What to do when there is No Editor

There you go twisting my words around, but I understand that you must.
Try and stop thinking about my specific case and think in general terms since you have all admitted to rejecting more apps than you accept. With that in mind (try and stay with me)

The point was:
When an editor does not provide reviewers comments (specifics) what he is saying is "I am happy to create additional applications to be reviewed that may or may not be any closer to the mark than the last one thus creating more and more work for the volunteers"

Conversly many people manage to submit rejected applications (from all your comments this is the rule not the exception) despite reading the form carefully and doing a little research so when you reject them with the canned form letter your goal is to create additional applications to be reviewed that may or may not be any closer to the mark than the last one thus creating more and more work for the volunteers.

The whole mentality is "wrong idiot, try again"

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome and that's a two way street, I was insane for applying so many times expecting the reviewer to provide any reasonable feedback and you (the editors as a group) are insane to continue to give these canned replies and expect the submissions to get any better.

You all remind me of the school teacher that hands the student back a test with a big F on the top of it and nothing else. No reason why, no nothing. How do you learn that way?

(looking forward to see how you will twist this or skirt the issue)

 

Finally got my gender right, anyway.

 

Perhaps if you change the mind set a little. We are looking for people with certain skills and a level of honesty. If a person has not got them, then they will not be too much help to us. It's no good having a doctor who was seriously coached to pass an exam, but can never get a diagnosis right with a patient.

I have had to sweep up some of the difficulties that some editors cause, often because they simply cannot read and interpret instructions. Now I don't reckon I am very good at editing or interpreting but I feel good with some of the things I have seen.

So perhaps seeing this as a screening process is better than thinking about it as an exam. I have not seen your application, or for that matter any other application (other than my own 9 years ago!), but I have read what jimnoble keeps saying about applications and I just tried to distil some of that. Try another look at the sort of areas I suggested and see if you can spot anything.

 

Well you know I can live with that, and if someone can't cut the mustard and they don't pass the screening process then tell them "You aren't what we are looking for, thanks and please do not re-apply"

Granted you may piss people off but at least you are honest.


Don't get me wrong, I have taken all advise, distilled it all down, adjusted, tweaked etc. Kept getting better feedback and when I think I got it all the way it needs to be, I get a canned non specific rejection.

So don't know what to do next except send the same application give or take and see if another editor is feeling more generous with advise or acceptance.

 

Well said

 

Sigh.

OK, one last attempt:
As I have said several times, applications can be viewed by many meta editors, any one of whom can make a decision if they choose. Those of us with this responsibility are very experienced at assessing applications, and some of us have looked at many thousands of them over the years. Many of those applications were accepted almost immediately, but in other cases feedback is sent to help the person prepare a more careful or thorough application the next time.

Please don't waste your time and ours by ignoring all the help and advice which several volunteers have already taken the time and trouble to give you.

 

We do say that at times, as has been commented that one can re-apply so long as they have not been told they don't need to bother. As fas as I can understand that it means the others do have potential and we want them to pursue and try again. I can't trot off and have a look at who did this and why they did it, it is not within my level of authority, but I am sure that by the fact we keep being willing to have an editor spend time reviewing your new application should say that we want you to keep trying, but sending in the same is no good, only if you can see the issues in your own work. I guess that many potentially good editors do give up, but perhaps many of the ones who do would never get there anyway.

I don't believe that of you from what I have seen of you on here. And I would just urge you to check up those category descriptions and titles, check the sites and rework your reasons for applying. Between you and me and from the stuff I see of the site URL's from new editor applications that come onto the directory the perfect title and description are not important. What I think is more important is that the titles are given clearly having read guidelines on what can be a title and that the spelling and grammar are OK on the description. As I have seen some editors say, we need people who show they can read and follow instructions, who can write and are honest.

Showing that one has read the information and tried to use it, even though one might not get it quite right, seems to be the way. But that is observation and picking up comments by those who do the applications.

 

Exactly!

I am happy to confirm that this is a very accurate observation indeed.

 

Thanks for the continued generalizations, great general feedback, sadly little to none of it applies to me.

but thanks (in general)

 

Again, not in my case.

Zzzzzzzzzzz bored now.

 

LOL well if you got bored after only trying a couple of times to complete the application form, I guess you would not have been very interested in actually editing.
Probably best to look for another hobby more to your liking. Thanks for your interest anyway, however brief. It enabled us to explain many things which may be of more interest to other potential applicants.

 

You are an expert at taking my comments and twisting them, you should get a medal. Just so you are clear on the facts, its not a couple of times, its like 7. And my boredom was not with the process of applying to DMOZ it was the boredom of this thread and the lack of anything other than blind defense of a process that is so utterly broken and ineffective that it could be a case study for a book.

Twist away, but you know what I mean.

 

A very personal comment, that the only application form that I have ever seen was the one I filed 9 years ago, so I have no way of knowing anything about any individual application, just trying to help.

One fast PS you might try a different category, see if starting again is helpful, and once you have got editorship in one category, shown that you know what is required you can then start applying for others, though I think the internal process is much the same, but of course without the affiliated declarations.

 

So you are talking though your vast personal experiences with being a meta editor? Funny, and I thought all the times you brought up my experience as an editor you were talking down to me. Now I see we are just in the same boat talking about different topics

 

Yes good idea, instead of the category that has no editor and only 20 entries and is the one that is nearest and dearest to my heart and that I am probably one of the best experts around, let me choose another category that is not.

And I will choose one that has only 80,60, 50 entries because new editors should limit themselves to categories that have less than 80,60,50 entries in them.

or I could stop banging my head against the wall?

 

I am very clear on the facts. I was being deliberately vague in order to save you embarrassment about the number of times you have applied without following previous advice. I needn't have tried.

 

Acceptance or rejection of applications is not based on whether or not there is a listed editor, or whether the category has "only x entries", or whether the applicant is "the best expert" in that subject.

It certainly makes sense to apply for a category of interest to you, because you are then far more likely to be interested in finding worthwhile sites and improving it. One with up to "80,60,50" listings is usually a good choice, and as always, the application needs to show that you understand what sites would belong there, and that you have a basic knowledge of how titles and descriptions should be written.

 

Yes you were saving me embarassment because everyone that reads this believes that I applied 7 times without following any of the advice from previous feedback, etc. I have just been sending the same thing over and over hoping for a different outcome.

Yes that is what has been happening.

 

Wow none of what you are saying is accurate,true,correct because I have the reviewers comments to prove it. I have been rejected once because the category had 80 entries and that was deemed too many, than I was rejected because the category had like 62 entries and that was deemed too many and both feedbacks were try a category with less than ________ and the number in the blank was different for each response. No consistency.


So what is the number this week? 80? 60? 50?

The only thing consistent is the inconsistency of the entire process.

Keep up the great,poor,average,mediocre,fair work!

 

Personally, I aim for only the first of these, but you and everyone else is free to choose. After all, we are all individuals (apologies to Monty Python).