Very Disappointed by Template Response

[MatrixViper]

you know I actually decided to attempt to become an editor of the Real Estate Pittsburgh directory because of my extensive experience with real estate and the internet - it took me well over 2 hours to prepare my case (application-with much research and review of your current directory listings) and overall in which I felt I demonstrated considerable qualities to be considered....my application was immediately rejected citing some template response :S I am very disappointed and honestly befuddled by the whole ordeal -

[jimnoble]

I shan't be checking because we don't discuss individual declined applications here. From your comments, I guess the email you received contained this list of common reasons.

• 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.

One or more of them will be true of the application you made.

 

Next time, I suggest that you check the completed application against all of those points before hitting the submit button.

[stevek]

I've been frustrated in the past as well, but don't fear, try again.

 

A couple of things I've learned that might be good to know:

 

1) A lot of people want to become editors for various "bad reasons" - mainly to promote their own sites. The volunteer staff is careful about who they approve because of that. If they weren't, this directory would go downhill quickly.

 

2) If a category has more than 40 or so existing sites, it is probably too big for a new editor.

 

3) If a category has sub-categories underneath it, it is probably too big for a new editor. They like to start out new people small, then as you gain experience and have a track record, your role increases over time.

 

4) Some categories with small numbers of listings have huge numbers of submissions - again something they don't like to give to new poeple.

 

5) When your application is reviewed, it's by a volunteer who probably has a lot of other DMOZ work on his plate in addition to his other job or jobs. Sometimes the responses are not that clear and sometimes there is no reason at all. That's just the way it is.

 

If you feel you have been rejected with poor reasoning, you are certainly welcome to re-submit an application.

 

More likely, the better thing to do is to find a category that not only you have expertise in, but one that is appropriate for a new editor. It's a difficult task sometimes. I tried twice, gave up after having trouble finding a third category to submit to, and came back nearly a year later after noticing a category that needs help which I THINK I know enough about and looks to be appropriate for a new guy.

 

There are always reasons to decline an application. Keep trying. These guys need help. Just because you worked hard on an application doesn't mean that it must be approved. The first rejection will probably serve you in the future when you find that for the most part, being a volunteer is a thankless job and your satisfaction must come from doing it well.

[arubin]

Some categories with small numbers of listings have huge numbers of submissions - again something they don't like to give to new poeple.

 

Real Estate, at least in California, has that characteristic. In additional, we have specific rules as to how agency or agent sites are to be listed, which many agents do not like. (Although I've twice seen now a legal requirement for the name of the agency to appear on an agent's site.)

[MatrixViper]

I shan't be checking because we don't discuss individual declined applications here. From your comments, I guess the email you received contained this list of common reasons. One or more of them will be true of the application you made.

 

Next time, I suggest that you check the completed application against all of those points before hitting the submit button.

 

Unfortunately, there will not be a "next time" in my particular case (or fortunately depending upon your viewpoint;))...my applicaton met and exceeded the listed items for refusal and I cannot help but to think that the editor who reviewed my application must have had a less than savory run in with me in the forums and one special person comes to thought. I spent the better half of two hours preparing my application and it is my tedious nature that makes me the passionate real estate zealot that my client clamour for. Luckily, I have this handy program that allows me to print out and save form submittals that I have completed for future review - I even went as far on my application to announce that I would not even submit a site to the ODP as long as I was an editor, because I truly believe that to be a conflict of interest (disclosure and conflict of interest are two very highly guarded topics for REALTORS®)

[MatrixViper]

I've been frustrated in the past as well, but don't fear, try again.

 

As stated earlier, I already gave it my best shot and the powers that be are not interested - that is fine

 

A couple of things I've learned that might be good to know:

 

1) A lot of people want to become editors for various "bad reasons" - mainly to promote their own sites. The volunteer staff is careful about who they approve because of that. If they weren't, this directory would go downhill quickly.

 

I actually volunteered to not even submit a site and remove any site that is someway related to my team while I am an editor (i see it as a conflict of interest - whether perceived or otherwise)

 

2) If a category has more than 40 or so existing sites, it is probably too big for a new editor.

 

Unfortunately, the category that would be most applicable to my abilities currently hosts 57 sites (50 now that I demonstrated some that should not be there ) - and while they may think it to be too big for a new editor, I oversee a team that lists hundreds of properties per year in the millions of dollars

 

3) If a category has sub-categories underneath it, it is probably too big for a new editor. They like to start out new people small, then as you gain experience and have a track record, your role increases over time.

 

As stated above, I was simply applying for the most relevant to my locality and current professional background

 

4) Some categories with small numbers of listings have huge numbers of submissions - again something they don't like to give to new poeple.

