[plantrob]

I guess I'm a little late in asking this question (I volunteered to become an editor just a little while ago), but let me ask anyway: In reading some of the threads here, it's obvious that a common problem with applications is the description field in the URL suggestions. Furthermore, we're not encouraged to look at existing entries in the directory, since they may "not be up to current editing standards". It certainly isn't easy to describe a diverse website in one or two lines, and in reviewing the editing guidelines, I didn't find clear examples of what to do/what not to do, or concrete examples of good/bad descriptions. Can someone point me in the direction of a good resource? Perhaps a category in which most entries are "up to current standards"?
Thanks much!
Rob

[windharp]

1) Your observation isn't that exact. Writing good descriptions is only one of many points we look for. In fact one of the not-so-important points, because improvement can be learned. There are lots of other points like honesty, writing ability (spelling, grammar, ...), a shown interest in editing, lots of others, and ... did I mention honesty? ;)

2) On http://editors.dmoz....describing.html you can find the guidelines regarding descriptions and similiar tasks, and on that page there is a link to http://dmoz.org/erz/sites/title.html - mainly about titles, but there are some description examples as well. Be advised that copying those won't help you. ;)

[plantrob]

Thanks - that is a helpful page. As for your comments - I realize there are many kinds of disqualifying characteristics. But since none of them jumps out as applying to me, the most likely factor in approving/disapproving my application is either my choice of websites (which seems fine to me, but I don't claim to completely understand the hierarchical structure of ODP) or my wording of the descriptions (which undoubtedly can use improvement - I'm new to this)
Cheers
Rob