How about setting up a triage system. Prospective editors must wade through piles of new submissions. Once they tag 200 sites from the new submission list as spam, they enter consideration for becoming a full editor. Though, in this day and age, that might be considered hazing...
Another anti-spam suggestion
- Thread starter lsolomon
- Start date
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
The problem with yorur "solution" is twofold:
It assumes that volunteer editors are willing to accept a certain amount of scut-work before they get to do "real" editing. They do not.
It assumes that submissionsa re important to us as editors. They are not.
Other than that, a heck of an idea.
It assumes that volunteer editors are willing to accept a certain amount of scut-work before they get to do "real" editing. They do not.
It assumes that submissionsa re important to us as editors. They are not.
Other than that, a heck of an idea.
Here's another anti-spam suggestion.
The suggest URL page also has a "donate to charity" link, with submitters being aware that:
1. All money goes to charities designated by the OPD -- ie editors see not a penny.
2. It is completely unrelated to whether the suggestion is reviewed or when; or if the site is included in the suggested category, or another, or not ar all. IE no "refund" -- it's just an opportunity to give while suggesting a URL: two actions both intended to make the world a better place. And both on the same click. Irresistable, surely.
3. Editors can view their submissions pool sorted by donation size. Some may even do so. Especially those editing in commercial or highly spammed categories.
Before you know it, there will be a collective myth that a certain size donation (the amount varying according to the category) will get the URL reviewed faster.
It may not be true -- myths often aren't -- but if enough scumbag spammers get it into their heads that USD50 is a good investment for a suggestion, the OPD could be directing millions to good causes.
And may even bankrupt a few of the scumbags.
(Take the smileys as read)
The suggest URL page also has a "donate to charity" link, with submitters being aware that:
1. All money goes to charities designated by the OPD -- ie editors see not a penny.
2. It is completely unrelated to whether the suggestion is reviewed or when; or if the site is included in the suggested category, or another, or not ar all. IE no "refund" -- it's just an opportunity to give while suggesting a URL: two actions both intended to make the world a better place. And both on the same click. Irresistable, surely.
3. Editors can view their submissions pool sorted by donation size. Some may even do so. Especially those editing in commercial or highly spammed categories.
Before you know it, there will be a collective myth that a certain size donation (the amount varying according to the category) will get the URL reviewed faster.
It may not be true -- myths often aren't -- but if enough scumbag spammers get it into their heads that USD50 is a good investment for a suggestion, the OPD could be directing millions to good causes.
And may even bankrupt a few of the scumbags.
(Take the smileys as read)
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
Personal opinion: no thanks.
ODP is, by its very nature, a give back to the Internet and the people who use it. Any form of contribution/donatoin, etc. no matter how worthy, tarnishes the entire thing.
People don't read. It would take about 4 nanoseconds before the first clueless individual went onto (pick a website) and complained tha tthey paid their $5 and didn't get listed, and what a bunch of thieves we all are. Then the "intentionally clueless" would jump on this as "proof" of (pick a stupid subject).
No one will take me seriously, but I personally like my my idea for getting rid of spam: turn off submissions until such time as there are no unreviewed sites, then - without notice or fanfare - open them up until "n" sites are submitted, and then close them off again. Stir well and repeat as necessary.
ODP is, by its very nature, a give back to the Internet and the people who use it. Any form of contribution/donatoin, etc. no matter how worthy, tarnishes the entire thing.
People don't read. It would take about 4 nanoseconds before the first clueless individual went onto (pick a website) and complained tha tthey paid their $5 and didn't get listed, and what a bunch of thieves we all are. Then the "intentionally clueless" would jump on this as "proof" of (pick a stupid subject).
No one will take me seriously, but I personally like my my idea for getting rid of spam: turn off submissions until such time as there are no unreviewed sites, then - without notice or fanfare - open them up until "n" sites are submitted, and then close them off again. Stir well and repeat as necessary.
dogbows
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,446
Submissions Off
I have often wondered why the ODP takes submissions. I can find a lot of sites that possibly would be listable, if I were an editor, and would not need any help from submitters for quite some time. It seems that it is a fruitless effort trying to deal with all the complaints and suggestions here when you could be searching for quality sites instead.
I have often wondered why the ODP takes submissions. I can find a lot of sites that possibly would be listable, if I were an editor, and would not need any help from submitters for quite some time. It seems that it is a fruitless effort trying to deal with all the complaints and suggestions here when you could be searching for quality sites instead.
