Thinking about not writing at squidoo anymore

I noticed a long time ago that the 'feel' of a site influences the kind of content I would consider building on it. This is true even of my own sites. It's as if there is some internal editor that works with subjective but very specific editorial guidelines. 

So it's no surprise that people should think of other articles to make on Wizzley than on Squidoo. 

Personally I have stopped making new articles on Squidoo. This is not for business reasons - other than that I make half my income there (including external affiliate links) and diversification is necessary. I have over 600 lenses - maintaining them is work enough. Luckily most aren't very time sensitive. 

It's mostly to do with the feel of the latest changes to the platform. 

I agree with Lakeerieartists that ultimately you should put most energy into your own sites: you controll those. Even if sites like Squidoo, Hubpages and Wizzley do function best if they work best for us. Still, their business objectives may not stay aligned with ours long term. 

For that reason I recently started a new (hopefully my last) site. Wizzley is just part of my arsenal of sites to do article marketing on. And create odd pages that I don't feel fit on my other sites. 

As for Seth - I am convinced by now that Seth Godin doesn't realize he has to behave as a role model. He'd be better of NOT making lenses than making that one so thin. 

Re Squidoo's demand for constant updating: 

@vikksimmons: my understanding is that they do this becae likes fresh content... 

I hear that all the time but it doesn't make sense because I've never run across that anywhere else. So the people who put the site together must have done it for some other reason. Fresh content is simply new pages. Updating the pages done must do something internally but why they thought it was a good idea is simply strange to me. Why there and nowhere else? Weird. Squidoo is hte first place where I've run across the need to always refresh pages. Don't have to do it on Wizzley. 

Re Seth Godin's lens: Also check this out: Summer Reading 2011

Well, I get why everyone is upset over this lens. I wouldn't be able to do one that way simply because of the way I write. I'd come up with a deeper introduction and, at the very least, a final paragraph of the round-up. 

It's a round-up lens. I get what he's doing. Tons of these types of articles are published every year in print and online. And you're all right. It is, someone said, "thin." 

That said, he chose 5 books, provided, however slight, personal commentary, and an interactive module. Then 4 more books with slight recommendations, pulled 3 of his own projects, and then another 4, again with a slight personal reference. 

I do totally get why people think it's too slight of a lens. I really do. 

On the other hand, he's doing what he stated in his intro. He's sharing what he's reading this summer. For many of his fans, I'm not sure he HAS to say more than he did. (shrug) So from a writing standpoint, it's not what I would do but it's a common enough style of article. 

Now where Google is concerned and where more text is wanted and how Google and other search engines would interpret that page may be another issue. I don't know if it meets the Squidoo requirements in the intro module for wordcount. 

On the personal opinion side, maybe he doesn't need to say more than he did. 

So I guess I have mixed feelings about it. Would I like to see more. I think so. At least more in the opening and maybe a close. Wouldn't hurt to have a guestbook at the end. :) That would probably be the most minimal I, personally, could go. :) 

Is he in line with Squidoo's recent policies? Well, that's a different question. If he's out of sync, his lens has to be treated the same way mine would. I'm just sayin'. 

Is it worth it to me to get all jacked up about? Honestly, no. I tend to worry about my own garden and make sure my work meets my standards first, Squidoo's second. 

Would his lens cause me to do one like his? Probably not. Simply because I'm too verbose. 

Does it make me wonder about things over there? Yeah, if you couple it with the movie lens the other day it does beg the question of whether the higher ups are all on the same page with what is needed to keep Squidoo a strong site. 

Is it impacting me? Only to the extent that it shores up my own plan to continue to diversify while building my own sites and making them my main interest with everything else supporting them. 

But I will say that if I had spent years there and invested a HUGE amount of time and effort into the place, i'd probably be more upset--maybe. I don't know. I try very, very hard not to get too emotionally invested in anything online because of what I've seen in the past. Things change. People change, Sites grow, expand, contract and sometimes disappear. The work never completely disappears but the reason and intention for it may. If there is one place where diversification is a necessity, I'd say it's online.  

I never, ever write anything online for any site, even my own, that will cause me to get really upset if it is copied, stolen, or even lost. The Internet is rife with pirates, thieves and crooks. If I have something to write that I truly want protected, I choose a different medium. You can't totally protect anything you do online. That doesn't mean I won't go after anyone who does it. It just means I try very hard to keep the lines strong and not get myself into a place where I will be upset if it all falls away. Life is too short. Stress is too harmful. 

But then, I spent a year of my life writing a book to meet a contract, have it go through the entire edit process, be told it was in production only to have it pulled, reinstated, and basically orphaned and never published by a main publisher. Now, that did get me a bit riled. :) But there's nothing you can do when it all abides by the contract. Writing, and that's what Squidoo and Wizzley are to me, is a difficult roller-coaster way to make a living. It can be done but it can be painful and argumentative and unfair and, above all, totally frustrating. 

