Proof that it's a waste of time

Just like many other website developers/owners out there I also tried to have my website listed on DMOZ.

Based on a significant amount of reading and research I came to the conclusion that trying to reach this particular goal is nothing but a waste of time and I'll explain why...

Although everything about my website is 100% alright and the category I chose is the correct one... it still didn't get listed so I thought I'd do some research and try to understand. And I did.

Based on my readings/research it wasn't too hard to understand what's going on with DMOZ!

While googling information about the DMOZ submission process and other DMOZ related info, I found some writings online where people from DMOZ (editors and former editors) provided their -- more or less useful -- input. I also read various topics here, on the DMOZ forum.

One of my conclusions is that the DMOZ editors believe that they don't have any responsibility at all. They keep mentioning that they're volunteers, they don't get paid for this so they don't have to do anything.
Well, let me tell you something... if you volunteer for something, you shouldn't do it just to gain the ability to do things that benefit you. It's just not ethical, it's not polite and it's not what volunteering is about.

Note 1: My website offers lottery related services such as comprehensive lottery statistics as well as various lottery tools (number generators, quick pick system, etc.)

Note 2: I have submitted the website three times during the last year: on February the 4th, August the 4th (exactly 6 months after the first submission) and October 31st.

Furthermore, a certain level of responsibility needs to exist simply because people should show some respect. Only enough to make sure we don't put others in the position of being frustrated. Why frustrated???

I went ahead and took a closer look at the websites already listed in the category where my website belongs (and a few similar ones). What I found out was at least interesting so I thought I'd post here for others understand why trying (trying is all you'll ever get) to get listed on DMOZ is nothing but a waste of time.

Well, take a look at the result of my research below and tell me if my conclusions are wrong.

Here is what I found out:

Websites under DMOZ > Games > Gambling > Lotteries > Software and Tools (My website should be here too.)

A Dream Lotto - they seem to have one piece of software! Other than that, they are an affiliate of a major online lottery playing website.
Just Lottery - nothing to do with lottery software.
Keno Expert - although they offer some software, based on the overall look and functionality of the website, I doubt anyone would want to buy something from there.
Kenolyzer - well, they do offer some sort of software but, if I see "Copyright © 2014" at the bottom of a website in 2017, all I can do is to go away.
Lottery Wheels - another website having "Copyright © 1984-2013" in the footer...
Lottery Wizard - copyright 2011 - All Rights Reserved. Really???
Lotteryhelp Software - The website does seem to be selling some lottery related software but that's all one can conclude. No trial/demo, no screenshots, nothing but some links to PayPal...
Lotto Creo Pro - "© 2003, 2004, 2005 SKFsoft. All rights reserved" in the footer. That's it. I'm out of here!
Lotto Genie - I just didn't think that websites like this still exist. Simply useless.
Lotto Logic - WOW!!! Finally, a website that's up to date AND is in the right category!
Lotto Pro 2004 - and another one that seems to be right.
Lotto Software - In the footer: "KarAll © 2000-2009" - I'm out!
Lotto Sorcerer - seem to be right.
Lottomania 2000 - seem to be right.
LotWin - another one that seems to be right.
PlexLotto - "© Copyright 1998-2014" - Goodbye!
Smart Luck - seem to be right.
Tatts Keno Pro - seem to be right.
Winlottery.biz - seem to be right.

Conclusion:
From a total of 19 websites, only 8 have to do with whatever this category is about.

Websites under DMOZ > Games > Gambling > Lotteries > Ticket Generators (My website should be here too. That's right, it should be under both categories.)

alottofun - Yeap! This one does generate lottery numbers!
Delta Lotto System - "Copyright (c) 2000-2012" - No way!
LotsaLotto - "© Copyright 1997-2013" - Really???
Lottorun - this one has 154 (that's right, one hundred and fifty-four) lottery related keywords in the footer, same color as the background, enclosed in a font tag. LOL!!!
Your Lucky Day - I am speechless!

Conclusion:
I learned that 4 out of the above 5 websites are anything but lottery ticket generators.

And out of curiosity, I just kept going on...

Websites under DMOZ > Games > Gambling > Lotteries

Lottery Feed - this one may belong here
Lottery Post - not the right category
Lotto Forums - not the right category
Lotto Strategies - not the right category
Yahoo! Lottery - website does not exist (redirects to Yahoo)

Conclusion:
Out of these 5 websites, only one MAY belong here!

