Jonathan Leger’s Post About Squidoo

Jonathan Leger posted this post about his recent experience on Squidoo.

One of my list saw the post and wanted my thoughts on it, so I thought I’d post it here.

1.) Jonathan’s golf lens is okay - needs more content, but okay nonetheless. I’m a golfer and a writer and a Squidooer, so trust me on that

2.) I wouldn’t pay for traffic to a Squidoo lens - that defeats the whole purpose of using web 2.0 FREE traffic strategies - especially the untargeted Trafficzap traffic he sent. Why pay for that? I don’t get it I can understand the PPC where you bid on keywords and phrases, but I still wouldn’t do that personally.

3.) He’s right about it not mattering whether or not you rank well on Squidoo (in your category or otherwise). I used to think it did. When I first joined - I thought all that mattered was being #1. Now I know otherwise. I learned that all that matters is how well it does in Google, which is the whole purpose. I gave up worrying about #1 or top 100 a long time ago now.

The thing is, how many real golfers are you going to have within Squidoo itself? The ones who ARE there are people with golf lenses of their own - so why would they click through on your links? You’re the competition.

The key to making a Squidoo lens work is to get it found organically within Google. In fact, I sold 4 golf lenses that I had created to someone because I wasn’t into the niche right now. I was making ClickBank sales, too. I created the lenses and they all had awesome content that was picked up by Google. The people who found my lens were looking for good, valuable free content by conducting a Google search.

When they landed on my lens, they got a taste of at least 3 articles that were helpful. Because they were valuable, and not 150-200 word blurbs like some of the modules on Jonathan’s lens, the reader developed trust with me - and possibly took my recommendations, feeling comfortable enough to click my affiliate links and buy.

Here’s my critique of Jonathan’s golf lens and why it didn’t live up to his expectations:

1.) His introduction is weak. The reader doesn’t care that you like to play golf - they want to know how the lens will help THEM (that’s why they came to “FREE Golfing Tips” - the URL of the lens). In the introduction, he tells them in the second point to go buy a guide to learn more. How about giving them some FREE golfing tips first?

2.) The video is good - but disable the description so that your readers don’t see that competing URL and replace your lens URL with your competition in their browser.

3.) 3rd module - asks for a charity contribution. I’m all for charity, but hey - what about those FREE golf tips I was hoping to see? I might click out by now - so far, all I’ve seen as far as free golf tips is a video from someone else whose URL I can see.

4.) 4th module - talks about his new “pricey” golf clubs. It’s not a FREE golf tip, and in fact, talks about something possibly out of my budget - but okay, it’s golf related.

5.) 5th module - still trying to sell me something from Amazon. (”So you say you have some FREE golf tips on here???”)

6.) 6th module - Funny Golf Quotes. Okay…now I’m getting annoyed if yours is the URL I clicked through to - even if you DID manage to get me from an organic search engine result.

7.) 7th module - more selling to me. No FREE golf tips

8.) 8th module - EUREKA! We hit paydirt - I got a FREE golf tip on not stressing. Oh wait a minute - no such luck - he’s just telling me to watch someone else’s video on it. No free golf tip yet

9.) 9th module - more selling - this time from Callaway.

10.) 10th module - AHA! A real, genuine, FREE golf tip. It ends with a link - but it’s still a tidbit of good information. More, please!!

11.) 11th module - a golf news feed.

12.) 12th module - links to other golf sites

13.) 13th module - guestbook

14.) 14th module - blog feed for other blogs.

Jonathan, your direction is all wrong. Don’t get me wrong - you did 99% better than most people who give Squidoo a shot. It’s a good-looking lens and I know you meant well when you added all of that content - but do you see now how distorted it is? Even if there were 1,000 golfers within Squidoo - your lens doesn’t do what it says it’ll do - provide FREE golf tips. The title even says Great Golf Tips. They’re not. You’re just trying to herd the herd on to something else.

Web 2.0 and socialization is all about being a good peer. Providing useful content.

