Application Rejected - Sample Provided

[charlesleo]

Well, I've been denied for editorial application. The first few time I was told a category was too large. This is the second time and I've applied to the Boston Architectural firms section. Could the denial be related to the fact that I've spoken my mind here? Here's the information I filled-out as I honestly don't see anything wrong with this:

____________________________________________________________

What is your Internet experience?

I have been using the Internet since 1994. I am familiar with many different browsers as well as operating systems. I have also developed many websites.

 

Why are you interested in volunteering to be an editor for the ODP?

I am interested in volunteering in order to provide the public access to informative topics and useful resources.

 

Explain your interest in the subject of the category for which you are applying to edit:

I am fascinated with the architecture of the New England area - in particular the city of Boston. Architecture and other design-related fields are interests of mine.

 

Sites with which you are associated:

Listed below are a few sites which I have created:

(three sites listed)

 

Please provide 2 or 3 URLs, that you would add to this category along with titles and descriptions for each.

http://www.halvorsondesign.com

Halvorson Design Partnership

Landscape architect specializing in commerical, academic, institutional, and residential properties.

 

http://www.sbra.com/

Shepley Bulfinch Richardson & Abbott

Provides corporate and public markets with architectural planning and interior design services.

 

http://www.rawnarch.com

William Rawn Associates

Involved in civic and public projects ranging from performing arts facilities to affordable housing.

[charlesleo]

I'll also like to add that I've worked as an editor (and illustrator) for Simon & Schuster, Houghton-Mifflin, Scholastic, and Pearson Custom Publishing. I've also contracted for VHL, Baseline Development Group, Hispanex, Greenwood Publishing, Appingo, and Harcourt-Achieve.

 

Perhaps my editorial skills are not up to par?

 

The one thing I could be pointed out on is:

 

"area - in" - technically-speaking this should be an em-dash (not readily available to Windows operating systems) conjoining the two words together.

[timamie261]

conjectural material removed my apology jim and to the forum

[charlesleo]

Hmmm. Thanks for the reply. The last I checked all those images were up over at Halvorson - don't quite know what to say now. I wonder if they are aware of this - I may just give them a call tomorrow.

 

As for unique content and images - I suppose that's somewhat of a personal taste to some degree. I derive a lot of information from simply looking at structures. Aside from the broken images, I thought all those websites had some interesting designs.

 

but how it is done and how they do it.

Understandable and I completely agree that's more interesting. However, it appears that I've got to start somewhere in a less 'popular' category that isn't too broad. I also didn't think 'technique' was a necessarily part of the Business category. I feel that would be more appropriate for a different non-business category such as architectural history (as an example.)

[timamie261]

conjectural material removed

[charlesleo]

Thanks again. I guess I'll just look up some more sites and be a lot more careful where/what I choose then try another time.

[timamie261]

conjectural material removed

[jimnoble]

Charles, we don't discuss the details of individual applications whether they be declined or accepted. If the evaluating meta had any specific comments to make, s/he would have added them to the standard email that was sent.

 

Comments made here by non-metas are conjectural and should be treated as such.

 

I certainly don't expect applicants to demonstrate perfect site selection and description writing skills and I doubt if any other metas do.

[hutcheson]

Tim, you're proposing strictures that are not founded on ODP guidelines or practice. A website for a real-live local organization doesn't have to contain what "someone" would like to see. All it has to contain is "significant" "unique" "information."

 

What an organization has to say about itself is significant -- just about anything more than a business card or VERY simple brochure counts. That's potentially UNIQUE -- nobody else can speak with authority about who the organization wants to be, and what they'll do for money (or for free, if it's a charity.) (The only way it's not unique is if they create lots of little "official" sites, and we can't tell which one is the real McCoy.) It's potentially INFORMATION -- Oh, sure, it could include marketroid-fluff, but usually there is some real information underneath the fluff. Scratch off the "dedicated to" and "specializing in" and "the leading" and "award-winning" kind of hype, and you still find an organization offering their own services.

 

I can say, based on a brief review, that all those sites are listable. (I did not check to see whether the firms already had another URL listed -- in which case that URL would not be listable.)

 

I can't speak for your example site, Tim: I don't use Flash. But some other editor seemed to think it was listable.

 

The descriptions you gave weren't awful -- I could get picky with all of them, but I'm at the "picky" end of the Bell curve of the ODP community.

 

I don't think speaking one's mind is an issue. The big concern I see with the application you laid out is that your list of "affiliated sites" appears to be incomplete.

 

Oh, you don't have to list the sites here in public -- that information is confidential; only meta-editors can see your application, and it's appropriate to trim that part of the application for public review. But the way you say it, "here are three OF THE sites...." -- please make the effort to give a comprehensive list.

 

There is no rule against listing sites you have created -- if you're in the business of building websites, and with your background in architecture you tend to have such firms as clients, you are likely to be listing sites you created for some firm. What we want to be able to trust, is that you'll be activily seeking and fairly listing sites you DIDN'T create.

 

Is that something you can do?

 

Caveat: there may have been other concerns beyond what I saw, in the mind of the reviewing editor. And there may be other concerns which would have arisen if the first concern hadn't stopped the application review. (I personally don't think the typo/misspelling or the tinges of hype would have caused a rejection. And I think you could fit into -- or easily move into -- the mainstream of ODP description usage according to the ODP stylesheet.)

 

The affiliations part is important, these days, because of the issue of potential favoritism. We don't have idiot rules about what listable sites you "can" or "can't" list just because of who you are. But we do require that both new and old editors maintain an accurate list of affiliations for the meta-editors. (Nobody else sees it, and meta-editors must keep that information confidential.)

 

<added--Jim's post overlapped mine>I should emphasize, my comments are conjectural also--I have not reviewed the original application or made some of the checks that would have been required before accepting it. But I think those points are generally applicable for people who'd like to work in Regional categories.