Submission process suggestion

In a further attempt to help think through the problem of spam submissions, I’ve reviewed the Social Contract once again. In my view, the first sentence of point 6 stands out (6. Our Priorities are Our Data Users and the Community We will be guided by the needs of our data users and the ODP editorial community.)

It has been discussed here many times that submissions are filled with spam, which is a problem for both editors and Joe Surfer. It seems to me that the submission process needs a methodology that would filter most (no system is perfect) spam submissions. In other words, there should be a way for the *system* to distinguish between white hats, and black.

To me, the most obvious way to do this is by requiring Joe Surfer to register with ODP, much like having to register with this forum before I could post. I don’t see anything in the Social Contract that would contradict this approach. In fact, I think doing so is very much in line with being “guided by the needs of our data users and the ODP editorial community”.

Now, some will say that it not possible to prevent people from creating multiple accounts (or IDs) on the system, and to some extent this is true. But with very basic technology (which I will not discuss publicly) it is possible to disallow more than one account. The technology is not fool-proof, but it’s close.

Assuming the ‘one account’ functionality is implemented, DMOZ might wish to ‘market’ a whole new user class. This class might be called ‘contributors’. Contributors have an account or profile (again like this forum) and submissions are accepted from contributors only. If an editor then sees some number of spam submissions from a particular contributor, that contributor might then loose his submission privileges.

The point is that submissions would be tied to contributors. Once Joe Surfer becomes Joe Contributor, a submissions history determines that he is a white hat, and his submissions can be found more easily. This also gives Joe Contributor a sense of community and makes it more likely that he might consider the next step, editor.

In time, this should lighten the load on editors, and help to maintain ODP quality.

Sounds attractive but I think the suggestion would just lead to one extra "class" of submission, as I believe we have to keep the "one click" (don't know if Amazon have patented this) submission process.

And any proposition that involves too much programming or big changes will not go far in the short term. There's a lot to be said for the status quo.

It's a decent concept but I fail to see how this would effectively prevent spam. So some one registers and then shotguns 10 sites across 100 categories. How has the registration process prevented having to deal with those 1000 pieces of spam? (or 990 on the off chance that the 10 were listable in the first place in 1 category each)? Or registers and then resubmits a few dozen sites? It would provide a certain relief in some cases but in some respects it duplicates mechanisms already in place to deal with those cases, and adds to the administrative overhead.

Granted you could flag the submitters email address but in this day of throw away email addys (or IPs in some circumstances) what prevents them from doing it again? The occasionaly banned spammer probably would not be worth the extra cost in terms or programming and administration.

Besides, as had been said many times - submission are not the priority. Many editors would just as soon see all public submissions suspended and so eliminate the spam problem entirely; effectively what you are proposing.

I personally think that submissions from the public can be of benefit. Unfortuantely due to the inconsiderateness and/or greed, and the ignorance and/or stupidity of some submitters, spam and inappropriate submissions are the price paid to have a public submission process.

As for a "vetted contributors" group, we have one - they are called editors. :shade: