I keep getting rejected?

[lachenm]

>>The point is that a mistake did happen<<

 

I'm afraid I respectfully disagree (though, again, I'm not a meta). The only possible mistake I can see is that the response may have been too terse. The bottom line is that neither site is appropriate for that category for the reasons outlined in my previous post. I think the meta was probably trying to be helpful and to suggest that you try to find sites that are more suited to the category, if and when you reapply.

 

I hope you do reapply, but, in addition to theseeker's helpful advice, I recommend finding some different sites. It certainly couldn't hurt. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Guest alarm]

>The bottom line is that neither site is appropriate for that category for the reasons outlined in my previous post.>

 

I don't understand 'neither site' there was only one site rejected and according to the category description the site was appropriate for that category. I just don't understand your point, face it the reviewer made a mistake that's it....period and according to a Meta named "theseeker" (see above post)I can't appeal to staff because all applications are trashed after being rejected. No I'm not going to reapply. I did point to this thread in my application I think a reviewer should have seen I'm more than qualified to edit http://dmoz.org/Business/Business_Services/Security/Alarm_Systems/ (the category I truly wanted in the first place) let alone the smaller category I was turned down for in error. Also that category was given away to someone else.

 

I'm sorry but I don't think we will agree.

 

However, I can see why the DMOZ is short of editors. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Guest alarm]

Thanks anyways but that category was given away to someone else. <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" alt="" />

[lachenm]

>>I don't understand 'neither site' there was only one site rejected<<

 

Two sites: iprepare.com, x10.com ("ditto x10").

 

>>according to the category description the site was appropriate for that category<<

 

And as I explained in my post, the category description is only one place you should look. For example, as I said, iprepare.com was already listed in the category above the one for which you applied, precisely because it was too general for the category. Checking to see if a site is listed elsewhere (especially in a parent category) is an important skill expected of editors. If I were a meta, and I saw that someone had suggested two sites that were not appropriate to be listed in a category, even if they were close to the mark, I don't think I'd approve their application, either, because I wouldn't be sure that they knew exactly what types of sites fit in that category (but as I'm not a meta, I don't know for sure what I'd do). I think I would try to encourage them to apply with different sites that were more suited to the category, because they might turn out to be good editors, which is what I tried to suggest to you.

 

>>No I'm not going to reapply<<

 

I'm sorry to hear that. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> Remember, though, the presence of another editor in a category doesn't necessarily preclude an application, though it might make it more difficult to be accepted. There are plenty of other categories with no listed editors in the ODP, though.

[Guest alarm]

>Checking to see if a site is listed elsewhere (especially in a parent category) is an important skill expected of editors.>

 

1. According to the editor guide lines a site may be listed in more than 1 category.

 

2. For the 10th time the reason I was rejected was 'Reviewer Comments: iprepare.com: not only security. ditto x10.'

 

3. For the 10th time the category description states 'Sites offering the aforementioned products in addition to other home security products are acceptable here.'

 

4. Face it the reviewer made a mistake that's it....period.

 

>Remember, though, the presence of another editor in a category doesn't necessarily preclude an application, though it might make it more difficult to be accepted.>

 

Please your joking.

[Guest rfgdxm]

>According to the editor guide lines a site may be listed in more than 1 category.

 

Not at all considered generally acceptable in both a child and parent cat.

[totalxsive]

Yes, a site can be listed in more than one category. But the way that is generally applied is that the site will be listed in one category based on its subject (ie Security), and another based on its physical location (ie Tampa Bay, Florida).

 

If I'm understanding this right (and excuse me if I'm not, I haven't been monitoring this discussion that closely), in this case, one of the categories was a subcategory of another. The 'more than one category' rule would not apply in this case, as we strive to list sites in the most specific category possible.

[lachenm]

>>1. According to the editor guide lines a site may be listed in more than 1 category.<<

 

Yes, but that tends to be an exception, and sites are not listed in both a parent and child category. As I said before, the reason why iprepare.com was listed in the parent category was that it was too general for the category for which you applied. Using your reasoning, nearly every site in the parent category would also be listed in the category for which you applied. That's not the way ODP works. For the site to be listed in the subcategory, its primary focus should be the subject of that subcategory (and then it wouldn't be listed in the parent category). As I also pointed out, those sites were not in the mainstream of the category. Finding sites that were closer to the mainstream would be a good first guide.

 

I'm not sure why you repeated the reason why your application was rejected. It just states what I already addressed: both iprepare.com and x10(.com) were inappropriate. The reviewer didn't make a mistake. Neither of those sites should be listed in that category. If you had actually listed either of those sites in that category, the net result would have been that another editor would eventually have come along and removed them. Your single point has been that "given the facts you were using, the sites could have been considered appropriate." My point is, and continues to be, "you weren't considering all the relevant facts."

 

Part of being an editor at the ODP is looking around to figure out whether one's first impression about where a site is best listed is actually correct. Another part is asking other editors for their opinions when there is a difficult case. A third part is taking other people's opinions, thinking about them, and either deciding that they are right, or coming up with a persuasive reason why they are not -- and trying to reach a consensus. I have yet to meet the ODP editor who was always right (no offense to any metas who might be reading <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ). Listening to other editors' opinions is one of the most important ways that individual editors improve their own skills (prospective editors might also benefit), and that the directory improves as a whole.

 

Telling me (or any meta) that you didn't know those sites were inappropriate isn't going to change anything. The reviewing meta probably already guessed that you didn't know (why would you submit sites that you thought were inappropriate?). Taking note of the reasons why the sites were judged inappropriate and using that knowledge to submit more appropriate sites, would have helped your case a lot more than trying to seize on a technicality which, as I explained, didn't apply to those specific sites. Look, I have no hidden agenda. There's absolutely no reason why I wouldn't want you to be an editor -- in fact, I wish we had lots more editors -- and I even gave you advice that could have helped a subsequent application. I'm just trying to explain that, given the way sites are actually listed in the ODP, your application appears to have been reasonable not to accept, and that the message was intended to encourage you to try again (with different sites), rather than to anger you or hurt your feelings. If the meta hadn't thought you were worth encouraging, you wouldn't have received any specific feedback at all.

[Guest alarm]

I still think you are forgetting

 

1. For the 11th time the reason I was rejected was 'Reviewer Comments: iprepare.com: not only security. ditto x10.']

 

2. For the 11th time the category description states 'Sites offering the aforementioned products in addition to other home security products are acceptable here.'

 

3. Face it the reviewer made a mistake that's it....period.

 

As I said many posts ago we will not agree on this matter I think you are wrong and I think the reviewer was wrong, and no matter what you have said you have never disputed the fact that the reason the sites were rejected was wrong!!!!!!!!! Now you can make all the assumptions you want for the reviewer but they are still just that assumptions and the reviewer is still wrong.