For all of the people who complained about unanswered emails and unpublished articles on Squidoo, Seth just posted on his blog about apologies:
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog … ology.html
Since he doesn't allow comments on his blog, you may comment here.
Good examples of "Compassion and Contrition"
Excuse me, but did I miss something? Was there an apology there that I didn't see? After re-reading this, I came to the conclusion that HE is not the injured party, even though he seems to indicate that. He let an awful lot of people down, but did he apologize for that? Not that I noticed. As for the last few words of his statement, I will never trust him enough again to be a part of a site he's involved with. That being said, I hold no bitterness or anger now. I've moved on and I'm happy here on HubPages.
Nancy, He never takes responsibility. He never took responsibility for the spam he allowed on Squidoo, He blamed the writers for it even though at the time he totally approved of the catalog type lenses. It wasn't until Google slapped us did he come out with the fact WE should not write them. The staff did what they could. The Captain should go down with the ship. Seth has taken the life boat and said... SEE YA.
In so many ways I am happier on Hubs. I will miss the fun of Squidoo, but we are all together here so it's OK. It will feel like home soon enough.
Oh I agree Craftypicks! I've never defended him for what he did, but again, it was a business decision. I guess someone who runs a vast network can't be bothered to think of the "little" people who get run over in the melee. Be that as it may, I can't waste any more of my valuable time on the man. He will answer for it somehow, someway. It's not my call. Right now, I'm just getting settled in, and HP "ain't seen nothin' yet!" hahaha!
You're kidding me, right? He never took responsibility? What is this, Revisionist History day?
I remember when the first major Panda algo hit in 2011 and took out everyone from HubPages to About.com. It is a flat out lie to say Godin didn't take responsibility, because I distinctly remember a statement out of HQ humbly acknowledging that Squidoo needed to change direction. In fact, it was starting in 2011 when HQ started pushing for more quality content, only to be met with stubborn refusal, if not hostility the entire time, with people constantly whining in the forums about how they were quitting the site and how unfair HQ was being and blah, blah, blah.
Are we going to pretend all those HQ blog posts from Bonnie and Tom never happened? Are we going to pretend those teleconferences discussing the problems Squidoo was facing from spammers and poor content writers never happened? Are we going to pretend that in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, there wasn't a constant stream of posts from HQ asking people to "tell a story"--which resulted in pushback from lensmasters, who ran screaming to the forums every day about how this was the "last straw" and how they were quitting the site?
Are we going to pretend that there wasn't a huge uproar back in 2013 when Bonnie "named and shamed" a thin lenses, which prompted the exact same obnoxious "do as I say, not as I do" retort that is in this very thread? Are we going to pretend now that from 2011-2014 when there were constant demands from HQ to fix content, this didn't prompt snide cracks that Bonnie and Seth had no right to tell people what to do because their own lenses were thin, too?
Funny how those who always keep spinning this tale that Godin never took responsibility for the poor content on the site and even encouraged it always seem to forget that he and HQ spent the last three and a half years begging and pleading with everyone to fix their content, only to be met with resistance the entire time.
I agree. I have never quite understood what Seth was being blamed for. You have hit the nail on the head here.
Maybe for not taking more action to save the site from spiraling downward? Begging and pleading for people to fix their content is fine, but perhaps there should have been a little more aggressive shutting down of overly promotional or exclusively promotional lenses, regardless of how unpopular that move might have been.
You seem to forget that thoses types of "empty" lenses were taught by... Bonnie herself in her group - the RocketMoms!
Also you don't remember correctly that the "whiners" were those that used to complain against those empty lenses, or shopping cart lenses.
Plus they also used to complain against the game cheaters.
Nope we don't pretend that. However what was taught in groups was one thing. What was encouraged is another thing. Then there is a third thing: the "story" stuff only started in mid-2013 so long after its pretended beginning.
Only the duplicate content filter was launched before, I was one of their beta testers.
And believe it or not, beta testers can attest that lots of actions were cancelled by HQ afterwards!
Publicly naming and shaming "thin" lenses was a mistake and that is what was pointed out! On Squidoo pointing fingers, naming and shaming was a rule violation! It might have your account cancelled. Why HQ did that in public? They could have built a similar test lens and used it instead!
Plus this is the type of lenses that was taught by Bonnie and company for years. Not to mention that they were the best sales generators!
Anyone who's eager to check out the former SquidU forums - the original ones - they can do so using the Wayback Machine, the forums are kept intact on there and it may bey highly interesting taking an eye to them.
I was one who identified quality issues with many lenses early on and tried to raise an alarm with SHQ through the reporting system and other channels. The response was basically "MYOB".
They were NOT paying attention to concerns about spinning, plagierism and lack of substance. They did NOT wish to get advice from those who they considered non-experts - even those long-time authors who were REAL Angels with quality articles and ethics who earned those wings.
Unfortunately, although we who were trying to get their attention had plenty of experience and evidence there was rampant misbehavior, our reports and then complaints were shut down repeatedly. To make it even more appalling, HQ then encouraged us to create drivel instead of solid content. I chose mainly to not engage in the games and quests (for money, primarily, disguised as "reviews"). Blech.
+1 Good for you for telling the truth about the Squidoo system. Welcome to HP! You'll fit right in here.
How come the rest of who told the truth about the system don't get afforded the same butt kissing welcome? You're good, by god you're good. Slicker than a slip and slide on hot summer day, and 100% pure bovine scatology.
Darkprince thanks for saying what many here are thinking BUT still..... that comparison is an insult to bovine scatology!
I did too. And I remember those in that group of lensmasters constantly reporting TOS violations and rising questions regarding decisions that were against our best interest, we were called "whiners", "jealous", and even worse names.
Only because we actually cared about the future of the site - which was our future, of course.
I never took their quests not played any of their games, I'm not a crowd joiner nor am I interested in favoritism (especially when favorites do game the system) or cheat.
I remember one day that I reported an account filled with PLR content only, I was replied to keep off and this whole account was whitelisted. The lensmaster in question rewrote their content on their own later on. But this wasn't the best publicity for their UUU content policy.
There are some that could write books including all what they experienced on Squidoo. These would be eye openers. Sadly they left Squidoo and thus their accounts haven't moved on here.
I am not angry, just sad that so many with good intentions could not be more helpful when it was critical. I am happy here, and like the tool set very much. It is easier for me to refine and improve my work when the automated feedback is targeted and to the point. I look forward to writing new Hubs as soon as I've banished all skulls and tidied up the rest of my creative garden.
I like HP for more or less all features they provide to their writers. It eases the process of writing even though I don't really plan to enlarge my portfolio right now - focusing on my sites + writing platforms make me feel unsecure these days. But if I kept my old account live all these years and even after the last Google drop, it is not for no reason. HP is really good at making you feel comfortable to write for your audience.
