Search This Blog


A Reply to One in the Myriads of End of Squidoo's accounts

RIP SquidU our in-house archive
Image: courtesy of Squidoodles
The end of Squidoo was announced on Friday the 15th August 2014 and since then, lots and lots of articles popped up almost everywhere on the Internet. Most soon-to-be former Squids need to vent, to make assumptions as to why Squidoo is closing, whether the process is legal or not, etc. 

From the average Squid who never really cared about his membership to the one that got so much involved in the site that they sacrificed their entire life to HQ's many silly and useless inventions, like the latest "Best of Squidoo" (hahaha) and their famous "Contributor Club" (where they exploited their faithful followers to death).

These Squids feel misled and who wouldn't? Though, I'll never undestand why they placed 100% of their faith in someone they've never seen, never met in person, that never shown he cared about them, and that is not a close friend or family member. And even so, sometimes one notices that they can also cheat on us.

There was clear evidence that the site was sinking, that it was hopeless trying to save it. The culprit is in my opinion - an the one of many others - HQ who didn't hire the appropriate people to save the ship. In my opinion, this closing is deliberate and long planned. I will never think otherwise unless proved otherwise. It was probably planned 2 years ago and these 18 past months have been awful agony for the site. If anyone needed more evidence, it is mostly because they didn't remove their pink glasses and still lived in La-La-Land.

Anyways. One particular article stands out from the crowd and it is the one that is named Why Squidoo Failed: Or How Its Abusers Cannibalized One of the Most Promising Sites on the Web and was published earlier this week on HubPages by a former Squid.

Here I am going to reply point by point to the 9 reasons Why Squidoo Failed. Because although this article does point the mistakes perfectly, the writer doesn't want HQ to take their part of responsibility in this mess. And because the way the article is written, it is offending for most of my former fellow Squids. And when I write "fellow Squids", hear: all honest Squidoo member, those I liked and those I didn't like at all. Because honesty and integrity don't care how much you like someone or not.

One thing I'm going to be missing to support my reply are the old SquidU forums, which are a gold mine of evidences. Also note that I won't write a thousand words in reply to each point.

So here we go.

Piracy on Squidoo
Image: courtesy of Squidoodles

1. Affiliate marketers were abusers

It is not new that, whenever there's a hole that enables marketers to exploit a site, they are going to rush to take advantage of it. It would have been easy to put an end to the exploitation but HQ didn't take measures. Some of these ways to exploit the site were even born in the old SquidU forums!

Do you remember one of the many affiliate marketing challenges that was backed up by HQ 4 years ago and that would take place on Facebook? What was taught? Using members' own affiliate links and skip Squidoo's integrated commercial modules.

By the way, the credit to the picture at this point in the Hub should not be "unknown" since the marketer's name is on the ebook image.

Next come those that used to build lenses using a well known software. Well, it wouldn't have been hard to "nuke" these lenses. They were recognizable...

2. Parasites on Squidoo

The writer seems to forget that only ads displayed in SOME SPECIFIC MODULES were entirely paid to lensmasters. Amazon and eBay integrated modules' earnings were entirely paid to Squidoo that would split fifty-fifty the earnings between the commission generator and themselves.

ALL ads displayed on Squidoo lenses were paid to Squidoo that would split fifty-fifty between paying tiers and themselves. So at this point I'm quite sure Squidoo didn't lose any more money than on lenses that wouldn't feature a single product, whether a in-house one or an external one!

Moreover it was not mandatory to use any commercial module! The one new feature that asked us to add a commercial module at some specific point of our lenses (5th module if I remember) was introduced AFTER the Google slap last year.

Though on Squidoo we were kindly provided tools for not sharing our earnings with HQ. Anybody recalls SQUIDUTILS? A site that would enable you to use YOUR affliate ID only. The software was praised and promoted in the official forums and a plugin to add to our Squidoo account was developed by SquidUtils (a plugin that would provide us with a more elaborate dashboard, not a link builder). So don't tell me HQ wasn't aware of how did the SquidUtils Amazon link builders worked!

