I'm with sidjf and some others here -- good editors are what ODP wants, not experts who can't edit. Further, good editors who have ODP's interests genuinely at heart are what ODP wants. The ability to edit well, edit unselfishly, and follow guidelines needs to be proven, not assumed (and, bamastangguy, your internet "footprint" ain't helping your application any: the antiODP hate and illogic in this thread alone might doom you). The time suckage involved in dealing with people who can't/won't read and follow the editing guidelines is huge.
I think the reason I keep getting rejected is becasue I am a web designer, and they probably figure I will get selfish. I submitted 2 applications now after reading every detail, and got rejected.
I doubt that is the reason. There are editors who are also webdesigners, there are even editors who work as an SEOer. These people are able to not let their daily business have influence on what they are doing as an editor.
I think too much time is spent trying to reform bad editors into mediocre editors. Bad editors should be removed, not given a year of mentoring by several good editors, just to find out it didn't take. Removing bad editors, in addition to keeping the directory free of crap, also frees up needed meta time to investigate abusive editors.
I definitely think that the ODP needs to be accepting more editors. As long as the application is legible, the category is not too large, and the applicant isn't an obvious or known abuser, then they should be let in. They should be watched closesly, given a couple of chances to learn the ropes, and if they can't figure it out, then adios. In the end we would end up with a lot more editors, and some really good ones who might never have made it just because they weren't good at filling out an application.
Ya that's the way every job works - right? If you can't fill out an application properly at MacDonalds - I highly doubt you will flip hamburgers for them either. Attention to details, being able to demonstrate that you grasp the basic requirements, proper grammar, punctuation, capitlization, etc. - are insights into ones ability to 'work without a net'. If you must have direct supervision in a job where there isn't 'enough' people to start with... you are a greater liability than an asset [IMHO].