Squidoo and HP are finally merging; obviously, this will receive mixed reactions from hubbers-- to me however, I don't think this is a big deal due to the content boost, link juice, etc etc for HP. My question though- what of the hubbers who are active on Squidoo? will the Squidoo lenses count at as hubs? or will there be two different accounts to be managed separately? http://blog.hubpages.com/2014/08/squidoo-and-hubpages/
Yes, it will be two different accounts.
It looks like one would be simpler but hey.....
Wow what a joke. Wonder if hubpages will make all outbound links no-follow like squidoo.
Wonder how all the squids are going to feel about the new feature attached to their lenses. A Scrolling Related search bar on the right side of their lenses that they don't get paid for.
I foresee much wailing and gnashing of teeth since Squid's Amazon and link rules were much more lax than HP's. According to the Squid FAQ, all Squidoo articles will be subject to the same rules as HP articles after a "grace period" of unspecified length. What are people supposed to do with Amazon-laden articles that HP deems overly promotional after the grace period? Seems like many people would be better off migrating their articles to their own websites rather than HP.
Before I saw this thread, I started one of my own on this same subject and to a certain extent said what you are saying.
I really think that any writer who comes to HP should have to have every article pass QAP and that having a grace period could be a horrendous mistake.
I hope I am wrong!
I replied to your thread too In the FAQ on Squidoo's site, they make it sound like once the honeymoon is over all the Squidoo articles will have to conform to the standards we currently have to conform to. So in the long run I don't think the quality of HP will suffer due to overly promotional articles migrated from Squid.
I do feel bad for Squidoo users who put a lot of hard work into writing good articles that met one site's guidelines, only to have to do more work to meet to another site's guidelines.
TT2, you're implying that Squidoo failed because its writers aren't as good as HP's, which is a huge (and incorrect) assumption. Besides, there are lots of Hubbers who also write on Squidoo.
I was not implying that at all.
What I meant was that everybody who comes to this site, or who already writes on it, should have to meet the same requirements.
Don't each and every one of us here have to have every one of our articles go through the QAP before they get published?
Squidoo did not fail because of its writers, it failed because it played games with Google and Google caught them doing it!
We do NOW, but the majority of Hubs were published before QAP was launched. We've only had QAP for a fraction of HubPages' existence, and I haven't seen any evidence that the backlog of old Hubs has been QAP'd yet. .
How in the world would you know who has been QAPd and who has not? What evidence are you talking about.
All I know is that for the past six months or so HP seems to be significantly increasing in credibility on the web, which is an indication to me that the quality of the writing here has improved.
Am I wrong?
One more thing.
Bear in mind that HP has lost more than 200,000 writers.
That's my point: we don't know. We do know that when QAP was introduced, we were told the MTurkers would try to QAP the backlog of old Hubs as time permitted. Since HubPages was in existence for four (five?) years before QAP started, and had many more writers prior to Panda (most of whom didn't delete their articles even though they left), that's a massive job. The team isn't large. Considering they have to QAP every new Hub, and every Hub that is edited, I'm guessing there wouldn't be much manpower left to catch up on old Hubs. You can also see plenty of dubious Hubs still published.
Looking at Quantcast, I don't see anything special about the last six months. It looks like the site has recovered from a peculiar dip that happened in August 2013, but that's about it.
I am sad to see squidoo close but this merger may be the best for everyone.
Why on earth is there a honeymoon period? When everyone writing new stuff has to go through MTurk?
Filter it through the usual QAP and see if anything makes it through.
Us Squidoo users are only being given one week to edit our lenses before they will be locked up for the merger - and only a week after that to delete our accounts entirely or not to avoid content being moved.
With the incredibly short notice we've been given I think the honeymoon period is perfectly acceptable and appreciated. It's going to take a LOT of time for some of us to rework our content for Hubpages - or decide whether it should stay here or move to our own websites and other platforms.
That's a rapid shut down. I guess the money or the patience of the backers ran out.
For the last couple of years rules have been consistently tightened on HubPages. Many authors have had pages unpublished or failed to get new content through the editing process.
It seems hasty and ill-thought out to take a load of new content and publish it. Especially when it comes from a failed site that is under a Google cloud.
There have been and still are tough times for writers at any content site - not just Squidoo.
From my selfish point of view I cannot see a single benefit.
Trust me I know it has been hard times and I've put a lot of effort into constantly upping my own game.
I can say that my other account here (under nicolepellegrini) so far consists of articles I've reworked from either Squidoo or Yahoo over the past month. So far I haven't had any trouble getting them (or keeping them) published and one was already selected as an Editor's Choice. Therefore I think it's fair to say that at least some of us former Squids have quality content to contribute to Hubpages, and aren't just all a bunch of lazy non-writers looking to shill shower curtains.
