HP versus the Squid

1. 73

   WriteAngledposted 11 years ago

   Short of doing tedious calculations, we do not know what an individual hub earns, nor how it affects the overall CPM that we receive. Moreover, the CPM fluctuates from day to day, sometimes by 5-fold or more in my experience.
   
   In contrast, each penny earned by a lens on Squidoo is clearly documented and categorized as to whether it comes from the ad pool, text link ads, Ebay or Amazon.
   
   The revenue from Ebay and Amazon is a direct proportional split with Squidoo on every sale, rather than an obscure system of displaying our code versus the host code on an undefined time schedule.
   
   Added to which, we are free to use far more affiliate links of our own on lenses.
   
   Once again, I find the approach taken by Squidoo more honest.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So you know what a lens has earned?  Total, not just what you are paid for it?  I didn't realize that.  Does that earning then translate directly into what YOU earn from it or is some of that given to someone else?
      
      I would like to see HP give an indication of what each hub is earning - I suspect that some of my higher traffic hubs are not doing well, just from past experience of what clicks were paying from adsense, but don't know any more.  I could go back to adsense, but would lose at least half the income so that isn't really an option.

      replyreport
2. 73

   WriteAngledposted 11 years ago

   Yes you do know what each lens earns.
   
   OK, you do not know whether your lens has brought in some Adsense clicks or not, because Adsense money goes into the ad pool. However, you do know how the ad pool money is distributed between the different tiers. You also know roughly the lens rank at which a lens passes from one tier to another (I say roughly because that varies a bit from month to month) and you know the lensrank at any moment, as well as having historical statistical for lensrank.
   
   As an example, here are earning statistics for one of my lenses created in late October:
   
   12/31/2012     Ad Pool     $0.47
   12/31/2012     Text link ads     $0.06
   12/18/2012     Amazon     $12.54
   12/02/2012     Amazon     $0.94
   11/30/2012     Ad Pool     $0.50
   11/30/2012     Text link ads     $0.09
   Total     $14.59
   
   In addition, I have a list of the items that were purchased on Amazon through this lens, the links that were clicked to get from the lens to Amazon, and a breakdown of traffic sources.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I see, I think.  I really would like to know which hubs are producing which Amazon sales and wish HP and Amazon could do something about providing that information.  In general, I have a pretty good idea on those items that I'd advertised but so many sales are nothing to do with my ads.  I'd like to know which hubs are producing those sales.
      
      It's that ad pool idea that I don't care for.  If I'm understanding it, the income that I worked to produce can well go to someone else that has ranked higher in Squidoo's artificial ranking.  Unless I play the game to raise the tier then I don't receive the income from my efforts.  Just not to my liking, although I do understand that some may be pleased with it.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         daisydayzposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         That tier system is what I am having issues with. I have 6 lenses up and currently only 2 are in a paying tier. So anything earned from any of the other lenses will get paid to other people. That just doesn't really seem right. At least with hupages, if someone clicks one of my ads, I get paid no matter what. A get the affiliate links are good, but I havent seen a huge amount of sales from affiliate things anyway, I don't write sales heavy posts and I think half the lenses in the top tier are just blatant sales heavy posts, without any real content. That's why I don't get googles love of it.
         
         Ah well, I suppose we all have to play some sort of game to make an income online.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            That's where I would have a huge issue, too.  I expect to "donate" some of the income my work produces to support HP, but darned if I want to donate it to some other writer that has done absolutely nothing for me. 
            
            And although I've got a few sales hubs, I hate writing them and am not interested in concentrating on that kind of thing on Squidoo.  If that's what they like I am better off to try somewhere else.

            replyreport
         2. 85

            aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I think you are right in your assessment of the tier system, it is unfair but not humongously so.  If your lenses rank at worse than 85k I would guess that they don't get many visitors, I know mine don't.  And if you think that you need about 100 visitors for a click......I suspect you would probably earn some cents from them every month.
            
            At the same time, I don't think many of the tier1 lenses actually make as much money from advertising as they are being paid.  So what Squidoo is doing is to rob lots of people of a few cents to pay a few of the best lenses (and the ones in the top tiers do get a lot of visitors), good money.
            
