Webber's application to become an editor

[makrhod]

I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with the way editors are screened, especially when I learn that some editors needed to apply 5 times before being accepted

Well, you are free to hold your own opinion, based on your individual experience.

 

However, many editors are accepted on their first application, and those that require several attempts are successful only because they attend to the advice given to them after previous rejections.

That feedback is a service provided by volunteers to help increase the number of editors. It would be much quicker and easier to simply reject those who do not meet the requirements, without bothering to provide any assistance.

 

But people do not always read instructions, or they do not always understand what is required, so if we can help them to complete the form more carefully and/or honestly, it is in in the interests of the directory to do so.

[Webber]

now don't get mad immediately:

 

makrhod, you're incomplete and dishonest with your post ......

 

... just experience what feelings this brings and realize you won't get any help to sort out why this has been told to you, where you could have gone wrong and how to solve it.

 

See what I mean? There's nothing constructive ...

 

I'll leave it at that, meanwhile I could have contributed with multiple DMOZ categories, but it wasn't meant to be. I'll move on.

[chaos127]

But makrhod wasn't completing an application form, for which you would expect to need to give complete and honest answers...

 

The problem with being too "constructive" is that it lets the really dishonest people know which bits of their dishonesty we've managed to discover, and hence allows them to just come clean about the things they know we know about.

 

Unfortunately there's no easy way to distinguish the actually dishonest people from those that just haven't understood what the various questions on the application form are asking. Hence the two options of "incomplete" and "honest". But then again, being able to read, understand, and follow instructions is a key skill for an editor to possess...

 

For example, suppose the reviewing meta manages to find a site that they can connect to the applicant that they didn't list in the "associated sites" box. It's possible they just haven't understood what we're asking for* but it's also possible that the applicant is deliberately trying to hide some of their sites because they mistakenly think that they're more likely to be accepted that way. (This usually couldn't be further from the truth -- we regularly accept editors who have lots of associated websites, and we regularly reject those applicants who fail to list them all.) If one site is missing, the reviewer also has to wonder if there are any more missing sites. Honesty is a key attribute for an editor, and we can't afford to take the chance that the applicant was deliberately hiding things.

 

I don't know what sort of replies you received, but the first time an applicant fails to list all their sites, I'll add a detailed comment explaining in more detail the sort of sites we expect them to list. If they fail to list everything a second time I won't be in such a good mood...

 

* You can read all about that in the editor guidelines at http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html. Note that there's no restriction either to current sites, current involvement, or sites related to the category where you're applying.)

[pvgool]

did you ever manage to get a job in real life where you could apply multiple times

There is a big difference between applying for a job and applying to become an editor.

In a job application they are looking for the best person to hire. Only one can get the job.

Editors are not limited in numbers. We hire everybody who shows that he/she understands what we are looking for, sometimes these people need a little guidence improving their application. We don't expect perfect applications. If we did we wouldn't hire any new editors.

 

as if I'm trying to be incomplete or dishonest on purpose

Many applicants aren't aware that they did something wrong. That is why we send them replies. Some are realy dishonest. But, as other editors already wrote, it is very difficult to know if it was a mistake or intention.

[Webber]

I honestly have no idea where I supposively was dishonest or incomplete and yes I read the whole bundle of articles earlier.

 

Do you guys/girls ever consider the fact that applicant reviewers themselves can make false assumptions and mistakes just as the applicants do?

 

It's convenient to every time throw the book at applicants but then also bother telling them what specific passage to look for or give valid applications a chance to clear possible misperceptions or mistakes otherwise don't bother and tell one should not apply again.

 

Rejection notifications with multiple choice possibilities, conflict pages with multiple possibilities, rejections without remarks and when you do get any they can be conclusive and based on subjective personal perception and assumption ... just like any applicant is driven whilest applying ... so where's the guidance and wisdom?

 

I rather see the good in people instead of assuming the worst from start.

[makrhod]

I rather see the good in people instead of assuming the worst from start

but

makrhod, you're incomplete and dishonest with your post

It's very unfortunate if you have not learned anything from the time several volunteers have spent trying to help you. Perhaps it would have been the same if you became an editor.

[pvgool]

Do you guys/girls ever consider the fact that applicant reviewers themselves can make false assumptions and mistakes just as the applicants do?

Ofcourse they can make mistakes. They are humans. And humans are known to make mistakes sometimes. No problem. With many humans involved others will be able to correct those mistakes.

 

It's convenient to every time throw the book at applicants but then also bother telling them what specific passage to look for or give valid applications a chance to clear possible misperceptions or mistakes otherwise don't bother and tell one should not apply again.

 

Rejection notifications with multiple choice possibilities, conflict pages with multiple possibilities, rejections without remarks and when you do get any they can be conclusive and based on subjective personal perception and assumption ... just like any applicant is driven whilest applying ... so where's the guidance and wisdom?

Being able to understand, investigate and correct the mistakes is something a new editor must be able to do on his own. It is something he will be doing all the time as an editor. Giving him to much help won't do the job. We need to know that he is capable of doing these tasks himself.

 

I rather see the good in people instead of assuming the worst from start.

And so do we. That is why people get second (and 3th and more) chances.

 

I hope this discussion has given you some insight how the process is run and why it is done the way it is done. I don't think there is anything more we can do to help you. It is now upto you. Write an application with all the information that is requested and with the complete truth. Or don't. The choice is yours.

[Webber]

It's very unfortunate if you have not learned anything from the time several volunteers have spent trying to help you.

makrhod, I learned plenty but meanwhile I can't escape the impression that most of the replies lie more in line of defending the general rules and eachother, which is good in a 'community based' setting and I understand where this is coming from but isn't there room for self reflection?

 

Before someone gives me the obvious 'you need to self reflect yourself' reply post: I already try to do this by participating in this forum.

Write an application with all the information that is requested and with the complete truth. Or don't. The choice is yours.

This has nothing to do with the choice of being truthful or not, there's simply no clear way to find out -if any- mistakes or misperceptions took place by a reviewer, me or any other applicants in specific cases, where the concrete answer lies without better motivated remarks or communication about it.

 

There must be somebody who can admit that at times even the best rules or reviewer intentions can be incomplete as well or they may need better motivation, without repeatively throwing the ball back?

At the same time I do realize that this is practically impossible with the amount of applications but nevertheless.

[pvgool]

This has nothing to do with the choice of being truthful or not

My remark was not about "choice of being thruthful or not" but.

It is your choice to write a new application or not to write a new application.

 

 

there's simply no clear way to find out -if any- mistakes or misperceptions took place by a reviewer

Instead on focusing on possible mistakes by people who have a lot of experience with reviewing applications you should better focus on what these people have written and how you can learn and improve from what they wrote.

 

 

And as I wrote in my previous entry.

I don't think there is anything more we can do to help you. It is now upto you

Having said that I see no reason to reply anymore.

[jimnoble]

For your final attempt, focus hard and take the process as seriously as you would a job application. Folks who can demonstrate an open and honest interest in and understanding of what we do here usually turn out to be good editors.