Search This Blog


Does the New Amazon Link Limit Affect Lens Traffic?

So now Squidoo lensmasters are required to not use more than 20 Amazon links - this means:
  • 20 Amazon modules featuring each 1 product  or
  • 10 Amazon modules featuring each 2 products or
  • 4 Amazon modules featuring each 5 products, and so on.
However, depending on the content your lens carries, you can also see the Amazon link limit alert. If you write a 400 words article, I'm not sure you'll be allowed to present 20 Amazon products (not to mention eBay modules). 

Does this new limit affect lenses? 


Things Change All the Time...

Things change all the time, we must accept it as it's always for the best.

Hm... Let me doubt about it!

However this is what you can read all around the Web nowadays, said by people who work for Google or simply just want to get in Google's good graces. Not only on Google's graces, though... Even in Squidoo's good graces, or any other web authority that might hurt them.

Some are so blind that they naively think that changes are always for the best. They just don't want to know how horrible changes can be in most cases. Or too stupid to just want to open their eyes?


A Brand New Search Term Introduced by the Lens Locks

While on checking this blog's stats today, I found a brand new search term that brought Web surfers to it. 

This new search term is certainly the result of the many lens locks these past months, lens locks that resulted into multiple forum posts relating to "getting your hands on Squidoo locked URLs" and then on some sales pages relating to "buying Squidoo URL locked list".

But people looking for a quick couple of bucks to make out of other people's misery are always extremely creative. So now one of the popular search terms is "where to buy locked lens URLs".

I'm truly sorry (joking, I'm not, I just don't like that kind of behaviors) for them but this blog will never provide them with the searched information! I don't plan on teaching anyone where to buy such URLs because if I was one of those "punished" lensmasters, I wouldn't want my URLs to be sold by anyone.

Well, there are times when I think that "now I've seen everything, I've heard everything". Nothing can surprise me any more. I've definitely seen and heard anything that's weird on Earth.

Seems that it isn't the case. Every day I keep on being surprised or puzzled with something. If only it could be happy stuff...


A New Beta-Test Running on Squidoo? Or Does the Locking Madness Still Go on...

I woke up late today because of some family things that happened yesterday. I thus got late in bed and slept late - I'm someone who wakes up very early in the morning in general. Anyways... While drinking my first morning coffee cup, my eyes still half opened, I checked one forum and saw a bunch of threads relating to some kind of locking madness happening once again on Squidoo.

Then I quickly went to the official forums where the news were even worse! 

What happens right now? Well seems that HQ is currently locking lenses which have a lot of "no follow" sites linking back to them. 

But didn't Squidoo not long ago switched all their links back to other sites from "follow" to "no follow"?  Yes, they did !

So what's wrong with having a site setting outbond links to "no follow"?


Who Am I on the Internet?

Today I want to talk about a subject that I already raised on this blog and that led into Google penalizing some sites - Squidoo perhaps? - I mean "expertise".

I already posted in this blog that I don't believe in the word "expert" or "expertise" when it comes to the Internet. Not that I don't think that there are true experts on here - and I surely spoke to some of them in forums or Facebook or whatever other means of communication.

So it seems that Google's putting the highlight on experts - how do they decide who's an expert or not?  That is beyond my understanding since they never met those experts in person.

Therefore they certainly wrote some algorithms that would lead into their robots to differentiate "actual" experts from "false" or "so-called" experts. What's their algorithm? How do they differentiate the fake from the real?


Too Many Lens Locks Lead Into Any Kind of Behaviors

It's been a while that the Squidoo lens locking process has brought some Internet marketers discussions in many different forums. I mean professional forums - most white and black hat forums as well as professional marketers forums.

Not long ago I went to a post that explained how to reclaim a locked lens URL. Naturally the initial post was directed to the lensmasters whose lenses were locked by HQ. However, some marketers took the idea and claimed those locked URLs for themselves in order to make a profit from it.

Suddenly, a new batch of forum posts led into the idea that reclaimed URLS were locked as soon as published. I don't remember if these were the lens' owner new-former-URL or people taking advantage of other's misfortune's URLs. But that is not the point of this post.


Sites To Check for your Stolen Content

Duplicate content is a big no-no on Squidoo these days. However, although some lensmasters-marketers tried to actually game the system using duplicate content, most of us have no control on what other webmasters do with your content.