"I will never trust him..." Could not agree more. It goes beyond the burn me once thing though that alone would be enough for me. It goes into the knowingly, willingly and with malice of forethought hurting others and no, he's not sorry. The only thing he is sorry about is that anyone dares mention it.
I did a hub about the three "r's" of an apology. Remorse, Reparation and Renunciation. "I'm sorry. I'll make it up to you. I won't do it again." Seth still has a few marks to hit.
I don't think Seth was apologyzing for anything in that post. It was just a blog post, or maybe a complaint about an airline he had troubles with. But not about Squidoo. Nope. Not that post.
I believe--if memory serves me correctly--that post is a rerun from last year.
True apologies are specific and sincere, not a prescribed dialogue. YAWN.
I don't see anything that mentions Squidoo, just something about cancelled flights.
Sweet of you all to give the rich man more traffic to help sell his books but... I don't see anything relevant to Squidoo in that post. It was a waste of time to click it and skim it.
I don't have feelings either way about Seth Godin. He is running a business, making money and just one of many people using web writers in this way. Only a very few web writers will be paid more than pennies a week. I don't know what keeps us trying really. A lack of confidence in ourselves I think, a fear of going it alone and trying to make it work for ourselves. Maybe just stubbornness of some kind. But, here we are and this is where I have chosen to be, to keep working on it.
I do have my own sites too. They take a lot more time and energy than writing here where it is set up, laid out and someone else pays the web hosting even if there are other things they don't do.
@Seasons Greetings I totally agree with you. I got what he was talking about, but he went too far with it. He was trying to say he had no excuse to give and nothing to make it better.. I think.. I wasn't sure. I was flying out that morning and needed to check my flight.
So, he clearly knows how to dissect an apology and discuss it, but not how to make one himself? Awesome.
The point is, he recommends that companies do that when they receive complaints, but he never apologized.
Do as I say, not as I do is his motto.
This reminds me from his "tribe" stuff a few years ago. Another thing he never applied.
I don't trust this individual and am always surprised with the huge number of people linking to and promoting his posts while he doesn't even allow comments on them.
Plus it's beyond me this popularity for someone most never met, knew nothing about...
He's not. I recall reading this post some time ago.
I picked up on the last few words. Is he kidding! I would run from another site he has control of.
I didn't see all those money hungry lenspreneurs apologizing for wrecking his site with thousands of worthless sales lenses with no content but Amazon links.
I'm sure the experience of losing his charity project was painful for him.
Honestly, I'm not happy with Seth bashing. Every time it happens I think of all that money I made on Squidoo, and fail to see any reason to complain.
Linda, I'm not complaining about Squidoo. I learned a lot there, I made some money, and the most valuable thing, is I have great new friends from it. My point is, that if he thought that was an apology, he's sadly mistaken. I'm not sure even yet, that he realizes the scope of the damage done to the writers on Squidoo. I am no longer bashing him, because I'm no longer angry. I'm just moving on! But I could never trust him again.
He allowed those sales pages for years because he was making money off of them, and when other sites got hit by Google, he escaped for whatever reason. He would have continued as he was with the site if it wasn't for the Google hit which Squidoo never recovered from. Favoritism continued which allowed some to continue with their shower curtain lenses, while those that revamped theirs wound up with deleted lenses for no apparent reason. compliments of HQ staff. He and his staff brought the site down.
The problem with expecting apologies from people who made trashy shopping cart lenses is that Squidoo actively encouraged them.
Squidoo decided to become a catalog. They encouraged short ad copy and they even created a special format for it so lensmasters could quickly generate more ad copy. They encouraged people to make lenses as quickly as possible.
I didn't go with the flow and do what HQ was asking us to do but I don't hold it against people who followed their suggestions. Doing what you are asked to do is nothing to apologize for.
As for the plagiarism and the article spinning, why didn't they act on the reports instead of just telling us to butt out and stop trying to be content police? Writers tend to take plagiarism very personally and none of us wanted to be associated with it by links to it on our lenses. It is also upsetting to see content thieves getting rewarded with the earnings that belonged to their victims. The problem is that Squidoo stopped seeing lensmasters as writers years ago.
Squidoo should have used and valued the resources they had. I see HubPages using and valuing their writers and instead of dragging them down like Squidoo seemed to think it would, it has allowed HP to survive the Google search engine improvements. The Hub Hopping system is just one example of HP recognizing we're humans with brains and making use of those brains. The clear rules show that, too. I'm finding more examples every day.
The day Squidoo stopped seeing writers as contributing value to their site and started seeing them all as the enemy was the day Squidoo decided to fail. I can't tell you the day, but it was a few years in the past.
I totally agree. I wrote maybe 2 review lenses out of hundred and couldn't stand it. The one thing I have to say is the Staff like Bonnie, Robyn and Stephanie did really try. What got me really mad was they encouraged the catalog, then got pissed off when Google slapped them. Seth took no responsibilty for it. As far as he was concerned it was our fault. At one point they were offering insentives to produce mass lenses in a short amount of time. If you write X amount you get a special trophy.. oh big deal. Having never written for any place other than Squidoo I had nothing to compare it to. Now that I am writing for Hubs there is a huge difference. There ARE excellent writers on Squidoo. It's just that you had to walk around in mud to find the diamonds. I had a really great experience with Squidoo. I learned, I made some money and I made friends. The only reason I am walking away from it with good feelings was the Staff he hired. They were so dedicated and tried everything known to man to turn it around. They were caught up in the Rules their leader set forth. The only reason I didn't stop writing long long ago was because of them. They made it a lot of fun.
I agree with everything you say on this subject. I started with Squidoo with the intention of writing about the things I loved, the things that meant something to me. That seemed to work for a short while, and then all of a sudden, it wasn't enough. Yes, we were pushed to make sales, and of course, when our earnings went up, we thought we were doing what we were supposed to do. I don't believe the staff intentionally did anything wrong. In fact, I think they were as hoodwinked as we were. If it wasn't for the staff members, I probably would have been gone long before the big announcement. But they encouraged us, they supported us, and they tried to make it a good place to write. Thank you Kyllissa for your important post. I'm very glad to be here at HubPages.
As soon as it was announced that Google were changing their algorithm, it seemed to me that we were presented with a "headless chicken" method of dealing with it. One minute the rules changed in one direction, and within weeks they were changed in a different direction. There wasn't a solid policy, and as a result we lost lenses, we lost traffic, and Squidoo lost the respect of most veteran lensmasters.
The result is now history, lessons learned for many of us, and I know most of us are now learning from those lessons and moving along.