 

Maybe I should have submitted my application to the smallest category that I could find, but i merely figured that one that I have a considerable amount of knowledge, background, and experience in would be most prudent

 

5) When your application is reviewed, it's by a volunteer who probably has a lot of other DMOZ work on his plate in addition to his other job or jobs. Sometimes the responses are not that clear and sometimes there is no reason at all. That's just the way it is.

 

This I understand, though, i cannot help but wonder if foul play could be involved due to some of my passionate dealings with some in here

 

If you feel you have been rejected with poor reasoning, you are certainly welcome to re-submit an application.

 

I would consider that application spamming and that is definitely not my style

 

More likely, the better thing to do is to find a category that not only you have expertise in, but one that is appropriate for a new editor. It's a difficult task sometimes. I tried twice, gave up after having trouble finding a third category to submit to, and came back nearly a year later after noticing a category that needs help which I THINK I know enough about and looks to be appropriate for a new guy.

 

Unfortunately, I lack your patience in this matter - i see this simply as ODP's loss...i'm not being condescending, I just am relatively confident that I probably have quite a better understanding of the category that I applied to, than the person currently editing it (as i demonstrated-it takes a bigger man/woman to admit such a thing and obviously that does not exist in here)

 

There are always reasons to decline an application. Keep trying. These guys need help. Just because you worked hard on an application doesn't mean that it must be approved. The first rejection will probably serve you in the future when you find that for the most part, being a volunteer is a thankless job and your satisfaction must come from doing it well.

 

I already have a full plate with my volunteer activities....when i'm not counseling clients on real estate, I am assisting the Kidney Foundation/Neph-Cure in fund raising events, serving as assistant to the local county commissioners office on elder care affairs, and conducting free seminars on teaching seniors to use computers and the internet, as well as demonstrating to local minority groups the power of homeownership...

 

I do sincerely thank you for your positive and well thought out response ... maybe in a few years when i opt for early retirement, i can revisit this topic

[MatrixViper]

Real Estate, at least in California, has that characteristic. In additional, we have specific rules as to how agency or agent sites are to be listed, which many agents do not like. (Although I've twice seen now a legal requirement for the name of the agency to appear on an agent's site.)

 

 

I have news for you arthur, those edicts apply to all sites nationally, not just in CA...and too bad for the agents who try to circumvent those rules

[donaldb]

2) If a category has more than 40 or so existing sites, it is probably too big for a new editor.

Myth. There is no set number. Sometimes a category with 30 sites is going to be too complicated for a new editor. Sometimes a category with 100 sites is going to be ok for a new editor. It all depends on the person and the complexity of the category. A category may seen straight-forward to someone who isn't an editor, but once you are in, you would see that there's more to it than meets the eye.

 

5) When your application is reviewed, it's by a volunteer who probably has a lot of other DMOZ work on his plate in addition to his other job or jobs. Sometimes the responses are not that clear and sometimes there is no reason at all. That's just the way it is.

There is always a reason given. Unfortunately, some people seem to feel that when a list of possible reasons is given that those don't count. The reviewer is not always going to give specific comments, but that's usually just because one or more of the standards reasons applies.

 

Also, just to make the distinction here, applications are reviewed by volunteer Meta editors. Applications are not reviewed by the category editors themselves.

[donaldb]

my applicaton met and exceeded the listed items for refusal

In your opinion

 

We clearly state during the application process that the applicant should read through the Guidelines, but very few people seem to do that. It's sometimes pretty obvious when someone has or hasn't at least given the Guidelines a bit of a glance.

 

and I cannot help but to think that the editor who reviewed my application must have had a less than savory run in with me in the forums and one special person comes to thought.

Thanks bunk. There's very little chance that the person who reviewed your application even frequents this forum. Very few editors, and even less Meta editors participate here.

 

I even went as far on my application to announce that I would not even submit a site to the ODP as long as I was an editor, because I truly believe that to be a conflict of interest (disclosure and conflict of interest are two very highly guarded topics for REALTORS®)

If I read that in an application it would seem odd to me. What do you mean by this? You would submit no web sites at all, or you would submit no web sites that you are associated with? If you would submit no web sites at all, then why become an editor. Part of the job description is that editors go out and scour the internet looking for web sites to add to the category. If you're talking about not adding sites that you are affiliated with, then that would almost seem suspicious to me. We have no rule against editors adding their own sites, we just ask that editors are unbiased and treat their competitor's sites as fairly as they would treat their own.

 

It sounds like you didn't get a chance to read through the Guidelines. You might want to take a quick read through those. Pay attention to the section about Conflicts of Interest.

 

I also find that the biggest reason that applications are denied is because people don't understand how to write the descriptions for the sites they list on their application. We don't expect applicants to be experts, but usually we like to see that some effort has been made to follow our Guidelines to some extent. There is a whole section in the Guidelines that talks about writing descriptions, but for some reason people ignore it.