Stolen content - I mean content from your lens published elsewhere by someone else pretending its theirs or not crediting their source (although once again Squidoo isn't an article directory that would allow anyone to use their lensmasters' content elsewhere even with a credit line) - results into your lens getting flagged, now days more likely locked for duplicate content.

Sadly we don't laways have control on what others do with our work, we can't spend 24 hours a day checking as to whether someone stole our content and published it elsewhere.


A Word on Banning Madness

This Saturday some lensmasters received an email from HQ. An email relating to negativity on Squidoo. Well, how would people be positive when so many weird things happen. Not that changes weren't necessary : as a SquidAngel, I've always asked - like most angels - for the site to be cleaned up from the rubbish. There were dozens of threads regarding this huge problem in the old SquidU forum and most of the time, we were aggressively replied to take care of our own things, do our angel duties without caring more than that about the junk.

Well it seems that Google took care of it since they introduced their new algorithms which resulted in Squidoo's decreasing favours in Google's eyes.

Now HQ takes measures. Problem is that measures taken aren't absolutely those recommended by Big G... Where did they ask for people to talk about PERSONAL things only? Where did they ask for us to write only desperate women type articles? Where did they say that selling was a big no-no? Nowhere !

It's HQ's personal interpretation of Googles policies that brought lensmasters to complain on Squidoo. Sadly for the site and its members as a whole, HQ doesn't include SEO experts nor marketing experts. Therefore, they can't interpret Google's requirement correctly. 

I have to specify that I was recalled by a lensmaster that I was probably banned for another reason than the one I thought at first sight. I forgot about this post but here's one I made regarding Googles updates and policies and the wrong way HQ handled them:

I would say that Google doesn’t like my lens content any more either. Strangely, traffic on my sites and blogs wasn’t hit by Google.

I really wonder if the need for more content and less promotion (affiliate links) isn’t the need to counter-balance the huge amound of ads HQ posted on our lenses these past weeks and if it’s not for this very reason that Google dislikes our lenses so much: have you added enough “personal amazing content” to your lenses? If not, that’s surely the reason.

Google actually HATES ads heavy pages and the way our lenses are monetized nowadays doesn’t help them recover Google’s love. That’s a fact. Eespecially those pop up ads we seem unable to close… not to mention that visitors HATE them either. Add the first and the latter and you’ll get the motive for this loss of traffic and sales.

So this post might have resulted in the ban. I won't ask for forum access being granted : they banned me, I won't cast my pride aside. 

And I don't think this comment was offending in any way. It's only the plain simple truth. At least what I think being the truth. Am I not allowed to clearly state my thoughts ? Then I'd rather keep off their forums and post elsewhere.

Now to be honest, that ban doesn't bother me. I'm member of other forums where I can speak freely. However, I needed to make this clear that the post I thought was responsible for my ban wasn't the one I was thinking about.

Ok. Now on that mail that some of us got on Saturday.

It makes things clear: negativity - therefore, freedom of speech and truth - aren't tolerated in the official forum. You can post anything positive, though. How can we be positive when anything we do can get our lenses locked? When even if you have a pure content lens, it may end up locked even though its content is unique and written by you ?

That is beyond my understanding.

The head of the site seems unable to manage honest statements. 

Is saying the truth negative? There are several SEO expert lensmasters who have been regularly ringing the alarm bell over the years. Still they could be listened to: they know their job, they know what they talk about, they're reliable. Why doesn't HQ want to listen to them?

Do I post inflammatory remarks when I  say that HQ doesn't include SEO and/or Google experts in their team? I'm convinced that I don't since it's a fact. All measures taken these past months show that they don't have a clue what SEO is and what Google wants. Even considering and featuring as a proof a video that dates back from 2008 as what Google wants NOWADAYS shows that they don't know what they're expected to do.

The problem is that by acting this way they excite the lensmasters' anger. It would be so easy to work all together to fix these problems. It's not a shame to not have the necessary knowledge: we aren't all experts... And we never die from learning from others. 

On the other hand, there are a few hard heads on the forums that systematically post aggressive comments to anything other lensmasters say. Beware if you post about locked lenses, it's going to provide you with a bunch of aggressive posts regarding the low quality of your work, the high quality standards that are required and that THEY only are able to produce, etc. 

These are inflammatory remarks ! But they seem to pass filters... Strange.