Did you ever see any of Seth's lenses? They were exactly as you describe... nothing but Amazon links.
Yeah exactly, "do as I say, not as I do!" That's the problem. Not sure I understand the defending of Godin on that front.
It's factual that he had articles on Squidoo that were thin, and not good examples for people to follow. It is a FACT!!!
While this sounds good to a point, it doesn't take into account that he let those sales lenses remain. The filters could have easily been set to take them out and we all know it. How many times were changes made virtually overnight that hit and locked thousands of lenses? More times than any of us can count.
It was a purposeful choice he and his team made to let them stay because they were making him money. You can't blame kids for acting up when the parents let them. That's what this comes down to. When you know you're going to fold, take all the money you can. That is what happened.
I did get the sense that at the very onset Squidoo was seen largely as a charity project, not as something that people would use as a source of income.
I gather that some months back, Seth set up a new site that was to be entirely reviews and where the money generated from Amazon purchases was to go entirely to charity, with individual writers selecting which of several they preferred.
Based on him setting up that site, I would say that he was probably the force behind the push for reviews: him, moreso than the community organizers. It would also seem that he's interested in reviews and sees potential in them. Whether or not he's correct is a separate matter. I'm just saying that seems to be what he believes.
Actually, only 50% of the profit on the HugDug site went to charities. The other 50% went to Seth. (Nothing went to writers!)
"We donate 50% of HugDug's profit to the charities our users identify. We compute our profit after expenses and taxes. We allocate the donations based on the sales made via each review."
I'm with Linda Smith. I had so much trouble with them I transferred all my articles to a new website.
In the long run, I am so happy now being part of Hubs. I wasn't happy when the word came that we were moving. I will always have very fond memories of Squidoo, but he did us a favor in the long run. As for him saying he was sorry. I don't care one way or another.
Too little, too late. I'm starting to enjoy HP but will never depend on one site again.
I might be being astonishingly thick here, but what is there to apologise about?
Seems like there was a lot to apologize for:
1) Potentially dishonest tactics that allowed some folks to earn big and others to make pennies.
2) Going out of their way to talk us into making thin lenses that were against Google practices and would thus eventually get us and the whole site in trouble. I mean seriously...Rocket Squids talked me into making a page about lavender soap. I was a Squid baby. What did I know? They said that it was a popular and useful format. I didn't think so, but I was willing to try. Thank goodness I didn't waste my hard energy on more than one page like this -- but I'm probably the exception. How many of you folks have wasted your time and energy and writing skill on pages like that?
Sure, maybe some of that page was good writing, and maybe I can expand it and make it useful someday. As things go, for the moment I unpublished it.
The rest of my lens/hubs I think are okay. I've stripped out a majority of the Amazon ads and I'm pretty happy.
3) Diverting us from writing in our fields. I've been writing since about 1971. Yes, the early stuff was mostly crap. Once I started to get a clue and get actually good at writing, my main focus has been writing advice for other fiction writers and metaphysics. While HP openly states that you will be more successful (with Google) by sticking to your own authority areas, Squidoo's Rocket Squid pages (at very least) encouraged you to make pages (and especially the product ones) that were outside your normal range.
While this out of the box thinking has certainly been educational and inspiring, it's also perhaps diluted my "brand." We'll see, and of course I'm not done.
Once again, I'm totally thrilled by the forced move. I might have stayed on Squidoo for much longer if things hadn't come crashing down. I'm totally impressed with HP, so I am very happy to be here.
I too learned so very much from the land of Squidoo. The creative ways that encouraged me to express myself, that is what I will forever be thankful for. I'm all hubber now!
For all the angry and bitter lensmasters who feel that they're owed an "apology" from Seth Godin, feel free to post your lifetime earnings in this thread, as well as links to the brilliant Pulitzer prize-winning "lenses" that you posted over the years that were deserving of all the money you made.
I'm sure Hubbers could use a good laugh--after all, nothing's funnier than sour grapes from people who earned hundreds if not thousands of dollars over the years for something that took next to no effort or money, and for content that was barely passable.
Excuse me? Not for nothing, but when I was transfered here all but two lenses passed Hubs standards. The two that didn't were on Breast Cancer and the word Breast threw off the filters. I have had my Hubs here for 2 weeks and I am at 40 K hits already. I only have 38 hubs. The rest of my lenses went to other places. There were excellent writers on Squidoo, but because Seth allowed so much spam the lenses often got buried in lew of it. Don't judge us by the ones who took advantage. I am glad to be on Hubs now. I happen to like the interface and the system. I liked the system on Squidoo. I didn't like the lack of traffic due to the Squidoo name. There were groups on Pinterest that did not allow posting from Squidoo at all. .
The "rules" were vague and I had lenses locked for violation, but what rule was violated was not made clear. Even when I edited my lenses the software wouldn't allow me to publish them again, continuing to say they were in violation.
When my lenses were transferred to the Hub there were still violations, but Hub pages was very specific as to what rules were violated and led me step by step to correct them. . .and let me publish them when they were corrected.
You're kidding, right? Who are you to say that all lensmasters made money off lenses that were barely passable? I'm guessing you don't have/had a first hand experience with Squidoo, so you're being judge judy based on what others are saying.
And yeah, go on and invite your fellow hubbers to laugh at us.
Thanks for posting this Writer Fox. I was one who got hit hard and had 17 lenses locked in the first round. Whether they were sales pages or not, I did have too many affiliate links and that is "probably" why they were locked. Had I not been an active member and updating my lenses (not daily mind you) and waited to see the new "rules" were, I might have been able to save them and only have 7 links per domain. I was a Giant Squid and that did not seem to matter, they were locked anyway. There were NO real "rules" even for Giants and there should have a been a set number for us too. It was a complete guessing game and not all rules applied to every Giant.
Those who were paying attention, saw many Giants have unlimited affiliate link privileges, Zazzle was the worst, some people had 100 + links and those lenses never got locked.
In one of my niche areas, some people "got by" with 30+ affiliate links to one domain, while the rest of us updated lenses to reflect the 7 link requirement so no more locking's would occur. Many of these lenses were in the top tier and always bet my lenses out, even when they were not updated for a couple of years.Pointing this issue out to the "powers" did not do good, so it was pointless wasting my breath. For the last 2 years, I just kept plugging along trying to my lenses better in hopes my traffic would increase (which never happened.)
