Open Directory application

Today I received a standard rejection reply to my editor application accompanied with this comment:

Reviewer Comments:

Despite a previous warning, you've failed to declare associated websites yet again. Do not apply again.

Click to expand...

I find this comment rude and it makes me very angry, here's why:

1. I last applied in 2006, which was rejected. No comment was attached. I never received a specific warning.
2. I *DID* declare the main websites I am associated with, ones I am involved in on a daily basis.
3. I am "associated" with literally hundreds of websites and have contributed to maybe thousands of websites (including this one). Are you expecting me to list every single website I have ever been involved with in some capacity?
4. Why am I being penalised for websites that you have associated me with? You know I'm associated with it and I've either overlooked it or chosen not to list it.
5. To be told not to apply again is just rude and insulting. Why not just ask me for a more details?

Comment improvement recommendation:

What about example.com? Next time provide [more|all] of the websites you're associated with.

Click to expand...

I'm so angry that I've received such a rude response.

I will be applying again.

My question is, what is meant by associated websites? What are you expecting?

> 1. I last applied in 2006, which was rejected. No comment was attached. I never received a specific warning.
Not according to our information. A specific comment about this issue was send on the application you made in 2010.

> 2. I *DID* declare the main websites I am associated with, ones I am involved in on a daily basis.
"main" is not enough when "all" is requested

> 3. I am "associated" with literally hundreds of websites and have contributed to maybe thousands of websites
> (including this one). Are you expecting me to list every single website I have ever been involved with in some
> capacity?
The question on the form is very clear

Sites with which you are associated:
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.

Click to expand...

So, the answer is: yes, list every website.

> 4. Why am I being penalised for websites that you have associated me with?
> You know I'm associated with it and I've either overlooked it or chosen not to list it.
Because we can not know if it is "overlooked" (which might be acceptabel) or "chose not to list"(which is totaly not acceptable). That is why we ask applicants to be complete in their answers. Overlooking or choosing not to list affilaitions on several attempts is not a good attitude.

> 5. To be told not to apply again is just rude and insulting. Why not just ask me for a more details?
We did on your previous applications. You decided not to provide the requested information.

> I will be applying again.
Which most probably be of no use. It will most probably be rejected and most probably no response will be send.

> My question is, what is meant by associated websites? What are you expecting?
Applicants are requested to read the guidelines before applying. If you would have read the guidelines you would have known. See http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html under "Affiliation Disclosure".

Normally, we don't discuss in public the reason why an application has been declined but your unwarranted attack requires a response.

If you hadn't attempted to conceal that you owned a website based in the locality category that you requested, your application would have been accepted.

Oversight? I believe that you wanted to become an editor in order to expedite its listing and thought that our knowledge of it would be a stumbling block. As you now know, au contraire. Integrity is paramount here and I'm afraid you've failed to meet our standards.

Frankly, I find it offensive that you thought that we were too stupid to evaluate an application properly.

On a more positive note, the website in question has not been blacklisted.

We wish you well in your future endeavours elsewhere.

It seems I overlooked the application rejected in 2010, which says:

Incomplete response 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 are happy to accept editors who are affiliated with websites, and, in fact, most of our editors have some affiliations. However, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, we ask that editors be completely upfront about those affiliations when they apply.

Click to expand...

Further to this recommendation:

You should use the Affiliation Database to declare your affiliations. You are responsible for ensuring the list of affiliations you have disclosed is complete and current.

Click to expand...

However, this website does not appear to exist, it just redirects to the home page. Can you advise further?

I'm not purposely trying to be deceptive and do not appreciate being told not to apply again.

I will be applying again in future, hopefully satisfying the requirements. I obviously did not realise the extent of detail required or else I wouldn't have applied again.

jimnoble said:

Normally, we don't discuss in public the reason why an application has been declined but your unwarranted attack requires a response.

If you hadn't attempted to conceal that you owned a website based in the locality category that you requested, your application would have been accepted.

Oversight? I believe that you wanted to become an editor in order to expedite its listing and thought that our knowledge of it would be a stumbling block. As you now know, au contraire. Integrity is paramount here and I'm afraid you've failed to meet our standards.

Frankly, I find it offensive that you thought that we were too stupid to evaluate an application properly.

