Hi all, I read a lot about editor applications for DMOZ prior to applying to become an editor. I read lots of accusations and counter accusations, regarding both corruption at the directory and of sour grapes for editors who have been refused. Obviously this is taken at face value (i.e. barely any since I don't know any parties involved). This is therefore my 2 pence, it is worth what it cost, but just another insight into dmoz and why I no longer place much value on the links within. I applied twice to dmoz, and the first time was refused on the grounds that I had no disclosed all my relationships to other websites. Fair point in hindsight, but I had taken it on myself to list those that were relevant to the category I was applying for, and also not all those which I had ever had an involvement with. But the response was quite harsh, and I was requested to NOT apply again. At first I was a little surprised at this, so I went to the resource zone website. After conversing with a helpful Jim, I could see their point, but still thought it was heavy handed, especially given the application form is not as clear as it could be, and the fact that people do make mistakes. Anyway, Jim was kind enough to suggest I apply again (the category really does need an editor!) so I did, and I listed a LOT of domains that I have either owned now and in the past, co owned, (non active) and also websites that I have owned, co owned, or helped with (including simple moving an image for one part of the screen to the other). Anyway, the result came back as a rejection. No reason this time, just the standard letter. I am pretty sure the reason is not due to the links I suggested, the quality of writing, my experience with the internet, or my own conflict of interest (I would be listing my own site in that category). I just think there is a problem with that category. Out of 25 entries now on there (some were removed due to my application pointing out some non existant domains) 11 have problems and contravene the odp guidelines. One of the sites is a duplicate of another in that category (you'd have to be blind to miss it). Another one is registered, and is on the same ip as another site which is listed in another category in dmoz, although it shouldn't be there as it is actually a regional site. It has nothing on the home page other than a directory listing (standard apache thing) and viewing the stats of the site you can see it has never had a home page or anything even remotely similar (i.e. its not a functioning site) since June 2005, and it has incoming links from porn sites and poker sites. I don't know if there is an SEO benefit, but the two sites are on the same ip, and owned by the same person, although a whois check reveals only initials but the same address. Anyway, I can provide a link to the resource zone entry if anyone wishes (easy enough to find though as it is under the editor application threads, same username as this one). My 2 pence is that I think after my experience I make more consideration towards some of the posts I have read on the internet claiming dmoz is not as honest as it could be. I think it is a shame that dmoz is not achieving it's intentions, as it is a great idea in principle. Sorry for the long post, it is not a rant, merely another opinion on dmoz.
After reading your posts in RZ, it is quite obvious that you are knowledgeable in the field that you applied and you also know about the computers. Smart people are always a red flag for DMOZ because they know and understand too much. You would have had much better chance if you were a moron or at least pretended to be a moron. While the general rule for any job application is that you should look like you are the best person for the job, editor application for DMOZ is the reversal of this principal.
Which explains how gworld gets accepted so quickly every time he applies. Sadly gworld doesn't demonstrate smartness anywhere, apart from disguising himself to avoid being removed as an editor, so proves his own case. As to the reason for the 2nd rejection then motsa gave a heavy hint as to the probable reason in post #15 - industry knowledge is one thing, web knowledge is another, both useful but don't override understanding of DMOZ listing concepts.
No disagreement from me. Pretending to be a moron is a sure way of being accepted as an editor. It is a tested principal and it is true. Anyone that follows couple of simple rules can become an editor. I understand your position since you advocate an unenforceable guideline while I advocate an enforceable guideline, so I let people to be the judge about who is smart. You should really get help about your attitude attacking anybody who is critical about DMOZ, specially since you are not an editor anymore and judging by the discussion in internal forum, not that many people want you back either.
I disagree. I specifically cited my experience professionally and as a hobbiest in the category I applied to and was accepted. I wrote the app like I was applying for a job in the real world. Or were you joking?