What I am realizing now that I am on Hubs is how much of the money I made for Squidoo though ads that did not go to me. It was divided up among everyone and that meant sharing the bounty with those exact lenses that were no updated in years that always stayed in the top tier. Now that I am with Hubs and making my own money it's a big difference. It makes me want to try harder because I can't ride anyone's coat tails and they can't ride mine. The idea that only a certain number of people made money and the bottom tier made pennies. There was a month that we made a whole 2 cents a third tier lense. It got to the point if I wrote a garbage Bubble on Bubblews I made more money than a lens that took me days to write. Even now I get shocked at the amount of money I get from Google just for adsense. I had no idea they paid like that. I would have left Squidoo years ago. I just thought Squidoo was the place I belonged and that's where my friends were.
Craftypicks, I would have left that fiasco eons ego but my ignorance kept me going. Like you, I had no idea about Adsense. It's refreshing to be a part of a professionally-run network. I was aghast at some of the lenses that lurked long and strong over there with so many playing (and plaguing) the system with false lens boosting practices. Rampant were spun content and spam. "It is the tended garden that flourishes." I think I've found my Garden of Eden here on HubPages and I know I'm not alone.
I started my website a few months ago and I have been on Bubblews for over a year. I couldn't imagine why I was making more money with both of those when I was making next to nothing on Squidoo except sales. Two months ago when the tier 3 pay was around 2 cents I nearly lost my mind. How can it possibly be only 2 cents? Where was the money going? I knew something was really really wrong. My adsense makes that much in an hour every day of the week and here is a huge company paying 2 cents for the entire Month! The same articles get transfered here and now I see what I was not seeing before from them. Shame shame on Seth!
Ditto! Crafty you really sum up how I feel about my experience with Squidoo as well. The staff was so encouraging to me as a new writer. I am looking forward to even a better experience here at HP as well. All things for a reason!
Maybe he wants to sell another book on how to get rich on the internet. Sure, lead a whole bunch of people in the wrong direction and then sold them. I love it here at Hubs. I am really happy to be here and relieved to be unburdoned by Squidoo. The only thing that really bothers me is the fact Seth sold us. We were not offered redirects to where we wanted to go. Had we been offered that I would not have been so mad. He only gave us redirects to Hubs because he sold to Hubs. It just happens that Hubs is a good place, a better place, but nobody was happy at the beginning. We didn't wake up that morning and say we wanted to belong here. We were told it's our way or the highway. When other writing sites closed they closed. I wouldn't have been so mad. Seth took us and offered us to someone else, accepted money for the deal and wouldn't even give a proper goodbye speech. He told us it was GOOD News. Good news when he got the check.
Except that some of us were pleading with SquidHQ not to push Squidoo too far towards "overly promotional content" as far back as January 2011, warning that Matt Cutts was making noises about a new algorithm that was going to hurt Squidoo sooner or later if they kept running more and more "shopping lens" contests, magazines, SquidQuests, and other initiatives designed to favor product review lenses while doing nothing to encourage other kinds of content. (Remember when Squidoo Kimberly -- Bonnie & Robin's predecessor -- responded to my concerns in the Squidoo forum by dismissing informational lenses as "boring"?)
We linked to the Webmaster tools blog posts showing what Google was favoring and penalizing, not only in terms of content, but also in terms of site layout (two of Squidoo's biggest traffic drops came after its messy implementation of responsive layout and its habit of showing popups directing visitors away from our content which were not visible to logged in Squidoo members).
We wrote blog posts and lenses chronicling the change (e.g. in 2007, the Lens of the Year contest included history, science, and art whereas in 2009, the equivalent contest promoted baking, DIY, celebrities, "shopping" and pets, and by 2011-2012 most of the LoDs were product-related). For a long time, HQ was unblushingly promoting "shopping lenses" -- that is what they called them. We pleaded for Squidoo to remain more diverse-- not that the "shopping lenses" were necessarily bad, but that Squidoo was better when HQ encouraged more different kinds of content. But year by year, their focus kept narrowing. After ongoing pressure from the top and a lensranking algorithm that favored those kinds of lenses over informational lenses, most of us gave in and played the game.
When Seth Godin asked me how I liked some of these changes in early 2011 when I went to a talk of his in OC, I disappointed him by expressing reservations.
Squidoo got away with it for a long time. But in late 2012 they got hit. And then they started flailing. In early 2013, I analyzed and posted a timeline of exactly which Squidoo traffic drops coincided with which Google updates -- Top Heavy, Penguin, Panda and a few others were still being announced back then. I pointed out that while some of the damage control steps being taken might help, others were running directly counter to the advice Google was giving about how to stay in Panda's good graces.
I based that analysis partly on how Squidoo was hurt and recovered from the Google Slap of summer 2007 and partly on my two-year observations of how Hubpages and Squidoo had fared with Panda since it was launched.
Right after posting that analysis, I was banned from posting on Squidoo forums or on the HQ blog. I received a form letter saying that I'd been banned for "negativity." After that, since it was clear I wasn't welcome at Squidoo any longer, even though I was faring better than most lensmasters (still earning, minimally impacted by the new filters), I stepped away from the site and focused my efforts on Hubpages and on building up content on my own blogs. As did a great many lensmasters who drifted away more or less quietly.
SquidHQ made the choice to double down on shopping lenses, although they stopped calling them that and tried to dress them up by asking us to personalize reviews. Their focus on sales-generating lenses was patent in which content they put on the front page of Squidoo, in which lenses they chose for Lens of the Day, in which types of lenses they pushed via SquidQuests and magazines, and in their end-of-2013 requirements for us to make product review lenslets with appallingly minimal content or lose Giant status.
Every site has to deal with its share of spam. But there are different approaches for dealing with the problem (see Hubpages' QAP for a better approach). When my low-content lenslets were receiving "best of Squidoo" prizes as recently as 2014, it was clear to me that they were still committed to the same ill-advised path that was giving my buzzfeed-style listicles $50-60 ad payouts in 2012 while my educational pages were earning less than a dollar.
I earned Squidoo over $30,000 during my seven+ years there. But I would've (and am) happy to earn less on a site that supports and favors the more meaty content I prefer to write.
TL;DR; I'm getting fed up with members being thrown under the bus for the site's demise, when so many of us were thrown under the bus by HQ (and by Seth Godin) for questioning some of the practices which sank the site.
Excellent insight! Your a trend watcher just like me. I am going to make a big prediction. Bloggers are going to be smacked down with a big wooden spoon during the next big Google Update and it's going to be because of the Buzzfeed type posts that have gained such popularity on Pinterest. You can hardly fine a post these days that aren't link farms to other people's work. Resist the urge! There is going to be a huge penalty coming for too many outbound links vs content. My blog is new. I have around 60 posts and only two have links lists. This is because I have to remind myself everytime I sit down. Content Content Content. Don't give in to the link farm. Nobody has 50 hottest anything photos of their own unless you are traveling the country side looking for the perfect find. It's going to happen. Writing sites such as Hubs that have writing minimums will be the next trend upward because it's becoming rare.
