jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (56 posts)

A Hubber comments on the demise of Squidoo

  1. makingamark profile image78
    makingamarkposted 2 years ago

    An interesting take on the demise of Squidoo. Some spot on, some misses the mark, lots left unsaid - but then it is an external perspective

    <link snipped>

    So what bits would you underline - and which bits were missed out or glossed over?

    Or would you rather comment after the final payout has been made?

    1. Paula Atwell profile image81
      Paula Atwellposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      LMAO MaM!  wink

  2. lisavollrath profile image89
    lisavollrathposted 2 years ago

    I think it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. Old news. Let's move on.

    1. makingamark profile image78
      makingamarkposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed smile

      1. Writer Fox profile image81
        Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I agree you're getting to be old news in this regard, even to the point of bumping your own thread which only your chorus responded to.

        People are commenting on my Hub, but they are doing it on my Hub, not here.  If you are interested in comments, there are 44 of them to read there.  But asking people to comment about someone else's Hub on the forum is outrageous.  Shall I post a link to one of your product-laden, promotional Hubs here and ask for comments?

        If you think discussing Squidoo is some new thing on the forum, you are mistaken.  It's been going on forever:
        http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/109349

        1. makingamark profile image78
          makingamarkposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You sound somewhat tetchy this morning.

          Bumping? Some of us have lives and better things to do than post in the forum all day long......

          I'm simply responding to a comment.

          1. Writer Fox profile image81
            Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, right.  Did you forget that you're the one who started this thread?

        2. NateB11 profile image91
          NateB11posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          One of the interesting things about that old thread is that janderson99 posted a chart with a projection of a surge in traffic after QAP was installed. It seems the projection turned out to be fairly accurate; or, at least, things improved after QAP.

          1. Writer Fox profile image81
            Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            They did indeed!  Google doesn't like spam or thin content. QAP got rid of some of it back then.

        3. Len Cannon profile image87
          Len Cannonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          For what it's worth, I thought it was wonderfully written. Better than we deserved, probably.

  3. makingamark profile image78
    makingamarkposted 2 years ago

    No. I'm simply responding to a comment in much the same way you respond to comments on your own hub.  How many have you left so far?

    Except I had things to do inbetween highlighting a hub which tells a partial (both senses) perspective on Squidoo and responding to comments left.

    I wouldn't worry - people are discussing it in other places as well - it's certainly getting traffic.

    1. Writer Fox profile image81
      Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "No soul of high estate can take pleasure in slander. It betrays a weakness." – Blaise Pascal

      1. makingamark profile image78
        makingamarkposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I wonder whether the named individuals you comment on in your hub feel the same way.

      2. relache profile image87
        relacheposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Nothing printed on this website can be construed as slander.

        1. Writer Fox profile image81
          Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "people are discussing it in other places as well"

          1. relache profile image87
            relacheposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Nothing printed on those websites can be construed as slander either.

            I don't care who's determined to whine the loudest.  I'm getting on your case, WF, for your errant use of the term slander to refer to printed commentary.

            1. Writer Fox profile image81
              Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I stand by my statement.

              1. relache profile image87
                relacheposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Noted for when they come after you for libel.

                1. Sed-me profile image84
                  Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                  1. Writer Fox profile image81
                    Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, Seth hasn't responded to that Hub.  But, Bonnie D. is now following me! cool

            2. Writer Fox profile image81
              Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Put your glasses on, Relache. Those weren't my words. That was a quote from Pascal (1623 – 1662). There was no distinction drawn between written and spoken words under French law at that time.

              1. JustBon profile image74
                JustBonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                It seems you make a habit of quoting things that are out of date...

                1. Writer Fox profile image81
                  Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Deleted

                  1. Paul Ward profile image81
                    Paul Wardposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    That's a vile comment.

  4. Sed-me profile image84
    Sed-meposted 2 years ago

    Don't make me sit between you two.