Squidutils' owner was even hired by HQ at one point. So if not using such a software and thus not sharing our earnings with the site owner was putting it at risk, why didn't HQ take measures?
HQ should have made it clear from the start (back in 2005) that everybody was supposed to add at least ONE in-house commercial module! 

3. Those that used to game lensrank

Aaaaaaaaaah, my favorite ones. It's been a very long and hard battle between those abusers and those that would report them to HQ since 2007! Once again one regrets the disappearance of the old SquidU forum as it was filled with related topics!

As a former SquidAngel I reported thousands and thousands of lensrank gamers to no avail. Some of us were even required to shut up once for all. Some were told that it was NOT their job to police the site and its cheaters.

The writer tells in a comment that she was in the beginning, a Zazzler and came to Squidoo to promote her Zazzle store. Well I would say that, once again, a check at SquidU would have been helpful as Zazzlers were one of the site's worst lensrank gamers ever! How many Zazzle threads did we report? Zazzlers planning a huge Squidliking spree or asking for mutual likes and/or blessings if one Zazzler appeared to be a SquidAngel!

The writer also forgets that there was a time when we used to have the option to take an eye on Squidoo lenses stats through The site that was taken down one year ago so that we couldn't get access to any kind of stats! From Squidaholic, we could see how many visits a lens would get, it was a gold mine of information. And we thus would know why a lens would dance in tier 1 - the most attractive tier ever.

Here again I've seen a wide range of lenses that actually deserved to be in tier 1: those that used to drive traffic. I'm sorry but when a lens drives 40,000 visitors/ week to itself, and thus sales follow, it deserves a place in tier 1. Though when a lens with 100 visitors/week, 10 angel blessings in a row, 100 likes from a liking spree and HQ's favors, I think it didn't deserve a place in tier 1.

Once again, HQ is the culprit in these games! They provided too much weight to internal traffic despite the fact that money was brought by EXTERNAL traffic! We told them but the answer was as usual: we don't care.

Same answer applies to the coloring pages! They all started with the huge popularity of ONE specific lensmaster's original coloring pages. Then one other lensmater exploited Disney's coloring pages. And was followed by the crowd. When HQ was warned of the risks, they asked us to shut up.

And I don't even mention those that used to update their lenses each and every day like clockworks. Once again, they were reported but HQ didn't pay attention. Instead they encouraged these updates
for years. Softwares were used for updating large accounts, once again, we told them, once again no reply or a short "shut up".

4. Those that copied others' lenses

The copycats... Well I remember the time when HQ suggested to all Squids, to take an eye to the existing lenses and that if they were not as good as they should be, then we would take them over - hear create our own lenses about the very same subject but make it better.

Here again the writer doesn't seem to know that.

In addition, these past 18 months, HQ made it nearly mandatory to create multiple lenses on the very same subject with their silly quests.

How many of us posted their worries in the official forums or blog? How many of these posts disappeared within the 5 minutes of posting? How many of us were simply banned from the official forums for not cheering any stupid idea that would KILL the site HQ would come up with? We're countless lensmasters permanently banned!

Squid under cover
Image: courtesy of Squidoodles

5. Lens transfers and sales

Lens marketplace was set up for whatever reason, I must admit that I don't remember which one. But one thing I clearly remember is that those custom built lenses were supposed to be edited and updated - adding content, affiliate links whenever useful. 

Then here again, the lens marketplace was pubicly opened in SquidU and HQ could see the threads, the complaints, the worries, the warnings... They didn't do anything against that, except that they removed the transfer feature last year. When it was too late, once again.

Yes this opportunity enabled undelicate people to sell rubbish to others, create rubbish for themselves, etc. However Angels, greeters and many other lensmasters were there to report these lenses. Once again HQ's reply was... "We don't care" - or no reply at all. Because communication was not one of HQ's strengths...  Most of these reported lenses were still active on the site even months after we reported them in mass.