On a more positive note, the website in question has not been blacklisted.

We wish you well in your future endeavours elsewhere.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your response, be it a defensive one.

I didn't deliberately conceal the website, I just don't always associate it with my online entity.

I do not believe for a second you are "too stupid" as I am fully aware of the information available to you.

I've not purposely tried to be deceptive and have tried to be transparent (which is why I've posted here).

I had though what I had submitted was sufficient, but I was clearly mistaken. I see my error and would like to correct that.

I think I was hasty in submitting my application and would appreciate the opportunity to apply again.

However, this website does not appear to exist, it just redirects to the home page. Can you advise further?

Click to expand...

The specific text you quoted is only for editors, not prospective editors.

I appreciate your response, be it a defensive one.

Click to expand...

Nope, it was intended to be a firm, courteous and revealing one.

Let me be very clear. We don't want you here as an editor and applying again is just a waste of your time. If we discover that you've deceptively gained an account here, it will be closed.

jimnoble said:

Nope, it was intended to be a firm, courteous and revealing one.

Let me be very clear. We don't want you here as an editor and applying again is just a waste of your time. If we discover that you've deceptively gained an account here, it will be closed.

Click to expand...

Jim,

We will do our best to list web sites in a fair and impartial manner

Click to expand...

It seems to me that this now applies to everybody, except myself.

You say I'm not wanted here, yet everywhere I look on DMOZ you're asking for editors.

I'm an upstanding member of my local community as well as various online communities such as Wikipedia.

What is frustrating is that my local community doesn't have an editor and isn't accurately represented, and when I do apply with the intention of contributing to that, I simply get rejected, for life.

I did submit my own website to DMOZ, I did apply to become an editor, I didn't mention the website in the application. I didn't realise but I should have. For that I apologise.

I truly regret not spending more time on the application, it was just a spur of the moment thing.

I didn't think that there would be any harm in trying. I was mistaken.

Cards are down on the table. Could we could move forward?

I wouldn't be here if I didn't think I didn't deserve the opportunity.

A final rejection is not something personal.
It says nothing about you, your websites or any of your activities.
It just means that we have come to the conclusion that DMOZ and you do not match.
Such situations happen very often in life.
We wish you the best in your other activities.

pvgool said:

A final rejection is not something personal.
It says nothing about you, your websites or any of your activities.
It just means that we have come to the conclusion that DMOZ and you do not match.
Such situations happen very often in life.
We wish you the best in your other activities.

Click to expand...

Although I appreciate what you're saying, it does seem to hinge on one thing:

If you hadn't attempted to conceal that you owned a website based in the locality category that you requested, your application would have been accepted.

Click to expand...

Now that I understand that issue, I would be happy to declare a current and complete list of affiliations.

Eternally the optimist.

Now that I understand that issue, I would be happy to declare a current and complete list of affiliations.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you were already given a chance to do that and didn't. We're not talking about jumping through hoops here to list every forum you've ever posted on or every blog you've ever left a comment on (which isn't required, by the way). But you were given the opportunity (twice) to be upfront about your interests in the category you were applying for and you chose not to be. It's a shame you made the choice you did.

motsa said:

Unfortunately, you were already given a chance to do that and didn't. We're not talking about jumping through hoops here to list every forum you've ever posted on or every blog you've ever left a comment on (which isn't required, by the way). But you were given the opportunity (twice) to be upfront about your interests in the category you were applying for and you chose not to be. It's a shame you made the choice you did.

Click to expand...

I understand that and that's not what I'm trying to do here.

I didn't realise I had submitted an application in 2010. If I did, I would have re-read the response and reapplied appropriately. This time I just filled it out on a whim with the best intentions.

What is frustrating is that I didn't go out of my way to conceal anything and I was always quite frankly obvious about my interest in the category.

There was no choice or decision made. What is a shame is that it was interpreted in a bad light.

I'm here to make that right.

This forum has a standing policy of not discussing specific application. That some specifics have been shared with you up to this point is an exception, but further discussion would just be rehashing what has already been said and would be both pointless and a continuing violation of the policies of this forum.

As such, I'm closing this thread to discourage further discussion. Please don't start a new discussion on the same topic. Thanks.