Become an ODP Editor Help

Hello,

I have tried on several occasions to become an editor in the Alternative health: Reiki area of DMOZ and I keep getting rejected even though there is no volunteer within that entire area of DMOZ.

All I want to do is help out and make sure all decent Reiki sites get listed without people having to wait so long for the proecess to take place.

Any help in this matter?

Thanks,

I am channeling Reiki Energy to All Who Read This Thread. I hope it helps to calm and relax you.

 

Unless you have been asked not to re-apply, you are certainly welcome to do so, after attending to all the matters raised in the feedback you have received each time, of course.
Many current editors were accepted only after taking more care with their application, and following the advice they were given in feedback.

There are many resources available to help you, but basically the requirement is to be honest, to read the form carefully, and complete it according to the editing guidelines, to the best of your ability. It is not difficult, and there are no tricks or secrets involved - many applications are accepted every day, from people of all ages, nationalities and educational backgrounds.

BTW, there are already over 200 volunteers who can edit in that category, but new editors are always welcome!

 

This category is way too big for a new editor. Try applying for something smaller, less than 20 sites.

 

I'm not sure if basia is an editor, but I'm pretty sure he/she is not involved in reviewing editor applications, so although the reply is certainly intended to be helpful, it's not entirely accurate.

People applying to become a volunteer editor are advised to choose a category with fewer than 100 sites, and where they know they can easily find plenty of worthwhile sites to build it up. In fact, 100 sites is quite large for a new editor, unless the application shows that they have a good understanding of what sort of sites would be listed, and of the editing guidelines in general.
For someone less sure of demonstrating their abilities in the application, it may be wiser to choose a category of up to about 50-60 sites to start with.

BUT there are no set limits, and because each application is reviewed individually, there is plenty of room for independent decisions.

 

With the corruption and dictatorial way how ODP promote their listing service , and the way how you guy's choose to '' share the love '' it's hard to believe someone really care about this damn it crap spam link directory . This is only bullshits about keeping an official advertising campaign ! Just with the reason to keep public interest about the directory alive , to increase the revenue generated for peoples with you colaborate ( for example mods from this forum ) ...

 

The best thing is choose very small topic. Go deep in your favorite topic, try to apply in the regional languages except english and check if this category contains less websites and editor need for it.

 

Too small and likely that you can be refused as having no scope for editing. Having an editor already listed to a site does not affect at all if another editor is accepted for that category, neither will someone get accepted with a bad application just because no one is listed to that category.

Having an editor name at the bottom does not mean they are the sole editor, just how far that person can edit. Every editor named further up that category tree can edit there and we have 200+ people who can edit in any category in the whole directory and can do that in a category even if it has a named editor.

Look at the sort of size mahrhod talks about and don't bother if there is one, two, three or no editors listed. Most of all read the guidelines, look at the sites in the category for content, title and descriptions (remember unique content is what we look for) and be honest.

 

Oh, great advice! Exactly what joeventura has been trying to do with rejection after rejection. You forgot to mention that the ODP does past and future life checks

As they say, it's not who you know, but who you...

 

Yes I thought it was great advice too, pity that jv did not seem to follow it. I did say very clearly be honest, and in context I doubt that means about which football team you support. But hey, you must know oh great one, was vetting new applications part of the vast experience you have in editing?

 

It was indeed excellent advice, and a very accurate summary of the requirements for a successful application. Let's post it again, for good measure:

(I would add that the listed sites are not always a good guide, so when in doubt, follow the guidelines rather than using those listed descriptions as ideal examples. )

Fortunately, many people are able to meet those simple requirements, even if it takes them a few attempts.
For those who are not able to understand and demonstrate what is required, there are always other hobbies.

 

If that was true then I wouldn't be an editor.

 

I have just as much experience as you do when it comes to looking at applications. Are you saying that your inexperience is better then mine?

 

Q, we all know how experienced you are. Especially when talking about babysitting.

 

For anyone who reads this thread because of its title, let me reassure you that the advice I have posted or quoted above comes with the experience of having personally reviewed over 10,000 new editor applications.

 

Yes I have to say some categories are not very good role models I remember writing to a meta and apologising for altering their descriptions in a category they had just given me privs in. Pleased to say the reply was 'correct anyone's that aren't guideline compliant' or words to that effect. Then added I am sure there are many more of mine out there, and I am sure there are many of mine in the 20,000 I have done. Perhaps it is worth adding that my memory says that sometimes pointing out bad titles and descriptions in an editor application can help to get a potential editor accepted.

 

Certainly that is something that is often added to the standard feedback sent to an unsuccessful applicant, but I am not aware of anyone who would reject an application solely because of poor titles and descriptions.

Of course it is certainly worth showing that you have at least read the editing guidelines. You will be expected to follow them if you are accepted, so you may as well start with your application. But it usually takes considerable practice and guidance to become consistently compliant with those guidelines, and that can only start after someone becomes an editor. So while it is naturally important to indicate an understanding of the basic principles, applicants need not fear that they will be rejected just because their titles and descriptions fall short of the ideal standard.

 

I think I expressed myself badly, I meant that a potential editor pointing to non guideline compliant descriptions in the listed category that they are applying for and suggesting corrected titles or descriptions in their application would help with the application as it would demonstrate that they have read guidelines and are able to view sites with guidelines in mind.

 

Well sure, but we ask for examples so that we can see how well an applicant can seek out appropriate websites for the category and write guidelines compliant publishable descriptions for them. If the application's examples are all existing listings, we can't evaluate the seek out part.

 

Not at all! In fact your summaries of the requirements are spot on.
I was just adding some more detail on that point to reassure potential applicants that perfection is not expected when it comes to their titles and descriptions. I still cringe when I stumble on some of my earliest edits, which used to take me up to half an hour each LOL.

 

One more advice.Step by step.Category with around 10-20 website will be the best start.Find nice websites which you will propose, be honest and all will be fine.