 

Also, we have a very nice thread at the top of this forum titled [thread=1289]FAQ and General Advice[/thread], but for some reason people tend to ignore that resource as well.

 

All of the information is there, and for the person who actually goes out and finds it, it's usually a simple matter for them to become an editor. Don't try to sell us on how much of an expert you are in your field. It's great that someone comes to the table with subject expertise, but what we really need is someone who wants to learn to be an editor and who may happen to have some knowledge of the subject matter.

 

It's truly not a complicated process. With the proper mind-set and motivation, and a willingness to learn, anyone can be an ODP editor.

[MatrixViper]

In your opinion

 

My "opinion" is most often "fact" at least thats my "opinion" of it

 

We clearly state during the application process that the applicant should read through the Guidelines, but very few people seem to do that. It's sometimes pretty obvious when someone has or hasn't at least given the Guidelines a bit of a glance.

 

I actually did read through the guidelines, that was partly to blame for my 2+ hour application preparation.

 

 

Thanks bunk. There's very little chance that the person who reviewed your application even frequents this forum. Very few editors, and even less Meta editors participate here.

 

Actually, my name is Eric, not bunk And TBH to you, there is very little chance that my editor application was even considered due to its considerably quick denial - it would take longer than that to simply read my app....it was very indepth - i prepared it like i would any docket

 

 

If I read that in an application it would seem odd to me. What do you mean by this? You would submit no[/b"] web sites at all' date=' or you would submit no web sites that you are associated with? If you would submit no web sites at all, then why become an editor. Part of the job description is that editors go out and scour the internet looking for web sites to add to the category. If you're talking about not adding sites that you are affiliated with, then that would almost seem suspicious to me. We have no rule against editors adding their own sites, we just ask that editors are unbiased and treat their competitor's sites as fairly as they would treat their own. [/quote']

 

I would think it was rather evident by my concerns with *conflict of interest* - of course I would add sites that meet DMOZ guidelines to the directory, just they would not be allowed to have any association with myself - the more I speak to alot of *editors* in here, the more gravely concerned that I become with these folks running a *real estate* directory - there are many, many, laws, rules and guidelines that are necessary to ensure compliance with anything associated or even loosely affiliated with *real estate* and that is why it is almost mandatory that someone with considerable real estate background would be chosen for such a task-this would greatly enhance this particular category of the directory and give it some true relevancy...let's face facts, if a person who does not understand real estate guidelines and laws is given the opportunity to be a *human editor* of that directory, than the ODP is reduced to really nothing more than a robot or spider. Only humans, and more importantly, category professionals would be able to ensure the truest and most relevant results (which is something that many using ODP data strive for)

 

 

 

It sounds like you didn"]Guidelines[/url']. You might want to take a quick read through those. Pay attention to the section about Conflicts of Interest.

 

Donald, as stated earlier, I fully read and comprehended your guidelines - the section on conflicts of interest is simply a personal choice on my behalf - because Real Estate Law is all about full disclosure, not annonymity as many on the internet seem to clamour to. I would have no problem at all disclosing my full contact information and have already done so to other editors that I have spoken with (most of which I think are very good people who are just in over their heads when it comes to some categories)

 

I also find that the biggest reason that applications are denied is because people don"]' date=' but for some reason people ignore it. [/quote']

 

I really think one of the problems is a complete misunderstanding of my application (opendir - b51581a5175e94dd9e05a10bceae91a9) and I think some are not receiving some applications with open ears. I once again wish to add, that is simply one persons opinion

 

Also' date=' we have a very nice thread at the top of this forum titled [thread=1289']FAQ and General Advice[/thread"], but for some reason people tend to ignore that resource as well.

 

Believe me, I read that as well - alot of reading and preparation.

 

All of the information is there, and for the person who actually goes out and finds it, it's usually a simple matter for them to become an editor. Don't try to sell us on how much of an expert you are in your field. It's great that someone comes to the table with subject expertise, but what we really need is someone who wants to learn to be an editor and who may happen to have some knowledge of the subject matter.

 

See this is the one area where our opinions will hopelessly deadlock.....I believe it to be critical that Professional Careers (those that require certification from State Bureaus - Doctors, Lawyers, Real Estate, Health Care Administrators, Law enforcement) can only be accurately edited by someone holding professional knowledge in those areas (period), because only people in those fields would be familiar enough with appropriate guidelines that govern *advertising* and other disclosure requirements and in order to gain true relevancy of those results, only someone with these experiences could ensure the safety of these search results.

 

It's truly not a complicated process. With the proper mind-set and motivation, and a willingness to learn, anyone can be an ODP editor.