Naturally when such people who also are known for attacking HQ when THEIR work is hit but always attack other lensmasters when their own work isn't questioned, there are a few others who would take defense of the attacked lensmaster. In my opinion, it is a normal attitude.

Now, yes, many old timers post their own thoughts on their own blogs, just like I do. Mostly because we aren't allowed to make such posts in the forums or because our comments on the official blog are systematically deleted. What else can we do to be heard? 

All we want is to save Squidoo. All we want is to save our assets - and theirs by the way.

Unless they don't want Squidoo to be saved. But they should let us know. 

The same goes for the direction Squidoo's taking these days : is it going to become a resource for staying at home moms looking for things to keep the kids occupied? Fine then, but they should let us know : those that don't work that kind of things could move their art, history, and more serious topics elsewhere.

Are sales nowadays forbidden? Fine... Just let us know, people could then create sales pages elsewhere as well.

But all in all, all high quality companies that want to keep their customers and team workers will always listen to both and act in regards of their comments, feedback, whether positive or negative. And that isn't the case on Squidoo these days - this never was, though. 


The Squidoo Lens Locking Madness Goes On

Few mornings ago I noticed that the Squidoo lens locking madness was still going on although it was said that the locks were about to end. Actually they were at the end of the lens reviews and, therefore, locks. Hm... This was said more than one month ago ! Still there are entire lens accounts locked each and every day.

One week ago, I went back from a stay abroad and, as usual, while in my home country, I'm sick, having nausea and stomach problems. However, for once, that morning, I didn't feel sick. I was, instead feeling fine - miracles happen, you know!

At least, I felt fine until I opened the Internet and checked the Squidoo news - no, not HQ's posts, I mean news about Squidoo that are spread all over the Internet. In these news I learned that some lensmasters woke up with their entire accounts locked.

In no time, I got nausea and my stomach got painful in a way that it's never been! Really! I felt so bad, my head was hurting as well. My heart started beating so hard that I thought I was getting sicker than ever - maybe falling in the apples (not sure this is the good translation for telling how bad I felt). Actually, all calmed down five or ten minutes later. But it was really strange to me to get sick while reading that a few lensmasters I know and appreciate had their whole accounts locked. Not just a few lenses here and there - although those also have all my sympathy - I mean : entire accounts...

This was such a shock! 

Would it have been only one lensmaster, I might not have had headache or heart troubles... But several lensmasters was too much. And more particularly the lensmasters in question! Please note that those lensmasters aren't close friends of mine, I'm not particularly involved in their endeavours either, never followed them closely. However, I know them for a very long time as they're all old timers like me. I know what they did, I know their work since I've been an angel, I know they helped many new comers since they were active community people, almost all over the Internet including the old SquidU forums. I know them because of this. 

And these were people I'd never thought they would one day see their hard work threw away like we would do with garbage. No, never... 

The egotist part of me would have told me "Oh, if this happened to them, this surely can happen to me and sooner than later". However, I was so shocked that my case didn't matter at all! I wasn't able to think anything else but "why them"? Why their accounts? Why their lenses? What's HQ trying to do ? Suicide Squidoo? 

Because when you see outstanding lensmasters getting their accounts locked, you first think that the site is about to kill itself.

I don't know what are HQ's plans for the future, I even don't know if there's a future for Squidoo. 

The only future I can now see is that the site is becoming more and more desperate housewive designed, a site of which you can find 1,000,000's of - much older - copies on the Internet. Sites that already have their own share of audience, of which many housewives are fond of and that won't even take an eye on Squidoo. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't pretend that these sites are bad, I just state that these sites already exist, they already have authority, they're already popular and do not need a new challenger.

What are the plans? What should be think about it? That with older lensmasters, taking such a route isn't doable? That with new Squids they could design such a site because they'd happily write such articles? That they woudln't mind not earning anything or only peanuts for doing so? Because those couldn't recall those old times when Squidoo was the best resource on the Internet. 

This might be the reason for the old timers getting their accounts locked all at once. In addition, those lensmasters have so many lenses - some of them have up to 1,000 and even more pages in their accounts - and how many in reality for those that own multiple accounts? They just couldn't fix such a huge amount of lenses and HQ knows it...