It's all supply and demand. When catalog type writing became popular Squidoo rose to the top. The market over saturated with them and Squidoo fell from grace. It's that simple. Those who are sensitive to future trends could predict it happening and Google is the one who knows when the market saturates.
Yes, this!! Greekgeek so eloquently says here what a large group of lensmasters felt and expressed with details to HQ time and again. And got banned for saying it.
Brava! Woot! and Hiss Boom Bah!
You were pointing out glaring, website ruining flaws and mistakes in a logical and fact-supported manner when you were banned. It certainly wasn't the first time someone had pointed these things out but they became more and more aggressive about hiding their past practices and errors as time went by. They had the new lensmasters believing all Giant Squids were responsible for turning Squidoo into a catalog and a haven for plagiarism and spun content to the point some of them actively resented anyone who'd been on Squidoo before the new forum opened.
I remember the "boring" and "thinky thoughts" interaction because it really upset me. They could have just told us they wanted Squidoo to be a catalog because that's where they thought the money was. In one sentence they could have avoided making people feel unwelcome, un-valued, and belittled while getting their message across. Communication was never their strong suit.
The end was clearly nigh when the response to the Google search engine improvements was not to tell lensmasters to stop writing ads but to try to teach them how to make ad copy look more like an editorial or a review. It's kind of obvious that no advertiser with any sense at all wants to buy ads on ad copy for the same price as ads on non-ad content. It's also kind of obvious that ads masquerading as editorials, articles, or reviews really irk people who are using search engines, too.
Greekgeek, I'm feeling sicker and sicker at Seth Godin. Shortly after joining Squidoo in early 2011, I expressed disappointment at the huge amount of fluff. I was quickly told that if I wanted to do serious writing, I should go elsewhere. I'm only sorry that I didn't.
Well said GreekGeek.
I for one am paying the price for having been overly encouraged to turn my once unique content lenses over to being overly promotional, which as a result is now causing me lots of editing that I probably would have not had to do, had I remained true to myself.
However, despite needing a huge amount of editing, I do believe my hubs will turn out better than they did lenses, and I just hope life on Hubpages is more stable than the last 2 years have been.
I agree with GreekGeek: I remember the lenslets and could not believe what they were doing. Yes, people were being banned from the forums, by Bonnie, if they didn't do the Squidoo Happy Dance and spoke the truth instead. All I can say is that I am glad that I jumped ship, revamped my lenses, deleted some, and got out of there. When the takeover came about, and seeing that if we did not meet the new payout, we would lose that income, I removed the last 2 lenses and shut my account down. Then, he changed his mind and lowered the payout back to what it had been which was a dollar. Oh well, my earnings weren't much more than that, but I wish I had the satisfaction of getting it.
Yes those awful 'lenslets' ... A couple of of mine were also actually awarded "Best of Squidoo" prize! I found that terribly insulting. Hated those lenslets, only created a few because it was required to keep Giant status. Trashy format with no space for real meaty text. Best of Squidoo? That's just embarassing.
Obviously thin content and overly promotional stuff was being heavily rewarded. Recognition, awards, exposure and traffic heavily draped on baby 'lenslets' which by design are very thin on content. SO Sad. Clearly there was an agenda, and writing skills had nothing to do with it.
Greek Geek is right on target. Many were appalled when Squidoo became a 'catalog' and actually encouraged thin content and overly promotional lenses. I applaud those who did express concerns about this trend, especially talented writers like Greek Geek and others. They were ignored and some even banned from the forums. Glad this sad chapter is over.
Finding HubPages a breathe of fresh air in comparison, strict controls on overly promotional pages and also good communication. If there's an issue on a page, very specific pointers toward the fix and adequate timing to do so. Solid policy. No moving targets. Glad to be away from that crazy Squidoo chaos of changing rules and policies every week, etc. Feeling a sense of much better stability at HubPages and glad to see familiar faces over here.
Lessons learned - glad my articles made it home safe at HP without too much stress. I deleted several , still have a few edits to complete, not bad. Done with putting all eggs in one basket. HP is a much better platform, but I'll be publishing and working elsewhere too. As much as I enjoyed Squidoo in the early days AND met a lot of great folks all around the world, gave too way much time & priority to it. That was my own mistake, got other eggs frying. Hope you all do too. Onward!
Seth seemed like a decent guy when I worked with him a few years back. But it sounds like he royally rubbed folks the wrong way with what happened on Squidoo.
Seth is a PR guy, not a manager or an SEO and he didn't see that they needed that sort of skill-set till it was too late.
As Greekgeek rightly says - Squidoo was warned by many it's our hardest working squids (and GG was the most eloquent of the bunch) that they should be paying more attention to low quality content - and then when they finally did the filters were so badly designed that plenty of good content got caught and plenty of bad content didn't. Those filters were very frustrating to work with - discouraging anybody but the most persistent. The hubpage system is so much better, in so many ways.
I earned a lot of money on Squidoo & yes, I'm grateful. Before it went bad, it was also a lot of fun.
However, that doesn't change the fact that Seth Godin is not someone I would trust with my livelihood again. I do trust him to write inspiring books. However, acting on his own advice is a totally different thing.
I too was mostly relieved to hear Squidoo was selling out to Hubpages. I had a (mostly unsuccessful) account here and I knew these systems were WAY better. Hubpages is really the better site from a programming, SEO and a human perspective.
Hmm! I find it interesting that apparently there was no good content on Squidoo, but I was there for the last 3 years and all of my lenses came over here as they were all featured. All I have done so far is to re-format add back my videos and Amazon modules and now they all rank from 61 to 90 here.
This means that I am considered to be in the top 2 or 3 levels on this site. On Squidoo I did not have a tier 1 lens so a lot of what people are saying may well be true. However I think we would all be better served doing what I have just done and settling in to what seems to be a fine site.
There was a lot of good on Squidoo, but they seemed to lose direction when Megan left and Bonnie came. I do not know if the chaos came from the top or not, but as an ex Audit Manager most business decisions do come from the top. Seth was never that involved and I think that was the issue. He did not understand what people like Greekgeek were trying to tell him, neither did he care.
Let us just be glad that Paul Edmonson works and publishes on the site like we do. His quality assurance system being people based will reflect what our readers are looking for as most of the reviewers come from that demographic. It may not be perfect, but nothing can be when the rules we play to keep changing at the whim of Google etc.
Apart from the loss of income reporting this last 3 days I am very happy here. Hurrah!
