Application Denied – Category Already Well Represented

I noticed it again. Someone complaining about receiving an “automated rejection message” for an application to edit, that stated “you have chosen a category that is already well represented” and that they should “apply for a category that is less represented”. Their belief is usually, that the category hasn’t been updated in many months (or years) and the category still had a “Volunteer To Edit” link on it. So it must not be well represented. Unfortunately, these comments are misleading to anyone who hasn’t applied to become an editor. The recipient of this letter has failed to mention what the actual denied application letter said, and chosen to focus on one small part of it that is likely not the real problem.

Firstly, there are NO automated responses to application acceptance or denials. If you apply, the response you receive may be one of the standard messages (or a modified version) but its been generated by a human being and done so because they reviewed your application and determined that this response was the most applicable. The entire section of the above denied application message reads:

Although we would like you to join us as a volunteer editor, you have chosen a category that is already well represented, or is broader than we typically assign to a new editor. We would encourage you to re-apply for a category that has fewer editors or is smaller in scope, in order to increase your chances of being accepted.

The key part of this is almost always “or is broader than we typically assign to a new editor”. In almost all cases of this nature, the category is either too large (typically having more than a hundred listed sites, or large/spammy suggestion pools) or so broad in scope that few sites would be listed there and it would be too much for an editor in training to try and maintain without more experience. The rest of this message is almost always ‘forgotten’ when someone posts a complaint about being denied on an application. Generally speaking, a category of less than a hundred listed sites is a good place to start an editors training.

One of the main reasons for a new editor to start in a smaller category, is because it provides a safer learning environment for them. No matter what the pre-existing state of the category is, a smaller category provides the chance for an editor to learn without too many complications. Also having access in a smaller section of the directory to start out, will help limit the amount of damage that mistakes made by a new editor can do. Remember, even if your application makes a good impression on the reviewer, it can only give a glimmer of insight into your potential skills as an editor. A smaller category makes it much easier and more manageable for a newbie trial run.

Do not be discouraged by a denied application or three. Many (most?) of us failed to get close enough on the first attempt, for a reviewer to take a chance on us. I think it was my third or fourth attempt before I got it in the ball park. Besides being able to identify and take the appropriate steps to rectify problems with your own denied application, helps to demonstrate many of the qualities a good editor possesses. Unless the reviewer left comments suggesting a future application wouldn’t be necessary, please take some time to work out and correct the problems with the denied application and re-apply. There is no set time period for waiting to reapply, once you are ready just go for it.

Recommended reading:

• Become An Editor
• Editing Guidelines

Official Blog – DMOZ Is Like Gold

The title DMOZ Is Like Gold caught my eye today. I thought to myself, thats great another “official” posting is on the blog. That’s gonna be good news, posts have been rather few and spread out lately. Then I read the post and my heart sank. The blog post was to thank another blog for ‘showing DMOZ some love’ by including it favorably in a post. Unfortunately the love being shown was, misplaced and out and out wrong.

Firstly to be clear, the article that the DMOZ Blog is applauding is a direct copy of an article written by another blog a couple of weeks earlier. So we are not even officially thanking original content for the love, rather only a copy. Thats kind of ironic, but certainly not funny in the least.

Secondly, editors have long been battling the magic bullet theory. This article basically continues all of the mis-information that editors have tried to correct for a long time. DMOZ is not more important than other quality links, in the grand scheme of things. Plenty of well placed, high ranking sites have no DMOZ listing. On the other hand many listed sites in DMOZ fair poorly in search results.

Here are some other problems with the article:

1. Getting a site into DMOZ is like Gold. Google loves links from DMOZ and your site will reap the benefits. – I have never seen any evidence to support that theory, in fact most that I would consider experts say that there is no more weight given to A DMOZ listing than any other quality link. Therefore, its good to have as many quality links as possible, but plenty of sites are very successful in search results without a DMOZ listing.
2. Find the perfect category for your site and check to see if it has an editor. If you see a link “Volunteer to edit this category” try and find another relevant location. Pages without active editors take much longer to get listed into. – Wrong. Most categories in DMOZ are without a named editor, having a named editor does not mean a faster review time. There are a couple hundred editors with permissions to edit in any given category. They are just as likely to be editing in a category without a named editor, as a category editor is to edit in one with their name on it. Suggesting a site to a category other than the most relevant category, will do the opposite. Many times an editor will find the mis-submitted site and just forward it along un-reviewed to the proper category. Thus putting it back at the bottom of the pool. In a lot of cases, the editor that finds it won’t even have permissions (or interest) in editing the category it should have been suggested. Just suggest it to the best category in the first place, thats the best course of action.
3. Once you find the perfect directory submit your site every 4-6 months until listed. If you are lucky you will get in eventually. – Brilliant <insert sarcasm>! This is the worst bit of ‘advice’ yet. Not only has it suggested that you slow down your own review time by overwriting previous suggestions (if the reviewing editor chooses, they can review sites by submission date and the new suggestions would overwrite the original one sinking the suggestion to the bottom of the pile), but it has also basically just advise you to become a directory spammer. Enough of these re-suggestions and your site will never get accepted, for it will be tagged as spam and banned from inclusion.

I realize why the DMOZ blog chose to post a message about the article. Its always nice to be shed in some good light occasionally. However this article does not show the project in a good light, instead its makes outrageous statements based on incorrect advice and further adds to the mis-information that editors have tired to combat for many years. Some corrections have been made, but frankly I wish the post was removed. That is unfortunately beyond my control, so I will continue to try and provide honest and factual information to dis-spell the horribly bad advice that the original article was giving. 😦

Shadow – What I Did Today

Been a long, long day today. Real life has been hampering but I still managed to find a few minutes here and there to get ODP work done. Here was what my DMOZ day looked like:

1. Processed a few editor accounts – New applications, reinstatements, new perm requests, etc.
2. Got back into my Indiana cleanup that I had started. I am now (having started with Localities: A ) half way through Indianapolis.
3. Logged a little over a hundred total edits.

As I mentioned it’s been a long day, so not much else was accomplished. Hopefully the rest of the week will be better.