            Which isn't fair, but at the same time, logically speaking, a few cents a month is not exactly a great loss.  It used to make me mad when i started, but with 50 lenses and a lot of experimenting I now have 3 lenses in tier 2, 2 of which might make tier 1 if I'm lucky, and I get a lot of Amazon sales.  If I can do it so can anybody else, and the unfairness is a lot less hard to digest now.
            
            As to sales copy ranking well in Google, Google doesn't care how "virtuous" a page is, it cares about giving people what they are searching for.  If somebody is looking for "cute giraffe oneseis for adults" then a Squidoo lens listing a lot of cute giraffe onesies might be exactly what they need, even if there isn't a huge amount of original writing on it.  In fact a "stellar" hub with 1000+ words and few Amazon links would probably be a bad result for that kind of search.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               worst-of-hpposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Deleted
               1. 78

                  Greekgeekposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Likes wear off.
                  
                  It does keep me looking for new ways to attract just a little weekly traffic and encourage clickouts so I can "set it and forget it."
                  
                  If you're running around playing the like/comment game, on either site, it keeps you from working on writing and improving your pages, which are what actually earn income.

                  replyreport
3. 96

   theraggededgeposted 11 years ago

   I don't think there's any 'robbing' going on. Squidoo's system is barely different from HP. Really. It's basically good traffic that brings success on either site, tweaked by a few other considerations. You will only get good traffic if you write what people are looking for. You can build the best lens or hub in the world but if people aren't looking for that information, you're doomed. I think the tier system is pretty fair... most of my lenses rank lower than 85k. I don't feel that they are subsidizing anyone else -- they just don't get enough traffic to earn anything. It's sheer laziness and lack of time that prevents me working to get them back up.
   
   I will reiterate... there's no point moaning about pay if you don't build up a good collection of lenses (or hubs). It takes time. Just because you published a lens two or three months ago, don't expect to get paid for it. The best course is to just keep making those pages and don't think about a decent payout until you have at least 50 well performing lenses. Any reasonable writer can produce 50 good articles in six months. Then you edit a bit and make a few more lenses. Then you have a rest. Then you start again Go for the 100.
   
   There's a lot of emphasis put on mutual love on both sites. Indulge if you want, but it is way too time consuming for me. That's why I don't participate in forums much. Look at my posts here - a whole hubsworth! Time to get back to work.

   replyreport
4. 89

   Len Cannonposted 11 years ago

   Well, I was bored AND motivated this weekend but not particularly creative. Thought after all this friendly talk about Squidoo I should give it one more shot. I spent a good five or six hour re-writing a few of the longer Hubs and published them.  It's too early to say anything yet. Their platform seems versatile but not very powerful. It's hard to customize because the modules are so rigid but there's a lot of tools if you know where to look for them.
   
   We'll see if I get any traffic, but until then my only major complaint is the lack of documentation. No good FAQs about the earning process or how they handle tier lists. I'm sure they exist but they're not easily accessible to someone who doesn't know where to look. It doesn't sound like a big problem, but it is a red flag in my eyes.
   
   There is some good writing there, but I have to say I prefer how HubPages handles Amazon capsules. Even forgetting  their insistence on not letting me use my own amazon affiliate code, Squidoo's oversized capsules are not something I'm a big fan of.
   
   I really like their themes and photo galleries though.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      theraggededgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Tips:
      
      1.Use Firefox and install text coding toolbar: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefo … g-toolbar/ Squidoo allows you to use basic html in almost all text-based modules.
      
      2. Squidoo has got rid of their huge help section, although all the lenses are still there. I find it easier to search in Google; for example "Squidoo using html in modules" or "Squidoo tier payments".
      
      3. Who's not letting you use your Amazon code? Insert and open text module on a lens. Go to Amazon and log in. Find a product. Save the product image to your computer. Click on "Link to this page" - top left. Select "text only". Copy the code between the quotes. Now you can build your own Amazon module. You can use image modules to act as clickable links as well. You can even add your code in text links within a Squidoo Amazon module. For instance, I am an Amazon UK affiliate too, so it's useful to use my code on UK-based lenses. Totally flexible.
      
