W
wrathchild
There have been a number of prior discussions on this here. I suggest browsing some of the older forum topics.
remove my old site submission
- Thread starter passepartout
- Start date
sfxmystica, the issue is fairly well understood, and the solutions (at least in the abstract) are not that hard. Actual implementation would be a lot of work, of course.
But perhaps the main message is still not getting through: that for editors and for staff, this is simply and genuinely not a problem at all; and even for submitters of legitimate sites, it is an emotional issue only, with no practical consequences whatsoever.
Only for spammers does any of this information have practical consequences, and for them every bit of information is absolutely critical. So editors really want less information getting out. The advantage of a human-driven forum like this is that when you ask about a website, an experienced editor basically ALWAYS looks at it. If it was accidentally deleted wrongfully, that will be fixed; if it was accidentally not deleted properly, that too will be fixed. (The former may happen about 1% of the time, the latter happens somewhere under 10% of the time.)
Now do your profit-loss analysis. By asking here, affiliate spammers are running a risk of exposure, with virtually 100% chance of getting the tactical nuke on their submittal. (There's a small chance of too much information slipping out, although we try to be very careful about that -- that's why about all we'll say is "read the guidelines".) Legitimate submitters are running no risk at all, and very occasionally might get a problem fixed. (Several times a year, a listing might be accelerated, but that is something you should expect not to happen.)
And editors aren't inconvenienced more than they're willing to be.
Editors -- not harmed; legitimate submitters occasionally helped (as much, that is, as such information can help them), spammers occasionally hurt. Where's the problem? What in all of this would suggest to the editors' technical support teams that an automatic approach is needed? What can the automatic approach give that's _useful_ (as opposed to emotionally frustration-building) to legitimate submitters? And even assuming a perfect design, how likely is it that some implementation flaw could be exploited to give spammers all the keys they so ardently desire?
Just in passing, sfxmystica, as an exercise if you want to brainstorm: find a flaw in your algorithm, and explain how spammers can exploit it to tell exactly when a site was rejected. (It is a trivial exercise, and I know of at least one consumer GPS reception device that actually used the same strategy to get around the military encryption of the LSBs of the GPS signal.) Then find a solution, and find the flaw in that solution ... (So far I have gone, but I am not sure there's a socially acceptable technological solution to THAT flaw.)
See, the insurmountable advantage that humans have is that when they are abused, they instinctively react against that abuse: whereas an inadequate algorithm could leak information indefinitely. At this point, humans do better what is needed, and don't waste their time doing too much of what isn't.
But perhaps the main message is still not getting through: that for editors and for staff, this is simply and genuinely not a problem at all; and even for submitters of legitimate sites, it is an emotional issue only, with no practical consequences whatsoever.
Only for spammers does any of this information have practical consequences, and for them every bit of information is absolutely critical. So editors really want less information getting out. The advantage of a human-driven forum like this is that when you ask about a website, an experienced editor basically ALWAYS looks at it. If it was accidentally deleted wrongfully, that will be fixed; if it was accidentally not deleted properly, that too will be fixed. (The former may happen about 1% of the time, the latter happens somewhere under 10% of the time.)
Now do your profit-loss analysis. By asking here, affiliate spammers are running a risk of exposure, with virtually 100% chance of getting the tactical nuke on their submittal. (There's a small chance of too much information slipping out, although we try to be very careful about that -- that's why about all we'll say is "read the guidelines".) Legitimate submitters are running no risk at all, and very occasionally might get a problem fixed. (Several times a year, a listing might be accelerated, but that is something you should expect not to happen.)
And editors aren't inconvenienced more than they're willing to be.
Editors -- not harmed; legitimate submitters occasionally helped (as much, that is, as such information can help them), spammers occasionally hurt. Where's the problem? What in all of this would suggest to the editors' technical support teams that an automatic approach is needed? What can the automatic approach give that's _useful_ (as opposed to emotionally frustration-building) to legitimate submitters? And even assuming a perfect design, how likely is it that some implementation flaw could be exploited to give spammers all the keys they so ardently desire?
Just in passing, sfxmystica, as an exercise if you want to brainstorm: find a flaw in your algorithm, and explain how spammers can exploit it to tell exactly when a site was rejected. (It is a trivial exercise, and I know of at least one consumer GPS reception device that actually used the same strategy to get around the military encryption of the LSBs of the GPS signal.) Then find a solution, and find the flaw in that solution ... (So far I have gone, but I am not sure there's a socially acceptable technological solution to THAT flaw.)
See, the insurmountable advantage that humans have is that when they are abused, they instinctively react against that abuse: whereas an inadequate algorithm could leak information indefinitely. At this point, humans do better what is needed, and don't waste their time doing too much of what isn't.
thehelper
Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 4,996
In other words - humans do it better. Please do not take anything hutcheson says as rude - he just operates on a different plane than many other people do. He is just trying to help but he is just so damn smart.... sometimes you need a dictionary (or the online equiv to understand what he is saying). Trust me here - if hutcheson was trying to be rude you would not have to look it up - he is really never rude - he just tells it like it is - basically he is misunderstood - imho.
sfxmystica
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 28
hutcheson said:
I wouldn't say 'no practical consequences'. Unfortunately Google and Yahoo (and other search engines), give importance to DMOZ. That is why spammers try so hard to get sites listed in DMOZ. Yes, unfortunately you didn't ask them to do that and there is nothing you can do about it ... But it's an interesting angle to look at to reduce spamming ... (infact, I think that if your PageRank 'suddenly dropped' to less than 3, about 20-30% of your spammers will not even give you a second look, and thats great!) ...
Anyway, I get the point you were trying to make though, and comprehend it. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
(By the way, have any of you ever tried ZEAL's system ....? http://www.zeal.com ... asking just out of curiosity ... I thought I'd get a hang of editing from there before trying for DMOZ ...)
xfxmystica, when I say "no _practical_ consequences," I did not mean an ODP listing had no effect. I meant that as a rational webmaster, you would not act any differently if the answer was "waiting review" than you would if the answer was "rejected." "Practical" consequences in that context are those that affect "behavior".
I agree that what I said would probably be misunderstood by most people, and I wish I could think of a better way to express it concisely.
I agree that what I said would probably be misunderstood by most people, and I wish I could think of a better way to express it concisely.
We have some editors who are active both here and at Zeal, and of course there are ex-editors here who edit there (and vice versa). It is a different community and a different system. Nothing would keep you from trying to get in both, and sticking with whichever community and system you found compatible with your goals. (Someone who is only interested in "canned hand-sandblasted mandrills" might edit only the related category in all possible directories...)
sfxmystica
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 28
hutcheson said:
No, I understand what you mean. All one has to do is look at the way DMOZ collects site from 'external sources' to get the true picture of what kind of directory DMOZ is ... It says 'Suggest URL' and not 'Submit Url', making it clear that you aren't into it to accept all websites to try and create the 'worlds largest' internet directory ... So naturally, the people who submit sites only for the sake of SEO ARE going to get heartburns when you reject it ... again, like you pointed out, not an appropriate behaviour ...