I'm preemptively deleting Squidoo lenses I don't want transferred here, either because 1) I know they are inferior/won't work on this platform or 2) I want them for my own niche websites now where they can sink or swim on their own merits.
The truth is that for every decent writer creating genuine content there are a hundred others. On a content site you have no choice who surrounds you, what adverts appear. So you can revamp all you like but unless the other 99 do the same...
Squidoo has been trying to up its game and I am sure many like yourself have been working all hours trying to get those pages as good as you can. I have done the same myself.
But it is a drop in the ocean against the sea of generic and pointless spam that exists purely for the advertising dollars.
If HubPages can pull this off then great. For my own content in two years all the tweaks and changes have achieved precisely nothing. I KNOW how much better my stuff has got but Google keeps turning the screw and people keep on playing games.
Yes there will be one or two on here saying how successful they are - yawn - but the closure of so many writing sites should be a clue to even the most madly optimistic cheer-leader.
Several writing sites have closed in the past couple of years. Yahoo shut down too and I thought they would be around much longer than others which did not have their own search engine to back them up.
Nice to see you still around Mark. I thought you would have your own site for your comics/ drawings by now.
I can see several potential benefits to this. That I have been continuing to make money at Squidoo probably has something to do with it.
Anyone at Squidoo who got stuff moved to their Best Of topics (which is what HubPages REALLY wants) is probably going to find there isn't much they have to change. Same for people with Purple Star lens.
Anyone who thinks that the standards for lenses and Hubs aren't anything like each other has never or barely written for Squidoo.
I have about 40 or so best of posts. I expect those will be the only ones which get transferred. I've begun moving and deleting anything relevant to my own sites and will let the rest hurry up and wait with HubPages. I can always take it all down if I don't want to stay. Have not decided yet.
I totally agree with you, but at the same time I do feel sorry for Squiddo writers.
As I see it, there should be no need for a "grace period"...all of us here at HP had to put every single post through the QAP, and anybody else new to the site has to do the same, so why not the Squiddo writers?
Those with excellent articles should have no problems, and those with crappy articles will go the way of the Dodo bird. This is what the QAP is all about, and it is the only thing that protects this site from adding low quality hubs.
If I was a Squiddo writer, I would save and then delete every article and then submit here as a new writer.
If I was already writing here, I would simply continue by adding my best Squiddo articles to my cache.
I may be off base here, but I do not think so.
What has happened to the Squiddo writers is a disgrace, but lowering the quality of HP by allowing writers to move untested articles here is not going to fix that.
They are only moving over the content that has passed the Squidoo criteria to be Featured Lenses. Sound like any other site we know that has a Featured qualification?
+ I would encourage some of those who are skeptical to take a look at some of Squidoo's featured content. And I still see rehashed content fill the hub feed! Content writers need to change with the times and write original, unique, relevant content that gives different or additional information/insight that can't be found at the top of the SERP's.
Do you know if those posts will carry new URLs?
Of course. They are going to have new usernames/subdomain prefixes and the word "hubpages" in the URL instead of "squidoo."
That's where the whole 301 debate comes in.
Thanks for clearing that up. I simply was not sure as to how they were planning to handle this, but now that I know this, I am no longer concerned.
In fact, I feel that this may turn out to be a very good thing for everybody once the ashes settle.
They are not untested posts/ articles.
PS- You're still spelling Squidoo wrong.
I saw someone say that as soon as a former Squid content transfer HubPage is edited, it becomes subject to the same HubPages standards as all the other pages. Was that incorrect? That is coming under the proper standards fairly quickly. I'm got over 100 hubs in my two current accounts, and possibly 150 new ones from my Squidoo account by transfer. I'll be doing lots of editing, it appears. However, during July, unaware of this "merger" had had reviewed and updated all 157 of my "lenses" to clean up their presentation and appearance. Dumped a handful in the process that I didn't feel appropriate under the most recent Squidoo standards. Really anxious to see how they transfer!! ;-)
I am so happy I recently updated all 157 of my lenses on Squidoo... and dumped a few.
They should all come through as hubs... just curious how the algorithms they use will display the content here on HubPages.
Also, I already had 2 HubPages accounts... now I have 2... what fun! ;-)
Wow, this is massive news!
I wonder how it will affect already published hubs in terms of traffic? One one hand it means more competition, but on the other hand it means more chances to get listed in related hubs to get extra traffic. I'm thinking at the moment that perhaps this will mean more traffic to the best hubs but perhaps less traffic to those hubs which aren't performing so well. I guess only time will tell...
As a hubber, I see one remote value from the merger - Google will consider Hubpages a stronger source of quality content. SERPs for some of our articles may improve.
This may improve traffic for all of us.
I also read this on the FAQ page of Hubpages: "We’ve learned a few best practices from Squidoo and will be working to make them available to all Hubbers - especially around the Amazon capsule." Hopefully, this should be good news for all of us. Also, increased Amazon sales will mean that Hubpages will hit the high commission threshhold sooner every month. At least, theoretically.
