Reporting Spam in the Directory

Howdy all!

I was reading this section and I saw lots of complaint/reporting but no one offering solutions. So, in good order, I'd like to make a suggetion to the ODP for site submission. Have submitters edit the section they wish to submit to.

How would this work?

Actually, not sure this is a good idea...probably heard it before...but. As a condition of submitting a site, webmasters/site owners are required to pick the best area for their site already.

Now, simply add the requirement they review the section for sites which fall outside of ODP guidelines. (this requires they actually read and understand the guidelines for listing in ODP)

Their own submission are tied to the review of existing content within a relevent topic. By being forced to review relevant sites within a topic, a submitter will have a much better idea as to whether the site is being listed in the correct venu, (If it isn't the user has typically reviewed a few pages and most will report any wrong doing anonymously.) and whether their site is really ready for prime time before ever submitting.

When a site is added to the "yucky' list of the submission form, they should be given a place to note what an editor should look for.

Submitters then will keep the directory continuously clean of changing sites that try to "mask" intent.

Those that failed to read the guidelines and incorrectly submit their site without reviewing the directory automatically disqualify their site.

Those that list in the wrong catagory, disqualify their site at the editors discretion. (especially if all the other requirements were followed but was simply a close second instead of the right first.)

Those that falsly report compliant sites put their site on "probation' for six months and cannot resubmit. 2nd offence is "lifetime" ban of the site (?). You can even give an "unsure" button for those sites that one would consider marginal.

Assign two or three editors to maintain the directory based on submissions. A script can easily be used to sort site submissions tied to sites and an editor can easily sort the "suspect" sites so they all stack up nicely together. This same script should be able to filter sites banned from submission quite quickly. An experienced editor should be able to quickly review the complaint to determine whether it requires pursuing.

So, if you have 5 submission in xyz catagory for www.i'm a junk site.com, then the site only need be review once by the spam editor. If the editor finds the site to be a quality site, the editor add the site to a filter data base. Prior to review, the listing editor can review the "filtered" results and decide if a poster was listing spam or spamming the ODP listing with intent to eliminate competitors. All before ever looking at the propsed new site.

Randomly, sites from the filter are removed for review based on a percentage threshold of new spam reporting. This protects against a site changing content and not getting caught through the initial filter.

Benefits:
More sites listed to correct catagory for editors.
Submitters actually reading guidelines
Less work redirecting sites to correct catagory - editors option - that did not follow the full submission guidelines or failed to properly list site.
Capturing vindictive site owners before they ever get listed.
Absolutely reducing the amount of junk/flip sites that change colors after acceptance.
A quality filter to sort and seporate issues requiring editor review/attention that affect the quality of the directory.
An addaptable filter which ODP can use to reduce reviews of faulty submissions.
More time for editors to review relevant sites.

I'm sure there are more, but I think you all get the idea. Put your world wide professional web designers to work on the quality of ODP.

This is not a bad idea, but it definitely comes from the perspective of someone who submits sites rather than someone who processes them. The vast majority of submissions show little or no understanding of such basics as "the most appropriate category" and "do not capitalize the first letter of every word."

Expecting these same individuals to display the necessary judgment to separate listable sites from non listable sites is expecting too much. I'm afraid what we would end up with is a lot of busy work for little gain.

There are ongoing discussions of ways to address link rot in the directory including ways to make it easier for surfers to report hijacks and dead links. We do have a number of effective tools for identifying link rot, and candidly, it's already hard for editors to keep up with those that are reported by our automated link checker. To add the burden of following up on a huge number of potentially garbage reports would be too much, IMHO.

I do see some potential in your ideas, however. Specifically the idea marking a site okay and then randomly unmarking them based on feedback levels is an interesting one.

Thanks for the constructive suggestion, good post.

<added> btw, there are roughly 10,000 active editors, 600,000 categories, and 4 Million listed sites. Addressing link rot is a huge task that requires a high level of effort from hundreds of editors. The idea that two or three (volunteer, whenever they can) editors could follow up on all the reports generated by such a reporting mechanism is not realistic. </added>