A personal experience

[lissa]

Phil - Thanks for your post. Two comments about the process in general.

 

The fact that an application is rejected quickly indicates that there was something "obvious" wrong (spelling, grammar, category applied for etc.) To try to keep the queue manageable, the metas look for the obvious deletes first, which unfortunately are 60-80% of applications received. I agree that it would be better to always include a reason with the rejection, and hopefully we can improve this, perhaps with a check box form or something.

 

It has been suggested in other threads that ODP should be less stringent in accepting new editors if we need help so badly. What we really need is highly motivated, quality help, not just a body off the street who is going to toss a few poorly described URLs in a cat and then time-out after they lose interest. A side effect of the application process is that it weeds out people who are not highly motivated to join. Someone who is persistent enough to figure out how to get accepted, even in the face of several rejections, will probably be motivated to learn how to be a good editor and stick with the project. I'm not saying that this is the intention of the system, just a side-effect. Yes, editors get accepted who aren't motivated to stay (many never even login once and a lot only do a few edits and then time out after 3 mos.) Yes, we probably lose potentially good editors who are put-off by a rejection with no explanation. But most of the editors that are active and have moved up in responsibility have "I was rejected" stories, and how they eventually worked out what was wrong and improved their editing.

 

I knew nothing about ODP besides reading the guidelines before I hit the application button. My first application was rejected without explanation and I felt a little miffed. After all, I had very nicely explained why I had applied to a higher level category and how I was going to reorganize what was there. However, being rejected told me a couple things: first, the person reviewing has no idea who I really am; second, they really meant what they said in the guidelines; third, apparently I was not going to just be given free reign in a small section of the directory. I applied again to a lower level category, was accepted, and then discovered I had actually joined a community of people. Not quite what I thought I was signing up for, but better! I straightened out what I started with, learned a lot of how editors do business, proposed my reorg and eventually did what I had originally proposed in my application. The process was very different than I thought it would be looking in from the outside.

 

What I am being very long-winded in saying is that being an ODP editor is more than just listing URLs and writing titles and descriptions, it is working with a community of people, absorbing the common goals, learning about the tools and past organizational decisions and constantly improving yourself. The application process is just the first filter in fitting a new person into the editing community, and most people have to figure out how to pass through that gate by themselves.

 

Hope this slightly different perspective on the process is interesting!

[Guest Phil]

Hi Lissa. Thank you for your post and, yes, it was interesting. I'd already come to realize that the ODP is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. It is in bad shape because it has so few active editors and such a massive backlog (the lowest figure I've read is over half a million) but if it lowers its editor approval standards for the sake of gaining more editors, it will result in a much poorer product. My answer to this dilema is....I have no answer - except for the measure that I have been talking about in this thread, which is to encourage those who look like they could be good but who are rejected for 'technical' reasons.

 

For instance, you were a potentially good editor when you first applied but nobody thought to tell you that you'd applied too 'high'. You could easily have gone away feeling "slightly miffed" and the ODP would have been the loser. It doesn't make sense. I'm assuming that your first application was ok in terms of sites, descriptions and such.

 

However, there's been a developement. Just as an experiment I resubmitted my second application but at the opposite end of the day from the previous time. I was convinced that there was nothing wrong with the application and I was curious to see what a different reviewer would make of it. It was accepted. I know that the easy response is to say that different people see things in different ways but I have to conclude that the person who looked at it the first time around could not have seen much wrong at all, and that my points in this thread have been justified.

 

I now have the problem of deciding what to do about it. When I started this process, I was motivated to help with the backlog for two reasons. [1] because many thousands of perfectly good sites found it hard to impossible to get listed and [2] as an internet user, I'd prefer to see all that is available when I do a search. The more relevant sites that are listed, the better. My problems are:- [1] as we all know, I'd seriously gone off the idea of helping and [2] I've found that that there isn't a backlog at all in the tiny category that I chose (to avoid applying too high). The topic area is so small that there is no chance of doing sufficient edits to merit moving to where I can do more good. I know that from the difficulty I had in finding the sites to suggest on the application form.

 

Phil.