This critique is in NO way meant to disparage Jonathan or his attempts. I just wanted to clarify because this will help people focus on their own direction for their lenses. Jonathan’s doing great - he just needs some guidance in this area. In fact - look at what we’re doing here: Jonathan posts a blog about his experience, a reader of mine reads his blog and emails me about it. I then post in my blog about a possible solution or reason, and everyone involved can comment on it!

This is web 2.0 at its finest.
tiff

Written by tiffadmin on December 3rd, 2007 with 26 comments.
Read more articles on How to Use Squidoo.

[+] Digg: Feature this article
[+] Del.icio.us: Bookmark this article
[+] Furl: Bookmark this article

The New Squidoo Dashboard – Love It or Hate It? (May 31st, 2008)
Let’s Do a Module Breakdown… The Write/Text Module (May 28th, 2008)
What’s a Feeder Lens? (May 18th, 2008)
Lensmaster Beware: Don’t Buy Lens Creating Software (May 4th, 2008)
Build a Lens for Something or Someone You Love (December 18th, 2007)

26 comments

Read the comments left by other users below, or:

Vampire Hunter D
#1. December 3rd, 2007, at 11:15 PM.

I do agree with Johnathan in some respects, but I 100% agree with your “review” of his lens. I just did a quick skim, but I found your assessment was right on the nose. Where I do agree with Jonathan is the fact I too have found little real end results from Squidoo, my current lens sees about 30 google hits a day, yet not a single sale on a 5% product that can have an ROI of 500% to the people visiting the lens. Granted I didn’t spend a ton of time working on it, I would still suspect some results. All my other lenses, I am seeing even fewer results, as Google currently is not picking them up.

tiffadmin
#2. December 3rd, 2007, at 11:26 PM.

“Granted I didn’t spend a ton of time working on it, I would still suspect some results.”

Can I see it? LOL If you’re not going to work it, it won’t work itself.

BinkyM
#3. December 3rd, 2007, at 11:29 PM.

Tiff, this post is excellent, and comes while I’m in the middle of creating my first “real” lens. (My first was an, uh, “fake lens,” I guess you’d call it, and was an attempt to sell a net marketing product; it wasn’t a labor of love.) Having read this, I now feel as if I know zactly what not to do, and I need to go back and make sure I’m providing value and not trying too hard to monetize it. Matter of fact, I’m thinking I’ll leave out just about any attempt whatsoever to monetize it, and instead, concentrate all my efforts at adding value for the reader and making sure that I’ve maximized it for keyword density and LSI. Once I see I’m doing well Google-wise and that my lens is getting lotsa visitors, then I can worry about monetizing it, but meanwhile, I’ve got your valuable lessons here:

1. provide what I say I’m going to provide;
2. make sure what I’m providing is valuable!;
3. don’t provide copious methods of escape from my page!

Thanks bunches for providing this, Tiff; it’s great seeing specific examples like this. Keep up the great work!

Jonathan Leger
#4. December 3rd, 2007, at 11:29 PM.

I think you’re missing the point of the case study. The case study was not to produce a fantastic lens, it was to 1) see how much traffic I could get by ranking #1 in my category (which is what the purchased traffic was for) and 2) see how much that generated in terms of ad revenue.

In both of those respects Squidoo failed pretty bad: sending very little traffic despite being #1 in the category, and sending very few click-throughs despite the on-target ads. I’ve put up AdSense sites that get 15% CTR rates whose content isn’t superior to my lens, so I know it’s not just a failure on the part of the content.

Just my rebuttal, given with respect.

Jon

tiffadmin
#5. December 3rd, 2007, at 11:35 PM.

But Jonathan - (also with respect LOL)…you talked in the blog post about how it didn’t make sales. And I did agree with you that the ranking on Squidoo is not what makes you rank well in Google.

I guess I don’t get the case study - why send untargeted traffic and some paid traffic to a lens that isn’t created to convert well and then gripe about clickthroughs?

I believe it is your content, but that’s my opinion
tiff

Jonathan Leger
#6. December 3rd, 2007, at 11:53 PM.

The trash traffic was sent because I believe (and rightly so it turned out) that it’s external traffic that gets a lens ranked in its category in Squidoo.

What I wanted to see was would the traffic FROM SQUIDOO that resulted from being well ranked in a category convert, NOT the trash traffic I sent to the lens.

