Review of editors performance and email confirmation of acceptance of site

I believe these 2 subjects have been asked and answered many times, but I feel I must contribute to the discussion.

I have offered my services several times over the last 10 years to the open directory, for categories I know very well and others I am interested in but have no personal financial or other vested interest. I have always been declined, without any explanation that I can accept as an answer why.

There seem to be problems with several categories where the editor boviously either doesnt have the time to cope or isnt contributing the amount of time necessary to be fair to either the open directory project or site owners who wish to have their sites included.

There are many people like myself, who have the time and the interest in contributing to the success of the ODP and could be asked to help with other category areas that have a large and extended period of time before submissions are reviewed. If someone applies for a category, and it is either already assigned or they are viewed as having a bias, perhaps another category requiring attention should be offered.

Another frustration I have is that I have submitted my site several times for inclusion over a period of 6 months. Due to the fact that no confirming email is sent to say the site is on the review list and then no further email either confirming the site has been included or rejected, it is like throwing pebbles into the sea. Is an automatic email generator not feasible, the submitters can then use this email as a link to enquire on site submission status, surely helping the ODP editors to identlfy the submission and help the end user resolve any issues.

I feel strongly as I am a user of many open GNU software products, but am not a Unix or C/C++ programmer, so cannot contribute in those areas. BUt one area that is important and I can contribute is the ODP. The ODP is the one search engine/directory that is (should be) none biased, not dependant upon the submitters ability to pay and therefore give everyone a chance of registering their sites on the web.

If I am on a crusade and have got it totally wrong I will be interested on the views of others. If I have views that are viewed as valid but am beating the wrong drum, where should I make these suggestions.

I wait with interest to the views of others.

Regards,

Phil

Hi there

As you say - the same questions have been asked and answered here many times.

If you do a forum search on "automated response" (or just browse this forum back a bit) you'll find plenty of people suggesting the same thing, and plenty of answers saying why we don't do it. So I am not going to spend time repeating those answers. ;-)

We offer the submission status forums here to allow a webmaster to check if their site has been received successfully. More than that isn't really necessary.

As has been said a zillion times before - we are not a service for webmasters. The only thing we offer webmasters is the ability to make a site suggestion, the same thing we offer any other submitters.

-
Not getting an application to become an editor accepted is a different issue altogether.

"I have always been declined, without any explanation that I can accept as an answer why."

Click to expand...

You may not accept it, but the reviewing meta wouldn't have given you a false explanation.

Reasons for rejection are nearly always obvious - suggested sites didn't belong in cat, suggested sites were affiliated to the applicant, applicant failed to declare his/her affiliations, the titles/descriptions written for the suggested sites didn't follow the guidelines, language issues (bad spelling/grammar), cat was far too big for a new editor (that could include unreviewed sites pool.. which the meta would take into account).

Kind Regards,

Andy

What Andy said.

I have offered my services several times over the last 10 years to the open directory

Click to expand...

Err, we started in June 1998.

andysands said most everything I was thinking (and he types faster than me ), I will add the following:

Another frustration I have is that I have submitted my site several times for inclusion over a period of 6 months. Due to the fact that no confirming email is sent to say the site is on the review list and then no further email either confirming the site has been included or rejected, it is like throwing pebbles into the sea.

Click to expand...

If you have suggested your site over and over then you are contributing to the problem that you are concerned about, long review times. Editors reviewing sites by suggestion date (some do, many do not) will skip over the resubmission and move along to an "older" one. You are fighting yourself.

BUt one area that is important and I can contribute is the ODP.

Click to expand...

Great! Do not give up trying then, many editors (myself included) tried several times before getting an application approved. Always read the rejection letters, they all (I know from all of mine) contain reasons for rejection. In many cases as andysands said, the reason is obvious and often one of the most common listed in the rejection letter. As andysands said, the rejection letter gives the reasons for non-acceptance. If you choose not to accept them then that is of course your choice, but the letter gives you the opportunity to correct any mistakes and try again.