[Guest]

Welcome, Phil! Be sure to post in the New editor forum at ODP and say hi.

 

There's an easy answer to your question about what to do with "your" category: find good sites to add. There are plenty of people who can help you with this.

 

Also, check my thread called "What Editors Do All Day" to get an idea of what else the category may need. There's a LOT more to do than just reviewing submitted sites!

 

And don't brood over the acceptance process. Lots of folks have gotten in on their third try. All the metas are in here reading posts: maybe your comments inspired one of them to look more closely at the applications - who knows?

 

Anyway, log in, knock around, and meet people. I'll bet you find something to ignite your enthusiasm again!

[jordancpeterson]

Wait for 24 hours and I'll get you that e-mail as I promised you Phil. It’ll have a ton of tips so stand by. Oh and welcome aboard! /images/icons/smile.gif

[donaldb]

Welcome Phil /images/icons/smile.gif

 

As a first step after reading the guidelines, and some of the forum threads about writing good descriptions, you'll be able to go through that category and tidy up the descriptions that are currently there. Some of those descriptions in that cat need some tidying badly /images/icons/smile.gif

 

don

[Guest]

Welcome Phil!

 

You seem well spoken, and knowledgable, and I am sure you will be an asset to ODP! /images/icons/smile.gif

 

My category is small as well. Any "backlog" which was there when I came on board was quickly taken care of as most were not in the right cat anyway. So I've been diligently trying to search out sites with good content to add. I've noticed that since I've been editor, there have been no submissions. So getting the edits required to become editor of more challenging categories may take me awhile. I'm anxious to do more, but I figure this gives me all the time I need to learn the ins and outs of editing. It seems this is a good system which doesn't allow a person take on too much, too fast. I'm sure you will be able to find quality sites to add, and you might just be addicted to editing in no time! /images/icons/smile.gif

 

Good Luck to you!

 

SoapStuff

ODP Editor

Arts/Crafts/Soaps

[lissa]

Phil - Welcome aboard!

>>I now have the problem of deciding what to do about it.<<

I realize that your interest waned, however, please consider extending your experiment for long enough to work through the initial process of being a new editor until you get accepted for a 2nd category. A few reasons: you can report back here to interested folk what it is like as you start up, you will get a pretty good flavor of what works well and what we're trying to improve internally, you WILL have the satisfaction of having helped out (every little bit counts), and you will get a chance to see if this is actually interesting to you (of course, we're hoping you'll quickly become addicted!)

 

The editor community is very helpful, however, if a new editor doesn't speak up or catch the attention of someone, they may not get assistance they need. So anyone else reading this - if you join, find your way to the new editor forum and speak up! At first when I started, I dove right into editing (because you do need to try things out) but once I found the forums, I spent a LOT of time reading for a couple weeks, just to try to absorb a lot of stuff pertinent to my job.

 

The problem of starting in a really small category is easily resolved. After the editor has done everything to improve a small category (all descriptions up to guidelines and new sources for sites exhausted), but still doesn't have enough edits/experience to apply directly for the next category, they can work in their own Bookmarks category on whatever interests them - either creating a brand new category or listing sites for the next category they want to apply to. This will both build up their experience and show the metas their ability for that next target.

 

For the record, my second application was the same as the first, just to a lower category. I agree that the process could be improved, and I'm sure the information from this forum is going back into discussions internally. There are differences among the metas in editing/reviewing styles. Some of this is due to personal preferences (individual style), some to differences in the problems seen in areas they cover (some areas are more prone to abusers, so those metas may be more strict in general when reviewing any application), some to changes in the community over the years (a method developed 2 years ago may be out-of-date now or new features may not be adopted), and sometimes people just make mistakes. While I think there will always be differences, this forum really gives us the opportunity to discover problems that we really didn't know existed or didn't realize were as great as they are.

 

So now I'll let you go and start editing!