Bonnie worked there. She had to follow the chain of command just like everyone else and the top of the food chain was Seth. Seth may not have been involved in public with us, but he certainly knew what was going on with the company. Most of the time companies have a puppet person. The host of the Home Shopping Network doesn't make the decisions what items to offer. They just stand out front and offer what is told of them. Bonnie always listened and reacted. In private you can see her hands were tied many times and she had to be VERY PC. There were things she knew made sense and always willing to try when she could. Remember you can't please everyone. Nope, in my opinion the ship went down with Seth as Captain. I am sure Bonnie didn't want to lose her job in this process.
If the Amazon modules had been removed from the type of lenses people are referring to here, there wouldn't have been anything left that made sense. If yours still made sense and seemed complete without the Amazon modules they weren't what anyone here was referring to.
There were a lot of good, even great lenses on Squidoo. They were just buried under the shopping lenses with barely any text that Squidoo encouraged people to make. Your content gets judged on its own merit on HP so you're finally seeing what you should have being seeing all along. Your full-length material shouldn't have ever been buried under blurbs and empty lenses.
Of course there was good content on Squidoo. If there wasn't, hubpages wouldn't have bought the site.
I joined Squidoo and did the bootcamp, which was great, but out of step with the site itself in many ways- the assignments were less product driven and more creative, while the contests that were coming up from the main site were of the 'review-sell-rinse-repeat!" variety. I got awards through bootcamp, including submissions being lenes of the day, etc...but they got little traffic, and later several of those same lenses were hit for being of 'low quality.' How could they be both purple stars *and* insufficient quality??
It was Greekgeek's Hub/Lens comparison that sent me here before the switchover, pointing out that you got paid for readers here, and not just sales, making it a far better place for "thinky thought" articles.
Imagine my surprise to come over to Hubpages and see their recommended length of 1250 words!
MariaMontgomery, That's why Squidoo is history. It's Mr. Godin's own pretentiousness that befell the site and alienated those writers who actually cared. Left in the rubble were those cheerleaders who 'hoo-rahed' their way to the top of nothingness, copied and pasted and got away with it and others of similar ilk. One simply cannot have a business and forsake others' concerns because their voiced observations aren't on par with S's cheerleading squad. No matter the person, no matter the intellect, no matter one's intentions, we all have room for improvement. Telling someone to "hit the road' if they don't like something is exactly what happened. Squidoo fell flat. And we hit the road.
Those "cheerleaders" as you term them, were your fellow good writers who only tried to do what was asked of them, to make a living for their families. I'm not talking about the spammers, the spinners, and those who blatantly plagiarized. I'm talking about the people who wrote what Squidoo asked of them, so they could feed their families. Now HubPages is asking us to change those things. Fine, I'm happy to. But who's to say, down the road, that there won't be people here who are happy with their work, that are called "cheerleaders." I still say, clean your own doorstep before you take a broom to mine.
I'm surprised that people aren't talking more about the huge fly in the, er, ointment - that Squidoo over-rewarded those who played its games and garnered large amounts of internal traffic - sing Kumbaya with Bonnie et al and get a Purple Star and a nice rise in lensrank and hence a tier payment.
And yes, many of us discussed tier payments and lensrank algorithms - but not seriously in Squidoo HQ's little areas - verboten!
Paul Ward, there were those of us who felt that we could keep Squidoo going by being "cheerleaders," (a term I resent actually) not that we thought Godin was a "God," but that we were trying to keep Squidoo afloat and keep writers inspired. Not all of those writers, by the way, were "lousy" writers...some of them were actually good writers, who were trying to make a living for their family. I think perhaps your bias toward me has caused you to feel this way, and believe me, the other writers do not deserve that denigration. I'm truly sorry you feel you need to take out your angst for me upon them.
Nancy - I have to say your name never came to mind when I read Paul's comments.
I'm sure I won't be the only person who recalled the names of a few other people - including some whose lenses appeared on the front page repeatedly whatever the quality and an individual who was blatantly cheating and allowed to get away with it. I doubt if I'm alone in wondering what on earth was going on when certain people were "favoured" again and again and again. (That's not to say some didn't have skills and deserve additional merits - but that certainly wasn't the case for all who were 'favoured'.)
Lots of people tried to do what Squidoo asked of them - agreed.
Some people formed a cadre of cheerleaders - agreed. To my mind a number of these, in focusing on the positivity, also became blind to the faults and weaknesses of Squidoo.
Lots of other members also queried the wisdom of what Squidoo asked them to do - such as the emphasis on rewarding people who were popular within the site - on the basis that it flew in the face of Google's recommendations for writing for the web. Read Greek Geek on this topic. However that had to happen outside the main forum given the censoring of any comments and the criticism doled out by "cheerleaders" to anybody who was perceived to negative.
Being positive about Squidoo became their great aim - not building a sustainable platform - and that's one of the reasons why Squidoo failed.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to be motivational - that's a good thing.
However it's also good to raise queries. This is not bad or negative - it's the way we move forward in every topic and subject and activity across the range of human activity.
It's interesting to note that those who wailed loud and long and felt completely let down by Squidoo on the announcement were those who tended to part of what might loosely call "the supporters club". Those who had been more critical, asked questions, analysed data and predicted the demise of Squidoo only expressed surprise that it had lasted so long.
We've all transferred to HubPages. I suggest we learn the lessons from Squidoo and now move on.
Greek Geek as always provides an eloquent exposition of what went wrong and why it was inevitable.
The resistance to listening to what were uniformly categorised as "negative posts" was such that being banned from the forum became a badge of honour! Communication - in terms of listening - was never a strong point. That's exactly why the management of HubPages are such a refreshing change.
By 2011 the site had changed a very great deal from the one I joined back in 2006. The fact that it changed directly led to the influx of the "get rich quick"/black hat brigade and their terminal impact on Squidoo's reputation.
One can't help wondering what might have happened if Seth had replaced Megan with somebody of the same calibre and/or paid a bit more attention to what HubPages was doing to lift itself out of the mire.
You only have to compare the traffic charts of Squidoo and HubPages - as I used to do routinely (and I still have all the charts!) - to realise that most of HQ's recommendations fundamentally misunderstood how much time the site had left given the way it was haemorrhaging traffic in 2013. IMO Squidoo did far too little far too late and, let's face it, it never did recover.
This is the chart I extracted from Quantcast back in December 2013 illustrating the marked difference between Squidoo and HubPages responses to getting a Google slap.
The one good idea in the latter period was to switch people with 'standing' over to sub-domains. That did help. I think they got that idea from HubPages!
In recent weeks Squidoo has died. Some might say it was a slow and painful death, but at the end of the day it's gone.
