What is the point?
- Thread starter chaz7979
- Start date
Certainly. We went through this in depth, in a very long thread which was highly rated at the time, soon after this forum first opened. The gist of it was that DMOZ rejects far too many potentially good editors, simply because they don't usually tell a person why the application was rejected, even though there is a system that allows such comments in the rejection email. It's true that it would be unwise to tell everybody why their applications failed, but there are those who would clearly make good editors, who are not told why they failed, and who are turned away because of it. That was true some years ago, and from what I've read since then, it is still true.chaos127 said:I agree this would be good for the directory. Now do you have any constructive suggestions about how this could be achieved (without lowering our standards of course)?
Example:
I applied to be an editor, and was rejected without any specific indication of why. I started a thread here about it, because I was convinced that my application was good. During the discussion, and as an experiment, I decided to re-apply, using the identical application that had been rejected. Nothing was changed. A few hours later, I was accepted, even though I no longer wanted to be an editor - it was just an experiment.
Because I'd actually applied, and had been accepted, I decided to do the editing, and a few months later I received an award for being the "Best new regional editor". Soon after that I timed-out due to my flagging interest.
The point is that, when I was rejected, I received no personal information as to why, and yet it's obvious that the application was good, and indicated that I would have made a perfectly good editor. Not being told why I was rejected made me feel ignored and annoyed, and I would think that many people would feel the same, which is why I still say that DMOZ rejects many potentially good editors through their own practise of turning people against them, by ignoring them.
So my constructive suggestion is the same as it was back then:- When an applicant looks like s/he will make a good editor, tell them why they were rejected, and make positive and personal suggestions about re-applying; e.g. "Apply for a much smaller category, and I'm sure you will be accepted." Obviously it can't be done for everyone, or you'd get people having other people correct their spelling, grammar, etc. for the next application, and you'd end up with bad editors.
But then I really don't think anything will change. It never did, and I guess it never will.
About the topic of this thread:
The original aim of DMOZ was never realised, due to the unanticipated growth of the Web, and the lack of active editors. The aim became impossible to accomplish, and the pages that refer to it really should be brought up to date.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,485
Part of the application process is in showing you can identify the types of sites that are listed and listable. If an application is rejected for reasons other than the most common specific comments are included. If an applicant can't identify and correct the problems with an application from the standard list of most common ones what does that say about their ability to identify those problems in the directory?
If the application looks like the editor would make a good candidate the application is accepted. The application is rejected when there are two many problems to determine if they would make a good candidate or not.PhilC said:
Perhaps it's changed a bit. It certainly wasn't true back then.
That argument doesn't work. Not only doesn't it work for the example I gave, since there weren't any corrections to be made, but canned responses are impersonal, and when a person has spent hours putting an application together, canned responses are aggravating enough to turn people away with a sour taste in their mouths. And, quite frankly, I don't believe what you said. I don't believe that using the canned response to discover what the mistake was in an application is part of the test. I'm not saying it isn't true - I'm saying that i don't believe it.
But there's no point in going through it all again. DMOZ people are perfectly free to do whatever they want with DMOZ, and it's nobody else's concern. The post asked for constructive suggestions to increase the number of active editors, without reducing the quality of the directory, and I gave one - that's all. DMOZ has always been its own worst enemy when it comes to the shortage of editors, and there's no reason to think that it will change.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,485
The argument doesn't work for you and thats fine. A good application can be put together easily in 10 minutes. Being able to identify from the list of common mistakes which ones were made and correcting them shows an understanding of the processes.PhilC said:
In my opinion the keys to a good application are:
- Be honest-say who you are and why you want to be an editor and declare your affiliations clearly.
- Choose a category that is small enough for a new editor. Something with less than 100 listed sites for example.
- Offer up 2-3 sample sites that a) actually belong in that category, b) don't all belong to you, and c) don't contain hyped or keyword stuffed titles and descriptions.
- Demonstrate a good grasp of the language for the category you applying too. Spelling and grammar are part of that.
Callimachus
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2004
- Messages
- 704
As points 1&2 were responded too I'll respond to #3
Maybe because everyone watches Google and Yahoo since they are commercial entities who make money for themselves and indirectly for their clients. ODP has no such mission or mandate and so those who crow about traffic in such a context (equating it with profitibility) ignore ODP - which is fine as we aren't a commercial venture.
Maybe because everyone watches Google and Yahoo since they are commercial entities who make money for themselves and indirectly for their clients. ODP has no such mission or mandate and so those who crow about traffic in such a context (equating it with profitibility) ignore ODP - which is fine as we aren't a commercial venture.
If it was that bad, I wouldn't have let you in. Your experience is proof of what you said, but it isn't proof that impersonal, canned responses aren't taken personally, and turn potentially good editors away. I can assure you that many people really don't appreciate being treated that way, after putting a good amount of time into it. They see it as tantamount to an insult - which it is.
As I said, DMOZ has always been its own worst enemy when it comes to the shortage of good editors, and, from what you've said, it still is. I don't expect any changes.
Incidentally, a good application can't be put together in 10 minutes. *You* may be able to do that now, but anyone who is new needs to take time over it, and the largest amount of time is spent in finding new sites that are suitable for the category. Perhaps with some categories they can be found quickly, but with many categories, they aren't all that easy to find.
lmocr
Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2005
- Messages
- 730
I beg to differ. I applied just a little over a year ago. I was and still am very familiar with the category I applied for - Paint Horse Breeders in Washington state. I ran across the directory when I was publicizing the web site my daughter had made for our ranch. It took me about five minutes to put together an application, including finding sites to list - since there were only 12 listings at the time (and horror of horrors, I didn't even know there were guidelines at that time).