Ah, that would be the enforceable guideline you devised that would require editors to be knowledgeable in 200 + national criminal codes or face removal without appeal. And the one I suggested that gives editors site removal authority as one of a group of points the remainder of which are very much enforceable in a true and practical sense. Of course if editors were truly the morons you claim then they would all be turkeys voting for Christmas and adopt your enforceable but impossible for anyone to comply guideline. You were not being critical, you were launching an unjustified attack on editors. I am certain there are editors who don't want me back because I am critical on a number of issues where it is deserved IMO, but then I haven't asked for reinstatement so we're all happy at the moment. However, if you were honest and revealed your editor name I am pretty confident your popularity level would make me look like Nelson Mandela.
Edit- since the answer was not related to editor application, I deleted my post and moved it to another thread which is related to this subject. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=906327&postcount=123
gworld, what am I missing here? You made me glance over more than 600 posts in the internal forums, no clue at all on what your opinion is based, I found quiet the contrary to be true. Any special reason for getting that personal? Also, where is it that you have been attacked by brizzie? Why the heck are you that pissed off?
I am just tired of personal attacks after pointing out that a guideline that is not enforceable, is just a pretty composition that is not worth the paper that is written on. Read the third post in this thread and read many others like it in 2257 thread. I made a point about DMOZ process of accepting new editors, if anyone thinks that I am wrong, I will welcome the discussion as noppid did but attacking me has got nothing to do with the subject.
What does this mean? Are you saying that either industry knowledge or web knowledge or both are nagative factors in considering an editor application? or are you saying one is positive and the other negative?
It seems DMOZ listing concept is that a web site should be listed by an editor that lacks industry and web knowledge.
It did sound like Brizzie or Motsa was saying either that, or that they only valued one of those attributes. Judging from what I've seen in many current editors, it almost seems that web knowledge is not an advantage - my question is, is it a disadvantage? From other threads about editor applications, it appears that people are discouraged from applying to categories where they have some expertise and are advised instead to find small categories they're not especially interested in, presumably as a way of proving they really REALLY REALLY want to be a DMOZ editor. None of it makes sense to me but what do I know about how DMOZ editors think?
Just look at the situation. Any category that has more than 100 listing is out. No one can become a volunteer if they are interested in a main stream subjects that have many web site listed. All the areas that are defined as spam or abuse area such as shopping, real estate,.. are out. If you are unlucky enough to have the same interest as someone else who is editor and is editing a category then you are out of luck too. Volunteers needed: A person who is not interested in any main stream subject or commercial area and is lucky enough that no one is editing the category he/she is interested in. Having no web knowledge is also a plus point.
In your first post you said: Implying that editors who are accepted are accepted because they are morons is pretty offensive to all editors. And couple that with accusations made previously of editors being pedophiles, child porn pushers, etc. and you are pretty much the purveyor of the most sick and highly offensive personal insults around here. And you are tired of personal attacks on you? How about you stop your sarcasm and the personal attacks on others and maybe people will stop attacking you? You are wrong by the way. Annie - whether he was skewing internal discussion or not I never ran for a popularity contest - Most Evil Editall by a long margin and Editor You Would Least Like to Meet in Person (judging from the results). And I have no doubt there are quite a few not at all happy that I have not gone into a quiet retirement tending the roses. The post count is well down since I left then. Back on track No, industry and web knowledge are useful but they are not essential to being an effective editor. You can be a very effective editor and have no previous industry knowledge of the subject you are editing. 95% of listings are added by a small group of editors with broad, and even directory-wide, rights. The most important skills are an understanding of the concepts of editing itself though. For example, knowing that aesthetics and site design, unless it renders the site unreadable or unnavigable, are irrelevant in the review process. That is something some excellent web designers sometimes have trouble grasping. "Experts" also sometimes have problems grasping the concept that because they disagree with another "expert" whose site they are reviewing, that it does not give them the right to reject it. Editing in an area where the subject matter is unfamiliar rarely causes an experienced editor any problem at all. Because they are following a formula on website assessment guided by a series of guidelines on what constitutes a "good" site. The basis of the assessment is from a surfer's perspective. If I wanted information on this subject would I find this site useful? So I spent a while assessing hotel and travel booking sites from a user's perspective - knowledge of the travel industry was not necessary. But... had I been in the industry I may have had access to more tricks of the trade that would have enabled me to identify more spam and crap. Which would have been useful. However it is common practice, once you have uncovered a trick, to share it with other editors so the disadvantage is not that great. There are a number of dangers of going along the road of subject "experts" controlling listings. One of the primary arguments of (some) Adult editors is that non-Adult editors had no right to comment on that branch because they had no industry knowledge. And would use quite intimidatory tactics to belittle anyone daring to challenge them on directory guidelines. And what branch is generally accepted to have most problems? For the first few days of being an editor I worked on a category I am an "expert" in (relatively speaking). I had a problem with a site that I knew was a scam. But I could not reject it - it drove me mad, how could these people who know nothing about this subject tell me I must list it. But I accepted the guidelines told me that was the way it was, moved on. In retrospect, why should these other editors believe *me* and allow me to reject a competitor on my say so and no-one elses. If the site is a scam, report it to the relevant authorities, they will remove it, you can delete the listing. They were right - the only proof the site was a scam was the trading standards people taking the owner to court and winning. So industry and Internet knowledge are a bonus, a positive, when it comes to becoming an editor. Interest in the subject matter, without the detailed knowledge, is also a bonus. Ability to edit objectively and understand editing and directory concepts is essential though. And when a meta assesses a new editor it is their potential as an editor, not their qualifications as a subject "expert" they will be judging. When applying a new editor is strongly advised to read, read again, read a third time, all the main editing guidelines. Then the branch and category descriptions and FAQs for where they are specifically applying. Then pick sites which are clearly on spot on topic for the category and which meet every possible criteria for listing. And title and describe them precisely in accordance with the guidelines on those matters. If you do not do all of those things then you are taking a risk in being rejected. And many existing editors make those mistakes too when they try to expand their editing rights - they do not read and absorb the editing guidelines and try to rely on their subject knowledge to get them through, which inevitably fails. Now you may disagree with this approach and think DMOZ should put more emphasis on subject knowledge. It appears the goalposts have moved slightly and a listing criteria is now trustworthiness of the source, which gives editors more opportunity to reject sites they believe are scams - but they must still produce more evidence than just their personal knowledge, there must still be something to point at as proof, e.g. lack of verifiable contact details.
Wow. You two can sure complicate matters in a quick. LOL. I read the same statement and it seemed clear to me. Motsa said that both are useful. Lets break that down: 1. Industry knowledge is useful - Industry knowledge can be helpful in categorizing and listing within ODP, among other reasons. 2. Web knowledge is useful - Web knowledge can be helpful in finding sites to list and detecting mirror and affiliate sites, among other reasons. 3. Both do not override understanding of DMOZ listing concepts. - The ability to follow ODP guidelines trump 1 and 2. In conclusion: Although it may be helpful to have industry and web knowledge, following the guidelines is far more important. If you can’t follow the guidelines with a certain amount of accuracy, then industry and web knowledge really don’t matter. They are only helpful if you have fulfilled the requirement - following the guidelines. Lets do this in math terms for you. On a scale of importance from 1-10 imho a = guidelines = 10 b = industry knowledge = 2 c = web knowledge = 2 a+b+c= pass a-c-b= pass a-c+b=pass a-b+c=pass b+c-a=fail
I suppose for anyone who is part of that small group, this system of effectively controlling the directory is very beneficial, but how does this benefits the directory? Isn't DMOZ effectively this small group's directory and not volunteer run directory? It is amazing that you can look directly at the problem and totally miss it.
Dmoz doesnt want anyone with knowledge of a category unless its the knowledge that they give them. Dmoz knows that if someone with knowledge of a category could come in and really rock their boat. I have to admit this is the most ass backwards criteria I have ever seen for a company looking to bring on people to help improve a business model. Its common sense to believe that someone with knowledge and expertise of a subject matter is more benefical than someone who has no knowledge or interest in a subject. This only goes to show even more with the rejection of this persons application to become an editor, that Dmoz is corrupt, against improving its self and controled by those who only want yes men and women editing in their money pit.