[totalxsive]

You may find the site linked in http://dmoz.org/forum/threaddisplay.cgi?t=Forum1/HTML/004068.html useful too /images/icons/smile.gif

[Guest Phil]

Although this is posted as a reply to Lissa, it is a reply to everyone. Thank you for the encouragements to stay. The last submission was just an experiment, done out of curiosity, and I really didn't expect or want to be in this situation. I said in an earlier post that my animosity was on the wane and that getting it off my chest helped. Anyway, I've decided to follow it through and see what I can do. Apart from anything else, the experiment caused one reviewer to do an amount of work and it's not in my nature to waste someone else's efforts. I'd be a bit hypocritcal if I did that, wouldn't I?

 

Lissa, I'm going to do as you suggest and take time getting to know the whole thing - then I'll apply for the staff job /images/icons/smile.gif

 

Phil.

[jordancpeterson]

lissa makes some very good points, especially the one about continuing the experiment! /images/icons/laugh.gif

 

I just thought about something Phil. You could be making history by being the first person to keep a running dialog of what is happening to your editing career here in the public forums. Keep it up! /images/icons/smile.gif

 

Let’s have a vote to see what everyone else thinks about Phil continuing his free trial membership! /images/icons/wink.gif

 

<FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://resource-zone.com/dopoll.php"><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="pollname" VALUE="1017871762jordancpeterson">

<p>Should Phil stay as an editor?

<INPUT TYPE=RADIO NAME=option VALUE="1">Yes, without a doubt!

<INPUT TYPE=RADIO NAME=option VALUE="2">Yes, give it a go!

<INPUT TYPE=RADIO NAME=option VALUE="3">Yes, you’ll make it!

<INPUT TYPE=RADIO NAME=option VALUE="4">Sure, give it all you got!

<INPUT TYPE=Submit NAME=Submit VALUE="Submit vote" class="buttons"></form>

 

My personal feeling about why you were rejected the second time is that a Meta hit the wrong button. Of course I don’t know but that is what I’m going to assume.

 

For all of you other editor wannabes keep trying! Don’t give up. The above is a prefect example of persistence. If you have questions don’t hastate to ask them here.

[jordancpeterson]

Phil posted while I did!

 

That’s great to hear Phil! /images/icons/smile.gif

[Guest Phil]

Shouldn't there be a "No! Throw the b****r out!" option, Jordan?

 

/images/icons/smile.gif

[apeuro]

Since you're now an editor Phil, I've changed your privs and profile to reflect that.

 

Enjoy the inner sanctum. /images/icons/wink.gif

[Guest]

Now why would we want to do that?? You've only just joined. /images/icons/wink.gif

[donaldb]

once I found the forums, I spent a LOT of time reading for a couple weeks, just to try to absorb a lot of stuff pertinent to my job

 

This comment by lissa made me chuckle /images/icons/smile.gif I think I'm spending more time reading than I am editing. I start reading one thread, and leads to something else interesting, and then another, and before you know it you can't remember what you were looking for in the first place. I can't wait to hear Phil's reaction when he starts going through all of the reading material in the fora etc. You could spend the rest of your life catching up on past threads /images/icons/smile.gif

 

OK, OK! I'm going to go edit for a while.

[Guest]

Welcome, Phil!

 

I was reading this thread with much interest, because I too am a former miffed rejected editor. I did receive comments, but the comments I received were along the lines of 'the category you are applying for is well-represented'. The category I was applying for had over 100 sites, half of which were poorly described, and a quarter of which were dead links. I was extremely miffed at ODP for saying this category was well-represented when it obviously wasn't - there was no editor listed, and hasn't been for months. The category [which I now edit] is something close to my heart, and I was upset that it was in such a shoddy state, and no one at ODP seemed to care. I fumed for a week, then I thought what the hey, let me try a subcat. Presto magic, I was accepted. /images/dmoz/purplegrin.gif

 

After I'd made some edits and cleared out the unreviewed, I applied for another subcategory, cleaned it up, then applied for another, etc. If you are doing a good job and are following the Guidelines, and are applying for categories of reasonable size, you won't have a problem being accepted for more categories. Then there's Greenbusters and Blankbusters. /images/dmoz/purplegrin.gif

[Guest Phil]

Hiya furiosity.

 

As donaldb and others have said, there is a lot of interesting stuff to read and getting the hang of it all will take some time.