      Upload the photo to the text module. Copy the product link to the photo link. Add some text about the product and use <a href> code to add the product link again. OR...
      
      4. Use http://squidtools.com/ to build Amazon links. V. simple apparently, although I haven't tried it yet.
      
      5. Not a tip... but let me see... would I rather have Squidoo's large Amazon modules and $125 pending in sales (bearing in mind we just got paid a few days ago), or HP's more tasteful capsules and zilch sales? Having said that, I make more eBay sales on HP, but that's probably because  I don't use eBay modules on lenses much.
      
      6. Yes, one weekend is far too early to take stock. 6 months and 50 lenses. Can't emphasize this enough. It's a time commitment. Of course, you might hit the jackpot with just a few very well researched and presented lenses, but difficult to do.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Len Cannonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, I discovered you can use HTML in text modules almost by accident. I don't know why they wouldn't have a more robust help section. The site has existed for as long as I've been on HubPages. That just seems lazy.
         
         Anyways, it is certainly capable of making something nice.  I still have some strong reservations. The largest, I think, is still with the payment system. The top 85,00 get paid? It's probably true that anything A) getting traffic and B) under rank 85,000 is probably only earning a few pennies a week. My problem with it is that it puts you in direct competition with other writer AND falsely assumes traffic is a zero sum game.
         
         One good article shouldn't steal traffic from another if it is unique. There's no "max daily traffic" on Squidoo.  The arbitrary cut-off point will only rise as more and more good articles are produced. I dunno! Not something I like. If I can rewrite old content and make it work on Squidoo where it hasn't otherwise, I won't complain too much though.

         replyreport
5. 59

   paradigmsearchposted 11 years ago

   Well... Google hates both my latest hub and latest lens.
   
   This concludes my rant for the day...

   replyreport
6. 80

   DreamerMegposted 11 years ago

   Well! I have suddenly received an influx of visitors to my Squidoo lenses and the ranking is improving. Must go back and return all the visits!

   replyreport
7. 84

   daisydayzposted 11 years ago

   Well I have 1 lens out of 6 doing decently. It has stayed in the 20,000's for about 1 month now, so I hope that might give me some sort of payout in March. And it made a amazon sale through my own affiliate code and earned me just short of £5. Pleased with that at least.

   replyreport
8. 85

   aa liteposted 11 years ago

   I hate Squidoo.  I loathe it with a passion.  It has obviously been sent by Satan to drive me insane!  It should be banned off the face of the internet!
   
   My best lens is today ranked at 2019, with an average rank for Feb of 2004.  Unless its rank falls by 200 tomorrow, I'm going to receive tier2 payment for it, which is aobut $40 less than I was hoping for!
   
   My second best lens has an average rank of 2100.  Less galling but also sanity destroying.
   
   If only I hadn't receivd $35 overnight for Amazon purchases off those 2 lenses, I would have deleted my account while maniacally laughing.  Now I'm just gonna have to sulk here.
   

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Paul Maplesdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well *thanks* aa!
      
      For a long time, I have had a genuine fear / phobia of octopi - This picture really did not help and now they are going to be jetting around my dreams on clouds of black ink, ready to envelop me in their sucker-filled arms while they slowly chew me to pieces.
      
      *shudder*
      
      You could at least have photoshopped a hat onto it!
      
      Coincidentally, this is also the exact same reason I could never watch the Detroit Redwings live.
      
      
      *Off to seek a therapist*
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 85

         aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Sorry Paul, any damage to your psyche was wholly unintentional.  I'll photoshop a hat on the squid when it starts treating me better!

         replyreport
   2. 85

      aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I may have been to hasty with my anti-squidoo rant, as far as I can tell one of my lenses just made it into tier 1.  I still think it is a crazy system to pay people, the lansrank really jumps from day to day at the bottom, but I love Squidoo!
      
      tried to find a friendly cute squid picture to illustrate this new feeling, but the internet doesn't seem to have any.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 85

            aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Excellent, thanks!

            replyreport
      2. 0

         EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I joined Squidoo in 2009, put up a few lenses as backlinks and basically forgot about it; like you, I'm not over-keen on the lensrank/tier system so I wasn't prepared to invest any more time. I also don't like the fact that they've got an idle feature. And if anything, Squidoo is even more about the gold stars and accolades than HP is - again, not my bag but I suppose I'm in the minority on that one.
         