Make sense?

Jon

Lauren
#7. December 4th, 2007, at 12:09 AM.

With all due respect to Jonathan, I also don’t get why he would sent PPC traffic to a Squidoo page and then gripe about lousy conversions. One look at a Squidoo page and you realize it’s far too busy with all the modules to guide a PPC visitor to do anything. A PPC visitor needs to be guided into an action, not given a huge page to read. (Simply because they cost you money, and you want to make sure you tell them exactly what you want them to do.) Squidoo is just not that flexible in their layout to ensure a good PPC conversion.

Organically ranking in Google, for a topic that someone wants to read about, is where Squidoo can shine IMHO. A visitor may spend time on your page and just may click around too–and most importantly–it cost you only the initial time investment and a little freshening now and then. This is not what I use it for, but Tiff is tops at teaching it. The way she lays out her modules is as good as it gets, and she should know….she’s tested it. (Being a customer and on several of her lists, I know she is NO flavor of the month report writer!)

Frankly, squidoo,com is still a trusted domain by Google (no matter how hard it got slapped months ago) and that provides another avenue of link strength to my domains that DO have landing pages that guide the visitor.

Squidoo works well for what Tiff teaches and for link strength, but I’m more than a little surprised that someone would think Squidoo wasn’t “all that” because of not converting PPC traffic!

Pam Dawson
#8. December 4th, 2007, at 12:19 AM.

I understand what Jonathan was trying to (did) prove with his experiment. I’ve come to the same conclusion. I respect and follow his case studies regularly as they provide useful information.

In this case, I see that his main point was just to show that traffic from within Squidoo (expected from ranking high WITHIN Squidoo) was not so hot. He was able to get ranked high quickly by sending a bunch of traffic (paid sources). So if your goal was to obtain a high rank in Squidoo and hope that it would produce good traffic to your lenss and hopefully some sales, then you’re chasing rabbit trails.

BUT, as Tiffany points out, The main goal should be to rank high in GOOGLE not Squidoo. That’s where you will see your targeted traffic come from.

My goal has always been to get the organic traffic to my lenses that link to my main sites. The lenses get indexed and ranked much quicker than regular websites and even blogs. You use this benefit to your advantage by linking to your main sites. This will get your main sites spidered quicker by Google too. You get the benefit of a back link from your lens and the traffic that flows through it.

So, in summary, I don’t think that Squidoo is a waste of time. I guess it just depends on what your goals are and how you use it.

Just my 2 cents

tiffadmin
#9. December 4th, 2007, at 12:48 AM.

Jon said, “The trash traffic was sent because I believe (and rightly so it turned out) that it’s external traffic that gets a lens ranked in its category in Squidoo. ”

I agree - traffic counts a lot in ranking.

Jon said, “What I wanted to see was would the traffic FROM SQUIDOO that resulted from being well ranked in a category convert, NOT the trash traffic I sent to the lens. Make sense?”

But to me, either way - nothing’s going to convert on that lens. It has nothing to do with what or where the traffic came from - that’s what I’m saying

You did achieve the goal of #1 in your category - let’s say 4 or 4,000 people from within Squidoo visit the lens - it’s not going to convert with the current content. Even a Squidoo user can read a lens list of top 100 in a category and see “Great Golf Tips” and expect to get them.

If Joe Squidoo peeks at the top 100 list, sees the #1 spot that says, “Great Golf Tips” and goes and finds what I found - even HE will click out.

See what I’m saying?

“…would the traffic FROM SQUIDOO that resulted from being well ranked in a category convert…?”

No, not on this lens. LOL Ranking has nada to do with it - we both agree. It’s quality of the lens.

Jonathan Leger
#10. December 4th, 2007, at 1:06 AM.

We don’t actually agree with that, not exactly. Good quality does not mean a lot of ad revenue, and lower quality doesn’t mean no ad revenue — not in my experience.

Like I said, I have AdSense sites of the same quality as that lens that get a 15% CTR and earn hundreds of dollars per month. It’s not about the quality of the content, not with AdSense. It’s about position and ad relevancy.

This is my last comment on the subject, but thanks for taking the time to go into such detail with your responses.

