This is my rejection e-mail. Thank you for your interest in becoming an Open Directory Project editor. After careful review, we have decided not to approve your application at this time. The most common reasons a reviewer will deny a new application include, but are not limited to, * Incomplete application. Insufficient information has been provided in some fields including reason, affiliation and/or Sample URLs. * Improper spelling and grammar. * Sample URLs are inappropriate for the category which one has applied to edit. They may be too broad, too narrow, completely out of scope, poor quality, or in a language inappropriate for the category. All non-English sites are listed in the World category. Applications for World categories that include sites only in English will be denied. Likewise, applications for World categories that include sample URLs in languages other than the one appropriate for the applied category will be denied. * Not properly disclosing affiliations with websites that are, or have the potential of being, listed in the category. * Titles and descriptions of sample URLs (and other information provided) were subjective and promotional rather than unbiased and objective. ODP editors do not rank or write website reviews. ODP editors provide objective and unbiased descriptions of websites and their content. * Self-Promotion. Application which leads us to believe that the candidate is interested primarily in promoting his/her own sites or those with which the applicant is affiliated. The ODP is not a marketing tool, and should not be used to circumvent the site submission process. If this is an applicant's motivation for joining, then we ask him/her not to apply. Editors found to be inappropriately promoting their own site will be promptly removed. Due to the large number of applications we get every day, we are unable to provide personal responses to every application or to respond to inquiries about why you were rejected. If a reviewer chose to provide additional comments to you, they will be given in the "Reviewer Comments" section below. Your willingness to volunteer is greatly appreciated and perhaps we will be able to utilize your talent in the future. Regards, The Open Directory Project Reviewer Comments: Alcas from the looks of it you are way far much more experienced than me. Try it one more time.
Hi jjwill, Thank you very much for the links. I had not read them, but have done so now, and I cannot find anything that contradicts my view. In fact, some paragraphs reinforce my comprehension of it. Can you kindly (if possible without putting yourself out) point me to where I am contradicted? It is clearly stated in the guidelines you have kindly listed, that Category Descriptions should not contradict higher level guidelines?
Sorry jjwill, and Annie, alcas is right and this isn't correct. Remote selling shops (i.e. no physical presence) not based in the USA can be listed in Regional at the top level Shopping cat in their country of origin or more specific local area if delivery is restricted. And in Shopping branch if the store ships internationally. If they have a physical store then that can be listed in the Regional locality too in addition to the national Shopping cat in respect of mail order sales, and Shopping for international mail order sales. Source RDK ruling on a UK shopping site. The variance in model cat descriptions is because Shopping branch has far more listings and can break things down more specifically. Note that US mail order sites that deliver to most of the US do not get the same treatment - they can only be listed in Shopping branch and not Regional. This is a US only restriction and does not apply to sites located outside of the US.
LOL. Yes, the published guidelines are at variance with internal rulings. The cat description quoted by alcas is correct per those rulings but many are not. And it appears, as I indicated earlier, that some editors are still confused. If I was still an editor I could do a proper reference to the thread with the ruling. Search internal forums for the former editor in chief in a thread started by a UK Regional editor initiating a complaint about the removal of his site.
Hi brizzie, Thank you for your reply. What I am saying here is that there are some websites included in a shopping category that should not be there because they fail to offer products, prices and/or ordering methods. For example, http://www.loomah.com http://www.jolloyd-rugs.com http://www.davidhallcarpets.co.uk all do not have prices for any of their products. Therefore according to the shopping guidelines, they should not in that category. They should instead be local. I would post the entire list, but I am on my laptop and home now and have a record of the urls and problems with them at work. I do apologise. I have had a look at the category listing and it seems that carpettile.co.uk and carpet-online.co.uk have been reinstated, where they are essentially the same site, using two different urls. I was under the impression Motsa had removed these? I have cleared my cache btw. http://www.rugstudio.co.uk has also been reinstated, although it states hillco and co in the title. This website is hosted at the same ip as www.hillco.co.uk, and owned by the same people. It has no pages relevant to the site, and has incoming links and traffic from porn and poker sites (quite why they would want to frequent an empty site is beyond me though). I will post the list tomorrow from work, but suffice to say they were all due to having no prices/products available for viewing and possible purchase from your own home. I look forward to, and thank you in advance for your reply.
To just prove another point of why JJwill is incorrect. At one time I had an application submitted to Dmoz. Since the category I was applying to for real estate said it needed an editor and I was still very green when it came to the workings of online business and Dmoz. I had a friend of mine type out and submit an application on my behalf. Now of course this application was rejected. I got the standard rejections but if what you are telling us is that applications to become an editor in Dmoz is based off knowledge or at very least an understanding of how descriptions and what type of sites are acceptable or not. Please explain why my application was rejected? News flash, the person I had to write and submit my application was a editall with Dmoz. So I guess I just dont follow you when you say that you must have an understanding of Dmoz to be accepted. I would think that an editall would have a nice understanding of the inter workings of Dmoz.