Then HQ introduced the "gift lens". That was when we used to create a lens and then transfer it to another lensmaster. As Fresh Wonders' members we did it once. We created How To Squidoo best practices lenses and transfered to our leaders' account. We never gamed the system. And most lensmasters didn't either.

6. The lenslets

Squidoo was in December 2012 for some and in March 2013 for others, penalized by Google - hear we were HIT dramatically. I'm of those that think it was actually penalized in March 2013 for massive updating of lenses and mass deletion. The penalty was never removed since massive deletion of lenses never stopped.

These are my thoughts, which you are not obliged to share. Each of us has their own beliefs when it comes to penalization.

Then the writer pretends that "baby" lenses (hear small lenses) were the culprit. Strangely, in response to the Google slap, HQ came up with the idea of what we call "lenslets". 

These lenses are very short: 250 words min, a very few number of modules can be added, three or four max, I think and sold them to us as "quick and easy to build lenses". Or "the 1 hour lens". Wow! In one hour, I'm pretty sure one is able to create a page that stands out from the crowd!

The thing became even worse when HQ made it a requirement to build three of such awful silly lenslets as a way to renew our Giant status!

Who gamed the system? We or HQ?

7. Spamming

There have always been spammers all over the Internet. But who encouraged lensmasters to post their links everywhere? I bet you know...

Latest spam game: Love Squidoo Friday... Post your lenses with Love Squidoo hashtag to Twitter and spam your followers.

One of their favorite game: spam your Facebook contacts, and all kinds of social media.

This has always been encouraged by HQ.

8. Those that didn't want to sink with the ship

Whenever a lensmaster would scream "me, me, me" or "don't wanna lose my traffic", it was ALWAYS for good reasons! Lot of times HQ introduced new banners, new ads, new pop up ads that you couldn't close - no need to tell you the impact on our readership!

We would know exactly where the brand new feature would lead. We knew exactly how many readers we would lose.

Then came the latest stupid band on top of all Squidoo pages. Those where we were forced to share our traffic with those that

  1. reported us to HQ so as to have us banned,
  2. those that didn't do a thing to promote their work,
  3. those that would game the system, 
  4. not being seen with the rubbish that's included in these best of things,
  5. and so on.

Yes it was absolutely normal not to want to share OUR hard work with them.

9. Those that left before the end

Squidoo's death penalty
Image: courtesy of Squidoodles

Those are the lensmasters who left Squidoo when the "ship" started sinking. They were often very old timers, those from the early beginnings. They were Squidoo's best assets. They got their lenses locked, some of them got their entire accounts locked and even sometimes deleted.

Why would they have stayed?

Would you have been faithful to a site which HQ's deletes the best content pages you built and seems to never lock and/or delete the real junk?

Then there are those marketers who helped build the site's traffic as well. With the reduction of Amazon links, sales dropped dramatically. Those that joined Squidoo for the earnings they could get had obviously no reason to stay on there. But as said earlier, most of them had so many locked lenses that it was worthless trying to save their accounts.

By mass locking their biggest traffic drivers, HQ signed the end of Squidoo.

Phew, it was long...

I have another point to make. Squidoo was set as curation content site that would enable you to make money at the same time. Making money has ALWAYS been Squidoo's goal. 

Squidoo as seen in 2006
Yes you could even get paid building Squidoo lenses!

And then on Friday 15th August 2014, Seth Godin popped up for the first time in ages and let us know he SOLD Squidoo's "key content" (without more details) to HubPages and if we wouldn't agree with the move (and the selling of OUR work out of which we wouldn't get a single red cent), we would also even lose the money Squidoo owed to us.

This last part was corrected a few days later. But still the cocktail was bitter...

For me and most of my fellow lensmasters, yes, HQ is responsible for the end of the site. Megan's departure signed the beginning of the end. The fact that it seems that nobody was there to take the lead was a very bad sign. The owner taking distance with the site for 2 - and even more - whole years affected the community as a whole, its faith in the leaders, its faith in the future. And the way the remaining team at HQ led the site was the axe that translated Squidoo into a thing of the past.

