Squidoo Says My Lens Needs Improving
Sunday, December 11th, 2005 by Mike Rundle
I was a beta tester for Squidoo early on, and honestly, I still have no clue about what it does. People can run their own weblogs, so why write on Squidoo? People want to determine their own content types, so why only stick to the “modules” Squidoo provides? I don’t get it, but maybe lots of other people do and I’m in the minority. Either way, I got this funny email from the Squidoo beta team just this morning and I thought I’d republish it to see if you guys got the same kick out of it:
Hello, Beta User
As Lensmaster for the Squidoo Lens “Things 9rules Does Better Than Squidoo“, you are receiving this notification that your Lens will be deleted in 4 days unless you improve it.
Improved lenses are defined as lenses that have been published with two or more modules; unimproved lenses are deleted automatically after 7 days.
Sincerely,
The Squidoo Team
Okay, so if my Lens doesn’t meet their “Module number guidelines” it automatically gets deleted? Ouch! What if I only have one Module but I update that one every single day? Does my account still get terminated? According to their Terms of Service, here’s how your account/Lens might get deleted:
Squidoo, in its sole discretion, may terminate your password, account or use of or access to the Service (including CO-OP Services), and remove and discard any Lens, for any reason. Some of the more likely reasons for termination are inaccurate information in the registration form, harassment of other Lensmasters, hacking Lenses or the Service, illegal transactions via Squidoo, and otherwise acting in violation of the terms or the spirit of these Terms of Service or other policies making a Lensmaster a fine, upstanding member of the Squidoo community.
I don’t think I was doing any of that stuff, so I’m still not totally sure where in their terms it says that my Lens needs to have a minimum number of modules or else they deem it crap and delete it. Anybody from Squidoo able to point me out to where it says that? I’m at a loss here.
(And yes, my Lens is named “Things 9rules Does Better Than Squidoo” so maybe that was the reason?)
Steve Rubel Is Confused About Squidoo Too
After doing a little bit of Googling and Technorati-ing(?) I came across Steve Rubel’s opinion of Squidoo and he comes to the same conclusion — people with existing blogs don’t really have a reason to start a new one. Squidoo head Seth Godin chimes in to say:
“I think it’s fascinating that those with the most success at blogging seem to see the least benefit at Squidoo.”
I think that sounds about right though, it’s similar to saying “bloggers with the most success fail to see the benefit in LiveJournal” because maybe Squidoo is made for a slightly less tech-savvy audience like LiveJournal? There’s definitely nothing wrong with creating a technology platform to help out the other 95% of the population, because that’s the segment that the most successful companies go after.
Update: I think this entry prompted Seth to write this entry on his company’s blog. Good stuff.
Reader Comments
13 Responses to “Squidoo Says My Lens Needs Improving”
I was about to comment about the 95% thing but your last paragraph summed it up perfectly. Those who prefer and are able to create their own blogs (whether through custom installs or hosted services) will almost always do just that, and that’s fine. The rest of the world though — the people who just use computers for e-mail and light web surfing — are squarely in the target audience for Squidoo.
In digesting the Del.icio.us deal this weekend, one thing became all the more clear to me: the value of most online businesses is a lot closer related to the size of their community than the quality of their technology. Delicious: $19 million. MySpace: $580 million. Why? Because probably 80% of all young people in the U.S. know about or have used MySpace. What percentage have ever even *been* to Del.icio.us? 1%? As cool as delicious is, most tech people I know don’t even use it. Again, I’m not knocking delicious at all… just pointing out that the money is in the masses.
With regard to lenses, I suppose a large part of that policy is to prevent lens squatting. Still seems weird in your case, but I’m sure that’s the general point of making sure people diligently maintain their lenses. Which reminds me, I have squidoo.com/sports … might need to check to see if I have enough modules in there. :)
December 11th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
That’s pretty hillarious, and reminds me of something I read about some time back about Nike not allowing some guy to get a pair of “Air Sweatshops” custom labeled via their online store. Bottom line was - it reflected poorly on their company.
Your Squidoo Lense isn’t unlike my WordPress.com Blog, which I used to write up a single entry about the areas in which their service is lacking. Thankfully, free speech is allowed on WP. I think that the Squidoo people just scared that maybe someone who’s tech-savvy enough to realize their product is nothing special might actually come right out and say so on a Lense.
December 11th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Nathan: Ummm, that was me.