Great blog, btw.

Jon

greg cryns
#11. December 4th, 2007, at 1:11 AM.

Tif,

WE know he’s wrong but the world does not. I would guess that not too many people are making much money at Squidoo compared to other venues (adsense, bum marketing, adwords affiliates). But the point is that we are learning how to make web 2.0 work by attracting no-cost targeted visitors.

Definitely, it is all about where you place in Google with your lens, not inside Squidoo itself.I think we learned that in your first contest.

Anyway, I am concerned about your mental health. ;P Who is this Jonathan guy and why are you so concerned about what he says?

greg

tiffadmin
#12. December 4th, 2007, at 1:47 AM.

Jon says, “Like I said, I have AdSense sites of the same quality as that lens that get a 15% CTR and earn hundreds of dollars per month. It’s not about the quality of the content, not with AdSense. It’s about position and ad relevancy.Jon”

Thanks for being a good sport, Jon - many would have been peeved and taken it as a slam, which it’s not at all. My opinion is, with a normal Adsense site, you land - and you have nowhere else to go but Adsense.

On Squidoo, your lens has Adsense, but it also has clickout options to other lenses on the sidebar and back to explore the top 100 lists. If you don’t “do it for them,” someone else will.

Like I said, I don’t argue with the inner Squidoo issue or anything, but you were making notes of conversions, and I’m speaking of the affiliate links, not the AdSense links… they won’t convert w/out good content.

Greg, never heard of Jonathan? He invested the $7 script I believe. Good guy - good sport I’m not concerned with what he thinks - although I respect his marketing - and am a customer, in fact! A list member of mine asked me to read his blog and comment on it because they were confused.

Don’t put me in a straight jacket just yet! lol
tiff

Lewis
#13. December 4th, 2007, at 5:03 AM.

I don’t quite understand the point of the case study. At first I thought what I was reading was a test to see if sending heaps of (poor quality) visitors to the lens would get it to the top of its category, then when it did… I was quite confused about the big conclusions about Squidoo not earning enough money. I have one lens that gets about 700 visitors a week, and it earned me over $600 last month. And ALL the traffic comes from search engines. I do ZERO promotion of it. But here’s the thing - the lens is full of GREAT content. That’s it. This is also the point Tiff is making. People won’t trust you if all you put in the lens are affiliate links, as her detailed review showed..

If you’re using squidoo as a landing page in a PPC campaign, expect to do badly. Why not just make a landing page yourself with ads and clickbank links on and a picture of a golfer? But if you’re using Squidoo to grab people as they are surfing the web, and you fill your lens with good stuff, and get people to trust you, and recommend the stuff you like, expect to do well.

Lewis

Ibda Nowin
#14. December 4th, 2007, at 5:25 AM.

Judging from the countless amounts of people who are still unable to make a steady income from solely using Squidoo, I would have to agree with most of Jonathan’s points.

I also don’t see the need to critique his lens unless your objective was to show that you know more about creating a lens than he does. It might make more sense to ask is there any merit to what he is saying than to attempt to nicely discredit his case study.

Donna Miller
#15. December 4th, 2007, at 5:52 AM.

Wow, really informative post Tiff, and I’ve learned from the comments as well!

Jon is a really nice guy and a master programmer. He invented the famous $7 Secrets Scripts and several other tools. I follow you both because you are both really down to earth, nice people without any of that arrogance which I see a lot of in IM.

“I think it’s great you are both having this online debate and we can all join and put in our 2 cents worth

One question on your post… you said:

“2.) The video is good - but disable the description so that your readers don’t see that competing URL and replace your lens URL with your competition in their browser.”

How do you do that?

I must admit I’ve never added video to a lens yet, so maybe it’s obvious. But if not, and you feel like doing a video…

Donna

Mention from Desktop-wealth.com
#16. December 4th, 2007, at 8:56 AM.

Squidoo Expert vs. $7 Script Expert: Squidoo Expert vs. $7 Script Expert Tiffany Dow the world renowned Squidoo Expert (should get me a ...

tiffadmin
#17. December 4th, 2007, at 12:56 PM.