Logical conclusions: 1-jjwill who advocates the importance of understanding of DMOZ listing concepts and the ability to follow ODP guidelines for becoming an editor, doesn't understand the ODP listings concepts and can not follow ODP guidelines. OR 2-brizzie who is a former editall doesn't understand the ODP listings concepts and can not follow ODP guidelines which it turn means that not understanding the guidelines is not a hinder for becoming an editall only a hinder for becoming an editor in small category.
Brizzie, I have just read your reply and can I just say *thank you* for being clarity in a sea of confusion. I do find it melancholic that so many editors are unable to understand the guidelines. I also think it bleak that these sites which were deleted are now reinstated. It says a lot I think, unless I am "jumping the gun" and making wrongful assumptions. It wouldn't be the first time... (me making a mistake that is!)
alcas - the sites that motsa said she removed, have been removed - it takes awhile (sometimes up to a week) for the public side to show the changes. I don't think those three sites you picked out only belong at a locality - instead, I think they probably belong in Carpets also.
http://www.loomah.com - I agree - locality only http://www.jolloyd-rugs.com - Grey area, prices are indicated and you can contact the owner for more details. I might let that one go as she seems willing to do mail order. http://www.davidhallcarpets.co.uk - I agree - locality only. The public servers take time to update, hours to a couple of days. Patience! www.hillco.co.uk - seems OK to me http://www.rugstudio.co.uk - as before - public servers not updated. Quite possibly hijacked. It is entirely conceivable that it was detected that your application wasn't your own. If I recall that editall was removed as well or am I thinking of some other event. If I wrote someone else's application it would stand out like a sore thumb as coming from an experienced editor and therefore quite likely false or a removed editor trying to get back. Not sure what your complaint is LVH - you were trying to manipulate the system by getting someone else to do your application, and were (rightly) rejected. Gworld logical conclusions. Which is different. Try this for a logical conclusion... I read the thread, which went over 2 DMOZ forum pages (50 posts), most of which supported (by metas, editalls, etc) what jjwill said and was a bit of a terse exchange. Those who caught the ending and the final ruling by the editor in chief know that it didn't pan out in quite the way most of us thought it would, accompanied by murmurings of puzzlement because it was contrary to everything a lot of us thought we knew. Some cat descriptions have obviously been updated although some in the UK Regional section were right anyway. Many have not. What it also revealed was a difference between US and non-US mail order sites as to listability in Regional. It does not surprise me in the least that there are senior editors, editalls, and metas, maybe even admins, that missed that ruling. Motsa might be one of those though her comments in RZ seem to indicate that she was more concerned with other attributes - without the deleted bits you can't tell. As I indicated before there are not that many people who understand and apply the actual guidelines properly. If I hadn't seen that ruling in that thread I would quite likely have agreed with jjwill and Annie, as did most Regional (except the UK editors) and Shopping editors at the time. It is a fault in DMOZ guidelines that they have not been updated properly throughout and that meta editors deciding on editor applications may also be unaware (though no-one knows for absolute certainty that this was the reason for the 2nd rejection as there were no personal comments). Incidentally, Jim was one of those meta editors who should actually know the correct situation as he is a UK meta. Added - imocr might be right as well, the Regional UK section employs national lists for some categories, something not followed in most other parts of Regional.
Updated required qualification for new editors: A new editor should lack industry and web knowledge, think in contradictory and fuzzy way and have an ability to follow ODP guidelines that have not been updated properly or meta editors deciding on editor applications are unaware of.
I agree it was RIGHTLY rejected but since this friend of mine and he is a close friend knows my writing style it wasnt detected. I use that example to only make a point. Again I only see the reasoning behind some of the comments made why this guys application was reject to be nothing more than typical Dmoz BS and only inflates the perception that Dmoz is corrupt and has a lot to hide. Just to set the record streight. That editall was not removed he was in a car accident and broke his neck. After returning he found he couldnt log in to his account after a year of recovering from his injuries.