         I did notice that I got the occasional tiny payout though, so I've recently added some more lenses. One thing I *do* like about Squidoo is that indicator thingie that acts as a checklist while you're writing a lens - it gradually fills up as you add pictures, tags, modules etc., so you know what still needs doing and are therefore less likely to forget.

         replyreport
   3. 84

      daisydayzposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ok I am now understanding the insanity caused by the tier system that you mentioned. mine isn't as low at the 2000 mark sadly, but is skirting up and down at the 20,000. Really hoping it will average out just below the 20,000 so I can at least hit the second tier as that would totally make the time on there at least seem a little more worth it! I'm checking it every day to see where it is sitting, very annoying!! But ever so slightly addictive!

      replyreport
      1. 85

         aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The lensrank issue has just got a lot more interesting as you will see from the forums.  Squidoo seems to have been finally slapped by Google, apparently there has been a huge increase in spammy computer generated content which HQ is taking steps to get rid of.
         
         But more interesting is that it appears that these people (and others) are manipulating lensrank.  Squidlike and angel blessings improve the ranking, but lately these have been sold on fiverr.  Also people are getting huge numbers of likes by manically liking other lenses (many people reciprocate).  There are also rumours of people using scripts to like hundreds of lenses automatically.
         
         So HQ have introduced "liking" and "blessing" limits.
         
         I always knew "likes" increased rank, but thought that traffic would have a much higher effect.  However, I used squidaholic to check the traffic coming to lenses ranked better than me..........and they get less traffic!  One lens that was ranked at 400 a quarter of the visits of my lens ranked at 20k.
         I don't know how widespread this is, but if a lot of lenses at the top have their rank because of squidlike manipulation, and if HQ do manage to deal with this (why not just get rid of liking's effect on the rank???), then lenses that weren't artificially boosted, might achieve better ranks.  We will see in a couple of weeks time.

         replyreport
9. 80

   DreamerMegposted 11 years ago

   I don't know whether it is a coincidence (because my name on Squidoo is different from on HubPages) but since I posted on here, my visits and ranking on Squidoo have increased and at least one of my lenses has stayed below the 84,000 level since then. It may not make very much, or even anything but it is VERY encouraging, especially as I write in a very specialised niche over there.
   
   It's also good to see a few visits to my Hubs on here too.

   replyreport
10. 84

    daisydayzposted 11 years ago

    Well I am slowly retracting my dislike of Squidoo. I still hate the tier system - it seems like such a game, that I am clearly losing! - but I made another 2 Amazon sales via a lens this week taking it to 6 sales in a month, which is more sales than I made on Hubpages for 4 months. So can't really complain, they only made £7ish but that is better than nothing.
    Now I just have to find time to make more lenses that will hopefully sell more Amazon stuff. I only have 2 lenses in the tier system at the mo, and not very high in it either sadly, so I should get my first trickle of money in March, but it'll only be a little bit I think.

    replyreport
    1. 85

       aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       That was my plan, to forget about adshare and concentrate on Amazon sales.  Their modules really seem to convert well or something.  One thing that works well is to try to sell the more expensive items as well as the cheap ones.  People still buy them and you make more money.

       replyreport
11. 96

    theraggededgeposted 11 years ago

    The trick with Amazon sales is to get your visitors to click through. Use enticing images, pithy descriptions and, of course, Squidoo's modules make it easy. Once they are on Amazon, it doesn't matter whether they buy the item you are promoting or something completely different.
    
    Try to rewrite the product descriptions in an upbeat way. However, be careful with any technical details - sometimes it is better to copy and paste technical features, dimensions, etc., just in case you make a mistake. This is perfectly acceptable as long as you use it sparingly and it is mixed in with original content. I always make sure that I put any Amazon product description into quotation marks and/or in italics so it's obvious
    
    Cookies last for 24 hours, so if they go back to Amazon during that time, you will see a commission on any purchases.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       daisydayzposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I just wish they had a Amazon.co.uk version of the modules or a way to change to the UK site as I have a UK version of my account to try to promote to british readers as I am in the UK. But they do seem to convert better than the hubpages one does

       replyreport
       1. 73

          WriteAngledposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          If you use text modules instead of Amazon modules, you can put in whatever affiliate links you want, including Amazon UK.
          
