dissapointed in DMOZ

Exactly.

That RZ thread is not atypical. It begins with contradiction:

If you no longer do status checks at RZ, why is there a rule about how long you have to wait before requesting one? Doesn't that imply that you won't get an answer but in order to get a reply saying you won't get an answer you have to wait two weeks?

From there, it becomes even more Kfakaesque:

... so we can then tell you we won't answer your question?

...and we'll tell you on May 18 that we won't answer your question.

Then of course in pops the ever helpful jimnoble:

"usefuleness"? At what point was it "useful"?

The Resourceless Zone just pendulates between pointlessness, absurdity, and rudeness. Why hasn't it been closed down?

 

Lmao... Thanks minstrel

For once I feel like I was right in my actions.

Green for you... that is if you can get any more

 

Minstel try to post less and get more sleep - then you could understand

There is a difference between site status checks which they do not do, and editor application status which says wait two weeks.

 

The status checks for suggestions were discontinued, but the status checks for editor applications are still available.

 

Cky47 You asked about the application and did not bother to follow the posting rules. When corrected, and were told to wait two weeks, you refused and said they had to do it your way. Then you resorted to a temper tantrum.

Just as well you showed your true colors first, before someone might have accidently accepted you.

 

I think that thread in RZ was appalling.

1. The initial question was polite.

2. The initial response was formally correct, no problem.

3. More information - it is inconceivable that at that point the metas were not aware of when the application was lodged. They would have looked.

4. Wait 14 days from now. Why? You know when the application was lodged - say it was lodged on ..... please come back 14 days from then. Responses may not have been actually rude or insulting and the word please was used but it was patently obstructionist and penalising someone for forgetting or asking too early.

5. Wow... you guys are real pricks. Not a surprising response IMO.

Now there could be reasons for that response as these meta editors have access to a lot of information you won't see published in the thread. Being economical with the truth was a huge problem when dealing with submission status requests.

So why appalling if I don't know the background information?

1. Assume the questioner was honest and a worthy candidate - you've seen the result, an editor lost. Maybe one that was going to contribute 100 edits a day.

2. Assume the questioner was honest but the application was not up to scratch - how many other potential editors viewing that thread has that form of obstructionist response put off? Even just one is a loss. And if they were one that was going to contribute 100 edits a day?

3. Assume the questioner was dishonest and never going to be accepted - since the metas can't actually say that, how many other potential editors viewing that thread has that form of obstructionist response put off? Even just one is a loss. And if they were one that was going to contribute 100 edits a day?

So adopting what appears to all the world to be a bloody minded approach accompanied by what amounts to a penalty for either forgetting or asking early - what impression does that give of the directory internally and how new editors will be treated? Not a good one. Doesn't matter if the questioner was never going to be accepted, what about other people viewing the thread who might be on RZ and thinking about applying.

Of course, if you gave information before the 14 days then it would not set a good precedent - metas have to be given a reasonable time to review applications. But there is a way of dealing with early questioners, and that wasn't it. "Well it wasn't 8 days it was 3 so if you would like to come back in 11 days we'll be able to answer the question. Thanks." regardless of the true situation. In fact it is liable to have done damage to editor recruitment. How easily avoidable.

The sad thing is that when editors are accepted other editors will often fall over themselves to answer new editor forum queries instantly. They are an incredibly helpful and supportive lot if a new editor asks for help and support. That is the truth that should be reflected in external communications when dealing with editor applications, whether the applicant is going to be successful or not. Impressions count. About time Admins took a grip on RZ communications.

 

Yes. He might have been uncomfortable with the standard DMOZ policy of "hurry up and wait" and actually managed to list a few sites

As usual, we get the standard DMOZ party line crap from lmocr, aka waste-of-time-and-space, and "accountability", waste-of-time-and-space-2 (just what or who are you acountable to?)...

...but then brizzie reminds us that some of those at least once associated with DMOZ have a brain that accepts logic and reason and is capable of independent thinking. Thank you, brizzie.

 

Even though you know you submitted your application 9 days ago, you still couldn't request an application update until 14 days after you initially applied. If you're are unsure of the date, which you obviously were, then you will have to wait a few extra days until a whole 14 days has passed. But, I have to wonder, since you couldn't even follow the policy about requesting status updates (especially when a mod was nice enough to post it in the thread for you), if you'd even make a good editor because you'd have to follow even more complicated policies regarding site listings. IMO, I think the mods were holding their tongue from saying what they really wanted to say. I don't think their response to someone who doesn't want to follow simple forum policies is unreasonable. The rules applie to all; no exceptions.

 

That is always a possibility, even a probability. But the answers given were obstructive - the metas knew as soon as the cat was given when the application was made - and as such the start the 14 days from now was a penalty. People are volunteering to help, whether you want the help or not, you don't penalise them and penalise them in public where other potential volunteers are watching and thinking I ain't joining that lot, they are too pedantic. Even if it was gworld on this week's third application there is absolutely nothing lost by being, or at least appearing, helpful. Now someone who may have been pro-DMOZ and at worst neutral is a DMOZ hater. Wonderful job.

 

Enigma, for your own sake and everyone else's, please don't post again until you've re-read the two posts by brizzie carefully -- try to learn something about independent thinking.

Of course, if your main goal is climbing up the DMOZ ranks, ignore all of the above and go back to focusing on ego-massaging the metas.

