Log into InfoBarrel
Forgot your password?
Need an account?

Squidoo is Moving to Hubpages

1 ... 3 4 5 6
11 posts
Member since Oct 11, 2010
chezfat said:

You guys are crazy, squidoo was a platform. You still own the content. . .

The squidoo platform that you all know and love will be going away so they have offered you two alternatives to you as writers. They will transfer your stuff over to the other platform . . .or you can pull your content and walk.

For those writers that don't respond to the two options Squidoo has to have a fall back option. They could just delete everything or they could transfer everything - seems reasonable to just transfer it IMO. 

I'm certainly not an advocate for Seth and company and I have very little love for HubPages but this is what you have to expect when dealing with other people's platforms.

. . .

Listen to GodFather folks - if moves like this upset you then maybe you shouldn't be publishing on platforms like this in the first place. Make your own sites and write all the rules yourself. I pay less than $10/year for my hosting accounts and domain names are $9/year over on namesilo. If you can't afford to invest $20 into your business annually then you should probably find something better to do with your time.

+1, couldn't have said it better myself.   Would people prefer that Squidoo did what Helium, Today.com and many others did - just close down and let all your articles disappear?

1,552 posts
Member since Jan 26, 2014
Dancingqueen said:
RoseWrites said:
"If you don’t do anything, you’ll get a notice by email and on your dashboard when the transfer is completed and your pages are live.
 
1) So, if the "the transfer is completed and your pages are live" I understand they have moved our content without our consent...Yet once you click on the link (to get your deserved earnings), you've accepted this deal (under duress - since we all need our earnings, right).
 

I do understand why Squidoo members are upset, but if you feel unhappy with this whole process, the solution is simple.  Just wait till the transfer is complete (so you get maximum earnings from Squidoo), then once they're transferred to HubPages, just delete your HubPages account. 

Here's the thing:

I firmly believe that there is a $ attached to "key content" (content that is most likely the "Best Of" Squidoo lenses, since it's already earmarked on our dashboard). Once I presented this publicly, I noticed that within 10 minutes, about a dozen visits were made to my article Can Squidoo Do This? (notably by Bonnie and Seth himself and others . . after 4 years on Squidoo, I know who visits me via GA).

By clicking on a button (be it the green transfer button) or the HubPages "link to activate" a NEW account there, someone (other than content owners - the writers) makes $$ for the sale of Squidoo to HubPages. The only people profiting from this transaction would be Seth Godin et al.

Your comment confirms this a little bit (sorry it's the truth).

It is wrong to withhold earnings until any such button or link is clicked. Again your comment "so you get maximum earnings from Squidoo" confirms that.

The right thing to do would have been to seek out how many writers wanted to transfer their work to HubPages first.

Seth Godin has no right to claim it as "Squidoo's content."

Squidoo's own TOS states:

4. The content: who owns it? As a lensmaster, you will be able to incorporate various forms of content into your lenses. Squidoo does not claim ownership of the content you place on your lens. The content will be owned by you or a third party from whom you got permission to post the content.

Therefore, it's illegal to move my content without my express permission first.

Secondly, I already earned money for Squidoo for July and August (and however long my lenses are online). It's illegal to withhold my share of the earnings (which are held in escrow) unless I click on some button (be it the green transfer button OR to activate a new account on HubPages).

Wouldn't it be easier for Squidoo's IT guys if I just uploaded my lenses to an existing HubPages account? Nah, because unless HP execs can "track" the content they are buying, they probably aren't going to pay Seth Godin et al. everything he's barting ("key content") which is content that does not belong to him.

Wonder why no one is told what the "key content" is?

Because the buzz of activity - new members joining and checking out HubPages and making "friends" is boosting HubPages' Alexa ranking. Sadly, by January, I predict 1/2 the people who "clicked" some button, will not even meet HubPages TOS (and their work will be unpublished).

@Chezfat: Thanks for apologizing, appreciate that. I'm sure triple mommy and myself understand the point you and Godfather are making, but when there are kids afoot and lots of lenses (I have almost 300), the priority is to keep existing work "going." (I'm not hitting any transfer button, but I completely understand where mommy cubed is coming from).

On the plus side, I (and others) will be boycotting any URL that contains "squidoo" or "hubpages" and only supporting ethical platforms (like InfoBarrel) and peoples' personal sites. So, this move (if enough people agree with me), will bode well for those with their own blogs/sites. I plan to "brush off" my blog, etc. once I get this Squidoo/Hubpages thing out of my hair.

Oh and as Godfather mentioned, at least eHow had the decency to pay writers for their work.

1,552 posts
Member since Jan 26, 2014
Dancingqueen said:
 Would people prefer that Squidoo did what Helium, Today.com and many others did - just close down and let all your articles disappear?

Actually yes, I would prefer that. My work is not Seth's to sell. And, for the entire time that my lenses are online, I am also earning money for Squidoo (I didn't have an affiliate account like I do now). Foolishly, I split 50 - 50 with Squidoo (since I liked the idea of half benefiting charity).