:)
December 11th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
yikes.
actually, no one here looked at your lens. Not a one of us.
you got an automatically generated email, one that wasn’t written particularly clearly and well and is already being fixed.
as your astute audience pointed it, it’s to prevent squatting. That’s what “improved” means, as in improved in the game of Monopoly, not improved as in better.
To your point about free speech, please speak away! As to whether modules are a good idea for someone who doesn’t like modules… obviously no. For someone like you, you’re pretty better off with a blog or a custom site.
thanks for trying it out!
Seth
December 11th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Seth: My apologies if I was outta line. Just had to rush to Mike’s (Rundle) defense. :)
Mike D: Ah, so that’s where I saw it. That was probably one of the funnier instances of corporate double-talk I’ve ever seen: “You can do anything you want - just not that.”
December 11th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Any color you want, as long as it’s black ;)
December 11th, 2005 at 6:14 pm
Three things come to mind:
- Rather odd in a 1984ish kind of way even though it seems to be mere coincidence.
- Your readers comments are very much true. Quantity seems to rule over quality. In my opinion, it is more evidence of the 80/20 rule. 20% of the masses are responsible for 80% of the quality.
- Despite those of us that are your readers and those of us who prefer custom, services like these are still a good thing for the PHD (push here dummie) web surfers out there. Unfortunately, it seems that the result more "idiot proof" PCs, software, and web interfaces is more idiot users. This is not intended to be a mean statement but it is simple fact. The more we ease use, the less skilled the average user will become.
December 12th, 2005 at 1:30 am
I too was a beta user and had similar concerns.
I’ve come to the conclusion that my lenses can compliment my blog rather than replace it. There are topics I feel I could cover in my lens that I wouldn’t want/need to in my blog.
December 12th, 2005 at 4:21 am
PS the reason Henry Ford only offered black was that painting a car black took 20% of the time (it dried faster) which saved the company a fortune…
December 12th, 2005 at 6:37 am
I believe in making things (like blogs, or anything, really):
1. Simple and intuitive for the intelligent person, while
2. Attainable (learnable) for the average person.
Mike, I recently read that although MySpace was bought for $580 million, it only generates around $40 million in revenue annually.
If MySpace achieved #1, and not only #2, I might actually enjoy browsing MySpace. But perhaps I’m not the target here.
But I do hear you. Just reaching the masses is often enough to bring in the dough. You don’t have to do things right, and you don’t have to impress the intellectuals. Just grab the demographic you’re after and run. Take the highest bid.
My observation with Squidoo is that their demographic is everyone. Everyone who isn’t already doing their own thing. So either this will flop or they will be the next MySpace. I would be interested in reading what their long-term strategy is, if they were up for sharing.
Either way, I’m not so interested in a centralized hub of information anymore… except maybe a dictionary or the like. I love Wikipedia, but even it seems to be approaching critical mass.
Isn’t the world moving away from this? Seems like it’s 1999 again, or something.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:51 am
In regards to the squidoo comments, I feel I am in somewhat of an agreement with Nathan on this one. I tried it out in beta, and thought it was a great tool - but I still prefer my wordpress blog. Maybe this is because I am constantly in web development/programming that I find it easier for me to use.
The concept of a ‘lens’ - Im not sure if its something special, or something with a new name. Regardless, it is working as many have ‘lenses.’ So, I feel that it is a success simply for the fact that people are finding ease of use.
Lumpy: very good point on number 3!
Peace,
December 12th, 2005 at 9:46 am
I am coming late to this conversation but could not resist. I have wrote about my six squidoo concerns on my blog about the serious gaps in design among other concerns. It has been an interesting discussion.
Squidoo cite it being ‘beta’ - well when I tested it was a private beta, when they went ‘public’ it is still a beta - I don’t get it.
Plus, why try to redine ‘lens’? Like we need another word to explain user generated content?
In my post, I said I would wait and see what happens when it comes out of beta. Seth said they are working to correct all my concerns. I am watching….
December 25th, 2005 at 6:06 am
Instead of big icons about “lenses”, Squidoo needs a big fat “what the hell is this thing” on its front page. It’s also a little embarrassing having over 10,000 lens made, but only $1,000 made. Maybe, if I spend the time to make 10 lenses, I can make $1!
This might also be me, but I have real difficulty separating all the links from AdSense ads on the right. But that could be a problem with the overall concept.
January 5th, 2006 at 7:34 am
Add Your Comment
Comments are moderated because spam's not tolerated.