 

Regarding your last sentence, he only became a Dmoz hater once he realized he wasn't getting special treatment by getting an early status update. If he knew he applied at least 9 days ago, then 5 days later he could have come back with the exact date and asked for an update. Instead he chose to ignore the policies and say he wasn't waiting that long. Well, that's his choice, but if you make an exception for one person, then you have to make an exception for all. He's not being penalized. What if he's wrong about the exact time he applied (9 days ago)? What if it was fewer than 9 days ago? He'd still be wasting someone's time (the person who generously takes his/her time to look in the application queue to see if there's a waiting application under that username) because he still won't get a response if he's early. I think he's asking for specialy treatment (which he's not going to get at R-Z) by thinking he can get an early status update. He's unsure of the date he applied, I think that's an important point, and they were nice about it, it just seems like they're mean because he didn't hear the answer he wanted. But, I think he made himself look even worse with his response (to a private message??)

 

They dont owe us, but they're obligated as far as I know. Google, MSN, Yahoo, they all use DMOZ to some extent to rank sites. If you're not favoured by DMOZ but your competitors are, you're severely disadvantaged.

Who says DMOZ should have that power? And who says they should be given that power. DMOZ themselfs clearly indicated that they think they're entitled to it, Google etc obviously agrees.

I do however strongly believe that the power DMOZ has will be failing and if not even stopped all in all.

 

Minstil, could your own biased opinion be clouded by your hate for Dmoz? I'd find you hard pressed to look at any situation regarding Dmoz or R-Z with an objective mind. So, I guess, in your own opinion, we're in the same state of mind (except on oposite sides). BTW, how am I going to climb up the Dmoz ranks when I haven't disclosed my editor name - unless you know something I don't? So, just like I need to "uncloud" my mind, I think you also need to uncloud yours. I think you just hate to see any favorable opinoin about Dmoz, but then again all of your opinions regarding it are biased against it, so I'll take your opinion with a grain of salt, and maybe you could learn some objective thining.

 

What I'm biased against, Enigma, is the apparently limitless supply of bafflegab, bullshit, and smokescreening spewing from all of those cans of DMOZ pemican you guys seem to keep on hand in the basement.

Take a bit of time to actually read my responses to editors here and elsewhere and you'll discover that I don't treat editors the same way who are able to demonstrate the ability to go beyond the canned DMOZ responses and actually think and speak with an independent brain.

 

What brizzie said on every count! I will even go so far as to say that most likely the decline in editor numbers is at least partially a direct result of what many perceive from some of the senior editors posting there. The RZ was encouraging to me when I applied to become an editor, but if I were looking to apply today, it would appear the total opposite and I wouldn't apply. Most of the editors who were helpful way back when have since ceased posting there.

 

No, you shouldn't make exceptions. And no, after saying it was 9 days he wasn't given the option of coming back 5 days later - another 14 days. 9 + 14 = 23 days. That is a penalty for asking early. He chose to ignore policies, OK then it might be a factor in whether the application was accepted or not. But look at the thread again. As a non-editor thinking of joining, and what impression could you get? Remember the metas know how many days it is and they don't help out the guy's faulty memory. Also remember that non-metas can only see and judge on what is posted and will naturally take what a questioner says at face value - he forgot. Help his memory.

It does seem like they're mean. You're right. And other people will see them as mean too. And that is the wrong impression to give when dealing with editor recruitment matters. Most metas are not mean! There are ways of enforcing the 14 days rule without appearing mean. Using polite words whilst appearing totally unhelpful at the same time is probably even worse. Even if you dismiss the applicant as the last person on earth you would accept as an editor what impression is it giving to others?

Even in response to that thread, I can see why it happened. In response to a private message? Depends on the message, what was in it. If there was a risk it would elicit that response in public then it was ill-advised to send the PM in the first place.

If you are going to answer questions in RZ then your time will be wasted. You accept that when as an editor you choose to post there. If you don't like that then don't post!

 

And you're speaking with an independent mind!!!??? I'd find that hard to believe. Had the guy went there and said "I applied 3 days ago, now give me a status update or I hope the dir. dies soon," well, you'd still post on Digital Pointless about how right that poster was, even when he is so clearly wrong! You're mind is so clouded by your hate for Dmoz that when the truth hits you in the face you fail to realize it (you like to call them "canned responses"), have you (failed to) realized that a lot of your responses at Digital Pointless are now "canned?" There's a reason why those answer are given limitlessly and it's because It's The Truth, and those questions has been asked to death! If you get 50 guys asking the same question, then you know what? They are all going to get the same responses! Have you noticed that a lot of people go to R-Z with the same questions that have been asked over and over and over....? That's why you now have the answers you deem as "canned." What part of the truth do people fail to realize? Do they all of a sudden want people to start lying and giving false impressions and information? Or maybe you would feel better if everyone was told what they wanted to hear? You know, that's another reason why some posters at R-Z get upset - because they don't hear what they want to hear. That's the truth, but with your obviously clouded view of Dmoz it would be considered a canned response. Some people hate it when they don't get the answers they're looking for, and, whether you like it or not, that's the truth. But, for some reason, I think you'll still fail to realize that.

 

Add dogbows to the list of rational independent thinkers who are or were DMOZ editors.

See, Enigma? It is possible to be an editor with out undergoing the obligatory Resourceless Zone lobotomy...

 

Bullcrap

I have an independent brain (an extremely rule oriented - probably why I've served over 21 years in the military - independent brain). I think what you really meant to say is that if you don't agree with what Minstrel says - than your thoughts don't count.

 

Look again, Engigma. There were no "answers" in that thread - just the usual RZ powertripping.