 

 

This is my greatest concern, that many of these editors sort of walked in in the early days and have since closed ranks. For *human editing* to return pertinent results, it would be necessary for those editors to have knowledge of the area that they are editing (the best example I would have to this effect would be that you would not have an editor of Hot Rod Magazine, edit Forbes magazine and vice versa and that is what *editing* is truly about.

 

I have contacted several of my peers who have attempted to become editors of a real estate category as well, and all have been unilaterally denied and this gives me great angst.

 

Lastly, the more I see DMOZ editors post in these forums, I believe CLEARLY demonstrates that there is an extreme level of burnout with some (as evidenced by their terse and sometimes belligerent comments) and that maybe *editors* should have a term of like a year or so, to prevent their obvious frustrations from boiling over. (I will add that many have been cordial with me, but in reading other thread and posts, it becomes very evident)

 

Once again, just *opinions*, but these are *opinions* that I am usually paid very handsomely for

[oneeye]

Just a few comments and I'm not a meta so I don't review editor applications but there are some misconceptions there.

 

Firstly, amongst your reading I hope you read the Real Estate Guidelines. These are essential for anyone editing a real estate category - http://dmoz.org/guidelines/regional/realestate.html

 

Secondly

For *human editing* to return pertinent results, it would be necessary for those editors to have knowledge of the area that they are editing (the best example I would have to this effect would be that you would not have an editor of Hot Rod Magazine, edit Forbes magazine and vice versa and that is what *editing* is truly about

Directory editors are not comparable with magazine editors - you can see that from the descriptions of what we do in our guidelines. Subject knowledge can be useful sometimes but knowledge of DMOZ guidelines for titles and descriptions, ability to spot and deal with spam, taxonomy and site placement, all are far more important. A good editor does not need subject knowledge, an expert in a subject may make a lousy editor. Sometimes it is easy to get too focused on the subject and miss the essential directory listing skills necessary. The vast majority of real estate sites are not listed by anyone remotely connected with real estate. The real estate professionals in our ranks spend very little time listing real estate sites. Editing is a hobby not an extension of our professional lives and those that treat it as the latter are most often the ones that hit trouble. When reviewing a site I am judging against certain listing criteria and in many respects the subject is more or less irrelevant - I am an "expert" in listing websites. You are an expert in real estate but you are no more an expert in real estate websites from a user aspect than anyone else and it is the user aspect we approach the site from. In fact you may be less of an expert than the average because your profession gets in the way of being a dispassionate user of real estate websites.

 

It seems to me that your views and opinions about what we should be doing and the qualifications editors should hold are completely incompatible with our long experience in how things actually work best for DMOZ. Perhaps the attitude, if reflected in the application, might have been a contributory factor. Sadly, those that claim to be masters of their field and take exception to lesser mortals telling them how things must be done to comply with DMOZ guidelines have, in the past, proved to be extremely disruptive.

 

Finally, real estate in the US is one of our most spam-prone areas and it takes a lot of editing experience to deal with such categories effectively. It is extremely unusual that a new editor is assigned to a spam-prone category as they simply do not have the editing skills to deal with it, regardless of how knowledgeable they are about the field. This might explain the speed of the rejection in fact. The answer is to apply for a category that is unlikely to be spam-prone, gain the experience, then move onto the more difficult (editing-wise) categories once a meta is convinced you can handle it.

 

You may disagree (strongly even) with our approach to editors and editing, and our emphasis on directory skills over specialist knowledge. But when all is said and done an application to join the community of editors means accepting our way, at least to start with.

[arubin]

I have news for you arthur, those edicts apply to all sites nationally, not just in CA...and too bad for the agents who try to circumvent those rules

 

The law you quoted, (in a private E-mail, I believe) is not a Federal law. Sorry about that, but I do know the numbering system for Federal bills, statutes, and laws. (I've lobbied for or against enough of them....) Perhaps the NAR and MLSs have rules, but you have not demonstrated their legal applicability to sites outside of PA.

[MatrixViper]

Arthur,

 

RELRA is a federal statute.....but, I have already talked my way through on some of the topics in private and think i completely understand your (collective DMOZ) point of view on things.....while I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on some, I see your points and they are well taken.....I will ask you folks to do me a favour though, If you ever see a site from an agent or broker that seems somewhat amiss and you cant put your finger on it, please drop me a quick PM and let me know the site and the reason why you think something does not jive - that and if you ever come across a site using the term REALTOR ®, you folks would help me out greatly and in the process, i should be able to help you folks out by making some out there change there ways or face sanctions - and while not being listed in DMOZ is a pretty serious thing, it will pale in comparison to what we will act on if they are trying some funny business - and moreso it would help us in our never ending battle to keep fraud out of real estate....Many thanks!

 

Eric

[arubin]

A little off topic for this thread, but perhaps you can help us identify Realtors. There are a couple of different web pages at realtors.org that we use to try to determine the agency and location associated with a Realtor. Which do you consider most official?