I do think it was deliberate. I'll never think otherwise
unless proved otherwise. I wrote many articles predicting the end of Squidoo by the end of 2014 and even sometimes by June 2014. It is finally on October 2014 that Seth Godin is going to proceed to the lethal injection.

And although the author of the mentioned Hub is not wrong in everything, I pretend she is wrong about the culprit.

Then I'm definitely disappointed with some reactions of lensmasters I respect and like.

NB Some of the former SquidU forums' archives can be accessed through the Wayback Machine - the Internet Archive. Just make sure to first access archive and on the result page select a link that you want to read, then clean up the link and remove Wayback Machine's link and paste it into the WayBack Machine once again to read what was saved from the page.

Here is an archive of the Chatter Box...

Posted by Holly Day a WAHM who is able to turn any day into a holiday.


The Big Move from Squidoo to HubPages

Today is the 25th August 2014 and is supposed to be the day of the great big move from Squidoo to HubPages. At least it is what I have been told when I clicked on that big green button in my Squidoo account. 

Editing feature was canceled on the 23rd August and the transfer was supposed to begin today. I don't know if they are ready to start the process, in any way, I am ready for it and excited to see my lenses reach my new HubPages account.

During the past week I've seen a lot of people following me on both my native and new HubPages accounts. In the wide list of these, there are people I've never met... but I know that it makes them feel better to see "friendly" (although I'm not known for being friendly) faces on the other side of their new online life.

I have also seen a lot of people worrying about becoming Hubbers. Lots of them not knowing that HubPages and Squidoo are entirely different platforms with different customs. 

Differences between HubPages and Squidoo

No tier rank payout, no ad pool

The biggest difference between both sites is that Squidoo had tier rank payouts added to lensmasters' promotional efforts and sales made through their lenses. Many lensmasters relied on such tiers because they were unable to promote their lenses effectively. It is going to be a hard route for them on the new site as they are going to have to promote, through all kinds of means, their new Hubs.

Following Hubbers

There is a nice feature on HubPages that enables us to follow Hubbers. But this should be done carefully and we don't have to follow each and every Hubber out there: the best thing to do is following only Hubbers that we are interested in. 

Do I have something in common with Hubbers that write about tarot cards and fortune telling? Then I'm going to follow some of them. Not all of them because I'm not interested in all kinds of writings about the topic. Then there are those that don't have an extended knowledge and write more theory than practice, so I'm not sure they will be of any interest for me.

A downside of following too many Hubbers is that you can end up with hundreds of daily emails letting you know they published a new page. If you set your emails to a daily summary, you'll get all links in one email, though. This leaves room for you to check that out only once a day but in the end, are you going to actually pay a visit to each of the 100, 200 or more links? Not sure...

Then following everybody on HubPages is not recommended and even frown upon on there.

Focus on external traffic generation

I know that Squidoo favored internal interaction a lot and used to reward those that visited and liked other lensmasters' pages, but this is not the case on HubPages. This process is more fair than the one in use on Squidoo. 

Only people who generate traffic and sales earn money. So for those who were dependent of other's interaction it's going to be hard to live the same kind of online life on there.

All we have to do on HubPages is focusing on generating external traffic. It is the only way to earn money since internal interaction doesn't benefit anyone in terms of money.  

Also a recommendation: NEVER click on your pals' ads... 

How do we earn money on HubPages?

HubPages allows us to earn money in different ways. Here's the way I set up my own old account - I joined 6 years ago, deleted most of my Hubs after the Google slap, but kept three niches on there, though.

1. Amazon

I added my own Amazon affiliate ID to my HP account, this way I earn 4% up to 8% through the sales my Hubs generate on there. It's more like 4%, though...

2. Google Adsense

I added my Adsense ID to my HP account so that I can make money in the event someone clicks on and ad when visiting my Hubs. It is forbidden to ask for clicks, it is also forbidden to click on someone else's ads for the sake of earning money! Clicks should be natural. Gaming the Adsense program will have your account closed for good - Google rarely unlocks accounts. 