On flip-side, I believe that there could be more competition in 'related hubs' section, from other people's content.
As one of the Squidoo people who saw the news last night, I can say that
a) I'm annoyed but not surprised (Don't worry, I'll spare you my thoughts on Seth Godin and his motley crew)
b) I'm not at all surprised that Hubpages writers are concerned - there is indeed a load of crap on Squidoo and much of it will be heading this way. How long that crap will survive here is another matter. Hubpages staff seem rather more clued up than Squidoo's
c) While Hubpages has a fair rep, there's some trepidation on ex-Squidoo people's part that we might be walking into a similar mix of good and bad here - and by that I mean content and behaviours. Note: trepidation, not expectation
d) While I haven't written here before, I look forward to exploring a new platform. I know a few people on Hubpages from a small group on Facebook that fights plagiarists (whose balls should shrivel and drop into the eternal flames of hell)
e) That's enough waffle from me!
Finally - someone who isn't wearing rose-tinted glasses.
HP is very similar to Squidoo. Quantcast stats are illuminating over the last four years. One minute HP, then Squidoo - slammed.
HP had the 'advantage' of being slammed first and took steps. It is not entirely clear those have worked but they may have kept the site afloat.
There is a mix of all the same stuff - good and bad on HP - as there is on Squidoo. Same cliques, same personalities - going on Squid forums is like a mirror image.
Fortunately there are no Giant Hubbers although there are plenty of 'experts' in the forums. And HP is a bit less mental in the Quest and Accolade department.
Thanks for your honesty.
I think this is going to be a difficult time on both sides, regardless of how much people want things to work out.
Personally, I wish both companies had given this more time so that there could be a gradual migration with plenty of vetting.
HP needs and wants top quality writers, but we sure do not need any crappy ones!
I get the definite impression this has been worked on for quite some time. They've been jointly working on the algorithms to transfer the content... and, making all those decisions we are speculating on. Only time will tell. A few folks have had a lot of sleepless nights, in my view!! ;-)
I went to look at Squidoo for the first time today. I feel for the writers coming over here. The layouts are so different over there. Those with a lot of articles will have a mammoth task in trying to rearrange content to look good over here.
They have so much more white space and can float images right or left. The top lens I looked at were very lengthy with tons of lists of links. It may look pretty strange when it gets here.
The only thing that Squidoo writers are going to have to adjust to as they move content over to Hubpages is that many of the sales lenses on squidoo have very little content. Hubpages seems to award informational type hubs, whereas squidoo was awarding sales lenses with 20 affiliate links. That is going to be an adjustment for many.
You just said a mouthful.
Articles here must have quality content and ads must relate directly to that content.
I would advise newly arrived writers to read the rules in the learning center, because this will be a big deal if what you say is true...and I'm sure it is.
HP considers that type of advertising as spam and will unfeature articles for it.
Yes, this would be a major transition. User generated ad-copy type content with excessive affiliate links is exactly what got many UGC sites in trouble. Paul E. made a post a few days ago in regard to an effective product related hub which doesn't hit the spam meter. He has some excellent product review hubs if you want to take a look.
Meet the HP team.
by Tim Bader 4 years ago
Hi,I've got several hubs which have suddenly become un-featured "due to lack of engagement".On the one hand, fair enough, in that they haven't had a lot of traffic, if any, since they were transferred from Squidoo.However, on the other hand, these are hubs I just haven't got round to...
by Nicole Pellegrini 4 years ago
I am starting this suggestion here in hopes that staff will see it. Many of us have suddenly found large numbers of our hubs unfeatured for quality within the past 24 hours. Myself it has his 17 of my 221 hubs in my Squidoo-transfered account (this one), none in my other account.Some of the hubs...
by zebtron 3 years ago
We just wanted to remind Squidoo authors who have migrated to HubPages, that the moderation grace period will end January 15th, 2015 at 12 noon PT.Hubs will be gradually moderated in phases and as such some may be affected before others.This blog post shares helpful information related to some...
by Ellen 4 years ago
So, well. I get out of the hospital.I get my dead computer repaired.I start in on trying to finalize a 3-week trip to Europe while still not certain that I'll be healthy enough to go.There is also huge financial stuff happening in my life right now. Aaaaand one of my friends points out the...
by Fay Favored 4 years ago
I'm trying to find anyone in Squidoo HQ that will help grant the same grace period to the writers so that the Squidoo site is not taken down until the grace period ends on HP. With all the problems caused by the transfer it is impossible to get it done. I've been to that forum, sent emails...
by Sondra Rochelle 2 years ago
I have been in touch with the team concerning a hub of mine that was unfeatured due to the fact that I had only HP traffic and no Google traffic and felt this was not fair because my article had been online for years and had more than 1400 total views.This morning I received the following email...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|