The ODP is the one search engine/directory that is (should be) none biased, not dependant upon the submitters ability to pay and therefore give everyone a chance of registering their sites on the web.

Click to expand...

The ODP is a directory not a search engine (which I think you already were expressing) but as such it is also not a listing service and therefore is not guaranteeing anyone a chance to "register" any site on the web. What it does is offer site owners (and the sites visitors too) a way of suggesting a good site for possible inclusion. If an editor agree's, then the suggestion has helped the directory by saving the editor the time in searching for it themselves.

At least my post generated some interest

My application was rejection, a shame, there does appear to be a shortage of editors, looking at the number of categories requesting people to apply. My rejection this time did attract some feedback, for which I thank you.

For the benefit of others applying I attach the reasons below:-

* 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:

Spelling - ny, dont, avaiable,impartiaal. This is a good enough reason to decline your application in its own right. If you don't pay attention to the detail when trying to impress, how can we believe that you would whilst editing?

Titles and descriptions didn't conform with our guidelines.

http://www.corkmotorclub.com/ - an excess of clubs and didn't say what the surfer would find on the website.

http://www.sea-angling-ireland.org/ - Suggested title of 'Sea Angling from the Shore; Charter and' was cut from the website without reading. 'vibrant bulletin board' and 'Very useful for visitors to the Irish Fishing scene.' are opinionated. We don't do that. Neither should Fishing be capitalised in the middle of a sentence.

I looked for and read your post in resource-zone.com. I didn't comment there because so many of your misconceptions have already been explained numerous times. Here are three key points though.

Editors are volunteers and cannot be forced to work at the rate that webmasters would like. Bear in mind that hundreds of senior editors can edit in any category and actively do so. A resident editor in a category does not inhibit others from working there. We think that an editor with a low work rate is better than no editor at all.

You surely must be aware that ODP receives a large number of spam submissions. We aren't about to assist the spammers by emailing them whenever their suggestions are accepted or declined. This is non negotiable.

'I have offered my services several times over the last 10 years to the open directory' I don't think so. We started in June 1998.


I do hope that you understand and are able to accept the above.


What gets me, is if the ODP is not a service for webmasters, who is it a service for, because without webmasters submitting sites, then surfers are unlikely to find an impartial result to a search, be it a "Directory" or a "Search Engine". "search Engines" tend to be very biased towards paying submissions and sponsored entries, so surely there is a requirement for an unbiased and impartial service.

Over the last 10 years is an inclusive statement, I am sorry but my recollection of my first application I did not recollect that you have only been in existance 7 years and not 10 ).

Well, I will not trouble you again, editing is an exclusive club to which I am not going to have chance to become a member, bit like being blackballed. I am disappointed, I have worked in the industry since 1975 and believe, perhaps, that experience and interest are an important part of the attributes of an editor.

As for the fact that the questions I raised have been asked "Zillions" of times surely demonstrates the strength of feeling that your submitters have about the subjects, or is it that perhaps you know better than the "Zillions of people asking the questions.

Regards,

Phil

Amazing. Simply amazing.

you received precise information as to why your application was declined:

spelling
non-conforming titles and descriptions
capitalization
opinionated language in description

Yet you claim that you have "been declined, without any explanation that I can accept as an answer why." And then you go off on a rant about how this is a private club.

Sorry you feel that way, but I have a feeling that it is impossible to change your mind. Your vision of ODP clearly does not align with our vision of ODP. Loks like we will have to agree to disagree.

Spelling - ny, dont, avaiable,impartiaal. This is a good enough reason to decline your application in its own right. If you don't pay attention to the detail when trying to impress, how can we believe that you would whilst editing?

Click to expand...

This is the primary reason why your application was declined.

Well, I will not trouble you again, editing is an exclusive club to which I am not going to have chance to become a member, bit like being blackballed.

Click to expand...

I don't see where you were asked not to try again. Read the editor guidelines and pay attention to detail and you could well be accepted as an editor.

Of course, if you don't want to do either of those things and prefer to just give up, that's fine too.

>If someone applies for a category, and it is either already assigned or they are viewed as having a bias, perhaps another category requiring attention should be offered.

