Any idea to become a editor of DMOZ??

Think about what, exactly?

 

brizzie, the perception of gloss is the direct cause of restrictions placed on editors when responding to certain issue pertaining to privileged information. There are just so many ways an editor can explain an allegation of corruption or dereliction of duty without divulging any internal communication.

Of course not. My last post had no mention of any order of priority assigned to any particular group.

 

Any free time that they can afford. Each candidate site, whether it was suggested or found by other means, has to go through certain quality control steps. All affiliates and mirrors, if any, need to be searched for. Information on the site itself needs to be evaluated for valuable content contributing to the appropriate category. All links needs to be checked. Proper title and description, compliant to the current guidelines, needs to be written. A good editor does put in a lot of work to list just one site.

 

The accomplishments I was referring to were that they had acheived a good understanding of the guidelines, were broadening their individual areas of editing and have been tremendous contributors to building out the categories they edit with good sites.

No they "Dont just accept/reject/edit entries all day", actually they work full time at their real professions all day and when they have extra free time they spend it seeking out good sites to be listed and have done very well at builiding out their small community categories.

Sorry you feel that way. I understand though, that it may appear to be simply clicking a button "accept" or "reject" but there is a lot more to it and I disagree that anyone could do it, although I wish it were true.
I stand behind my intial statement in that I am very proud of them for being able to understand the guidelines so quickly and for dedicating some of their time to help build the categories they edit.

 

No, it isn't, please read the guidelines which explain the restrictions on what you can and can't do. If the guidelines appear to be ambiguous then you can say the guidelines appear to be ambiguous, if it looks like quality control has failed in a category you can say it looks like quality control has failed in a category, you don't need to spin.

Sorry, you've got me confused there - what sort of internal communication would you have access to that might help you explain the allegation? If you are talking about logs that prove someone's innocence then revealing you have checked the logs and didn't find anything is perfectly OK and has been done hundreds of times. If you are in the least bit unsure then report it to a meta to deal with and don't comment in any way whatsoever. The most important thing is not to BS on a matter so critical as editor abuse.

 

Back to the first question in the thread: Why do you want to become an editor?

 

Why asking me for big smoochy kisses under the mistletoe of course, silly.
( Men !)

As for why anyone would apply as an editor ? OMG, thats the same as asking anyone why they would become a webmaster ? It's all personal choice and various other 'deep and meaningful stuff '.

Just follow the advice here on applying if you DO want to become one and you won't go far wrong.

 

I applied to become an editor some years ago...
I did get a reply. Didn't take to terribly long either.
I never really understood why I was rejected.
I assumed it could be because I webmaster a local directory for the very same locale I applied to edit.

Would such a connection to a catagory be considered a "conflict of interest"?

I have considered applying again but my own sites take most all of the time I have left over after work.

 

Then wait some more.

 

LoL Thanks for the red rep for this post --

 

*Not by itself it shouldn't be.

*Please note that I have no permissions to review applications, so just speaking generally from personal experiences.

There are many possibilities that come to mind that could cause an application to be rejected. Only a reviewer would know for sure what was the reason was. If the reply you received didn't specify other problems and didn't indicate that further applications would be unnecessary, then I suspect it was caused by one of the most common application mistakes.
The reply letter lists those most common mistakes already so they wouldn't have been repeated, but the are easily rectified by looking over the application and comparing with that list. I presume that if it had been anything else the reviewer would have left other comments.

Hope that helps some.

 

Actually, I have tried to submit a site to it half year ago. However, it doesn't show on the directory until today(half year).

Then I browse the directory and find that some of the catagories request the editor. This should be the answer why my submission is still pending. Is it??

Become a editor can help them to build it up quickly.

However, I don't know anything about the editor's daily job(e.g process, time spent). So I try to get some idea from this forum.

 

Editors are volunteers and can do as little or as much work as they choose. Some devote several hours per day, others an hour a month. Every little helps and either is fine.

There is a minimum requirement though. If you don't edit for four months (one month when first joining), your account will be suspended. Reinstatement isn't usually a problem though.

 

brizzie, I believe that we are arguing from a very different point of view here. My postings here pertain to DP only. I know the internal procedure to report abuse.

Since I am not allowed to reveal the exact contents of the editorial logs to public, it will always be my word against someone else’s, which is never taken at face value here. I don’t think I need to point out the posts to prove this point. Also, I can not ever reveal the exact cause of why a site is or is not listed, or has been removed. Again, without sharing the exact editorial notes, my broad explanation of this issue will most likely result in a response requesting to be taken on its face value.

 

I get you Riz you can't quote from logs. But you can paraphrase. For a long time editors did give out all the information you refer to from editor logs for status checks in Resource Zone. To a much reduced trickle this still sometimes happens over there. The guidelines haven't changed about the release of the information, only the Resource Zone policy. But as was mentioned in another thread here, it is highly unlikely any other forum would be suitable for status checks either due to bloodbath potential. What you can't do is to reveal editor specific information or quote comments - for example that site was rejected for being a mirror by brizzie is prohibited as is brizzie says in the log "get lost spammer, not another of your god-awful mirrors" before he rejected it. That site does not qualify for listing is OK. That site is a mirror is giving away information to someone who has broken DMOZ submission rules so helping them out isn't the most helpful editor thing to do but it is highly unlikely to land you in hot water and has been done often. If in doubt about the line to take leave it to a more experienced editor.

As regards abuse mentioned here or in other external forums there is no specific written policy or guidelines as to how that type of event should be handled except that you cannot reveal personal information about an editor. If an editor is mentioned and you find he/she handled the site then don't get involved, the issues as to whether an action is abusive are not ones anyone but a unanimous quorum of metas can rule on. The most you should do is to encourage the accuser to use the Report Abuse public link if they believe their accusation is justified. If the editor being accused has been nowhere near the site then for goodness sakes say so and clear the editor's name.

It is all a bit academic anyway - the original point I was making was that editors are given a cynical reception because many will put a gloss or a spin on everything DMOZ. If you give honest answers, within the guidelines which would include IMO not criticising an individual editor in public, to all sorts of issues then when it comes to more critical matters like abuse matters then your audience is far more likely to believe you on those too. If you repeatedly shout how wonderful and perfect DMOZ is in every way then no-one will believe you on any subject.

You sound like a good editor and your enthusiasm shows! Best of luck.

 

I applied to become an editor for DMOZ internet marketing consulting category.

How long does it take for them to respond to you?

 

Normaly within a few weeks.
But because the editors who are allowed to review applications are volunteers (like all editors) in some cases in can take a few months. You may ask for the status of your application at Resource-Zone in "Becoming an editor" (a thread 'Guidelines' describes how to format your question)

 

I really don't understand all the buzz. I applied for a world/netherlands/foo/bar directory a while ago and got accepted in about two weeks, while I do maintain a website I submitted to that same category before.

I think being honest is the best way to do it. I've you only want to become an editor to get your own site listed my advise would be to piss off, you'll only make more enemies, use up valueble time of other editors, and generally make dmoz a worse place, effectively screwing yourself.

Just my 2 cents.