Thank you for the information. This isn't really about status requests, but simply about some book keeping for the submitter. Specifically I am talking about two automated e-mails: One on submission, one on rejection/inclusion.
About the different arguments mentioned in the FAQ or other threads:
1. Increasing the resubmission volume of rejected sites:
When a site is rejected an e-mail message explaining that the site does not meet ODP standards and resubmission is pointless could actually lower the resubmission volume. As it is now most people have absolutely no insights into how the ODP works and it's just human nature to try again. My guess would be that 90% of submitters do not read this forum or the FAQ, except maybe the section about inclusion time.
2. Programming resources:
I am not talking about a system which allows for a status check, but simply an informational e-mail. That means an extra two or three lines of code in the submission script and in the editor script. At the moment when such e-emails would be sent, the scripts have all the information anyway. In PHP for example it would just take a simple mail() line. If that is really a resource problem, I'll volunteer to do it for you, depending on the language you use.
3. Server resources:
Sending of e-mail is a very low resource thing. The problems start with receiving and especially spam checking e-mails. "Do not bother us <noreply@dmoz.org>" redirected to /dev/null could solve that.
4. Good reasons for adding such notifications:
- Did I already submit my size xyz? When was that?
Oh, I can check my e-mail and do not risk submitting the same site multiple times. If you casually submit a site to the directory every other month you really can't keep track.
- Did they lose my submission, maybe I should resubmit the site?
I was told not to resubmit my site in the first e-mail and probably already got a second one telling me to take my crap site and go home. Or, even better, I was told that my site was accepted into the directory and I don't have to check every month trying to remember when I submitted what to where.
5. It could help spammers:
Spammers probably resubmit their site every other week already, so it would not change much except maybe discourage a few of them. An easy workaround (if not in place already) would be to simply keep a table with rejected URLs and rejection date. If a rejected site is resubmitted within a certain period of time, it is automatically dropped. A spammer could then get another e-mail telling them that their site was dropped *automatically*, which should really discourage them from resubmitting it.
I understand that the ODP is not meant as a webmaster resource, but face the facts: It is. Rather than discouraging that would it not make more sense to use it as a tool to force webmasters into certain quality standards? Make it clear that junk is not listed, but provide some features to make it easier for webmasters who create quality content?
Sort of the way google does it: They offer tools for webmasters and some hints on how to get a good ranking, but they do not offer details and tell everyone over and over: good content is king.
You will probably be seeing more and more submissions in the future once every webmaster understands googles trust rank system. Like most SEO stuff there are more rumors than facts, but one rumor is that the ODP is one of the seeds for the trust rank system. That means every webmaster and his dog will want to get a listing.
In that light the proposed system could actually lower submissions, as it keeps the whitehats from resubmitting their due to a lack of information and discourages the blackhats through direct communication telling them that they are just wasting their time.
