What to do when there is No Editor

Hahahah Finally the application process is over and the final death blow came from someone here on DP as my reviewers comments mentioned this thread.

I was told not to apply again,

What is the most hysterical is the reason they gave me for denial.

The section I chose to edit was personal blogs from people who have had weight loss surgery.

and here is why I was denied:

Even your most recent application is of poor quality. The examples are all blogs, which rarely add authoritative content to a category, and the descriptions pay little heed to our editor guidelines, despite prior advice to you about this.

*END*

So in summary, don't supply us with examples of personal blogs of people who have had weight loss surgery for the personal pages of the weight loss surgery directory.

You decide do personal blogs belong here:
http://www.dmoz.org/Health/Medicine/Surgery/General/Obesity_Surgery/Personal_Pages/

Oh and P.S. I have basically adjusted my application each time, and everytime I submitted I sent similar personal blogs as sited examples, and when I did get reviewers comments, was there any mention of the quality of the sites submitted?

NOPE

Advise would be to make small adjustments to applications but bottom line is as I said earlier, its a crap shoot because no two editors will judge your application on the same criteria.

One will think that new editors should not edit a category with more than 80 entries, one will think 50 is too many, one will think maybe 60 is the limit.

They ask for 3 sites you think are appropriate, come up with 9 or 12 of them and just keep mixing them up with your applications.

 

I am sorry that was the outcome. As I have often said, I don't have anything to do with new applications, can't see them, can't see anything about them or reasons for rejection. So any of my comments do not have any inside knowledge except being an editor.

My comment is that you talk about the category being "personal blogs" it isn't it's "Personal pages" and I looked at some of those sites, and changed a couple of our bad descriptions, and to me the ones I looked at were personal pages. I don't know what sites you offered, but in context, if they were ones that write a paragraph when someone feels like it, or a major event happens, sort of like the ODP weblog, then I can understand what was being said to you.

Not that that matters much now, if you have been told not to re-apply. Sorry.

 

That's not a logical deduction.

Perhaps you'd care to quote the reviewer comments in their entirety.

 

Two things,
1. The pages listed there now are 50% garbage,
2. The ones I sited were up to date blogs of people who had weight loss surgery and were journaling their progress at least twice weekly.

No worries the members of the Algonquin round table over at ODP seem to know better.

 

Yes the forth one from the top where Bypass is spelled "Bipass" is probably still in need of a change , you will see I reported that one some time ago. (someone would have eventually gotten to it before the next eclipse)

Also the ones that have not been updated since the Late 1990s could probably be removed too.

 

Here you go Jim:

Your earlier applications were declined partially on integrity grounds because, despite continued advice on this aspect, you continued to conceal associated websites. More recent applications were better in this regard.

Integrity is a matter of perspective, once I read that you wanted everything, ever, then I gave it to you. Don't tell me it was better, it was ridiculous in scope.


Even your most recent application is of poor quality. The examples are all blogs, which rarely add authoritative content to a category, and the descriptions pay little heed to our editor guidelines, despite prior advice to you about this.

You can see my previous comments, the category is for peoples personal pages, how do most people write PERSONAL pages? Usually with a Blog or some free crap webpage from Geocities I gave you three of the best personal pages on the web, updated all the time and helpful. If you definition of authoritative content is how Google sees it then you have your priorities wrong. Its about how it helps others who are considering the surgery


Overall, we've had enough and, on the evidence of your recent forum postings, so have you. Please do not apply again.

Seems like a logical deduction to me.


And just so you dont say I didnt include all of the reply,
here is the rest of the boilerplate:

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

 

I think you will find that the editor has copied the title of the page exactly as it is on the page. So that's the title we use.

 

Just keep backtracking in the category til you find one.

 

Well that certainly....
"adds authoritative content to a category"
....now doesn't it.

Good stuff for anyone looking for information on Gastric Bipass....

Or skool
or speling!


The ODP thought for the day:
If the page title is spelled wrong it must be high quality so include it in the directory and copy the title that is spelled wrong!!

 

People do also sorts of things to titles to try and stand out from the rest, I viewed this as just another one of those. It is certainly not ODP's job to correct spelling errors, or even make a judgement on a site because of its spelling. We expect our editors to do better, but we do not always manage that. I spent about a month once putting typos and famous miss-spellings into one of our checkers and then going through and correcting. Mind you having American English and real English is quite fun too!

 

Is there anybody out there who bothers with DMOZ at all?

 

Certainly! Apart from several thousand volunteer editors, there are countless internet surfers who use the directory - either through http://www.dmoz.org itself, or one of the many sites using ODP data.

 

In fact you reported it last week, and it was dealt with on the same day, even without an eclipse.
As Anonymously has explained, the editing guidelines require us to use the title of the website, and if webmasters choose to use unconventional spelling (or even if they simply can't spell), that is no concern of ours.
We assess the value of the whole website, and typos are certainly no barrier to listing. For example, we would list a worthwhile site even if the author had written "forth" instead of "fourth".

 

It sounds like you know of many sites which could improve the selection, so even if you do not become an editor, you can still help make the category more comprehensive by suggesting those sites.

 

Sorry, but I do find that statement a little in conflict with the one made by a meta on the rejection comments
"is of poor quality. The examples are all blogs, which rarely add authoritative content to a category".

I also find a little odd these two comments on the rejection note
"Please do not apply again"
"Your willingness to volunteer is greatly appreciated and perhaps we will be
able to utilize your talent in the future."

Perhaps on theses two conflicting statements on the rejection letter one of the metas who reads here just might raise the fact that this looks crass at best.

 

So why do you complain, you finally got reply written by real person instead of generic junk and as I have predicted they are capable of writing more then two words only when they want to insult somebody.

As for the poor quality of DMOZ categories, all categories I use to maintain are dead as a dodo since my removal.

Thousands of websites are added to DMOZ each day!​

Daring to question a meta?

 

What no nice picture of me acting as though I were part of the resistance movement in a fascist, dictatorial state?

Ivan you disappoint me

 

Sorry, there is image limit of only four in each post (smilies included) and database was acting weird but let me fix that... Viva La Resistance!

​

 

I think I can take 'em.



[Yeah... this thread has drifted a little off course, but at least it's more interesting than the normal fare.]

 

Your appointed deputy sheriff