Websites under DMOZ > Games > Gambling > Lotteries > Online

Box Lotto - malware threat reported by google chrome
EuroMillions - OK
FreeLotto - OK
Huge Lottery - this site seems more like a "lottery numbers collector" website
iLotto - website doesn't load (tried several times)
Lotto-Logix - not right
MooLotto - the website seem to be pretty similar to Huge Lottery
TroppoLotto - again, the same concept as Huge Lottery and MooLotto
Which Lotto - and another Huge Lottery / MooLotto concept

Conclusion:
Out of the 9 websites listed under this category, only 2 seem to be eligible for this category.
Furthermore, the other 7 are... well, let's just say that I don't see their value. At all. By any standards.

GENERAL CONCLUSION:

Don't bother people. Just don't bother.
Submitting your website to the DMOZ directory is nothing but a waste of time and a reason for frustration.

Oh, and believe me, no one cares!

I am just wondering why you spend such a large amount of time writing this forum post when you think it is all a waste of time.

When I can find some time I will look at the websites you reported. Or maybe some other editor will take a look.

Well, most of the post was written while I was looking at what's going on. It wasn't meant to be a post.
Once I did spend all the time and realized it's in vain, I thought at least I would let others know about all this to show that, at least some editors simply don't do their job, to say the least. And believe me, from what I've read out there, this is quite a common situation on DMOZ.

My research went even further but I decided to only share as much as I did because sharing more would maybe look like I'm trying to throw mud at some people and that's not my intention at all.

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention... Those categories were all updated during 2016 so, an editor did some work there:

DMOZ > Games > Gambling > Lotteries - Last update: December 16, 2016 at 16:22:09 UTC
DMOZ > Games > Gambling > Lotteries > Software and Tools - Last update: December 16, 2016 at 16:22:09 UTC
DMOZ > Games > Gambling > Lotteries > Online - Last update: October 25, 2016 at 5:24:08 UTC
DMOZ > Games > Gambling > Lotteries > Ticket Generators - Last update: January 27, 2016 at 3:10:52 UTC

What does that mean? That means to me that the editor knows exactly what he/she is doing. Unfortunately, that just isn't what this project, DMOZ, is claiming to be!

The dates does not necisarilly indicate that an editor were listing sites, so you can't draw any conclusions about that. If you suspect that an editor is acting abusingly you may report it through the report system.

I didn't say it was listing sites. I said: "an editor did some work there". What else could possibly mean the "Last update" on the DMOZ page?

What I was pointing out is that although some sort of update was made, somehow all the worthless resources are still there and nothing useful has been added.

And I remember those last update dates were different (earlier 2016 months/dates but still 2016) a while ago when I checked.

This is my point... what's yours by the way???

first category checked
> Websites under DMOZ > Games > Gambling > Lotteries > Ticket Generators
> (My website should be here too. That's right, it should be under both categories.)
Inpossible. Websites will never be listed more than once under related subjects.

>alottofun - Yeap! This one does generate lottery numbers!
>Delta Lotto System - "Copyright (c) 2000-2012" - No way!
>LotsaLotto - "© Copyright 1997-2013" - Really?
The copyright dates at the bottom are of no interest to us. We look at the content of the website and if it is a usefull listing in the category.
Both sites are OK in my opinion.

> Lottorun - this one has 154 (that's right, one hundred and fifty-four) lottery related keywords in the footer,
>same color as the background, enclosed in a font tag. LOL!!!
Such things might hint at a poor website but on itself are not a reason for us to list or not to list a website. We only look at the real content.

> Your Lucky Day - I am speechless!
I do not understand what your issue is. Site seems OK to me.

>Conclusion:
> I learned that 4 out of the above 5 websites are anything but lottery ticket generators.
Conclusion. All 5 websites are listable according to DMOZ guidelines and are listed in what I see as the right category.

The last edit dates do not mean an editor looked at websites waiting to be inlcuded. Nor does it mean that an editor did look at the websites currently listed. There are many actions that could change those dates.

I also checked a number (not all, as I had to go to my real life job) of websites witing for review in that category. No surprise but most were not listable or did not exist anymore.

@pvgool First of all, I appreciate your efforts. It clearly shows that there are some people who do give a damn about what's going on on DMOZ. And the fact that you're allocating time to all this although you've got a "real life" job, makes this even more respectable.

I may find myself in the position where I have to change the title of my post

Thought I'd provide my feedback regarding your input above.

"Inpossible. Websites will never be listed more than once under related subjects." - that makes a lot of sense actually. I thought I saw a site listed under at least two similar categories but I was wrong.

Regarding the copyright... here is a quote from the Open Directory Site Selection Criteria:

"Is the site current?
A site that claims to provide time-sensitive information should be current. If it is not current, determine the site's archival or research value. In rare instances, a site that used to be current may still contain valuable articles, links and other resources."

I understand these sites don't contain time-sensitive information but I believe it would -- at least -- be useful to have newer, more up-to-date sites beside the old, outdated ones.

Regarding the website called "Your Lucky Day" (and several others I mentioned above)...

Again, some statements from the Site Selection Criteria page:

"Sometimes a site may have broken links, poor design, or other "quality" issues, yet presents information that is difficult or impossible to find elsewhere on the Web. Consider adding the site to DMOZ. Even with some flaws, if the content is rare and unique, the site may be considered very useful."

None of these sites present information that is difficult or impossible to find elsewhere on the Web.

Yes, I also read that "Design alone is rarely a valid reason to deny a listing for an otherwise content rich site."

As well as: "In short, we ask that editors maintain editorial integrity, keep DMOZ's broader goals and mission in mind, and always employ good common sense."

And: "DMOZ's goal is two-fold: to create the most comprehensive and definitive directory of the Web, and to create a high quality, content rich resource that the general public considers useful and indispensable. In short, editors should select quality sites and lots of them."

I hope this explains that my approach on all this is an objective one.

I see what you mean with regards to the last edit date. My opinion -- for what it's worth -- is that a short mention next to it (or at the bottom of the page, or wherever) would be useful for the DMOZ visitors. I mean, when you browse a category on a web directory and you see, quite standing out, right under the listings in that category the text "Last update:" ... and a date/time what would be the first thing that would come to mind?

Let me put it this way. If you volunteer to keep a garden neat and clean, you don't necessarily volunteer to make the process fair for the grass-mower producers. Instead, you just look after the garden: maybe you just don't use any grass-mower at all if you believe you are better of with scissors.

@euregus Your analogy doesn't make sense in my opinion. DMOZ is not a place where websites "grow" like flowers, plants or trees in a garden.

Oh, and if I'd volunteer to keep a garden -- especially one where PEOPLE would be bringing the plants, flowers, trees -- neat and clean... I would certainly keep the most beautiful and healthy specimens brought to the garden.
As for the grass-mower producers, I'd listen carefully to what they have to say as long as such machines would be used to keep the garden nice!

It's a matter of common sense.

I think the analogy of Dmoz and a Lawn is amusing in the sense that editing is rather like cutting a lawn with nail-scissors. Requires some determination and a lot of time to get a satisfying result...
Like with the lawn, the viewpoint of the person on their knees with the scissors is slightly different to the one in the deck chair sipping lemonade

For the choice of sites, except where a site falls into the type of site we don't list, we prefer to include it - The "exclusive" part of Dmoz is more a case of insufficient volunteer time to locate and publish enough suitable sites.

I don't quite follow you for the "Last Update"; for example, in Games/Gambling/Lotteries/Software_and_Tools I read "Last update: January 5, 2017 at 7:47:34 UTC" - Is your suggestion that we include what type of action the last update was? Editors can see this kind of information, but it's not something we publish.
If there is a named editor in a category, that is usually a sign of activity.

Well, the last update probably changed because an editor did something (note the pvgool post above) inside those categories. I'm not suggesting anything other than what the title of the topic sais.

Hello friends my think is -
There are very few things that I think it a waste of time to have read; I should probably have wasted the time if I had not read them, and at the period I speak of I do not think I wasted much time

It could be that one of our bots has discovered that one site is re-directing to another site, which is still under the same ownership, but for some reason the person wishes to use a different URL. An editor may have found the site because it will be flagged up on the editors dashboard. That editor may not regularly edit there if they are an editall or higher, but just working correcting flagged re-directs. So the editor goes to the flagged site, sees that the redirect is to a same site and simply changes the URL that we have listed. That will change the last edit, the editor may well not see anything else in the category, if the editor is using one of the 'hunt' tools that are available to us and would not check anything else in the category.

At present I am doing most of my work using the re-direct 'hunting' tools and the scenario above would be what happens.

There are other reasons, just illustrating one.

What i find really confusing is the fact that Lottomattic states

Note 2: I have submitted the website three times during the last year: on February the 4th, August the 4th (exactly 6 months after the first submission) and October 31st.

Click to expand...

Do you not read the submission guidelines where it is stated in black and white that you SHOULD NOT suggest your site more than once? Thank you!

Suggesting it 3 times tripled the workload in the suggestion pool, now multiply that by 1000 other people PER MONTH, doing exactly the same thing. People suggesting their sites are their own worst enemy yet, they feel that they have the privelage or the right to come here and complain and critisize a very dedicated Volunteer Editing Team.

You have SUGGESTED a site. A listing is not guaranteed, a review is not guaranteed, we have engaged in enough conversation that could have been put into actually editing sites.

Thank you for your time, move along and promote your site by other methods.