Very funny gworld, my sides are splitting. Really, they are. Might be something I ate though. Though your summary is a little bit skewed as usual. A new editor need not have industry and web knowledge though it is a bonus. An ability to work out the guidelines in that particular niche would be a tremendous bonus and a bit of luck is needed for the meta reviewing the application to also be one of those who understand. Alcas actually demonstrates a pretty good understanding as he happened upon a category with a correct description. That he is willing to stand his ground and argue the points also is a positive editor attribute - witness that thread in RZ hasn't been locked even though it is a bit argumentative, usually a big RZ no-no. So far so good. Well the first rejection was down to failure to disclose. The second is not clear and hasn't been revealed only speculated upon. It may be nothing to do with making mistakes on his analysis of the cat listings - if motsa was saying that his suggestion to move those three sites mentioned was wrong then she is incorrect but not alone in that error by any means (you had to be there at that thread I mentioned). Alcas, I would like to see the sites you suggested and the title and descriptions you used. If there is nothing wrong with them then I would say have one last go but in a Regional locality category not a country level Regional...Shopping one where there is always a risk of getting a meta reviewing the app who is not up to date on the proper guidelines. If you get accepted you can always dig out that thread internally and do a spot of editor education. Sorry, DMOZ is corrupt because you were rejected but you admit you were rightly rejected because you were cheating on the app. I don't get it... And you have complained about your editall friend being removed for no reason before haven't you, yet he should have been removed for trying to cheat the system to get you in? I have a good idea how you got picked up but I'll keep that to myself but surely if they had let you in that would have inflated the perception of DMOZ being corrupt because it would have proved the system had a flaw in it - by letting in someone who admits they were rightly rejected. My apologies, I missed Yes, but he applied for reinstatement and was denied - he would only really be denied reinstatement if there were grounds for removal, it isn't an arbitrary decision.
I was just exposing jjwill post regarding: "understanding of DMOZ listing concepts. - The ability to follow ODP guidelines " as a reason for being denied. I don't know this guy and I don't know why he was denied (although I suspect the crime was being too smart) but to post that he doesn't understand DMOZ listing concept or guideline is just a total BS excuse, you know it, I know it and I am sure jjwill knows it. He has shown more knowledge and understanding of guidelines than most editors will ever show. I just don't like nonsense excuse and it is an insult to everyone's intelligence here.
Yes I was rightly rejected and have no beefs with that. If I had been accepted by now I would have resigned. I havent complained about my friend as you put it being removed from Dmoz. As I understand it he wasnt removed, he broke his neck and couldnt perform his duties. Lets look at Dmoz for a moment here. The perception of Dmoz being flawed is one that it has created all its own. The lies, the BS responses, the listing of child porn sites, the rejection of possible editors that would improve dmoz, the rejection of sites that exceed those that are already listed, the deep listings of sites that dont meet dmoz guidelines, failure of Dmoz to effectively change its flawed guidelines, the money pit and the failure to be able to communicate with webmasters without being a complete ass. I am sure I missed a few but others can fill in the blanks. Now if my submission of an application by someone else gives the inflated perception that Dmoz would have been corrupt by accepting it, then Brizzie my friend it sounds like to me you might need to take a step back from your computer and get a reality check.
Was there a point at all to that post, crossman? Whatever you may think about his other posts, gworld was hardly making stuff up in the selection you quoted - he was asking a simple question. Oh, and by the way, you spelled "rabbit" wrong and it should be "It's that quick wit thing". You really need to work on that little problem of yours... one of the potential reasons cited for rejecting buratssky's application was "* Improper spelling and grammar".
That is quite a list and if this was a typical day to day reality with nothing to balance it then it would be appalling. But then if it was typical then the thing would have collapsed years ago. Have editors ever lied - they sometimes spin a bit, most are proud of their work. Do they routinely lie - no more than your average human on average. Are there mistakes made in the selection of editors - probably, sometimes they let abusive editors in, the removals prove that, but they tend to err on the side of caution these days so good editors could be rejected if there is any doubt. Are there sometimes errors in listing sites, of course. Everyone makes mistakes. Are there flawed guidelines? Sure, this is a complaint I have made myself but it doesn't impact on most day to day editing. Money pit? There are corrupt editors or there wouldn't be removals on those grounds. Is it taken seriously? Yep where there is proof of corruption to back up allegations it is dealt with without mercy. Is it tolerated? No. Is it systematic? No. Are false allegations made? Every day no doubt. Editor communications with webmasters? There is actually no relationship between the two groups as the former don't serve the latter. But yep there is some work to do on that. It is a two-way street though, editors are routinely abused for stating facts or opinions and like everyone else they will respond if pushed too far. There are a small handful of sarcastic and condescending editors who could do with communications abuse reports lodged against them but clearly people don't use those sanctions. So whilst there are grains of truth in every point this is an organisation with several thousand volunteer editors looking after 5 million site listings and in context the problems are small scale. You only hear of the faults because those are the ones that make it to forums, you don't hear too often about the sterling work done by thousands of editors every day without any complaints. You don't hear of the emails from submitters thanking editors for going way beyond the call of duty in helping them. You don't hear from the 800 or so newly listed webmasters every day of the year, you don't hear from the hundreds of new editors accepted every month. All these things go on despite the real and alleged problems and the directory grows, which is its aim. Good news is no news it seems.
