Sites which Bait and Switch Content

I have seen numerous times this scenario?? So that is why I say this flaw must be fixed:
<br>A webmaster submits a site, filled with pop ups, spam and only affiliate links.. The site gets reviewed by an editor and deleted as per guidelines. The offending webmaster complains but before doing so CHANGES their SPAM site. They take away the pop ups, add content pages that were not there and so on.... There are many variations of this scenario but you should get the idea from it. I personally now believe that it is why there is such a backlog of sites. Granted there are valid complaints about subjective things.. but the truth is not somewhere in the middle. Sites that are deleted are 99.9% of the time sites that do not meet guidelines. I can elaborate on this for days... A fix = Make it possible for an editor to take snapshots of the offending site, prior to deletion. I know for a fact that there are 1000's of spam sites waiting to be reviewed. But I also know when they get deleted rightfully so, you get slack for it. So I really believe there needs to be a solution: Either the deleted sites dumped somewhere to be checked again in a timely fashion by another editor or snapshots allowed to be taken of deleted sites. Anyway. Sorry if anyone is offended by this...

Re: My only problem

I don't see this as a problem. Webmaster wants a site listed, although it is against guidelines (or, as is often the case, isn't even there yet.). It gets quite properly deleted. Webmaster has gotten three things: 1) a free site review, 2) a rejection, and 3) a reputation as an unreliable submitter. Well, the last two, at least, richly deserved.

The backlog is caused by the spam submissions. NOT by webmasters fixing up their sites afterward.

Suppose, in fact, the webmaster changes the site. Now, in the course of searching for useful websites, some editor may find and list it. Or any non-editor, including webmaster or paid agent, may submit it again. It may get reviewed, and if so, the earned reputation may get it a less favorable review. This all seems just and fair.

Something we DO see is people creating sites to get accepted, and then changing them -- removing the content, adding browser-busting or bandwidth-hogging noise or even illegal content. This is called "bait-and-switch", and justly earns as close to an eternal ban as we can implement--the heat death of the universe unfortunately constraining the course of justice in this case.

Re: My only problem

It would be nice if we were being drowned in "new and improved" submissions, but that's rarely the case.

Re: My only problem

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>Quoth yesem:
A fix = Make it possible for an editor to take snapshots of the offending site, prior to deletion.<p><hr></blockquote>If a site is deleted and re-submitted, the next editor to look at it will see the note left by the editor who deleted it: "Pop ups, spam, affiliate links, made my computer explode and killed my cat". So as long as the deleting editor did a good job in writing a note, there's no need for a snapshot type mechanism.

In addition to the "bait-and-switch" tactic mentioned by Hutcheson, some sites will show a different page to DMOZ editors than to everyone else (by looking at the referal headers): the DMOZ editor sees puppies and kittens, so he/she approves it, but everyone else sees hard-core porn. I presume that these folks get banned just as quickly bait-and-switch ones, if not quicker.

Re: My only problem

&gt;&gt;I presume that these folks get banned just as quickly bait-and-switch ones, if not quicker.

And just as permanently. But please do not use the word "folks" for these, um, toxic cyanobacteria.

Re: My only problem

Wow! I can post!

Okay, bait and switch url's: Should we be reporting suspects to the "Urls with changed content thread?"

Re: My only problem

Yes, please, we say, with profound gratitude and profusive thanks.