3. Affiliate programs like, Share a Sale and others

These are limited to 2 links/program/Hub. This means that you can add 2 links to your Hub, no more. However if you find related products on Share a Sale or another affiliate program, you can add up to 2 links to them too. With 2 CJ + 2 SaS + 2 Linkshare + 2 LinkSynergy, it provides you with 8 affiliate links in one Hub. But be cautious not spamming with your links. In all events, when you'll click on the publish button, the system will let you know if you added too many links.

4. HubPages ad program

This one I joined but didn't activate Amazon or eBay. It includes "ad impressions" and as an option Amazon and eBay. HP ad program earns me some dollars each and every month out of the Hubs I built. These are "ad impressions" that generate those monies. Actually I must activate eBay but always forget to do so... hm...

Activating Amazon through this feature will also directly enable you to get a higher commission rate. Instead of the 4% (and possibly more if you make lots of sales), you directly get 8% from HubPages since the organization is more likely to generate more sales than an individual.  

How does the payment process work?

The HubPages ad program pays you through Paypal - that is the reason for which you should add your Paypal email in your settings. 

If you do not opt for Amazon to be activated in their in-house program, then any sales will generate commissions directly in your own Amazon partner program account. 

Google Adsense is paid directly in your Adsense account. 

Well, that's if for today, I've some former lenses to rewrite and move to their new homes, see you soon :)

Posted by Holly Day a WAHM who is able to turn any day into a holiday.


I'm Late at the Squidoo Farewell Party

I am late at the Squidoo farewell party guys! I should have posted about the company closing business sooner but did not. 

I kept silent. 

Not because I feared any kind of vengence from someone on there because of my writings. Not because I did not have anything to say. 

Just because I did not feel the need to post or vent about the event that I predicted long ago and knew that would happen.

I will not pretend that I did not participate in forums and Facebook groups and did not post my thoughts of the moment. I did and a lot! But I did not feel the need to aggressively blog about that.

So Squidoo is over...

So HubPages acquired "key content" - as per both companies' words - from Squidoo. I hope, wish and cross my fingers for not being a mistake that would cost HubPages its life. But I do not think so, it is a site that I joined almost 7 years ago, when I was a baby Squid and I know that it faced lots of disagreeable online events and always found its way to overcome ALL of them. It might have cost some accounts to Hubbers, it may have cost traffic to other Hubbers (like me) when we were moved to our subdomains but the site as a whole always survived.

There is no need to say that the editing staff is far better than the one on Squidoo. They know their job, they know how to manage a site of that size, they know what to do search engine wise and they also know how to communicate with their members. Respect is also HubPages' strength. All theses qualities were not found on Squidoo where members were considered interchangeable. Not to mention the change in the staff that led into the end of the site. 

As a matter of fact, you cannot ask a crocheter to convert into an oil digger in the blink of an eye. This needs some kind of formation. It is somewhat what happened on Squidoo these past two years with a trained manager leaving the site in hands that did not have the needed experience. They thus took the lead of the ship and drove it straight away in the gigantic iceberg named "search engines, traffic and money". Sadly, it took 18 months for the boat to completely sink.

Squidoo and its 18 months agony

In the meantime, makeup was put on the site's face, and we were asked to jump into more and more hoops as time went by. Many agreed and played the game, some because they thought they would get a benefit from it (cheerleaders and other hypocrits), some because they really thought the site would get better with efforts on their part.

However, death was already roaming and making plans.

From the new policies related to unique content - a policy that existed already long before - to policies regarding the number of commercial links. From policies about personalization (including personal photos and other more than silly requirements) to policies about backlinks we had no control over. From the new gianthood requirement of making 5 lenses in a year to the gianthood requirement to build 3 useless "lenslets" in order to keep our status. From so many silly, worthless, useless, nameless policies to even more silly ones, nothing worked, and everything was speeding up the crash.

All in all, these changes were more plasters on wooden legs than actual action plan. HQ never agreed to listen to the wise advice from people more experienced and knowledgable than they were. But they might have had plans on running out of business for long...

I can't say that I'm feeling bad, I can't say that I'm feeling sad, I can't say that I'm feeling misled.

