Hmmm... I'm not sure I'd agree here. At 44Con[1] we get an average of between 100-150 talk submissions a year. Just reviewing all the talks once as part of the CFP panel is a herculean effort. If everyone had a 2 minute intro to their talk I guarantee that after the first few none of them would be watched by anyone on the panel simply because you're looking at adding 5 hours to each scan through the submissions.

The enthusiasm is a strong and valid point. People who are keen to come always score higher than people who can't be bothered putting the effort in.

I would suggest that anyone who wants to get a talk accepted needs to:

* Structure their submission properly

* Make sure they provide sufficient detail for reviewers to identify what the talk is about

* Provide enough detail for the reviewer not to have to google obscure terms

* Have somewhere on the Internet (e.g. a blog, github etc.) that allows reviewers to easily work out where the speaker's skills lie

* Have video or slides from the speaker available - e.g. on Youtube so reviewers can see how they speak. If you haven't spoken at a conference before, make a video of a howto describing something related to what you're talking about

[1] - http://44con.com/