YAR (Yet Another Rant)

I admire the work many of the editors put into DMOZ, there are well edited categories, but also lots of dead ones.
History:
In a somewhat competitive category, I have taken some time and looked at most of the sites listed. A decent percentage are either MFA, not working anymore or have different content. The MFA sites are most likely expired domains that had been bought for their DMOZ listing and converted into "money makers". About 5-10% of the sites don't send a response and have been down for a long time already.
One of my sites fits this category. It has tons of pages, that took me years to built and quality wise is far above most of the stuff listed. However it doesn't get listed.
Since the category doesn't show any active editors, I have applied for the job. I have made the mistake to honestly state that I own a website for this category and hence I was denied (I have edited other Directories like Zeal so I think I know how to submit an application). Nevertheless I have been rejected, which lead me to believe that this was due to the fact that I have a site myself.
The category continues to be unedited and full of MFA and crap sites, yet DMOZ can afford to simply reject willing editors.
I have seen no movement in this category in a long time and I have come to terms with the fact that this website of mine will not get listed and that DMOZ, despite the constant complaints about workload, does not need dedicated editors.
Depending on your category you will get into the directory quickly or NEVER, regardless of the quality of the site.

 

That is never a reason to deny an editors application.

The most common reason for an editor application is that the suggested sites and suggested descriptions in the application did not meet the guidelines. Its not a matter of DMOZ not affording to reject editors. Its a matter of DMOZ not accepting editors that can harm the directory....imagine all the extra work created for other editors who have to go and correct all the non-guideline correct descriptions.

DMOZ desperatly needs dedicated editors, but only those who can do the job correctly.

 

I have gotten sites approved in other categories and I have worked as an editor for a bunch of Directories (Zeal, Skaffe, JoeAnt).
I think I have a pretty good understanding how to write a description that does not sound like an advertisement and that is acceptable for directories.
Believe me, I was surprised to be rejected and I have done my homework (read all the guidelines and looked at the descriptions of sites in the category I applied for).

Seriously, I don't believe there was anything wrong with the sites I suggested or with the descriptions. The only other thing I can imagine is someone wants to keep editors out of that category for personal reasons (maybe someone runs a couple of those MFA sites I mentioned, I don't know).

Well, as I said, I might have hit some strange category / editors there. I don't believe there is anything wrong with my editing skills.
Of course it is all subjective. I cannot prove what I wrote and you cannot know if what I say is true, so in the end it would be a pointless discussion (hence I named the thread rant, so I could vent some of the frustration). I don't want to stump on DMOZ. As I said there are plenty of well run categories, but I feel that some of the editors do as they please and have a personal agenda.

It is not very transparent why someone was rejected. I would suggest to add a selection of pre-defined rejection reasons. It wouldn't take much effort to select from a list of reasons (so if everyone is so busy rejecting people, they don't have to write a lot, just select from a drop down menu). At least this way one could be accountable for rejecting valid applications and an appeals process (that escalates this issue higher up) wouldn't be bad either.

 

Did you declare all the sites you are affiliated with? There are 3 in your signature here.

 

Well, the signature is really irrelevant since those don't have to be my sites. Despite the fact that I declared a completely different site (not in my signature) and that there is no way for DMOZ to know what sites somone owns I don't really understand why you are asking.
I have declared most of my sites (at least those relevant to my application).
I have some sites on the side that I don't care if they are in DMOZ or not and that I didn't see a reason to declare (despite the fact there is no way that this was a reason for rejection, since there was no correlation to any of the sites in my signature). I maintain sites for other people too and those really have nothing to do with anything (despite what my signature promotes).

 

If you did not declare them all, like asked to in the application, and the meta editor found out (eg maybe the three in your signature), then its a question of honesty and that could well be the reason you were rejected.

You are asked to declare all those in the applicatiopn. The application clearly says:

 

Now aren't you glad you found something?
Did you read my previous post?
I don't need to declare my wifes website, just because its on my server and I help her to keep it up now do I? I don't do any work for it, except keeping the scripts up to date. I could have sold my signature space, so thats a poor way of judging which sites I personally run or not (despite the fact that I wonder how someone would associate my DP profile with a DMOZ application).
I have even registered some sites under my name but all of the work is done by my wife (simply because there is no reason to maintain two domain registry accounts).
There is no way someone would know from an application anyways, so I don't believe that (unless meta means supernatural).
Also that still doesn't explain why a quality site won't get listed, while there are so many MFA sites in the index (you can see they were valid at some point by looking at archive.org).

 

You need to have declared ALL websites you are associated with - its as simple as that. Anything less is going to get you rejected or, if a current editor, it is enough to get you removed.

 

Andre, you are/were clearly unwilling to declare ALL sites you are affiliated with and that's ok as long as you aren't editing for the ODP. We are ALL expected to declare every site that we're even remotely affiliated with.

I declared my husband's site, my sister's site, my grandson's site, domains that have nothing on them, sites I never even touch. I declared sites and domains that I expect will never ever be listed at dmoz.org. That's just the way it is. If you don't want to declare everything then you aren't playing by the ODP rules and you won't be accepted as an editor. And you shouldn't be accepted. Why would you expect special treatment?

Editors have even been removed for refusing to declare ALL their affiliations.

It is what it is. At least you know why you were turned down.

 

Allright, I admit that I didn't do that for fear of rejection (I guess webmasters might generally be frowned upon). At least I am man enough to admit my mistake here instead of claiming that I reported all sites.
So I cannot even argue that my application was rejected wrongfully.
However I do maintain my point that this was not the reason for rejection, since the admins over there have no knowledge of my sites.
If I need to include all sites from a signature, do I need to include sites that bought a link from me on one of my websites, that I exchanged links with ....
As I said, just because I have a link in my signature doesn't really mean I am affiliated.
So even if I were to reapply with ALL sites that I ever owned / own / worked on / host / exchanged a link / sold a link... included, I will be denied.

