: Excellent reason for denial

metas are not quite perfect and sometimes let in editors who they subsequently wish they hadn't.

OTOH, the review process for applications is pretty strict and a carelessly made one is likely to be declined. We don't need careless editors. There's nothing to prevent such applicants from trying again though.

motsa · Oct 1, 2003

Re: Excellent reason for denial

>>Basically I just want to make the statement that it is possible for a not so good application to be accepted, whereas a, “might be”, good editor can be denied – like it is the case when applying for a job.

This is true. But if you're trying to use the example of you using your editor friend's application and getting rejected as a sign that potentially good applications are denied, you're operating on an incorrect premise.

No reason for denial

ronniestander

bnorbs

Member

windharp

Meta/kMeta

motsa

motsa

ronniestander

John_Caius

Member

flicker

Member

motsa

tweedy7736

Member

ronniestander

ronniestander

flicker

Member

ronniestander

jimnoble

DMOZ Meta

ronniestander

jimnoble

DMOZ Meta

motsa