I know you don't like autosubmitters...

[Fido]

Autosubmitters are banned at most link lists. I would like to ask you, LL owners, if there would be an autosubmitter made specially for submitting free sites, would you approve it? What do you feel to be the biggest problem with autosubmitters at link lists?

[Useless]

People who use auto-submitters generally do not read site submission rules. They just lock n' load, switch to auto, and commence firing. They don't even seem to care if they hit their target. Wrong category, wrong recips, etc. History has shown that auto-submitters are lousy submitters anyway. We don't need their submissions. Screw 'em.

[Toby]

The biggest problem with autosubmitters is that they totally bypass the on site submit form. If something changes on the form, new rules or notices are posted, updated recips etc., the autosubmitter never sees them.

[Fido]

Yes, these are problems. And what about some kind of autofiller? Something that would load the form page, fill it, but webmaster still sees the whole form and manually presses the submit button. What about this? Would you approve it on your LL?

[Linkster]

First off - there are about 10 autosubmitter programs out there specifically made for submitting to LLs - so they already exist - as well as many autoformfillers - they already exist as well.
Most sell for around $30 and some as high as $90 with some that provide updates to the database for a monthly charge etc.

The problems I've seen - the first being the problem that was brought up about not seeing the rules - or for that matter the advertising I want you to see when you visit my WMs page - thats part of the whole package of submitting is that there will be a certain percentage of WMs that might sign up under me for some programs I think are really good.

Second - most of the programs that "update their databases" - DONT - they still have recips in their for old cats and dont have recips for new cats.

Third - most autosubmitters dont ever take the time to check their submissions - of even learn how to use the program - which causes extra work for us LL owners cleaning up our databases of hundreds of failed attempts.

Fourth - We decided on a rule that said no autosubmitters, and requested that a lot of our LLs be removed from the autosubmitters - which hasnt happened - which means when the submits come to our LLs the submitter gets banned automatically - no questions asked.

Last - there is nothing wrong with using an auto-form-filler - as long as it doesnt cache or pull in a copy of the submit form - again, this is something that bypasses the submit page (refer back to the other reasons).
If used correctly and just for doing copying faster - formfillers are a great tool.

And lastly - you will hear this over and over - if you dont have time to copy and paste five lines of text to get free traffic - then the LLs will tell you they dont have time to review your site - which takes longer than your submitting. So we have many ways that dont get shared with the gen publ to detect and ban autosubmitters

[Fido]

Thank you Linkster, Toby, UW. I am just thinking aloud if there is some place for me to make something at this field

[Chop Smith]

My second attempt to make some money in this business was being involved with a database driven auto-form-filler. Since I did not do the coding, I can say it was the best I ever saw and demoed all the others. The guy that wrote the software is brilliant and was an older timer in the adult biz. He covered most of the things that Linkster mention. I would even stop the submit process if the rules page had been changed since the last submit. I had at least a year of database work invested in it and the coder had many more hours than I did.

Fido, to make this short, I never earned a penny from the program. It could have been because it was so complete that it was not user friendly. Before you jump off and spent lots a time, you might want to your research because I know of one time it was done right but would not sell.

[RobUK]

Thanks for that info, Linkster. I posted much the same question, ie I know autosubmitters are bad, but WHY are they bad, a couple of weeks back but didn't get any replies. Now I know :-)

Copying and pasting 5 lines for 30 or 40 or more sites can be a bit of a PITA though. So I'm using a little program I knocked up myself in half an hour or so - just a Delphi form with 6 edit boxes and 6 copy buttons. Type the text in once, copy each field as often as needed. Nothing automated about it - I still go to the submit page and fill the form manually, but it's done faster.

I'm sure there are much more sophisticated solutions on the market, but this way, as you say, I actually see the form and can react to any changes.

Just in case I get the urge to "improve" it sometime, is there anything else (like caching the page) that would be frowned upon?

Also, what do you mean by "pull in a copy of the submit form"? Are you referring to something that would down load the form invisibly by talking HTTP to the server and requesting the page? Or would your comment apply to an app that encapsulated a copy of IE and used that to present the form for filling? Just curious!

Rob.

[SI]

as for me, when i'm into submit process, my brain turns to the checking form software and i never pay attention to advertisment or something else, exeptions is a big red letters above submit form, saying: "Rules(or recips) was changed"

[RawAlex]

Rob, if you think cut and paste 40 times is a pain in the ass, try reviewing 40 sites that didn't follow the rules.

We have to review the sites manually, you can at least copy and paste a few links manually.

Alex

[RobUK]

I do. Every site is visited manually, the form filled in manually, the submit button clicked with my own fair mouse. It's just that I have a little stay-on-top window with the text in and a handy copy button for each field. Nothing automatic about it.

As for reviewing, I can imagine that situation is a total PITA too. But (correct me if I'm wrong here!) I would have thought that at least some of the reviewing would be automated too - a sort of pre-screening process that would do things like check for banned words, make sure the recip was in place, count the number of outgoing links etc? Of course that wouldn't be foolproof, and wouldn't be able to weed out illegal content etc., but doesn't it help a bit? Or is it all done manually?

Out of interest, what would you say is the most commonly broken rule?

Rob.

[RawAlex]

I have a bot that does some of the total grunt work for me. I added it when I got tired of getting every virus, worm, and crappy piece of spyware tossed at my system. I won't tell you what or how it does what it does, but it improved my acceptance rate by about half right off the bat. However, that doesn't negate the requirement to check (and re-check) each and every remaining submission by hand.

Most common mistakes? Hmmm... It's a close one for me between doorway pages and hidden enters / misleading enters / enter links too small / use of the word enter in marketing text for other sites / enter link goes to sponsor.

After that: too much advertising / too may lines of text linked / unable to locate gallery links inside site.

Finally, crappy content / undersize pics oversize pics / pics I see too often before / pics from sponsors I don't list / crappy wallpaper

There are other things, but this is the major stuff on review. The bot takes care of things like scripts, frames, and other misc bullshit.

Alex

[RobUK]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I have a bot that does some of the total grunt work for me. I added it when I got tired of getting every virus, worm, and crappy piece of spyware tossed at my system.

I sympathise. I spend a lot of time each week taking crap like that off end-users' systems. The shit is everywhere :-(

Originally Posted by RawAlex

However, that doesn't negate the requirement to check (and re-check) each and every remaining submission by hand.

I just bet. I can't see any conventional software ever being up to that job. Hmmm, I wonder if some kind of weak AI might be a possibility though? Not my field, of course, but maybe something "trainable" - a bit like a neural network?

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Most common mistakes?... crappy wallpaper

Particularly Russian wallpaper?

Seriously, though, do you think these errors count as genuine mistakes, or are folks just trying to beat the system and gain an advantage? If the latter then there's nothing to be done but keep weeding them out. But if they're genuine errors then there might be some possibilities. What if there existed some kind of pre-upload site checking utility? Something akin to a link checker / HTML validator that would point out obvious flaws, much as a LL's bot does?

If such existed (maybe it already exists?), it might save work for the LLs AND the submitters in that the biggest clangers could be fixed before the site was even submitted? I suspect it would probably help newbies like me more than experienced submitters, but then I'd guess that you don't have much difficulty with submissions from experienced submitters anyway. Just thinking aloud - feel free to point out that I'm talking crap again

Rob