"New Editor" application / reconsideration

[smoshlak]

My name is Steven Moshlak and I applied for a position to edit a DMOZ category /site. In addition, I have been waiting patiently to be added to the DMOZ site, for well over 9 months (closer to a year). During this period, I noticed that there wasn't an editor for this category and my submission either fell through the cracks or is waiting on the staff to select an editor in my category to make changes.

 

Based upon my skills, expertise and background, this position is a "fit." I realize that it is a lot easier to send out a "cookie-cut" rejection e-mail than it is to address and issue that is long overdue, namely, no editor, which results in no updates to the section / site in question. Simply stated, DMOZ get the benefit of 30+ years of experience for free and I get the pleasure of help presenting new and potential resources for other individuals who do use the Internet.

 

I am asking for reconsideration of my application based upon my experience and that ability to get things done in a timely manner. I look forward to a favorable reply and of course my

 

Regards,

 

Steven Moshlak

[makphisto]

You applied and were rejected, correct? Did your reviewer give you any comments as to why they declined your application?

[motsa]

If you got the default email from the meta editor who reviewed your application, they obviously felt that one or more of the items in the list applied to your application. I'd recommend that you go through all of the items in the default email and check your application against them. You may also want to read the "FAQ and General Advice" thread stickied at the top of this forum for more general application information.

 

You're welcome to reapply once you've done that but I'm afraid we have no way of reconsidering an application that's already been reviewed. Skills and expertise in the field are great but it's more important that your application demonstrate that you have an understanding of how we choose, title, and describe sites.

[smoshlak]

Hi Makphisto-

 

Although there were no "Reviewer Comments", the "cookie cut" explanations that were emailed to me included:

 

* Incomplete application. Insufficient information has been provided in some

fields including reason, affiliation and/or Sample URLs.

 

(I have provided all data requested and then some)

 

* Improper spelling and grammar.

 

[My command of the English (and a few others) Languages is not limited to "working knowledge" but the result of hard-core collegiate studies.]

 

* 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.

 

(The "Hi-Tech, Expert Witness" area isn't really that broad.)

 

* Not properly disclosing affiliations with websites that are, or have the

potential of being, listed in the category.

 

(This URL is owned by one company and it is stated on the webpage and the information I provided in the application.)

 

* 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.

 

(The information that was provided was true and correct to the best of my knowledge and is based upon web-based information.)

 

* 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.

 

(This category / site has been without an editor for well over six months and as long as a year. The closest thing to "self-promotion" is to add the Computerlegalexperts.com URL and associated description to the category in a unbiased and fair manner)

 

I apologize if I appear "cross" over this, but I am extremely sensitive to having my integrity questioned or my ability to mete out fairness for everyone. I do want to help, but when there's a fire and nobody wants volunteer firefighters to help, I have to wonder.

 

My suggestion? Let me be responsible for this category for a 90-day probationary period. If I exceed (not just meet) the editors' expectations, I'd like to take over responsibility for the section until I either resign or I receive a "thank you" for my services from the editors.

 

Regards and my thanks,

 

Steve

[smoshlak]

If you got the default email from the meta editor who reviewed your application, they obviously felt that one or more of the items in the list applied to your application. I'd recommend that you go through all of the items in the default email and check your application against them. You may also want to read the "FAQ and General Advice" thread stickied at the top of this forum for more general application information.

 

You're welcome to reapply once you've done that but I'm afraid we have no way of reconsidering an application that's already been reviewed. Skills and expertise in the field are great but it's more important that your application demonstrate that you have an understanding of how we choose, title, and describe sites.

Hi Motsa-

 

I would appreciate it if either you or another editor review my application. I responded to Makphisto and the response mentioned my concerns. I truly believe that there was an oversight in this matter, in light of the many applications that you do receive.

 

This particular category has been a ship, without a helmsman, for over six months and nearly a year. All I am asking for is a chance to prove my mettle.

 

Regards,

 

Steven Moshlak

[motsa]

As I wrote earlier, the application is your chance to show us that you (a) understand what sites belong in the category and (b) are able to write titles and descriptions that at least come close to what the ODP is looking for. Have a look at the sites that are already listed there (or have a look at the guidelines) -- Do the titles and descriptions you've given the sites you've suggested follow the same format? Do the sites you suggested actually belong most appropriately in the expert witnesses category or are they maybe more appropriate for something like http://dmoz.org/Computers/Security/Consultants/Forensics_and_Incident_Response/ ?

 

I apologize if I appear "cross" over this, but I am extremely sensitive to having my integrity questioned or my ability to mete out fairness for everyone.

No one questioned your integrity or fairness.

 

I do want to help, but when there's a fire and nobody wants volunteer firefighters to help, I have to wonder.

Not everyone who wants to be a volunteer firefighter can be one.

 

My suggestion? Let me be responsible for this category for a 90-day probationary period. If I exceed (not just meet) the editors' expectations, I'd like to take over responsibility for the section until I either resign or I receive a "thank you" for my services from the editors.

As I've already said, you are welcome to reapply but we cannot rereview an application that has already been reviewed. If you do choose to reapply, I'd really recommend that you read some of what I've written and the items that I've pointed you towards.

[shadow575]

I would appreciate it if either you or another editor review my application. I responded to Makphisto and the response mentioned my concerns. I truly believe that there was an oversight in this matter, in light of the many applications that you do receive.

 

This particular category has been a ship, without a helmsman, for over six months and nearly a year. All I am asking for is a chance to prove my mettle.

 

A couple of additional points that should be noted:

1. I can assure you that the review process on new applications are very thorough and if it was rejected without additional comment, the reviewer of that application felt that one of those common things did apply and it was enough in their judgment that would require another attempt to correct before being approved.
    
   
2. No category is without an editor, as no editor owns any category. There are categories with named editors and those without named editors. In both cases, there are many editors with directory wide permissions who can/will/do edit in all the categories that exist. Many categories are without named editors but there are dozens of editors actively working behind the scenes, by the same token a named editor for a category may only rarely edit in the named category but 1-100+ others might be actively working there.
    
   
3. All editors go through the same application review process. There are no free-passes or temporary trial periods.
   

I appreciate your enthusiasm and desire to help! Remember most editors were rejected 2 or more times before finally getting close enough to be given a chance to learn. If you really want to help, follow motsa's excellent advice and improve your next application even more.

 

Hope that helps.

[smoshlak]

As I wrote earlier' date=' the application is your chance to show us that you (a) understand what sites belong in the category and (b) are able to write titles and descriptions that at least come close to what the ODP is looking for. Have a look at the sites that are already listed there (or have a look at the guidelines) -- Do the titles and descriptions you've given the sites you've suggested follow the same format? Do the sites you suggested actually belong most appropriately in the expert witnesses category or are they maybe more appropriate for something like http://dmoz.org/Computers/Security/Consultants/Forensics_and_Incident_Response/ ?

 

No one questioned your integrity or fairness.

 

Not everyone who wants to be a volunteer firefighter can be one.

 

As I've already said, you are welcome to reapply but we cannot rereview an application that has already been reviewed. If you do choose to reapply, I'd really recommend that you read some of what I've written and the items that I've pointed you towards.

Hi Motsa-

 

An INFOSEC "incident response" is different than the services of "expert witness work." Incident response requires immediate assistance (let's use the example of a paramedic system), whereas expert witness work looks at the "mess" and tries to analyze the "cause and effects" based upon specific actions or inactions and relates these facts, with an expert opinion, to the court. The matters that we handle, leastwise I do, are the interesting ones involving computer forensics, electronic discovery and expert witness testimony as it related to information technology. These matters have covered matters including civil matters, such as family law and partnerships to criminal matters, in the military and civilian sectors which range from "white-collar" crime to the transmission of data, which is prohibited by public policy, regulation or law.

 

The best part about what I do any opinion I do draw is substantiated by the facts that are discovered.

 

Now, that you have provided the seed, let's see if we can make a flower. Inoticed that the directory does not have acategory titled "Society: Law: Services: Expert Witnesses: Computer Forensics.

 

Can you please help me in possibly opening up a new sub-category title Computer Forensics under Expert Witnesses, rather than a generic "Hi-Tech" sub-category?

 

I'd appreciate the help and I again thank you.

 

Regards,

 

Steve

[motsa]

An INFOSEC "incident response" is different than the services of "expert witness work."

The reason I mentioned the consultants category is that a lot of companies that offer expert witness services only do that as a small part of the more general, incident-based consulting/forensics work that they do.

 

Can you please help me in possibly opening up a new sub-category title Computer Forensics under Expert Witnesses, rather than a generic "Hi-Tech" sub-category?

Sorry, no, I can't. There is already a Computers category under the High Tech one and that or the High Tech category would be where Computer Forensic expert witnesses would generally be listed.

[smoshlak]

Hi Motsa-

 

Well, I am not the size of a Kroll On-Track, KPMG or Mantech Int'l, with unlimited resources and can roll-out a team on a moment's notice. <smile> I have to admit that I am a "one-horse shop" and have been for over 20 years. It has it's advantages since the boss has only fired me three times since I started working in this field. <lol>

 

I have re-read the guidelines and will re-apply for the category with a clearer understanding of what's needed, probably before the week's end.

 

I thank you and the editorial staff for taking the time to discuss this issue and my regret-in-chief is that the form of transmission can be so "sanitary" and impersonal.

 

Regards,

 

Steve