Not all old timers reached those stunning numbers, for sure. For example, even though I'm an old timer, it's been a while that I didn't produce anything on Squidoo. I haven't been able to create more than 200+ lenses in total. Even so, I deleted up to 40 until now. So I'm left with 166 featured lenses now days.

These are only assumptions, personal thoughts because nobody knows what are their plans in reality.


HQ's Stance on Spun Content and Mine

As said earlier, I can't log into the Squidoo's official forums, therefore, I'm left with no other choice but posting my thought here. After all, everyone's allowed to say a word about a thing they think they know about, isn't it?

So, my word would be about "spun content". Well duplicate, copied and spun content are a big no-no on Squidoo since long ago. Just refer to the originality pact and you know what I talk about.

However, these past months, we've been told that "spun content" wasn't what it actually is. They consider spun content those famous and infamous "shower curtain" lenses as spun content. Well that can be spun content or that might not be that at all. All in all, spun content was considered by HQ as low amount of content on lenses. Mixed with what they consider "cookie cutter" lenses, it was quite confusing and absolutely untrue.

Honestly, I've never seen those lenses - they were locked by the time I saw HQ's post about them - note that I was shocked because of this finger pointing: after all, the toilet seats lens wasn't better than this one and HQ should have pointed that one instead of the one of an average lensmaster. Moreover they violated their own laws by finger pointing someone while doing so is strictly forbidden on Squidoo!

Anyways, back to my topic. So as I said, I've never read those lenses and, therefore don't know how they looked like neither what their text was. Text might have been spun... It might not having been spun. After all, you're not left with many words when talking about the same topic 100 times, do you?

However, for a long time, we've been told that spun content was content particularly light weighted, not personal (yes, uncle Bens and aunt Martha), content that wasn't over informational. Though there was very few information about the fact that spun content is just content that's not absolutely personal and absolutely unique. No, not amazing! Content can be unique but can be not amazing at all! 

Spun content is content that's been produced from spinning an article : take an existing article, replace the words with synonyms and you have a spun article.

There are softwares that do that pretty fast with a result next to zero. There are softwares that do that pretty fast with a result of 7-8/10. You just can't get a perfect outcome from anything that was handled by an automatic tool. Those tools can rarely discern the difference between the exact meaning of YOUR words and the meaning of THEIR thesaurus.

Naturally I could take an article from a website and put it into that software and turn it into a brand new article in no time. However, it would be most of the time hard to read and won't always make sense. Moreover, I'd have used a STOLEN article which isn't something I want to do. 

Instead, I could take a PLR article, run it into the software and produce a brand new article. That is something I could do for a personal site, not for a writing platform like Squidoo that isn't mine and doesn't allow such behaviors. 

The best thing to do in such cases is take a PLR article and use it as a base for a brand new article entirely rewritten with my own words and turned into my own writing style - which is quite basic in English.

Still I don't do this. But this is something I could do.

Back to the forum topic. This time, the spun content thing was detailed by an HQ member. And the post let's us know that, finally, HQ's stance on "spun content" is:

Spun content is not too much information – it’s taking content that you didn’t write, modifying it and trying to pass it off as your own.

Did HQ finally read my blog (or many other Squid's blogs talking about the same subject) ? Did HQ finally understood what spun content is in reality ? Because it's not the same old song that we've been hearing for so many months!

Actually, here's what Wikipedia says about "spun content". 

Article spinning is a search engine optimization technique by which blog or website owners post a unique version of relevant content on their sites. It works by rewriting existing articles, or parts of articles, and replacing elements to provide a slightly different perspective on the topic. Many article marketers believe that article spinning helps avoid the feared penalties in the Search Engine Results Pages (SERP) for using duplicate content. If the original articles are plagiarized from other websites or if the original article was used without the copyright owner's permission, such copyright infringements may result in the writer facing a legal challenge, while writers producing multiple versions of their own original writing need not worry about such things.

Still, HQ locks lenses of outstanding lensmasters with the "spun content" message! Seems that, while they understood what spun content means, they haven't gone to their automatic emails and/or filter messages to let them know that they get it wrong.


Banned from the Official Squidoo Forums ???

Does that mean I was banned from Squidoo's official forums ? Hm...

As every day, I woke up and got my breakfast. Right after that, I checked my emails and replied to those that needed a reply and then, logged into my Squidoo account to check as to whether my lenses were locked at night or not.