          SquidUtils and SquidTools are two free sites where you can generate the HTML for this and other purposes.

          replyreport
          1. 96

             theraggededgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             Yep, there's no problem with Amazon UK. Use your affilate link and build your own sales modules. It's more flexible and you get to keep all of the commission
             
             However, I am in the UK too but I hardly sell anything via Amazon UK.

             replyreport
12. 84

    daisydayzposted 11 years ago

    I add the links as HTML at the moment, that's how I made the sales this month, it would just be a bit easier if you could use the amazon capsule or spotlight for the uk too

    replyreport
13. 78

    Greekgeekposted 11 years ago

    aa -- the likes were originally there as a human supplement to the dumb computer algorithm attempting to rank our lenses. The idea was that some types of content don't generate massive amounts of traffic, clickouts, sales, or other metrics that an algorithm would pick up — for example, a well-researched lens on the China Terracotta Warriors — yet it might be an outstanding article that deserves to rank just because it's quality content.
    
    So the original idea was that people would like things they really liked, and that would let good content have a chance even if it wasn't written by someone with mad SEO or conversion skillz. Like boosts were minimal and wore off after two weeks, so they shouldn't have made that much difference.
    
    But as on so many social bookmarking and sharing networks, people started gaming the system to promote their own stuff. A few members were making a career of greeting every newbie and "serial liking" tons of lenses every day, which earned them enough reciprocal visits to boost their own lenses artificially with lots of return likes. Others set up Facebook groups for exchanging likes, although that has always been against the TOS. Ditto the unscrupulous individuals selling likes on Fivrr, or using bots to mass-like. The latter three problems have mushroomed in the last year. I'm hopeful that the strict like-limit will be enough to kill off all that nonsense, since it's checking both IP address and multiple accounts.
    
    Signs are hopeful. We can see from Squidaholic that the most well-known serial liker has now had a drastic traffic drop to all that person's lenses, traffic that was clearly coming from other Squids rather than external traffic.
    
    About danged time the serial likers got handcuffed.
    
    A pity, though, as there was some merit in the original idea, before a minority of bad apples spoiled it for everyone.
    
    Yep, the old spam filters are getting tweaked and augmented. Again, about time, although a few good writers are reporting false positives from overzealous "duplicate content" filters right now.
    
    It's a neverending job of mucking out stalls. 
    
    Anyone who spots anything that looks plagiarized or spammy, be sure to hit the "Report Abuse" button and send it in. It seems like HQ is responding to reports faster and more aggressively at the moment.

    replyreport
    1. 95

       wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It all sounds quite familiar, doesn't it.  Build a reasonable system and the gamers, scammers and spammers will ruin it, whereupon the mucking out begins anew.
       
       Such is life, both on and off the web.

       replyreport
    2. 85

       aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Yep, I agree that getting a "human factor" into the ranking algorithm was a good idea initially, but the system became open to gaming.  I'm always amazed to find a person who hasn't been on the site that long but who "rated" 4000 lenses, I've never realised they were so many speed readers out there!
       
       I do hope Squidoo recovers, even with the drop in traffic it is still the most profitable site in my pathetic attempt to earn money online   I think it's sad that it took a Google slap for TPTB to start dealing with the rot.
       
       Incidentally do you think "shower curtains" will now become the squid word for "thin content"?

       replyreport
    3. 85

       aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Bloody hell! I've just identified some more "how did this get into tier1?" lensmasters from the forum (they have a certain aura about them, it is hard to describe, but you know it when you see it).  Just how many lenses in the top 400 get about 20 visits a day???
       
       You don't expect a lensrank system like Squidoo has to be completely fair, but you'd think the payouts would actually have some sort of correlation with what the lenses actually earn.   Unbelievable!
       