Now, as with any loss, there are 5 stages of grief
It may sound silly to some to go through these phases, but for some of us Squidoo was a 6-8 year passion (or obsession, at least in my case).
However, I would suggest (at the risk of offending those still dealing with phase 2 anger) that Hubpages is the place to focus on acceptance. By all means work through denial, anger and depression - but this forum is not the place.
Hubpages is the place for acceptance - the place to move on.
Ways to make the transition to Hubpages - awesome discussion and the longtime Hubpagers can join in and help us as they help many newbies to Hubpages.
Ways to make our hubs better - awesome discussions, and again these are for all hubbers new and old!
Look - I made 6 figures of income in my Squidoo life and even had some decent earnings in the fading days of Squidoo - so I feel the loss of a passion and a revenue source - but for me Hubpages is a new experience. Other than Hubpages being kind enough to import my lenses - Hubpages has nothing to do with Squidoo.
And my personal goal, is that the prior sentence is the last time I use the "S" word here on Hubpages.
I would say this forum is an ideal place. It is of much interest to me what happened at Squidoo and what people feel about it, how they were not allowed to speak up.
There are many parallels between the two sites - both UGC, similar history, both slapped by Google, both a mix of that sort of writing.
HubPages had its own outpouring of anger when the Panda slap happened. Many people left - funnily enough a lot of them to Squidoo while it was riding high. Some of them went and have now come back.
I enjoy reading real experience from people who have been on either site.
I think that some transfers are bothered at the idea of allowing the impression that Giant Squids ruined Squidoo and now are here to ruin HubPages to stand as the final word about Squidoo. It's not pleasant to have people in a new place think you destroyed the place you came from.
There are no Giant anythings at HubPages. That is a key difference.
oooooooooh really now? No giant squids, but certainy giant egos.
Jason, you are so silly. Can we really get away from giant egos anywhere? Seriously.
There are always people who appear to be something else but it means nothing here. No Giants, no Angels, no pyramid tiers.
No money either but hey - that's something else.
Going back a few years, Giant Squids were once the "elite" lensmasters, those who had published 50 or more lenses, and they had to also be of a high quality.
Then there were the Squid Angels, and even more elite group, just a handful of top lensmasters who could reward what they saw as outstanding content.
There was nothing wrong with this, and I do believe it kept us all striving to create higher quality content.
It all changed when becoming a Giant Squid became all too easy, a bit like giving everyone a knighthood when they reached the age of 21.
The Angel program was expanded soon after, and for a few months we each had our own categories to watch over, and could help to eradicate the spam and junk from there. But soon the categories were abandoned, and becoming an Angel was also pretty much for everyone. So the once revered Angel Blessings became something that many lensmasters would give all their friends lenses, and they too became worthless.
To replace the Angels and their overseeing of lens quality, we had filters that were horribly buggy, flagging quality content while junk remained undetected.
And finally good experienced lensmasters had their content torn down for no good reason, while again junk was left active.
So many people were frustrated over the chaos that ensued for the last 2-3 years (I forget how long now), but it's no surprise that Squidoo sold out, and I am pretty sure on Hubpages we aren't going to see the rules changing every few months, or if they do it's unlikely to be 180 degree u-turns in policy.
Stability is what we all need, and I for one am enjoying fixing up my broken hubs (created from horribly broken lenses), and looking forward to regaining some of my lost traffic and income.
In which case I should be considered no-harmful potential former Squid since I was removed my gianthood as a punishment for having posted my deep thoughts on my own blog (regarding one of the many silly inventions HQ came up with )
Still if I didn't delete 170 lenses myself, and not because of quality motives but because they didn't get any kind of significant traffic on Squidoo any more, my account would have been moved in full although not a giant.
I don't think there's anything Hubbers think of giants - former giants I must say - over non giants. What do these statuses mean for them anyways?
They fear the potential negative outcomes of this huge transfer and I can understand it as a Hubber myself. Then I was a Squid at the same time. Although they look similar and have been similar years ago, they are two different platforms with different ways of doing things. Even so, if Squidoo would have acquired HubPages' content instead, we would have heard the same comments from Squids.
We all know that learning something new takes time, so nobody should ask any former Squid to learn faster than nature allows.
Then, why don't you just delete your post? Just click the 'delete' on the bottom on the right.
I agree that we're all working through the five stages of grief and some of us are at acceptance already. I believe I am.
Others are still dealing with anger, and I hope this thread helps them express what is left of their anger, so they too can work through to acceptance. Those who are still angry and complaining may have more to be angry about. Many of them suffered the extreme shock of locked lenses and deleted accounts. I understand that!
But keep in mind - we have all suffered. My income was pulled out from under me at a time when I was also dealing with other major losses, frustrations and difficulties in my life. I didn't have time, energy, or inclination to spend my days complaining about the unfairness of it all. I adapted the best way I could and moved on. I cut back on expenses and no longer even own a car - I ride a bicycle instead. We do what we have to do to get through the hard times.
I just hope that as we become part of the HubPages community we all can let go of the months of antagonism and division that characterized the long drawn out end of Squidoo. How long will we let this wound fester? When will we find gratitude and healing?
So true, Linda. This abrupt change by itself completely upset my own financial situation because it changed when I get paid and therefore, how I pay my own bills. Therefore, for a few months at least my apple cart has been knocked over and my bank account is depleted. It is easy to forget the real people that these changes affect.
To be absolutely honest I grieved for the loss of Squidoo some time back when it started to change from the way it was when the site started out into something I didn't like a lot. There again I started out with Squidoo when it was just out of beta back in 2006 - when it was fresh and new and stuffed full of interesting information and content.
However, the income was seductive. That said I was in the process of building new sites to transfer my content to as I expected the end of Squidoo any day.
I've been expecting Squidoo to crash and burn for over a year so I can honestly say that the only feeling I had when the announcement came was one of a huge sense of relief that finally it was over and we all had to make a new start somewhere else.
Kylyssa is right, as is GG (Mythphile). The most telling point was one I thought myself - why should Google reward people financially simply for listing ads and garnering clicks that cost their advertisers money? They are not stupid and they are selling a product. If the Squidoo content had nothing to add then the party was going to be over as soon as Google realised they were paying good money for bad copy and their advertisers might complain.
This is, in my opinion, what Squidoo management blatantly failed to realise and in encouraging the social and recruitment side at the expense of rewarding good writing they were effectively creating a non-sustainable structure that reeked of pyramid selling. If we wanted to achieve anything in terms of payouts we had therefore to saturate good pages with sales content because sales and likes influenced whether or not we would get any share of the adpool.
