DMOZ Rejected!

Dear ,

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:

 

I believe this is a standard response for a rejection, but dont feel disheartened, look through the email and see why your application was unsuccessful. Many editors didnt get accepted first time and in fact, i tried numerous times before being accepted.

This statement indicates that they do want you to apply again after attending to whatever may have been of concern.


But i would advise that you dont post any further copies of emails, it's no one elses business and it is best discussed between you and the Meta doing the review, not the whole DP community.

 

As snooks surmises, that's the standard declined application email and the reason will be one or more of those given within it. You should be able to work out which ones before trying again.

Actually, those of us metas who review applications quickly learned the hard way about the need to keep declining emails anonymous .

 

So what? DMOZ means nothing these days. Stop wasting your time trying to be listed on something that was a must have over 10 years ago.

 

Editing is a great hobby, i love building a whole town, seeing a town that has no web prescense grow into a town with 150 sites, all in categories, so anyone looking can find the information they want.

I dont care what DMOZ means to webmasters and there seo tactics, merely what it means to me by way of a hobby

 

Jim, stop taking my screen name in vain ;-)

Snooks I thought you were in the snooker game not one of the large housing and property developers to build a whole town. ;-)

Dead right about the hobby though, hope the op tries again, we need editors, but, like all the past and present editors, you do have to get through the screening process, even Jim had to apply sometime in his youth!

 

Ah, to be only 60 again.

 

If you get enjoyment out of it, that is all that matters. I was willing to put some of my time into the process as long as I could post my own link. I was straight forward and honest on my application. I probably won't apply again.

 

Posting your own link is not a problem, in itself, but you are expected to treat your own link as any other and, as the email says, you would not have to look as though you were asking to be an editor MOSTLY to get your link on the site (not suggesting you did, just clarifying the position of listing ones own site). Many editors, or whilst people were editors ,have links that they have listed themselves. Ask Qryztufre, who posts regularly on this forum, he was only an 'active' editor for a short time, but in that time added his own site. It is still listed I believe though he has not been an 'active' editor for several years.

 

It may have been interpreted that way, but I was willing to exchange some of my time for a link on the site. Everyone has an agenda, I was just honest about mine. DMOZ didn't accept the deal, I am ok with that.

In my humble opinion, you shouldn't be allowed to post your own link anyway, as it is a conflict of interest.

 

But don't forget you would not be the only person who could edit in any category in which you had privileges to edit.Several hundred of us can edit anywhere and anyone further up the directory 'tree' can also edit in any category below. Add to that every edit carries who did it, when and what and that stays on the editors record for all time.....so I know what my first edits here and every one of the 30,000 edits since. So if any site is added and should not be added, like an editors own site that is not up to the mark.....then you won't be an editor for very long. And if you delete a site that also carries a mark and is listed to the editor.

As I said if you treat your own site better than anyone else's then expect the boot, if you suggest that on your application, expect a rejection.

 

I appreciate the insight.

 

As an example....i have 2 sites listed in DMOZ but i actually own around 30. The others are non-compliant to the guidelines and as such, they are unlistable.

Just so that you know there is no conflict of interest in listing your own site if its listable, and if it is clearly declared and treated as any other site is treated.

 

here is what I don't understand, why would you be willing to put time in editing on that dinosaur in return for a link on that dinosaur?
The link has zero value and your time (especially if you are a CISSP and a PMP) is worth far more.

I understand Jim is retired has nothing better to do with his time than make lists of things and tell other people they are not good enough to make lists with him, but what is your excuse?

Go do great things, pretend ODP/DMOZ does not exist because basically it doesn't

ODP stands for Open Denial Project, everyone involved is openly in denial.

 

"Several hundred of us..........." Several hundred? Hahhaha really?
There haven't been several hundred of anything happening on DMOZ for a decade!

The website still says copyright netscape.
Maybe one of the several hundred can get the site updated.

 

A better example would likely be skrenta who has THOUSANDS of deeplinks to a single site that break multiple guidelines... and AOL is more then fine with such rule brakeage... so long as its from an editor. There are also several other editors with multiple listings for their sites and they are all still editors... why single me out? My site was removed, so it being listed now is no longer a matter of me adding it, but rather it belonging there. so

tmonte, getting to be an editor is a complete crapshoot based on the whim of the meta doing the review of your application. Though it's best to make sure your sites are listable, especially the one that belong to you... but listing your site(s) are well within the guidelines of the ODP, in fact it's encouraged!

 

Q, you're becoming more forgetful and senile than I am. Your site became unavailable, an editor noticed and it was removed from the public directory. It was relisted after it came back again. Standard procedure.

People might whinge on about the number of broken websites listed but you should hear them scream when one is removed .

skrenta is a crap example as has been pointed out to you a bunch of times. Just search this forum for the explanation that you seem to have forgotten. When you've done that, you might realise that you're losing both face and credibility by flogging a dead horse.

 

So what you are saying that is once a site gets removed from public view, the editor does not check to make sure the site is listable and simply adds it back?

The horse isnt dead yet because there is still site with THOUSANDS of listings that the editors are giving special treatment too as those thousands of listings break multiple rules (like being given special treatment). So what is the difference in my having ONE listable link and another editor having THOUSANDS when it comes to whether or not an editor can list their own site?

You speak of credibility, yeah, my site ~ Listable! Topix ~ NOT listable. Who is credible? Not the ODP and those that support an unlistable site.... unless credible is one of those words the editors have changed the definition of to suit their own needs.

Back to dead horses... you mean like how editors keep using ME as the example of editors listing their own sites? Yeah, goose & gander / kettle & black.

 

Please point out where I suggested you had done anything wrong, or are you suggesting yourself that you did something wrong?

I merely suggested you as an example of someone who regularly posts on here and listed their own site and with the grief you like to hand out to DMOZ you seemed a credible example that the op might accept, rather than suggesting Snooks or other editors who can be seen as being biased because they post, mostly, in favour of DMOZ.

But if you think you did do something wrong, feel free to come clean about it now.

 

here is the link...
https://www.google.com/search?q=Ano....,cf.osb&fp=15f4f2ff325d4b5a&biw=1366&bih=638

Odd that you have used me as an example for soooooo long and in so many threads, your tone is generally less then nice. Are you now saying that you were wrong in insinuating in all those other threads I did something bad? In 90% of those I follow up with "I didn't break any guidelines" and yet that never stopped you from continuing to insinuate I left under dubious reasons after getting my own site in... funny, why the change of heart? I am thrilled mind you, just curious as to why it was OK in this thread, and seemingly bad in all those others?