    1. DrMark1961 profile image90
      DrMark1961posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Actually you need to visit
      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/125240?page=5
      and sit between PDS and relache.

      1. Sed-me profile image84
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        When Relache fights with ppl it's usually just technical jargon I can't understand. If she begins speaking in simple English, I will fear her like everyone else.

  5. jeffryv profile image79
    jeffryvposted 2 years ago

    8 years of amazing income for very little work, lots of fun and made some new friends.

    2,000 lenses, 32 accounts

    I made over 80,000 dollars off Squidoo

    I call that an outstanding success

    1. Mark Ewbie profile image84
      Mark Ewbieposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Well done mate.

      What you going to do now?

      1. jeffryv profile image79
        jeffryvposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I started to move away from Squidooing after the first Google hit in Nov. 2012.
        Totally glad I did as my online income has tripled due to just concentrating on sales

        1. Mark Ewbie profile image84
          Mark Ewbieposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Gosh.

          Did you write a book on it?

    2. Sed-me profile image84
      Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Say what?!
      I made almost that much here.. minus a dollar or so.

      1. NateB11 profile image91
        NateB11posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You're so lucky. I haven't even come close to that. But I'mma rarin' to try!

        1. Sed-me profile image84
          Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, I lost count somewhere around 70K.

    3. Paula Atwell profile image81
      Paula Atwellposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I agree. Hi, jeffryv, good to see you here. smile

  6. LindaSmith1 profile image61
    LindaSmith1posted 2 years ago

    The good ole boys/girls club is here.  What I love though, is that the Tiers are gone, so the gang activity won't be that profitable.

    1. robertzimmerman2 profile image84
      robertzimmerman2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The only "gang" I belong to is based on professional attitudes irregardless of how many articles each has on any particular site. They call them selves "Nice People!"

      Entry is by invitation only.

      1. Marisa Wright profile image93
        Marisa Wrightposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, can't do it.  It tried really, really hard to ignore it, but I can't help myself.

        There is no such word as "irregardless".   The "ir" you've added at the beginning of the word would cancel out the "less", so it would mean the same as "regarding".

        OK, so I'm a grammar Nazi.

        1. jeffryv profile image79
          jeffryvposted 2 years ago in reply to this
          1. Marisa Wright profile image93
            Marisa Wrightposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, dear.   I wonder when that got added to the dictionary?   You notice it is classed as "nonstandard", that it's used only in speech and that the advice is to use regardless instead.   So it's obviously still not fully accepted - and long may that continue, IMO, since when you break it down it doesn't make sense.

            In the Oxford dictionaries it says "The word dates back to the 19th century, but is regarded as incorrect in standard English."

            1. jeffryv profile image79
              jeffryvposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Hi
              Totally agree it is not correct, but the English language allows for lots of fun stuff, like "IMO" smile j/king

              ( I think we went off topic LOL )

              1. robertzimmerman2 profile image84
                robertzimmerman2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I am from North America and The South so we use it here when the mood strikes us. If it annoys others, all the better!

          2. KarenHC profile image87
            KarenHCposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Interesting history of the word "irregardless".  The Oxford English Dictionary says the word is primarily a North American colloquialism.  It was first used in print in 1795.  Most dictionaries say it is "nonstandard" or "incorrect". 

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

  7. KathyMcGraw2 profile image81
    KathyMcGraw2posted 2 years ago

    Well it seems that "mommy" isn't parenting very well, and has been raising some very errant children.  I know the red headed step children of this family learned some manners on how to behave and treat others, and came into this marriage polite and willing to give up the good seat on the couch to the other children.  But, that doesn't mean we are pushovers!

    1. Sed-me profile image84
      Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Somebody just got served, but I don't know who.

      1. NateB11 profile image91
        NateB11posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Lol

      2. Solaras profile image90
        Solarasposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hehe

  8. LindaSmith1 profile image61
    LindaSmith1posted 2 years ago

    oops!  them selves is themselves.  Slipping up on the grammar!

 
working