Search This Blog

16/07/2013

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. 



2 comments:

  1. I'm going to comment anonymously. Such is the level of fear for our accounts.

    HQ staff seemed stressed out as much as the lensmasters are, so I try to think charitable thoughts about their behaviors. I agree, that they might as well say straight out, "take your sales pages away entirely, Squidoo doesn't want them anymore."

    That would save us a lot of contortions to make those pages fit their frequent and changing suggestions. Actually, have you noticed they seem to have run out of those hints.

    I remember as a manager how difficult having one disgruntled staff member made work. They stirred everyone up and soon the whole place was in a complete funk, even when the issue that started it all was resolved.

    It was difficult to make improvements while trying to get everyone back on board. I imagine that is how the HQ staff feels too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I believe forums should always include negative comments. It is the only way Squidoo staff can understand the problems currently facing lensmasters. Ugly comments are a different story altogether. No one wants to deal with aggressive, hateful speech.

    Whether Squidoo realizes it or not, lensmasters are their customers. We provide the work that allowed them to make money. Yes, it's a free platform for some to make money. But Squidoo makes money on all lenses whether the lensmaster makes money or not. And most do not make money. We are their life blood.

    It is definitely disheartening to see how Squidoo is treating their established writers. I certainly always loved shopping lenses. They provide a lot of information brought together in all one place. I am repeatedly seeing lensmasters work that I really liked being locked. Good work, at that.

    I can't really believe these changes are helping the site. Yes, there was some like stuff; yes there was some spammers. But many of these were brought on by Squidoo themselves. For example, if they didn't want self-promotion, why the RSS modules with so many links available?

    Anyway, as one who is only in her second year of writing on Squidoo, I want to thank you, Virginia, as well as others who gave their time and effort, for your good work and your help to others on Squidoo. It's what made this site fun to explore--and made me become part of the community.

    To you and other Squidoo folks that are blogging--thank you so much for speaking. It's hard to be out here struggling with the changes by oneself to understand what in the world is going on at Squidoo. Seeing what's happening in your experience really helps to lift the veil for all of us.

    ReplyDelete