Your willingness to volunteer is greatly appreciated and perhaps we will be able to utilize your talent in the future. Regards, The Open Directory Project Reviewer Comments: One of the two sample sites on your application is down for maintenance. Well it was not down when I submitted my application three weeks ago! Why should I be punished just because they were slack. Seriously! This is outrageous!
Why get upset?? He didnt say it was your fault It appears to me that a site was down, he cant evaluate the site to see if it was suitable and as such, he cant complete the appraisal of your application. Thats pretty understandable, he needs to make sure all 3 sites are suitable. Your willingness to volunteer is greatly appreciated and perhaps we will be able to utilize your talent in the future. In my mind, his words are also an invitation for you to apply again. JMO, but i would certainly submit a new application. Cheers.
Research Names you received a very polite response which, if I understand the process correctly, DMOZ doesn't usually provide. The invitation to re-apply, well... most people here simply wouldn't believe that the ODP could be so sweet. I think I'd feel somewhat special if I received such a response
Funny, I have applied four times and always gotten a polite refusal response. Although that reason was a better one. I'll try a fifth time.
We need two viable appropriate examples to be able to evaluate an editor application properly. It's always better to provide three (not more than one of which is associated with you) and then you'll have a spare . Really. I so hope that you meant the website owners and not the volunteer meta editors.
I'm sorry Jim and other editors, I have a temper! They usually refuse me within a few hours but this took three weeks and complained that a site was down for maintenance when it was perfectly fine three weeks ago. I honestly thought that they were just looking for excuses. I was obviously too quick to judge.
The peeps at dmoz for sure don't have to look for excuses to exclude sites and applicants, quite the reverse. As humans we provide a flood of error and misunderstanding that has to be continually OVER-looked As an example Jim very calmly and politely gave you some great advice. This despite the likelihood that he has probably seen hundreds of applicants make the very same error. A meta editor as he is has seen thousands, and very likely tens of thousands, of website submittals where the the site owner doesn't read or doesn't comply with the simplest of directions - you'd think he would have thrown up his hands and walked away! The more I see of dmoz the more impressed I am at the commitment of the people within it - they deserve a better rep than is commonly given them.
Research Names will likely become an editor at some point, as they allow would be applicants multiple attempts (unlike site submissions *boggle*). Will your views change? I once told a would be submitter to follow the guidelines and look at examples of what was already listed in the would be category. An editor that hides his editor name came in behind me to say such advice was shaky. Is that one of the examples of a good rep? There is no official communications between editors and staff, and none between editors and submitters. This communication break down leads to several rumors and misconceptions from both sides... another example of having an unwarranted bad rep? They tout themselves as the worlds largest HUMAN edited directory, and claim that editors that list too many of their own sites will be removed. Yet, there is one editor with over TEN THOUSAND listings for ONE site that were automatically added by a bot... another outstanding example of the truthfulness of the directory? If you are an editor, then all it takes is the WORD of a meta and three of that metas meta friends to get you ousted. There is NO official warning system, there is no real need for proof, and there is NO appeal. Hows that for a matter of fairness? This list goes on and on and on... sorry, but they do get the rep they deserve... As for the original post, JTM101 gave the best answer... Seriously, just try again. Chances are the two sites down are back up, so you can even use the same sites! No use of getting mad over something so trivial... think about it. If the site was down when you filled in your app would you have used it? Of course not! Yet you want them to approve you when the sites were down when they looked at them...
DMOZ has its good points and it's bad points and I'd really like to see more good then bad, though I simply am not seeing that at this time. I truly am FOR the Open Directory Project as I like what it USED to stand for (though, not what it was founded on). I am far from bitter... if I was bitter I'd have left long ago or simply gone off with lies and half truths about the ODP (like so many others that are against it). There is still hope...or at least I hope there is hope, lol Can you say post you replied too is wrong in anyway? I can back up everything I've said and will not resort to petty name calling to make my point when there is ample examples of why one should not be overly impressed within the "commitment" of the editors or the ODP as a whole (as it stands today).
I submitted another application with a third relevant site and the same information as before (I forgot about a few sites I owned so I added them to the application, the extra sites were irrelevant to the category) and I got refused without a comment! They should have done this in the first place if the sample sites corrections would not get me approved. Perhaps they don't like the sites I am associated with but they moaned when I didn't list them one time. There doesn't seem to be any happy medium with them. OK I own one site that I would list in the category, many editors list their own sites. My interest in volunteering is completely genuine, I'd take on multiple categories, some with owned sites, some not. I obviously can't fix whatever I did wrong since they did not tell me.
Processing editor applications involves a lot of effort if it's to be done properly - just like checking job applicants' CVs/resumes in real life. In general, my practice when evaluating an editor application is this. I look at quite a number of aspects. If I come across a show stopping issue, I decline it immediately without further analysis - usually with some specific comment added to the list of standard common reasons. There are plenty more applications to be looked at and I'm not obliged to volunteer to spend further time on this one. If I get to the end without finding a show stopper, I'll consider the minor issues that I've spotted (there always are some), reach a balanced conclusion and take appropriate action. I've said it before and I'll say it again; we aren't seeking perfection. Rather, we're looking for integrity, an understanding of the category requested and communications skills (which include spelling, grammar and the ability to read and understand the question). With those as foundations, we can teach people to become editors. Without them, we can't.
Processing editor applications involves a lot of effort if it's to be done properly - just like checking job applicants' CVs/resumes in real life. In general, my practice when evaluating an editor application is this. I look at quite a number of aspects. If I come across a show stopping issue, I decline it immediately without further analysis - usually with some specific comment added to the list of standard common reasons. There are plenty more applications to be looked at and I'm not obliged to volunteer to spend further time on this one. If I get to the end without finding a show stopper, I'll consider the minor issues that I've spotted (there always are some), reach a balanced conclusion and take appropriate action. I've said it before and I'll say it again; we aren't seeking perfection. Rather, we're looking for integrity, an understanding of the category requested and communications skills (which include spelling, grammar and the ability to read and understand the question). With those as foundations, we can teach people to become editors. Without them, we can't. Editors need some diagnostic skills. Are you unable to evaluate your application against the list of common reasons you were sent? Our publicly available Reviewing Editor Applications should also help.
I use a word prediction program because of my disability, I type extremely slow. Spelling is always perfect. I think that my grammar and communication was not the problem. I have the information saved if you want to check for yourself Jim. My conclusion is: They thought that my own sites were poorly designed and that would translate into a poor editor. They don't like some of the industries I'm in eg porn/get paid to. However I still think that the primary reason is they thought that I was only interested in self promotion. The first two reasons could be possible but I don't think so.
Research Names : The ODP has a Adult category , which includes numerous porn websites . You will also hear that DMOZ also lists numerous websites, which may contain objectionable content, primarily because the ODP is not the internet police. Editor applicants are reviewed in the exact same way an experienced editor is reviewed while applying for more categories . The question is , are you here because you want to express why you thought you were rejected or ask ? If you are here to ask , the only answer you can expect is nothing because just like Site Submissions, we do not have the authority or time to give it. if you are here to express , you will get a lot of peer comments to enjoy
If you are referring to Resource Zone, then they are not any more official then Digital Point, as it is ran outside of the official status of DMOZ and the views stated there are no truer then those expressed here. Though, chances are if you stick around here, you'll be treated nicer