All I can say is that I'm feeling... relieved.

My question at this point is... who approached who? Paul Edmonson going to Seth Godin or Godin approaching Paul Edmonson? 

Not to mention that, for me, the most astonishing surprise is the fact that it is HubPages that is acquiring content from Squidoo. 

Two different platforms, two different types of writers, too different one from another. 

I guess I will never know and, finally, it does not frustrate me.

Posted by Holly Day a WAHM who is able to turn any day into a holiday.


Giving Credit where Credit Is Due! Thank you Google.

Thank you Google team

Manual penalty revoked


I must give credit where credit is due and wish to thank Google for the quick reply to my site review. I'm not the most agreeable person in the world - I know that for a fact, however they might be even more disagreeable people on Earth, it's not a trademark - but I want to thank Google for their quick investigation and response to my queries.

As you know one of my site got a manual penalty and was deindexed by big G. This weekend I submitted a review request and early this morning found a response in my Google webmaster tool message box. The site has been reviewed and the manual penalty has been removed according to the review.

This leads me into thinking for good that it was victim of an individual - perhaps more than just one person, though - report. Let's say that you hate someone and that you want their site to be sent to the abysses of human knowledge. What do you do?

Use will use the spam page provided by Google and ask your friends to fill the form as well so as to make sure enough spam complaints are filed against that person you hate. Google has not penalized your site themselves but has put it somewhere between index and no man's land for the time needed to review it. However with the huge amount of spam reports they get everyday, if you don't take action, they won't act either.

That is my personal thought. I might be wrong, I might be right.

How Google dealt with a site infected with malware

But there is one thing I know for a fact and because I already experienced Google's quality services, they rarely penalize a site without motive or just because your face doesn't please their in-house team. 

Years ago, one of my sites was hacked and trojans installed in it. I woke up one morning to an email from Google team letting me know that the site got a malware warning and was put on stand by for the time I fix things. I wasn't aware of anything so I quickly went to my Webmaster tool account and discovered the mess. There was a very detailed email from Google that would let me know what happened, what was the problem, provided me with a safe link to check out my own site - they weren't obliged to do so since it was my site - and instructions for me on how to solve this problem.

All in all and while my site was harmful, they were extremely helpful. Which is why this manual penalty made non sense for me when I saw it.

The old site problem was quickly fixed: I kept a backup of ALL my sites, asked my webhost for a nuke on my account and rebuilt all sites with the backups I kept (before doing so I made sure they weren't infected).

24 hours after the nuke, my site was back in Google's index.

Once again, they acted quickly. Ok I know that nowadays Google has changed their way to do business with small business owners, I know that they might not provide us with the rankings most of us deserve but I don't see the point for them to change their way of dealing with problems.

That is what makes me think that my site was more the victim of someone with bad intentions than from Google's Team.

And unless I'm proven otherwise, I do think they still consider a site infected with malware worse than a site that provides low quality info to readers. I mean what's the worse situation? A dangerous site or a site with nothing to share? Given the way they index spam sites, I still believe that malwares are their main preoccupation.

That is what makes me think that my site was reported by external people - certainly those I suspected from WOT. 

However and because I care for my sites, I took measures in order to pass the review with flying colors - and I promise, I'll always keep a sharp eye on these measures for the time my sites will remain live:

  • Checked all sites linking to mine
  • Removed unrelated sites
  • Disavowed spam sites
  • Cleaned up my webmaster tools - strangely some .php pages were still indexed; which was a mistake
  • Fixed all errors,
  • Sent the site for review.
Some say that it may take up to 6 months for a site to be reviewed. If this is true, then it is one more proof that the site was reported by external fingers.

In this case it took only 4 days. And I want to thank you the Google team for having dealt with my case so fast.

Phew! It was a hard week. Now I'm going back to fill the site with valuable content, even more than before.

Posted by Holly Day


I'd Rather Keep Off Of WOT!