       I'm not sure the limits on liking will do it.  The lensrank algorithm needs changing.  I reckon Squidoo was worried that if they made it based on external traffic, it would encourage blackhat  Google cheating behaviour, but right now, I think Google is a lot harder to game than Squidoo is.
       
       Also it amazes me that people think 20 likes a day is really restrictive!  If you read every lens before liking it, and you only like the good ones (say 30% of what you read, being generous here), then I fear 20 daily likes might lead you to miss out on a few non-essential functions like showering and brushing your teeth.

       replyreport
14. 78

    Greekgeekposted 11 years ago

    aa, about that lens ranked at 2004?  I wish I had seen this earlier, or I coulda told you that lenses up to about 2030 usually squeak in.
    
    The problem is that most people say that tier one is lensrank 1-2000, when tier one is really the 2000 lenses with the best average lensrank. They ain't the same thing.
    
    Take a look at this diagram.
    
    
    
    If you do the math, the dark-haired boy is in second place with an average rank of 2.4. So if the tier 1 payouts went to the two people with the best average ranks for this particular timespan, an average of 2.4 would still get a payout.

    replyreport
    1. 85

       aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Aha! Thanks for that Greekgeek, you're argument is very persuasive.  What I didn't think about is that there might not be any lens with an average lensrank of 1955 (for example), so there is a "gap".
       
       So, I now have a question, which might not make much sense.  When the month is over and the final average lens rank for the month is calculated, is that simply an average of all ranks on the days of that month, or is it "corrected" to show how that lens ranked for the whole month?  So if a lens had an average of 2030, but was in fact the 1976th best lens, which number would be shown?
       
       Given that you say that lenses with ranks up to 2030 are tier1, I suspect it is the second and yet......
       
       My top lens surprised me.  I thought it was just going to sneak in to tier 1 with rank of 1970 (or something like that), but it went in easily with a final rank of 1550.  So either my calculations are off or a lot of lenses in the top tier got locked.

       replyreport
15. 78

    Greekgeekposted 11 years ago

    *catching up* agreed to both Wilderness and AA, on all points.
    
    And yes, shower curtains have already become something of an in-joke. Somebody created a "Disturbing Shower Curtains" parody lens for this week's contest!

    replyreport
16. 78

    Greekgeekposted 11 years ago

    i thought the rank listed on our dashboard stats is always lensrank, not position in the tiers. In fact the whole idea of "tiers" is something that members came up with to describe the various payments reflected on our dashboard. HQ almost never uses the term. But maybe you're right and the lensranks of deleted, locked -for-violations lenses were removed completely, causing the surviving lensranks ro be adjusted?
    
    Whew, now I'm getting confused.
    
    Since HQ did a massive "cleanup on aisle 3!" last week, killing a lot of spun-content, keyword-stuffed, ad other violations they'd missed in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot more locked lenses (and T1s) than usual right now. So when we get the January payouts, it'll be fun to see where the cutoffs actually appear.
    
    Some silly stats geeks like me  share our lensranks closest to payment cutoffs each month so we can guesstimate where the breakpoint was; interstingly, some months it's much closer to 2000 than others, both because there could be more dramatic lensrank fluctuations due to short-term holiday traffic spikes like Valentine's Day, and for exactly the same reason you mention: HQ performing an aggressive de-lousing.

    replyreport
    1. 85

       aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Actually, sorry, it was me that caused the confusion.  Should know better than to discuss things at 5am! 
       
       Looking at lensranks again, my Feb was 1977, which was pretty much what I calculated it would be.  So I think you're right and it is just the average of all the ranks during that month.
       
       The 1500 was the rank for this month so far.  I love the phrase "aggressive de-lousing"!

       replyreport
17. 84

    daisydayzposted 11 years ago

    Well I was hoping to actually hit $1 for my first payout. My first lenses have now been on long enough to make payout, but sadly I didn't have enough lenses in the tier system yet to make that $1 on either of my accounts (I have 2 as one promoted UK sales and 1 US sales) I could have made the $1 overall but ah well. 0.87 on one account 0. 73 on the other. But I did make 8 amazon sales, making me £7. So not so bad. Next month then!

    replyreport