I admire Nancy's cheerfulness and always have but what started as positive became quickly negative when things were queried in the Facebook group. Other people were certainly not so positive. Positive attitudes and positive thinking were good in theory but if they served to perpetuate the mutual liking and recruitment activities that were keeping a few well-liked people afloat they did not serve long term survival of the site. The lenslets were the final nail in the coffin. What Squidoo needed to do, even if only short term, was takes sales and likes out of the lensrank equation and reward content and traffic as HubPages continued to do. The fact is that Squidoo was dumbing down on a day to day basis and the one product reviews were getting very little traffic because the market was already saturated with similar stuff on little blogs and Amazon's own product reviews.
My view of Seth Godin is that he is an ideas man - a brainstormer who starts things up then leaves others to pick up the ball and run with it. He has no interest in working out the tricky things or sweating the hard stuff. The fact is that was a leadership style that was bound to bring failure because people were looking for loopholes and the leadership needed to act to close those loopholes. On the other hand, arranging for our content to come here was probably a good thing for those of us who have no SEO ability and needed a first home for all our hard work. It is possible to delete that content and move it elsewhere if you have that SEO ability or a ready made audience. For myself, I am glad to have the choice and the time to sort out what does not fit here well.
Well said Lisa.
Spot on with the analysis of Seth Godin. Ideas people need the solid business brain/"making things happen" people behind them for their ventures to be a success.
I too am grateful for the fact that our lenses are now hubs - that's got the potential to be a good move for at least some of the content.
I still can't get over how Squidoo morphed from how it started out (a model I liked a lot) to what it became - it was a complete transformation. It's a classic for a Harvard Business School Case Study! I do hope they do one......
This has been such an interesting forum thread to read, (I've never published on Squidoo), and it has a beneficial place on these forums. It's always helpful to see the wrong turns that ended up bringing a business to its own demise. While reading these posts it almost seemed like I was reading about a cult. Positivity encouraged while undermining the logical cries of those who were trying to bring attention to the downward path the site was taking was nothing short of a tactic used by their leadership. I hope those coming over from S will enjoy writing and publishing here.
Indeed.... but tempered with the famous quote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
Scrolling down the page, when I saw the top of the balloon, I thought it was SG's head for a moment. :0
Actually, the gamers of Squidoo's payment tier system prefer this image for SG:
http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/u … apping.gif
Sorry, are you trying to call me out as a "gamer" of the system when I have repeatedly pointed out how opposed I was, for years, to those who abused the Squidoo system of liking and other manipulations? Just because I objected to you smearing Squidoo people with a broad brush?
I invite you or anyone else to look at my history on Squidoo, here, and anywhere else online. I have always used the same IDs online and never try to hide behind other usernames or identities. Go ahead and try to smear me with whatever you want and see what sticks.
I see no need for you to justify yourself, don't go as low as the resident evil of these forums Sockii, you are so much better then this, just saying.
You're right, and I'm just going to step away at this point. After all I have constructive work to be concentrating on instead.
Yeah I have decided that too, I managed to stay away yesterday and got quite a bit of work finished in between the gaming and cheating I do.
I have decided to spend my time somewhere other than this snake pit of forum for a while.
I am certain of this: Will Rogers never spent much time in here.
Lensmasters did not have to allow transfer of their lenses, so how could HP buy content that Squidoo did not own.
Squidoo did something much more brilliant than sell content to HP. It sold the rights to lensmasters' content on Squidoo LLC to be available to the online public on HubPages.
HubPages did not buy the Squidoo site, or the content, just the rights to have it transferred if the lensmasters agreed by allowing their content to be transferred.
Whatever the reasons or the particulars, I am sure that you, like me and many others, are glad that HubPages seems to be much more diligent in making sure contributors can't cheat or game the system by engaging in dodgy practices like daily updating of hundreds or hubs through the use of automated systems, encouraging others to "like" in order to falsely inflate ratings, and through the mis-use of copyrighted materials.
There seems to be no reason to want to cheat the system here. Your Hub doing well won't effect my Hub or my check at the end of the month. The Tier system at Squidoo was set up for cheating. No matter how great your lense was if someone made more sales with a catalog lens your not going to be paid for your work. What was sickening was even if you had a top tier lens that was not sales driven your capped off at what they wanted to pay you at the end of the month. That is as little as 7 dollars. When I came here I was shocked that I was actually making my own money. Lenses that were good but driven down by age into the tier 3. Made a whopping 2 cents for the month on Squidoo. I don't know about you but I have more than 2 cents mixed in with the garbage on the bottom of my pocket book. I think I vaccumed up 2 cents this morning from my living room carpet. I went to the store and sitting on the counter was 2 cents in the take a penny leave a penny container. Squidoo could keep their 2 cents. My worst blog that gets about 200 hits a month made 3 cents last week. I would like to know in reality with the traffic I brought to Squidoo each month where the money went to? Who's Godin pocket did it end up in?
Seth's wife used to be an attorney. Now, she bakes cookies and cakes in a bakery.
Seth and his wife have been known to have the neighbors over for dinner. One of their favorite things to serve is squid salad (true story). Kind of ironic, don't you think?
Yeah, but it is her bakery! I wonder if she will have Squid cupcakes?
Well, if that was an apology, it's pretty pathetic. I'm not sorry for the time I spent on Squidoo. I made some friends and learned a bit. Still, it's sad how he abused the site.
Anyhow I'm very glad for the move to HP.
Wasn't HugDug supposed to join the HubPages forces as well?
by Website Examiner 8 years ago
Maybe you have something to apologize for, or you think someone owes you an apology. Does apologizing even make sense to you? Always, sometimes, never?
by Lionrhod 4 years ago
Back in the days of the Rodney King riots, one of my favorite folk composers, Fred Small, wrote a song called something like "Can't We All Get Along?" Why am I not entirely sure of the title? Between having lost the original CD in a house fire and all the Google changes in the last few...
by Erick Hernandez 15 months ago
I know that this is a counterproductive forum post, and that could result in me being banned from this website, but I just want to say that I'm sorry for everything that happened. I'm actually crying right now as I write this. Please accept my apology.
by Kylyssa Shay 4 years ago
I'm very timid when it comes to change if the change is not one of my own choosing, even if it is good change. Moving to HubPages was an upsetting experience for me, mainly because I felt the place we moved from would find a way to mess it up or that HP would treat us like illegal aliens.Only...
by Koren Kartalis 4 years ago
How do you apologize to someone for making the same mistake you've made many times before?The person isn't even on speaking terms with you. And the apology will be the umpteenth one for transgressions that you previously promised would not reoccur.
by Elena 5 years ago
Do you apologise to people, even if you are NOT in the wrong – just for peace sake?I do sometimes, to avoid any stress but I don’t want people thinking I’m a soft touch.
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.|