DMOZ application processing

hello all,

something out of the blues happened today, i applyed to be an editor to a dmoz (small) category. less than 24 hrs later i got rejected .

i think this is very intresting, if they can accept/ reject applications so quickly why dont they add sites that quickly. i have been waiting for over 7 months to be listed... not holding my breath at all. :-(

I can't comment on editor applications. But the same thing probably applies as site reviews.

I can reject a site in less than 20 seconds, if it has something obviously wrong. There is no way I can accept a site without spending much more time.

I would assume that editor apps with obvious mistakes can be rejected very quickly.

SEO Rat... we don't have a smiley that depicts: cold, cruel, uncaring, etc. Think we should get one?

The part I get a chuckle out of is how they present the editor application as imploring people to help, then in the very next moment they spend "20 seconds to reject" (seo_rat, I know you said you didn't handle editor apps, but I think the same amount of time is spent rejecting editor apps as it is rejecting sites). If they were truly interested in getting editors on board, they would provide a more comprehensive response than "select among the following for possible reasons you were rejected".

Even if they took the extra 2 seconds to select a reason themselves, instead of sending an auto-reply, people interested in getting involved might be better able to address any application deficiencies in a future application. It reminds me of a prior job at an insurance company where there were many employees who quickly looked through claims, trying to find those specific medical codes or diagnoses so they could hit a few keys and send out a claim denial letter. They were able to quickly process loads of claims, getting pats on the back for productivity, but the level of service and accuracy of processing was terrible and often resulted in claim appeal or litigation.

I had the same thing happen to me, and was surprised with how the application process was handled. I walked away with the impression that they didn't really want anymore editors...so if they did, they should probably have an outside consultant take a look at their processes, because it appears, from someone on the outside, that at least a few folks there have lost a little perspective.

IMVHO.

All I know is that I do keep seeing new editors arriving, and the quality of what they do is often pretty bad - sometimes it improves and sometime it does not, so I don't think the acceptance rules are that strict.

I know that I kept notes on my first editor application, and after I'd been an editor for a month, I could see that whoever reviewed it had been very tolerant - it was full of mistakes.

There is a an expectation that editors will be self-driven and self-motivated, and will find therir own errors and teach themselves how to improve. The same may apply to editor apps.

the potential for improvement is there, and everyone has made some great points. keep in mind though the frustration (hypothetical) that it must entail perusing through the sludge of poor applications. it is difficult for us to understand as we here are generally of the persuasion to be intelligent, professional and streamlined. for every one of those, there are literally thousands if not more who are the opposite. and DMOZ gets to look through them all. comments from DMOZ carry the same tones that you hear from troubled youth centers. when you've seen enough problems, it's too easy to miss the good ones. nice points and nice thread.

okguyjames, I'm sure you are correct, and that there is probably an ocean of applications to wade through, and many of them may well be terrible. Some of that may have to do with the solicitation and presentation of the app and the impression it gives up front. (To make a long story short, my impression was it was a quick and dirty app - they're looking for people knowledgeable in the industry - just fill out the form and you're in. I have 20 years in my industry, thought acceptance would be a no-brainer. Clearly that was the wrong impression, but exactly how or where it went wrong I don't know, because of the rejection email.)

I do wonder if a human set of eyes looked over my application - not because something was overlooked - my thought is, an automated system could probably do a cursory review of the app, only passing those without typos, conflicts of interest, etc, to a human reviewer. It could save time, time better spent on digging into the good apps. But if a human set of eyes does review every app, they are wasting a great opportunity by not taking a couple extra seconds to provide a specific reason for rejection. If a set of eyes has to go through the trouble of looking anyway, why not add some value to the process?

Because I have no idea what went wrong, I'm left thinking I need to create a new persona and tell a few grammatically correct lies and I'll be in...and I can't imagine that's what the creators of DMOZ wanted in editors.

It's the good old boys club and you can't get in thank you very much!

G-Man

At least several hundred new editors are added each month.

I'm with seo_rat, there must have been something very obviously wrong with the application (eg a shopping category was applied for; a very large category with lots of subcategories were applied for; one or more of the sample sites suggested was not listable at all or not in the category applied for; etc)

I do not handle editor applications either, but assume that this is the case.

DMOZ always wants good editors - the more the better. -- but DMOZ does not want editors who can not follow guidelines for descriptions; adds sites that are not listable; can't spell; etc ---- imagine the mess that a senior editor has to clean up if an editor like that gets accepted.

hello all,

cbp, i applied for a category with less than 20 sites in it, does not get any smaller i think. if i didnt spell something right in my posts because i think its not a crime. FYI, i made sure that my application does not have grammer / spelling mistakes, and the sites listed wer a shopping sites (cat. shopping) so im not sure what it has with relvancy there...

the REAL question behind this post is, if you guys process applications that fast, why dont you process sites that fast too!!! i mean come on, have been waiting for a site for 7 months and nothing ..

my comments on the "Human based" directory is we are all people, we all make mistakes, so if someone's application has a typo give people a break.

i do hope one day google depends on it self to make a directory that does not have anything to do with dmoz (maybe one based on PR lol..)

i did not mean to offend any of the editors / anyone who volunteers for dmoz, and if i did then i appolgyise.

I'm not taking this hard or anything its just not right to reject an application within 24 hrs and have a list of sites that goes back all the way to how many years...

p.s. why dont you guys make a auto rejection / acception automated email to site entries that way we know if our sites are "dmoz material".... :

one more time i would like to appolgyise if i offended anyone...

cbp, you bring up good points, but I have to follow-up on that (and I apologize to the editors here and elsewhere who have replied to these threads though they are under no obligation to do so).

I don't mean to sound elitist, but I'd put my grammar, spelling and sentence structure up against any DMOZ editor, present company included. I have no wish for this to turn into a spitting match, and was pointing out the opportunity they have to do a far better job than they do with handling applications. Your post doesn't address that, it just addresses how I must have done something stupid in the app. And I imagine some sort of protocol breach was made on my part; I just have no idea what it was because I got an autoresponse - that's a wasted opportunity on the part of DMOZ, for all the bright people who were interested in helping but now feel slighted either because of a bad system design, or poor execution. My guess is you don't want this feedback - that's fine. Like I said, it's just MHO. Take it or leave it as you like.

New editors are not usually accepted into a shopping category as its so spam prone. You need to "earn your stripes" elsewhere in the directory before applying for a shopping category.

... they don't get any worse than me (I more often than not have to edit posts after I have posted them)....and I still got accepted as an editor (obviously i double check descriptions before listing sites)

Its a lot more to it than grammer ...its selecting sites that should and should not be listed; its being honest in listing sites affiliated with; its ... etc etc .... picking the wrong editor can be harmful to the directory and create so much work for senior editors to undo what was done.

I would encourage everyone to apply (be part of the solution, rather than the perceived problem) .... do a google search for something like tips or advice for DMOZ editor application - if you get rejected, apply again.

cbp - I appreciate the response.

In general, which credentials have you found to be more likely to get you in as an editor (I realize I'm asking someone who doesn't handle those apps): someone with some knowledge of the topic but stronger knowledge in programming/the web, or someone with stronger industry/topic knowledge and some knowledge of programming/the web?