If I understand this correctly, it betrays a deep misunderstanding of the way the ODP works. We never "assign" categories. We give people editing privileges there. So every category may (and in fact does) have hundreds of people who have privileges in it. One more won't matter!

Also, we don't "assign" people to categories. If you think your application may have been rejected because your interests there are too strong, then pick some other category where you can demonstrate editing skills (and editing integrity) by building it up. Remember, it's just a starting place.

Why can we not suggest such a category? We don't know what your skills and interests are. Why do we not suggest a category that needs work? Our definition of "needs work" is something like "is so palpably deficient that some volunteer is willing to give up time and energy to improve it (but for the sake of the category, not for any particular site)." The only way we know what categories REALLY need work is -- that an editor offers to improve it and proves he can start with two or three good sites (that is, in the application.) If you apply for a category, then by definition it could use help.

(For many good reasons, the number of sites submitted to a category is not considered any kind of gage of how badly work is needed.)

This rejection was for an application placed after I posted

As in the title, the application rejection I published was made after I posted the original thread.

I was "juiced up" and typed quickly, I now know to make sure I read carefully my submission.

What I feel strongly about, and I know it seems petulant to keep pushing the point, but it is accepted policy of the ODP, that it can take 6 months or more to be listed, but I have had my postings reviewed and commented on by 2 moderators and 3 editors.

I also appreciate that there is a difference in tone and encouragement in the responses I received from the different respondants and thank the positive views (as one would), even though they are not agreeing, they give me something to accept.

This application was for a subject I am interested and have some knowledge in, I have no axe to grind or conflict of interest. I live in the area and enjoy the facilities offered by the topic, it is small and looks very neglected. As for the TITLE being pasted form the site, my misunderstanding of the requirements of the field, I thought, wrongly, that the title of the site was as they had published.

Anyway, I am sorry to waste anymore of your time, but I do feel quite passionate and like most people, do not enjoy rejection. This was the first time my rejection was accompanied by comments that showed some consideration of my application, I like many others do not always accept the reasons, but it is the call of the person reviewing it. The application was rejected within 1 hour and 13 minutes, much faster than a site submission again and this is my big issue,

The application was rejected within 1 hour and 13 minutes, much faster than a site submission again and this is my big issue,

Click to expand...

The evaluating meta thought that reviewing your editor application was the most important thing for him/her to do at the time.

Is giving priority to the potential recruitment of new editor (who may in time make tens of thousands of edits) not a constructive thing to do?

If we'd taken 6 months to evaluate your application, would you not complain about that too?

[Give a man a fire and keep him warm for the night. Set him on fire and keep him warm for the rest of his life - Pratchett, approximately]

Thanks for your response

Thank you for your response, I agree.

Good quote.

Editors, editalls, meta editors - all set their own priorities according to what they want to do, as well as what they think it is important to do. It is part of the volunteer culture of DMOZ. If I did one edit in the next three months, that is one more than if I was not an editor so that too is constructive. Again, it is part of the culture to appreciate the editor who does a single edit every 3 months, not to criticise them.

I was "juiced up" and typed quickly, I now know to make sure I read carefully my submission.

Click to expand...

And read all the editing guidelines carefully too - all the answers as to how to title and describe sites, what type of sites are acceptable, grammatical style examples, etc. etc are available in full to everyone. In theory, provided someone has done all their research in advance and is 100% honest and truthful in their application, and picks a category suitable for a new editor, it should be quite difficult to receive a rejection. The problem is that people don't do their homework, don't pick a suitable category, hide information they think might do their application harm (like a self-interest). And if you don't follow guidelines when applying, what chance you are going to follow guidelines if accepted, at which point you could be doing actual live damage to the Directory?

Thanks for the constructive response

Thanks oneeye, I should, as you say, have done more homework. I thought I was doing a good thing offering my time and effort, which is what the volunteer editors do, but accept that more research would be necessary if I were to offer again.

Offering time and effort is good. But we also need skill and knowledge, and it is critical to offer them also.