After some internal thoughts of mine, and a following discussion on our matrix chat. I would like to propose the following policies for inclusion on our website:

1. introduce a requirement where a user suggesting new software or providers should have done his own research and cite his source. This could include things like privacy policies, links to software source, an explanation of how the software basically works and why it should be added. Any issue that does not provide sufficient sources should be closed until the anyone has made proper chances according to the policy. If the chance has not been made within 24 hours. the issue will be closed until it is fixed.

2. Introduce a limit on how many software or services should be listed. How many recommendations and how many worth mentioning s could differ from category to category.

Reason for policy 1:
Since privacytoolsIO is a volunteer project, it requires us to research new projects in our own free time. While I like to say that our team is capable of properly reviewing and researching a given project, we don't have the time to research every project or service mentioned to us. Right now, users can upon up an issue and recommend a service, and leave it up to us to research it come up with reason why a project should NOT be added.

I would like to flip it over, and make it up to the user to provide proper sources, explanation, and argumentation, of why a project should be listed. This would reduce our workload, and make sure uses think twice and properly review their own recommendations before opening up an issue.

Reason for policy 2:
With every project that gets added to privacytoolsIO, we gain a burden. The burden is that if a listed project turns out to be malicious or abandoned, it hurts our credibility. Locking the amount of recommendations and worth mentioning's would prevent us from become a global catalog of everything that claims to be privacy friendly, and making the site cluttered.

When this is combined with policy 1, a user should provide argumentation on why their project is better then one project that is already listed (if all slots are already full). This would cause that listed projects come back on the chopping block once in a while, and see if they still hold up as the best solution, or if they should be replaced. This will end up in us having more up to date recommendations, and make sure that the things we recommend are still what they were when they were added, and are one of the best options right now.

More thoughts:
How many worth mentioning s and actual recommendations should be allowed for any category should be decided in this discussion, as there may be reasons for one category to provide more options then compared to others (messengers with widely varying threat models come to mind).

Conclusion:
I think that if we were to introduce these two policies (add a limit to number of category listings and require a user to do research with source and proper argumentation), it would heavily reduce the workload put on the team, while improving the content/recommendations that end up on the website. These were just my thoughts, I would really like to know what the community thinks of this plan, and if it would be a good idea to make these requirements.