If Seth Godin wants to write a thin lens, then so be it. If the Squid HQ can't get their people operating on the same page, then that's the way it is. You have to decide if you want to play in that playground or pull up stakes and, maybe for some, start over again. Otherwise, do what you can to make it work for you and cultivate new gardens. But I would say don't let yourself get so upset it makes you sick, bitter, and ill. It's just not worth it. 

I find all of this very interesting.  I've been at Squidoo about 3 years and still haven't made it to Giant.  I think because I don't see a whole lot of potential for earning there.  At least not the way I write.

Most of my lenses never get visits and it seems that my time spent creating them was a big waste.  (Some of them are junk and don't deserve views!)  I concentrate now on the ones I use to promote my Zazzle stores.  They are not sparse, but full of info about products that is difficult for customers to understand when viewing products at the store.  I try to use Squidoo as the answer place - for questions customers constantly ask, while showing off new products.

My seashell lens hovers around the 200's for lensrank and never goes up.  It gets close to 1,000 visits a week and still can't get into the top 100.   I'm sure that if I spent 100% of my time updating and writing and so on I'd do better, but how much better?  I just don't see the measly income as being worth it.

I love Wizzley, but I'm not a writer at heart so I don't crank out the pages like many of you are capable of doing so well.   I am definitely feeling much better about being on this site.

Vikk, I really needed to read a post like yours. I've already ranted today somewhere else about how upset I am about people stealing my work and ideas so won't go over it all again here... I may delete that post in any case. Thank you for your insights, which you didn't write for me personally but even so they addressed the issues I find myself facing right now, wanting/needing to make a significant income as a writer but feeling everything I do is simply fodder for others to steal.

Appreciate the wise advice from Michey, Paula, and others too. And Pam, you continue to be my inspiration to put in the work over on Zazzle. Who clearly think you write pretty well, as we have seen. :)

CHalloran, it sounds like Wizzley is going to be a better fit for your work and I hope you see greater success than you have with Squidoo, zebra bathing suits aside. ;)

Jimmie: 26. Jun 2011, 15:15

---

 

---

. I think that Squidoo, as much as I appreciate that platform, is too fancy. I get overwhelmed with all the modules, themes, you know. Here I focus much more on the simple content -- text, photos, a few products, maybe a video. I tend to be much more succinct here. It's a breath of fresh air since it takes me SO long to make a lens. But the wizzes are coming much faster.

 

Quite true, writing for Wizzley is much easier and straightforward. I like to write quizzes and will write these for Squidoo. All other articles will be published at Wizzley

 

 

I think in all honesty Seth Godin can write a thin site on what he's reading and people will be drawn to it just because he's Seth Godin and they want to know what he specifically is reading.

Godin doesn't have to do the pre-sell or the analysis because that's not what these readers are after. He's spent decades building his reputation and knowledge base. The rest of us mere mortals have to write a lot more getting people to care what we write.

I think the criticism of that lens is more about a general problem at Squidoo that many shared sites are facing in light of Panda and other issues.

My most successful lens on Squidoo is about Jose Rizal. Rarely if ever do Squidoo lensmasters visit it. All of the comments and traffic come from outside of Squidoo. It does not generate a revenue - it was made to educate.

There has been a significant downturn in visitors, and I blame the platform. I know not what has gone wrong - I know that I was invited to speak to students studying Philippines history and culture in Maryland in 2008 - a direct result of Squidoo exposure. In 2007 I held the first Squidoo meet in San Pablo City, Philippines. Rarely had I seen such enthusiasm, and on the day officials from local government and the tourism department came along.

They recognised the opportunity that Squidoo could have for promoting their place to the wider world. My lecture in Baltimore in 2008 was a great success. Yet Squidoo failed in every aspect to support me. I was blanked left, right and centre. I was prepared to visit their HQ but no encouragement was forthcoming.

 Few people have suffered with Squidoo as much as me. I was banned twice from the forums because of my forthrightness and even threatened with the total removal of my lenses. Never once was I rude, offensive or abusive. 

That was a couple of years ago - and I merrily plodded on without them - there is a life outside Squidoo - but reading these posts on Wizzley brings back my thoughts and feelings.

I could have been a great contributor to Squidoo - but they are exposed as a selfish, hypocritical organisation, run by individuals who treat their lensmasters with contempt. Gravity has been replaced by superficial opaqueness, and lensmasters are valued merely as far as a  cartoon avatar will permit - reduced to kindergarten gongs and targets.

 Bitter - not I. Sour Grapes - none!

Squidoo, like it's name has become nothing more than a joke. A joke which is not even funny anymore. If it has any respect left, it will embrace it's sound lensmasters and restore them to a semblance of pride. Meanwhile my badge is just a gremlin on speed. I don't broadcast this. I'm ashamed to be associated with Squidoo. As for money? Make your money - dance to their tune.

I like to dance! But I certainly don't dance with cuddly toys. I must have grown up!