WOT is an online site that enables itself to rate other sites online. Where this right does come from? They act a bit like the Internet police, rate sites as harmful or suspicious or good or bad... Though it shouldn't. Actually I wonder if they have any official authorization to act that way. Anyways, it's not the purpose of this post.

How do WOT ratings look

But I'm going to illustrate this with Squidoo's rating on WOT for example.

As you can see, there are 4 green buttons on the first page (trust), 4 red buttons (no trust), 1 yellow button (suspicious) and 1 grey (no rating).

Who on Earth would be granted to rate Squidoo as a suspicious site? I'm not sure they're members. Ok Squidoo is not on an SSL server, this means that your data is supposed to be at risk, still it doesn't imply that it actually is.

I'm not 100% ok with everything HQ comes up with but Squidoo has been a source of revenue for me for years and I don't really like seeing bad ratings for it from people who probably even never went on there.

Well back to my case.

I submitted MyHappyHalloween for review to WOT

I submitted for ratings to WOT not long ago. It was a real nightmare!

First, a member who confuses himself with someone with super powers provided my site a good rating. Then another member asked me to buy an SSL certificate so as to ensure his rating. I refused. Then the so-called hero came back and deleted his rating and demanded that I buy an SSL certificate.

I refused the requirement, of course. Suddenly this very same individual who was so agreeable, started getting angry. I then was victim of harrassement in public and then through private messaging and my site ended up with a very bad rating! Click here to see its rating.

The site isn't harmful at all, there are no transactions done on it either, so the SSL certificate was not indispensable, and the site is just an info/affiliate one. I know that Google is giving favor to SSL sites nowadays...

My Happy Halloween is now run by myself and a friend. So since she works very hard, I wanted the best for the site. That is why I submitted it for ratings on WOT.

However, a few days after I told the WOT member to leave me in peace, not send me any aggressive and harrasing private message any more, the site stopped getting Google's traffic.

Well I didn't link this traffic trend to WOT at all. And kept on working hard on the site. But after a few days I was extremely surprised to not see a single Google visitor to our site that had not long ago, its favor. I thus kept monitoring the stats and didn't see any kind of improvement although the site publishes a new article each and every day.

Moreover, it gest traffic from Bing and Yahoo for some specific highly popular keywords and none from Google? That is impossible!

MyHappyHalloween is deindexed from Google

I thus went to my webmaster tool account and there saw the disaster! The site got reported and penalized. It is nowadays entirely deindexed!

First things I've done is :

  • disavowing links I didn't recognize

  • removed all links from Squidoo to the site

  • cleaning up the account

  • removing lots of useless pages from Google webmaster tool account

  • fixed errors

  • submitted new sitemaps

  • asked for a review and reindex!

I know for a fact that Google rarely reinstates deindexed sites.

Strangely, all my other sites, built on the very same pattern weren't flagged or penalized or deindexed. Actually I didn't ask for any kind of rating on Wot for those sites because of the problem with the individual that seems to be dealing with personality troubles.

Where does the penalty come from?

It looks to me that the penalty could come from this specific individual or him and friends... who knows? But given that my other sites weren't hit, I don't know why Google would penalize one and not all of them built on the exact same pattern and shared on the same host.

Since I submitted my site for review to WOT, my site went from one problem to another.

It might not be that member responsible for the deindexation of my site, but it strangely occured two/three days after our discussion and the fact that I strongly refused to abide by his will.

From his profile, not a single site gets a fair rating, all ratings are negative, even worse from one to another.

By the end of August if my site isn't reinstated, I'll have to buy a new domain, get a new host and start from scratch. Right on time for Halloween season.

After all, this troubled personality might have helped me more than he thinks... My new site is going to be as clean as a newborn.

I thought I would join a community that would be helpful, in reality I joined a gang of people who think they are the Internet police and don't allow anybody but them to exist.

The most harmful sites on the Internet are probably not those that WOT's members flag like cow boys used to shoot Indians in western movies. 

Although I'm still unsure as to why this site was deindexed and reported as low quality, spam, etc. I'll rather keep off of WOT and won't recommend to anybody on Earth.

Posted by Holly Day