Hi all, Sorry I forgot to reply to this post individually. Buratssky, unfortunately I will not reapply. Reasons are plentiful but those that stand out most to me are; this is a volunteer program, as such I am volunteering my time, to contend with misunderstandings amongst the higher echelons of dmoz editors about their own guidelines? No thanks. The directory quality for that category really is abysmal, and if google really relies on the data from there, then shame on it. I am sure it doesn't though. The irony of it is though, I would have been happy to edit that category WITHOUT adding my own site. I am a big advocate of helping and educating each other. There are countless people out there who have educated me (even sometimes years after posting their advice) and saved me many a pulled hair. I always like to give back too. I have contributed to wikipedia, to about.com and many, many other websites, not just about my field of work, but also with regards to other things that interest me and I have some knowledge about. Good luck to dmoz, but I do think they will find it difficult to realise their mission statement if my experience of them is typical. Hi Brizzie, thank you again for your replies and comments. I am at work and cannot find the sites which I had made suggestions on. Please note however that I was only making suggestions, and this would have been done with consultation from a supervising editor. However I have looked through the category again and the ones that spring back to mind are: http://www.incarugs.co.uk/ http://www.loomah.com/ http://www.jolloyd-rugs.com/ http://www.rugsandcarpets.co.uk http://www.hilaryharrison.com http://www.davidhallcarpets.co.uk I know you have addressed some of them in your other posts. In any case, these are not relevant to my second or first applications since I did not mention them at all. The sites I sought to include are: http://www.funkyrugs.co.uk Funky Rugs Retailer offering a selection of contemporary rugs to buy online. Range includes wool and acrylic rugs, aswell as sheepskin rugs in various colours. http://www.aspen-rugs.co.uk/ Aspen Rugs Online retailer offering only wool rugs in both modern and traditional designs to buy online. The third one is my own site. Rather than post that here, could I possibly pm the details to you? Not due to anything other than privacy. Thanks again.
Alcas, don't let some people in the Resource Zone annoy you. I would relly like to volunteer but I see you can be much of use than I will be. You aremuch more knowleadgeable and well experienced. Like Ms.Brizzie you both can be of great value. I hope you try one more time and if it does not work then.... But I like to see you be one.
funkyrugs.co.uk - can't see anything obviously wrong with it in a minute or so looking, and if they are supplying to Big Brother then I would say it is a useful catch of interest to people. aspen-rugs.co.uk - oooh. aaar. deary me. Here is the source of your problem and quite likely the cause of the rejection. Not only is it unlistable it is probably deserving of big red stickers saying do not list on pain of death (and worse punishment). It isn't an independent store but a department of alarisavenue.co.uk - instead of splitting their products over pages on the one domain they have spread them over different domain names. Presumably for SEO purposes, which is fine by DMOZ except DMOZ will only list one of those sites, the main one. You recall you pointed out sites with the same ownership, this is one of those and since their products are all considered related (to home improvements) then only one gets through. Don't worry about it, I think we have found the problem. http://www.incarugs.co.uk - might let that one through, you can get prices by phoning and they give a number. http://www.rugsandcarpets.co.uk - local retailer. Locality. http://www.hilaryharrison.com - you would need to phone for prices but she is willing to deliver all over and take Internet orders - probably keep that one. Note - for products that are unusual, one-offs, custom-made, etc. it is often difficult to actually display full prices but if there is a clear mechanism to place orders and get delivery nationally then an editor would use their discretion and common sense. Is the site useful for someone wanting a one-off carpet who isn't located within easy distance of the retailer, is it reasonable for them to phone to discuss requirements and prices before ordering, etc. Guidelines in this respect are just that, guides not rigid and unbending rules. Which is why they aren't called rules. There is a point at which you must use your judgement. In the cases where the sites don't fully meet every single criteria for the category to the letter then you would make a full note of why you have used your discretion. Can I buy goods from this site and have them delivered to me at home without moving from my chair? Yes. Again I think that might be part of your problem - you would have rejected or moved sites on strict letter by letter interpretation of guidelines as immovable rules. I know, it is tough as a new editor with no experience of the workings of DMOZ to grasp where editorial discretion comes into the equation - it takes a while to work it out properly. Which is probably why this particular category was a bad place to start off. Sorry you have had a bad experience, you picked a category with a lot of cans of worms waiting to be opened. And they got opened. That one about Regional and Shopping is, IMO, about the most complex of the cans of worms so if you did decide to have another go then you have probably already experienced the worst! I must do some exercise and get rid of those budding man-boobs. With a beard, balding, and one eye I would make a pretty ugly woman even so.