Ibda says, “Judging from the countless amounts of people who are still unable to make a steady income from solely using Squidoo, I would have to agree with most of Jonathan’s points. I also don’t see the need to critique his lens unless your objective was to show that you know more about creating a lens than he does. It might make more sense to ask is there any merit to what he is saying than to attempt to nicely discredit his case study.”

Hi Ibda! That’s the whole point - many people are doing it wrong and that’s what I teach - this is meant to be helpful, not a disparaging slam against Jonathan, whose work I respect in the IM world. Liek I said before, I normally don’t critique a lens uninvited, but he put it out there as a case study and my own customers were curious about it - I listen to my customers and respond to what they need - clarification.

I had to do a critique of his lens. I can’t just say, “the lens isn’t well developed” because then people are left going, “why?” I got lots of feedback from people who read my breakdown and realized it heped them with the focus of their own lens. That’s all it was meant to do

Marc
#18. December 4th, 2007, at 1:58 PM.

Hi Tiff,

My only difficulty with your post is the tone of your critique. It’s a bit harsh. Hopefully it won’t have a chilling effect on Jonathan’s future studies. He’s definitely a positive force on the internet.

tiffadmin
#19. December 4th, 2007, at 3:13 PM.

Hi Marc,

Well I publicly apologize to Jonathan if he felt it was harsh - I sure hope he didn’t and if he did, I extend the olive branch. I would never hurt someone’s feelings intentionally. I was having fun with the critique by saying things like, “You say you might have some free golf tips in here?” It’s a fun, light-hearted debate - not anything demeaning. (not meant to be).
Tiff

Jonathan Leger
#20. December 4th, 2007, at 5:18 PM.

No worries tiff (did I say I wasn’t going to comment again? lol) I didn’t take anything badly.

I think it’s GREAT that you gave made such a detailed post in response to a request from a reader. THAT (we completely agree on) is good business.

Take care!

Jon

tiffadmin
#21. December 4th, 2007, at 6:58 PM.

Thanks for letting me know you’re not fragile and are okay with it - I love that people were defensive of you - even though I meant no harm. It shows they love you (as a marketer, of course)!
tiff

Oland
#22. December 5th, 2007, at 8:08 AM.

Ahh, I’m a sucker for happy endings..

Tiff, why don’t you give Jon a copy of your great Squidoo book, you just might turn a Squidoo sceptic into a Squidoo follower!

tiffadmin
#23. December 5th, 2007, at 2:49 PM.

Does he not have it? (gasp!!) Jonathan - it’s yours if you want it - email me

Sonia Simone
#24. December 5th, 2007, at 9:41 PM.

This is a great post! I get exactly what you’re trying to say–if the payoff isn’t there in the content for what was promised in the search, you’re not going to convert.

Really good and useful critique, I will study this some more. I have (in my EXCRUCIATINGLY humble opinion) great lenses but crap earnings.

John Currie
#25. December 6th, 2007, at 1:31 PM.

In your post you mention that getting a high lens rank is immaterial but I don’t entirely agree with that statement.

For a start my lens is this morning ranked #7 in the health category after I put some of the recommendations of your ebook into practice. This puts me onto this page http://www.squidoo.com/topics/health which has a PR of 5.

That is a nice link to have and if I can keep it in the top 30 in health I will have a permanent PR5 link pointing to my lens.

Secondly since the lenses upgrade I have been receiving invitations to join other related groups so something is obviously impressing these lens masters and I believe that the lenses squidoo ranking has much to do with it.

It remains to be seen if google will rank this lens well.

tiffadmin
#26. December 7th, 2007, at 1:51 AM.

You are correct, John! I hadn’t even thought about that until someone else on Jonathan’s comments in his blog mentioned it. I’m very excited about that!

Thanks for speaking up - ya learn something new every day!

Tiff

Leave your comment...

If you want to leave your comment on this article, simply fill out the next form:

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> .

Jonathan Leger’s Post About Squidoo

Related articles

26 comments

Leave your comment...

Controversy and Psychology in the Web 2.0 Atmosphere

Sign Up for the Challenge or to Receive Updates

Still Don't Have Squidoo?

Article search

Sections

Last articles

Categories

Monthly archives

Subscribe to this site