Why is it so hard to become an editor?

Hello All

I have applied to become an editor 3 times and keep getting the same rejection email. The first time I applied was to get a site listed quickly, but the last two occasions I’ve really wanted to help build the directory.

It seems as if ODP is becoming weaker because a lack on editors. I am an amateur boxer and a follower of the sport so I applied to edit the auk boxing section that doesn't have an editor. The current section is awful so I found it easy to suggest new sites that could be added. However I was still rejected. I'm guessing it must be because I have a background in internet marketing and SEM???

I understand that you need a certain quality of editor but maybe your being to strict. Are no editors better than editors that want to improve the directory and enjoy reviewing and looking at sites within that subject area?

I have applied to become an editor 3 times and keep getting the same rejection email.

What did the rejection say? Was there a reason given why your application was rejected?

I'm guessing it must be because I have a background in internet marketing and SEM??

I wouldn't assume that. We have quite a few editors who are involved in internet marketing and SEO/SEM activities.

I understand that you need a certain quality of editor but maybe your being to strict. Are no editors better than editors that want to improve the directory and enjoy reviewing and looking at sites within that subject area?

Quality is our primary concern. So yes, it is better to have editors who are able to write quality, appropriate descriptions over having editors who are just going to add a bunch of web sites to the directory. If the purpose of the ODP was just to add sites, it would be an automated process and we wouldn't need human editors at all <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I would recommend taking a look at the first thread in this forum titled FAQ and General Advice. There is a lot of good information there that talks about becoming an editor.

And please let us know the outcome. This is always very interesting to learn.

Hi

Thanks for your response! I will try and apply again soon but before I do I need to prepare myself for rejection <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />.

I completely understand that you need someone who can write a half decent description. I'm not exactly Shakespeare but I am educated to master’s level and have produced my fair share of marketing copy. Anyway I won't bang on about it, I guess I’ll just have to live in hope that one day I might meet the rigorous guidelines required to under go voluntary work <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Has anyone else found it difficult or believes it’s too strict?

I found it difficult when I tried.

But meanwhile I know the reason. I have done some "rework" lately, to repair the work of editors that should never have been accepted. Took me far more time than doing all myself would have done <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> .

&gt;&gt;I'm not exactly Shakespeare but I am educated to master’s level and have produced my fair share of marketing copy.

Ah, but the ODP doesn't want marketing copy or really need literary writing <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Demonstrating an ability to write descriptions that come close to meeting the guidelines would be more relevent, I'd say.

&gt;&gt;Has anyone else found it difficult or believes it’s too strict?

I didn't have any trouble but then I was applying for a dusty corner of the directory. Even though that was almost 3 years ago, I'd bet that the metas were just as thorough in their new editor application screening then (i.e. I don't believe it's gotten significantly harder to get accepted). Having just spent the last few days doing clean up (like windharp), I fully appreciate the need for being selective. Keep trying -- maybe even apply to your home town category (or a subcat of it), just to get started.

&gt;&gt; I ... have produced my fair share of marketing copy &lt;&lt;

I can't see editor applications, but the mention of marketing made my ears prick up. When you make your next application, try to forget anything you ever learned about marketing. We're here to describe sites objectively, not to hype them up. Resist the temptation to use promotional language in your sample descriptions (especially the words "and more"). <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Good luck.

I guess I’ll just have to live in hope that one day I might meet the rigorous guidelines required

Click to expand...

That made me chuckle <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Rigorous? Really?

You tell us why you want to be an editor, you list any affiliations that you may have with sites in the directory or sites you're planning to add to the directory, and you supply 3 examples of the kind of work you will be doing if you become an editor of the category you have selected to edit. It's really quite simple.

If you think this is rigorous, I'd hate to see how you would react to a mortgage application <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

&gt;I have produced my fair share of marketing copy.

Several years ago, I tried to write some marketing copy for friend. It wasn't just difficult, it was impossible.

Before that, I considered marketroids as basically rude and evil pests. Now I have to consider the notion that they are simply mentally handicapped, and may not be able to realize how offensively arrogant their communications style seems.

So, the advice given above is good: forget everything they told you from Marketing 101 on. (Elizabethan English is right out also.) And ... it still may turn out that you just can't. Technical writing requires a communication style that some people simply may not have. (If you are one of those folk who thought everything they told you in Marketing 101 was a belabourment of the obvious, then you may not ever be a good candidate for ODP editor. But that is not a reflection on your ethics, education, or intelligence -- any more than being tone deaf or a clumsy dancer would be. Technical writing is an art, and everyone couldn't be the same kind of artist -- even if that were a valuable social goal, which it isn't.)

Simple guide to writing descriptions - note particularly the lack of marketing copy, complex literary construction or anything else more complex than "saying it like it is":

Q. Look at the site - what is it called?
A. The site is called "Bringing History to Life"

Title:
Bringing History to Life

Q. What does the site do?
A. It's a site that gives information about historical figures, with special sections on Napoleon Bonaparte and Henry VIII.

Description part 1.:
Information about historical figures with sections on Napoleon Bonaparte and Henry VIII.

Q. What features does the site have?
A. An online shop selling Napoleon keyrings, video clips of Henry VIII's coronation and a discussion forum.

Description part 2.:
Features an online shop selling related souvenirs, video clips of historical events and a discussion forum.

As the Ronseal ad (UK) says: "it does exactly what it says on the tin". The ODP is the tin and we just write the labels.

<img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Without reading any of the other responses, here's my take:

(1) People don't do their homework. Good intentions aren't enough. Have you reviewed our guidelines for describing sites? That may help.

(2) People don't spell or use grammar worth a darn. Almost instant rejection in those cases.

(3) People lie and we catch them lying.

(4) People demonstrate that they don't understand the categories they're applying to edit.

(5) People apply for spam-prone or very large categories which (almost) no new editor will ever get as their starter category.

There might be more, but that covers a lot of why I reject.

This could be made into a good ODP newsletter article I think...