I was accepted based on that application. It's not quite the same style as I write now - since I've learned about the guidelines, but it's still very close. I just described the businesses according to the websites - without trying to sell anything. I think that's the key - my daughter writes all our advertising copy, because if I did we wouldn't sell any horses.
There's quite a difference between my
and her
It's the same thing with ODP descriptions
Instead of going out of your way to counter every signle point that is made, why not just stop and think about it for a second.
Ask yourself this.... have we turned away potential editors that could have been great with very minimal direction? The answer will be yes. End it there. Think of a way to fix it, or at least allow the powers that process applications see this thread.
My point was missed again. The point wasnt about SE hype and news, it was the fact that you can do more good by influencing the more widely used resources.
Ask yourself this.... have we turned away potential editors that could have been great with very minimal direction? The answer will be yes. End it there. Think of a way to fix it, or at least allow the powers that process applications see this thread.
My point was missed again. The point wasnt about SE hype and news, it was the fact that you can do more good by influencing the more widely used resources.
There's only one way to become an editor: pick a category, and show (by your application) that you'll help improve it. Literally, the software provides no way of adding an editor except by approving an application.
And all that -- applications and approving them -- is dependent on the server which (as you know) is still "pining for the fjords."
I'm sure there will be an announcement here when it wakes up.
And all that -- applications and approving them -- is dependent on the server which (as you know) is still "pining for the fjords."
I'm sure there will be an announcement here when it wakes up.
I do demonstrate it quite often. Want to comment on any of the websites I run or had a hand in building? I would love to listen to your criticism. Some of my biggest improvements were user suggested. Some times it is hard to to see the forest for the trees.
To all: You should all take a page out of Hutch’s' book and not use smileys to cover up your passive aggressiveness. At least he doesnt try to hide it behind cute 16x16 icons
To all: You should all take a page out of Hutch’s' book and not use smileys to cover up your passive aggressiveness. At least he doesnt try to hide it behind cute 16x16 icons
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
Hutch .. aggressive. No way. His writing style maybe direct and some would call it blunt. People only think this is aggressive because he often does not tell them what they want to hear. And most of the times he (like all of us) has to tell people things they could have found themself by just reading the FAQ and some older threads.chaz7979 said:To all: You should all take a page out of Hutch’s' book and not use smileys to cover up your passive aggressiveness. At least he doesnt try to hide it behind cute 16x16 icons
you realy didn't understand what makrhod meant with his posting
:secret:
Here you have a group of editors that know about DMOZ and were willing to tell you how it all works. And you continue to post about how you think it works and how it should change. Maybe you should think for a second. "If these people, who have deep knowledge about DMOZ, so easely can counter my proposal it might be that this proposal isn't so good as I thought"
Eric-the-Bun
Curlie Meta
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
This is all very simplistic and seems to be based on the idea that DMOZ is unaware of the need to recruit editors. In order to address the issues properly, one should be showing an understanding of why an application process is in place and what it aims to achieve. Approaching a topic with a suggestion merely to 'fix it' is not really a positive contribution.
A constructive approach would then be to examine the DMOZ application process and suggest alternative ways to achieve the same ends. (Of course one would need to be addressing the same 'ends' that DMOZ was set up for, not arguing that the 'ends' should change). Most editors are quite happy to explain various aspects of the application process and the reasoning behind it - there are many threads in this forum covering almost every aspect of the process anyway.
One thing that has not been mentioned is that internally to DMOZ the question of editor numbers and recruitment is more or less a continuous live debate. A lot of ideas (often radical) have been suggested and considered many times. Good ideas presented here and in other forums frequented by editors will always make their way into the internal forums.
regards
pvgool said:
You are right pvgool. DMOZ is perfect, and no "outsider" could ever provide even a morsel of helpful information so we should all stop trying. All hail the mighty ODP in all of its glory and perfection.
How do you suggest I help then... you tell me. Also I didnt say just 'fix it' to start with. Made suggestions where I thought things could be done differently. It seemed to hit home with people saying
That is why I make the suggestions I make. I feel sometimes that you guys cant see the forest for the trees. A lot of outsiders are put off by the insults produced by the ODP whether they are in the forums to visit, or having their applications to edit rejected.
Why not just start at the local level and just be "nice" to people all around. The viral effect could be amazing. Being "nice" to one person today, might mean 100 new editors a week from now, and a real warm sense of community that makes people want to stick around and work. You can all think what you want, but I have been around these boards, and more people are trashed then praised.
I am sure someone will say that they all deserve to be trashed. I would argue that they do not. When some one is toally out of line you guys need to hold back and post one canned response. If you don't you will wind up with a forum like this one that reads like a holier than thou rant, and people feeling belittled. A lot of people have a lot of bad feelings about the ODP around the net, as one can see by all of the discussions... maybe its time to change your image have someone lead a PR campaign. If people liked the ODP it might fix itself.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
> You are right pvgool. DMOZ is perfect,
I never said DMOZ is perfect. All editors know it isn't.
But we look for improvements that are helpfull for either
1) the directory
2) our customers
3) the editors
We are not looking for improvements helpfull for webmasters. They have lot of options outside DMOZ to design, optimize and promote their sites.
I never said DMOZ is perfect. All editors know it isn't.
But we look for improvements that are helpfull for either
1) the directory
2) our customers
3) the editors
We are not looking for improvements helpfull for webmasters. They have lot of options outside DMOZ to design, optimize and promote their sites.
You mean "a lot of webmasters". As we tell over and over again we don't provide any service for websmaters at all. So they are feeling bad about something they want us to provide but we don't want to. We try for many years to educate them about what DMOZ is. But, like you, they are only focused on what they want and don't listen to what the people who are involved with DMOZ are telling.