As usual, my lenses are fine. Phew! What a relief... Don't take me wrong: it's a 24 hours relief only!

Then I checked the official Squidoo forums because there were three threads I was interested in and in which I posted my personal thoughts. Actually there were four threads but one was victime of censorship and was locked yesterday night. So, there were only three topics in which I was involved left.

While trying to login in order to reply to an HQ member's post, I noticed that I was unable to do so and had to contact HQ in order for me to get access to the forums!

Yes, it seems that I've been finally banned from their forums. The motive is never told, therefore, I don't know why. 

I think it's because I posted a notice that makes sense in one of those three threads: some lensmasters were claiming doing the happy dance to the 100% scorecard on their lenses... 

They're so convinced that this scorecard reaching 100% will keep them off the risk of having their lenses locked, you know. Well, this is absolutely untrue: proof is that many lensmasters had their lenses locked even though their scorecard reached those 100%!

I just posted this:

Problem is that the scorecard doesn’t mean anything when it comes to locking lenses.

Even 100% lenses can be locked. This happened to some. It’s going to happen again…

Nothing more. I don't think this post would hurt anyone, it's not finger pointing anyone - apart from those that deliberately lock the 100% lenses, perhaps ? So if it's the post that got me banned, I really don't understand why!

To say the truth, it's been hard to post your personal thoughts on Squidoo's official forums. It's totally forbidden! The only things you're allowed to post are lies, happy thoughts - even if you fear the lens locking madness - thank yous for the locking of your lenses, how great HQ is, how well the site is run, how smart and clever all the people around are... as well as how beautiful are the gigantic ads popping up from your pages and keeping visitors off paying them a visit, and, therefore, buying from them!

Do HQ only realize that doing so lessen their own credibility? Do they realize that while mistreating their old faithful lensmasters they hurt Squidoo as a whole? I don't think so. Actually, I'm convinced they don't mind. After all, we haven't all left... yet.

In the meantime, I'm going to keep posting on the other forums, where everybody's welcome, where everybody's open minded, where everybody's allowed to post their personal point of view even though we aren't all close friends. 

In this other forums where freedom of speech isn't just a word but is a motto and a lifestyle.


Got Finally My Lens Republished Later Yesterday

All right, my Mini Cupcake Recipe lens was finally published yesterday night. 

What did I do ?

Just remove most of my keywords - now the lens speaks about sweet treats, pastries, baked goods... not much about fairy cakes or mini-cupcakes.

I think that, while removing keywords makes a lens/page look less promotional, it also sometimes removes the actual meaning of the page, especially when the keywords are removed from the places they ought to be.

So it was impossible to publish the lens for low quality content. Seems that keywords are also included in this part of the scorecard and/or unpublish message that pops up when the filters don't want you to republish a lens.

Now the scorecard is 100%, though. Let's see how many times it'll take for the filters to drop that mark.

Anyways, I won't have to move the lens for now and will see how the lens performs : it was a lens that used to get lots of traffic and was dramatically hit a few weeks ago. I will wait for a few more weeks and if traffic doesn't increase once again, I'll delete it. Simple as that : I don't want to keep useless lenses in my account.

By the way payday was today... I've never got such a low payout. I consider the work I do on Squidoo as useless and don't plan to improve any lens unless it's one I really like and put lots of work into and that I don't want it to end up locked and deleted.


Unable to Publish Mini Cupcake Recipe Lens

Because its traffic dropped like a stone, I edited my Absolutely Delicious Mini Cupcake Recipe lens in order to change the intro a little bit as well as some titles and subtitles. This way Google would find its content updated and perhaps send another batch of visitors to that lens.

However, Squidoo doens't allow me to publish this lens for... "low content quality". Although there's a huge part of text and the lens content is well balanced between Amazon links and actual content, I'm unable to republish this lens.

No problem, I won't be scratching my head against the wall, won't be pulling my hair off, I will just wait after payday and will delete this lens. That's easy as that.

I definitely do NOT want to rework that lens for Squidoo. Instead, I'm going to rework it for my own recipe blog that needs materials. I'll gladly work for my own and only profit. Not for Squidoo any more.

Each lens in the same troubles as this one will end up deleted and moved elsewere. I'm really sorry but working hours and hours for a $1 or $2 monthly payout is NOT an option for me. So, the page will do better else where: on a place that is going to be theirs for ever and where it will get its share of visitors. 