 

You could empathize with my tale of woe then, even though the reasons were slightly different /images/dmoz/purplegrin.gif (I just had to try that smilie). One thing I've learned since yesterday is that there aren't all that many metas so, hopefully, these posts will have made a small difference.

 

I did feel a bit embarrassed at one point when, between the acceptance and the decision to stay, I saw the reviewer who approved my application reading this thread. I'd just posted the experiment 'confession' /images/icons/frown.gif

 

Anyway, I've made a start and I'm going to learn to walk properly before I make any attempts at jogging.

 

Phil.

[theseeker]

>>One thing I've learned since yesterday is that there aren't all that many metas so, hopefully, these posts will have made a small difference. <<

 

As someone who just became a meta, I can say that this post and others in here have already influenced how I will approach my responsibilities. I know I will always try to give feedback on any application I deny.

 

There's nothing I want more than to see people succeed at being editors.

[Guest Phil]

My life has been worthwhile /images/icons/smile.gif

 

Excellent theseeker.

[Guest]

Furiosity and phil (and whoever else is a disgruntled rejectee at one time or another): IT'S NOT PERSONAL. We reject applications for good reasons, and we don't have to explain them-- not even to our fellow meta-editors. We are trusted to have good judgement, those of us who review applications, and that's that. Sorry you don't like it, but almost nobody is banned from reapplying.

 

The "I'm volunteering so how can they reject me?" mentality is wrongheaded. Every volunteer group has standards and guidelines, ODP included.

[Guest Phil]

It sounds as though you haven't read through this thread, kctipton. And nobody suggested that it was "personal".

[Guest]

>>I was reading this thread with much interest, because I too am a former miffed rejected editor.<<

 

This is what I was referring to.

[Guest WLauzon]

"We reject applications for good reasons, and we don't have to explain them-- not even to our fellow meta-editors..."

 

This is BS.

 

What, exactly, is "good reason"?

 

For about 2 years I was a DMOZ editor and ended up one of the senior editors for DMOZ, and had several large categories (the entire electrical, renewables, Navy, and instrumentation sections) categories. Then I had to quit for a while due to extensive travel.

 

After about a year I came back and applied for a relatively small section (renewable energy area), and was told that I was not qualified "for such a large section" (all of about 400 links), and that the section had an editor.

 

In fact, the entire section was a freeking mess. There were numerous dead links, poor descriptions, multiple links to the same sites, links to sites that had NO relationship to the category (solar energy), and the category stated that it needed an editor.

 

You can understand my reluctance to go through the entire form again and spend 20-30 minutes (or more) to re-apply for a subsection of that area.

 

BTW, I have been in the renewable energy business for over 20 years, so it is not like the area is a mystery to me.

 

Here are the details:

The category I applied for was http://dmoz.org/Business/Industries/Energy/Renewable/

 

I just now checked it again. It has 329 entries. Of those, the first 2 are duplicates (same site, different URL) - not a good start.

[Guest]

Did you email a meta and ask to be reinstated?

If your inactivity caused you to time out you could be reinstated.

[hutcheson]

First, "good reason" is the meta's personal judgment as to whether the author of the application is likely to be helpful or harmful.

 

Obviously, this judgment isn't infallible. Obviously, two metas may make different judgments. Difficult cases may be discussed, and the meta may do whatever research seems appropriate. But there is no other way. These are the people who review allegations of abuse, and remove abusers. They are our best chance for recognizing patterns of abuse before it gets out of hand.

 

There's an automatic feedback loop here: Metas accept too many "suspicious applications", then they have too much abuse to investigate and don't have time to review applications at all...Metas accept fewer applications, perhaps rejecting the "borderline cases" out of hand -- they have more time to review applications, and can investigate the "borderline cases" further, perhaps finding sufficient evidence of bona fides to accept more of them.

 

It is understandable to feel frustration at not being accepted. But it is only fair to aim that frustration at all the deceptive applications submitted by malicious would-be abusers -- sometimes, as you've seen elsewhere in these forums (and that's not a unique case), hundreds of applications from a single life-form: THAT'S what forces metas to review ALL applications more skeptically.