So lets forget about the editor application, I can work on other directories and Wikipedia if I feel like doing community work (I can understand that DMOZ needs to reject applications so lets forget this. I will simply accept your reasons.). But how about this:

Why has my site not been included while there are so many duds in that category. As I said, I have found multiple MFA sites that have hardly any content above the fold, dead sites, and switched content. And this category has been like this ever since I tried to submit a site (I honestly believed I could make a difference there).

 

I've seen dead sites get removed when they were reported using the update url link at the top of the category, might be worth a try.

 

They also remove editors of languages which they don't understand since there paranoid need for control forces them to make a choice between updated categories and threat of somebody working unsupervised.

While I was editor my application to a second category which had grand total of two websites listed was rejected under excuse that I don't have enough edits!!!

In my opinion metas don't bother checking or investigating anything since they can just reject you if they feel like it without answering to anyone unless they need to fabricate enough evidence to make there case stick and prove your a heretic so they can burn you at the stake!

And people wonder why Wikipedia is growing and DMOZ is going nowhere, at DMOZ you are guilty by default, every editor is looked on as undercover spammer, seo scammer trying to delete competitors and list his websites.

 

I've reported dozens of websites at RZ but what's the point since there are thousands more, it is work for robozilla to kill dead ones and editors to sweep MFA junk but it seems that somebody is trying to lower number of editors as much as possible probably so that he/she can privatize nice PR8 directory.

Don't get surprise if you start seeing Adsense on DMOZ and links on home page.

 

Your fear is unfounded, there are many editors who happen to be webmasters and many who aren't. Declaring our affiliations is one of our ways of keeping it all open and honest.

You'd be surprised just how much they know and how much they can find out with very little effort. We have very good tools.

If you aren't affiliated with the sites in your signature you don't need to declare them. You don't need to declare sites that you link to on your website either.

Point taken and I agree. I have no affiliation at all with 2 of the links in my signature and I don't declare them as affiliations because the only reason they're there is because I'm a huge fan of Iditarod and the links are to sites about my favorite team. If you are affiliated with the sites in your sig then declare them. If you aren't, then don't declare them. I think marty is assuming that in a webmaster forum such as DP, the members are most likely affiliated with the sites in their sigs. For the most part that's true but there are exceptions, like the example I just gave you.

You have no way of knowing that unless you try again and make the declarations.

Your right and your choice.

You know the reason, not enough editors, obviously an editor hasn't taken an interest in the category so it needs work. Whether or not you want to be that editor is your choice, but if you choose to do it you have to play by the same rules the rest of us play by.

Personally, I'm hoping you choose to reapply now that you have a better understanding of what's expected.

 

Since the thread is "Just Another Rant"!!!

Dirsensei Web Directory !!!

Thank You Very Much.

 

I couldn't find the link "To become an Editor" on your site

Man, talk about ODP being unfair!

 

LOL with no tools at all I connected you with 5 sites in a matter of a few minutes. It's really not that difficult. If someone could reasonably connect you with a site, you should probably declare it just to be on safe side of honesty.

 

Well I am not sure if I will reapply (sorry compostannie but too much of a headache just to help a community, I'd rather go where my help is wanted (Wiki, Skaffe ...)). Maybe one day when I have the nerve to deal with them again.
At Wikipedia I made mistakes but there was always some admin to guide me in the right direction and help me become a better editor (instead of just kicking me). Now THATs how a community is supposed to be run. Everything is transparent and it is obvious when someone has an agenda.
DMOZ has taken the position that everyone just wants to become an editor to spam the crap out of it. They are paranoid to the level where they hurt themselves and entire categories are without editors for an extended period of time.

If DMOZ was interested in cleaning up their stuff, they could have sent me an email saying that I need to declare everything. Some people might chose to do that, other might not. Simply sending out standard reject emails won't get them a lot of editors.

Compostannie: Thanks for your answers. DMOZ needs more people like you.

Funny though, since the category I applied is pretty competitive, yet there is noone to maintain it.

So my conclusion: If I want to get a site listed, I better hope to come across a category that is edited by someone like Compostannie or forget about it.
Some categories are a dead wasteland.

How funny. The whole idea of becoming an editor was to help them clean things up. Why should I want to do that after I was rejected?
It's like saying: We don't want you in our house, but you can help to clean it from the outside.
I'd rather go to a friends house where I am invited for dinner and then help him to clean up as a thanks.
I don't hold a grudge against any sites and its more about adding then removing for me anyways.
Besides, I didn't get my site listed in there anyways, so what makes you think they will delete stuff. It's dead.

 

I agree with you there, the editor application isn't as clear as it could be and I'd like to see some communication with promising applicants, but I'm not a meta editor so I don't do applications so I have no idea how much work is involved. I assume they have a reason for the dead silence, at least I hope they do. It's a shame when potentially good editors are alienated before they even have a chance to get started.

Try not to take it personally though, I can assure you that even highly productive editors with lots of experience often get the alienation treatment from others with higher permissions. I agree, it can be a real motivation killer and it happens way too much.

BTW, I like your photography site. Especially the photo of the trees at Gold Country California. Makes me want to be there.

 

Well, I am trying not to take it too personal . I know that their intentions are good, but their execution lacks a lot. Any other directory that doesn't get the star treatment from Google would have been gone by now with this attitude.

Oh thanks
Check this out:
Machu Picchu 222MP
(its an interactive 222 Megapixel Image from MP).
I am working on a 800+ MP San Francisco (well its done, just not uploaded yet)
Glad someone on DP looks beyond the links and the PR a site has