Oh probably not the same amount it used to receive on Squidoo because the blog hasn't the same authority level as Squidoo's but it's going to get its fair share of traffic just like my other recipe pages on the blog. Each other recipe lens will be treated the same way in case of "low content quality" motive.

When talking about "low content quality", it seems that HQ should revise their own notion of what "quality" means as they seem unable to speak proper English nor even to write their own language without spelling and grammar mistakes. And they dare criticizing my own quality content ? Oh my, but I'm a French speaker with English as a THIRD language!

Ah well anyways. Squidoo is really about to become a thing of the past with another lens deleted today that's going to be split into 5 different blog posts tomorrow. 

While some get headaches and sleepless nights trying to find out how to fix their unpublished lenses, I found the solution. I won't spend a night working on any lens any more, won't have headache because I can't publish a lens over there. That is a fact, that is my decision. 

I also noticed that since I rework more often on my own sites and blogs, traffic is raising and I hope that, by Halloween they're going to get their usual amount of visitors, despite the famous and infamous Google updates that seem to have hit Squidoo as a whole but didn't touch personal sites and blogs.


This lens has been taken down

Today, I dropped to a lensmaster's lens that's got locked. I wanted to make a post in their forum asking to remove the horrible, harmful, insulting, hurting "locked" message and replace it with something that's better suited to their oldest and most productive lensmasters.

However, I wasn't able to log into the official forums - whether because of one of the thousands of Squidoo bugs that happen over and over again and are quite tiring or for an eternal ban - who knows?

Therefore I'm going to post it HERE. For the public to read. 

So, the message I saw on that locked lens was this one :

This lens has been taken down

Squidoo is a place for writing and sharing original opinion content. We value first-hand reviews. Recommendations. Storytelling. Experience sharing. Advice. Our best authors craft useful pages that you'll be glad you found.
Sometimes, however, a lens is taken down from public view. This can happen when our filters have determined that there is spam, duplicate content or a Terms of Service violation.

Good! What was my first impression ?

Well, I'd say that I thought "oh my, another spammer, content stealer, cheater or whatever dishonest so-called lensmaster's locked lens". After all, it makes us feel good to see that dishonest people get caught by the filters and/or HQ and their dishonest work taken down, doesn't it ?

Then, I gave it a second thought. 

To say the truth, I know the lensmaster whose lens was locked. And this made me feel really, really bad for them! I know this lensmaster personally, I know that this lensmaster is a honest person, I know this lensmaster is one of their most prolific writers and one of the best SEO experts and sales makers.

I know that this lensmaster brought lots of money to Squidoo, I know the lensmaster in question HELPED dozens of newbies succeeding on Squidoo, I know this lensmaster ALWAYS played by the rules, complied to their TOS, different policies, terms of service.

I know this lensmaster deserved another kind locking message than this one.

If I didn't know the lensmaster and was an external visitor, I'd rather believe this message and would avoid anything written by THIS LENSMASTER on ALL websites on which their name would appear !

I didn't mean "if I didn't know lensmaster X or Y", I meant "THIS LENSMASTER"... personally. Because in the thousands of different lensmasters, there are certainly some who really are spammers, cheaters, content stealers and I don't know nor met all of them.

So even if as a lensmaster I head to such a page showing such a message and because I did NOT meet all lensmasters and do NOT know all of them, I would be inclined avoiding them in the future.

I find this message very insulting and hurting. For Squidoo's lensmasters as a whole. Even though none of my lenses was locked yet - but I'm pretty sure my time will come - especially since I post my deep thoughts in this blog.

What did these lensmasters do to be treaten that way? What did they do to deserve such a lack of respect? What did they do, apart from earning money for the site, charities and for themselves to get such a bad treatment without being able to even talk about it, ask motive or help since censorship has become a standard in the forums - that they call "a friendly place to chat with other lensmasters".

Indeed, unless roses and kisses are sent your way, what can lensmasters expect from those forums? Speaking the truth isn't allowed - dare posting an objective and realistic comment, it'll end up deleted in no time. 

What are you expecting from lensmasters? With your best assets soon to be gone, do you really think Squidoo will survive? I'm not sure... I wouldn't bet on that. Let's see where you'll be by next year. 

But I may be wrong when I think that Squidoo's future matters to you.


Posted by Squidoo Angel Prosperity66