Application Denied - Very Bogus Reason

[JJBonsai]

I was trying to edit a section of dmoz that is very spammy. I have tons of experience in the industry I applied to and have a passion to make that section of dmoz regain a positive reputation for listing unique and valuable sites for visitors. Here is the response I got... first, I got a response saying that I did not report all of my sites I am associated with. I did not realize they needed 'all' of them as the list is quite extesnive, so I reapplied and listed all of them and my position at each site, even sites I don't work for anymore. I then got a reply almost a month later saying this...

 

Reviewer Comments:

 

After long and careful consideration of your history here of not revealing all

of your associated websites in editor applications, we've decided that editing

isn't for you.

 

Please don't apply again. We wish you well in your future endeavors.

 

I am outraged that so much spam can get in from corrupt editors and finally one with passion for quality comes by and I get denied. I feel this was also a corrupt action and I wish that whoever reviews applications realizes what they are missing. If I wasn't clear, let me be now... I am very pissed off!

[JJBonsai]

Also, I thought editor applications weren't kept on file? How do they know I applied before? I am so upset at this and I think there is something really fishy going on and I wish there was some sort of 'higher-up' I could speak to directly.

[makrhod]

We do not discuss individual applications, but as explained in other threads here, applications can be viewed by any meta, catmod or admin.

I am outraged that so much spam can get in from corrupt editors ... I feel this was also a corrupt action ... I think there is something really fishy going on and I wish there was some sort of 'higher-up' I could speak to directly.

Wild and/or vague accusations are of no use to anyone, and are not appreciated.

 

However, if you have evidence of some sort of abuse, please use the Public Abuse form.

 

Such reports can also be seen by all metas, catmods and admins, so you can be sure that if there is anything "fishy", it will be investigated.

[JJBonsai]

Thank you Makrhod i will look into what you were saying.

 

I didn't want to go over my application, I wanted to know about what the responses mean. I want to know how they can say to 'not apply again'. I've read in here before that when you apply there may be a chance of a different administrator reviewing the application, then why can't I apply again in hopes I get someone who sees things differently? And, can I apply to a different category? And, if your application is discarded and there is no record of you ever applying before, as also has been said in these forums before, than how can they give me the excuse that I have a history of applying and not providing full information (if they have no records of it).

 

Also, more importantly, can you please tell me where I can go to let administrators know of unworthy sites that are in a directory so those sites will be fully analyzed. They are mostly in sections that have no current editor and haven't had an editor for many years.

[makrhod]

can you please tell me where I can go to let administrators know of unworthy sites that are in a directory so those sites will be fully analyzed. They are mostly in sections that have no current editor and haven't had an editor for many years.

All categories have editors, as you can read in the FAQ, but we certainly welcome assistance in quality control, which is why there is a thread here for that precise purpose. Your help there would be appreciated.

[itprof]

JJBonsai,

 

I got a similar rejection with an editor comment at the end stating:

 

"We're having real problems reconciling the statements you've made across several applications; their inconsistencies are troubling.

 

Editing isn't for everybody and we've come to the conclusion that it isn't for you. Please don't apply again."

 

This was in addition to the "canned" reasons for not approving, such as:

• Incomplete application
  
• Improper spelling and grammar
  
• Sample URLs inappropriate for the category
  
• Not disclosing affiliations with sites that could be listed in the category
  
• Titles and descriptions of sample URLs were subjective and promotional
  
• Self-Promotion
  

 

I went back to review my last application (i did not know to keep a copy of the previous ones as I had not expected those to be held against me) and I could not find anything that matched the reasons listed above.

 

I must be fair and state that, unlike your situation, the category I applied for is clean of spam. It was a simple one that only listed two other web sites.

 

Like you, I feel I was judged unfairly. My intent was sincere. I sent an email requesting help in understanding the "real" reason for being declined. I am not very confident at this point.

[killdmoz]

Never a response

 

You will never get a response and might as well give up, I am sure this will be deleted quickly but I plan to post these messages on my site <url removed>

 

It should really once up and running should be added to DMOZ becuase it will be real original content.

[makrhod]

I sent an email requesting help in understanding the "real" reason for being declined. I am not very confident at this point.

I don't understand why you would disbelieve the reason you were given?

Each application is reviewed by one or more very experienced editors, many of whom have reviewed thousands and thousands of such applications.

So you can be sure that any comments they chose to add were completely valid.

It may not be what you wanted to hear, of course, but then that happens in real life too. Editing is a hobby, that's all, so failing to be accepted is surely nothing more than a mild disappointment, and the fury shown by those who are unsuccessful merely adds to the impression that they viewed it as something far more.

[JJBonsai]

The fury comes because there are dozens of horrible sites listed that must have gotten approved by an editor, right? So they denied me, who was completely honest and upfront and who has the best of intentions, yet they allow these bogus editors to ruin categories by approving sites that have no value whatsoever. Doesn't that reek of something fishy?

[nea]

The ODP has existed for over 11 years. In that time, MANY sites that once had good content have turned into worthless nonsense sites; we do quality control checks on listed sites, of course, but for many categories that work lags sadly behind and we're very grateful indeed for all the help we get from the public in finding sites that have gone bad, so they can be weeded out. You asked above for a way to let the editors know about bad sites that are listed, and makrhod provided a link. If you use it to let us know about the bad sites, everybody wins.