Oh and your line "but if you feel unhappy" made me laugh . . I'm not unhappy at all. Have a nice day everyone.

1,552 posts
Member since Jan 26, 2014
kenmuise said:

Hi Rose.  Always glad to see you here.  Are you anxiously awaiting the new Star Wars film as much as I am?

Sure am Ken.

11 posts
Member since Jul 28, 2014
Dancingqueen said:

+1, couldn't have said it better myself.   Would people prefer that Squidoo did what Helium, Today.com and many others did - just close down and let all your articles disappear?

Helium gave folks time to remove their content. In fact, Helium members can still download their content and place it somewhere else. That is what I am doing here. I am reformatting the articles, deleting them over at Helium, and then publishing here. Helium has given a little less than a year's time to remove content from their site. And THAT is the biggest problem I can see with Squidoo. Downloading content takes time, and they did not give enough of it. Sounds like they've tried to fix the earnings bit, though. The threshold changed?

If I did this as my business, I would be with godfather and I would open a domain. But, I only play this game recreationally. I make gas money, that's all. So, I'm sticking to platforms for now. Platforms are easy access to adsense without first building a frequently viewed website.

124 posts
Member since Aug 20, 2014

I was really upset when I heard this. I tride getting the html version/copies of my lenses by the links didn't respond the same when I did it prior to the announcement. So I resulted in saving PDF versions of the pages.

That didn't go as smoothly because I just realized while going through content I saw that the increased size of the page that resulted from their so called awesom upgrade, made creating PDFs a bit of a disaster. There are times when whole lines of texts are missing or hidden by the footer.

If that weren't bad enough some have posted that the cashout threshold was moved back down to a dollar while another poster said theirs was still at twenty-five. 

I stayed up to three in the morning getting my content off of the site along with taken screen shots of article sections where I really needed to see all of the information since they weren't showing up; not only that the images that were used in the articles have been removed from my computer and I needed to see them intact within the written pieces. 

Can't be too upset because the mood I was in sparked a creative moment where I wrote a free-verse poem on how frustrated I was. Advanced warning and longer time frame for moving content would have been much appreciated.

1,552 posts
Member since Jan 26, 2014
Browna86 said:

I was really upset when I heard this. I tride getting the html version/copies of my lenses by the links didn't respond the same when I did it prior to the announcement. So I resulted in saving PDF versions of the pages.

That didn't go as smoothly because I just realized while going through content I saw that the increased size of the page that resulted from their so called awesom upgrade, made creating PDFs a bit of a disaster. There are times when whole lines of texts are missing or hidden by the footer.

If that weren't bad enough some have posted that the cashout threshold was moved back down to a dollar while another poster said theirs was still at twenty-five. 

I stayed up to three in the morning getting my content off of the site along with taken screen shots of article sections where I really needed to see all of the information since they weren't showing up; not only that the images that were used in the articles have been removed from my computer and I needed to see them intact within the written pieces. 

Can't be too upset because the mood I was in sparked a creative moment where I wrote a free-verse poem on how frustrated I was. Advanced warning and longer time frame for moving content would have been much appreciated.

I learned my lesson long ago to save a backup copy after every article I wrote on Squidoo.

I feel so sorry for those of you trying to sort out this jumbled mess and the way you must obtain your work now. And quite honestly, I feel that Squidoo was hoping to frustrate people enough to click that transfer button. 

I am especially thankful for the hundreds of visitors to my article about this - I didn't write it for my lousy $20 (I'll still be struggling online), I wrote it for the minority of honest writers that were on Squidoo.

1,552 posts
Member since Jan 26, 2014
Browna86 said:

I was really upset when I heard this. I tride getting the html version/copies of my lenses by the links didn't respond the same when I did it prior to the announcement. So I resulted in saving PDF versions of the pages.

That didn't go as smoothly because I just realized while going through content I saw that the increased size of the page that resulted from their so called awesom upgrade, made creating PDFs a bit of a disaster. There are times when whole lines of texts are missing or hidden by the footer.

If that weren't bad enough some have posted that the cashout threshold was moved back down to a dollar while another poster said theirs was still at twenty-five. 

I stayed up to three in the morning getting my content off of the site along with taken screen shots of article sections where I really needed to see all of the information since they weren't showing up; not only that the images that were used in the articles have been removed from my computer and I needed to see them intact within the written pieces. 

Can't be too upset because the mood I was in sparked a creative moment where I wrote a free-verse poem on how frustrated I was. Advanced warning and longer time frame for moving content would have been much appreciated.

I learned my lesson long ago to save a backup copy after every article I wrote on Squidoo.

I feel so sorry for those of you trying to sort out this jumbled mess and the way you must obtain your work now. And quite honestly, I feel that Squidoo was hoping to frustrate people enough to click that transfer button. 

I am especially thankful for the hundreds of visitors to my article about this - I didn't write it for my lousy $20 (I'll still be struggling online), I wrote it for the minority of honest writers that were on Squidoo.

1,552 posts
Member since Jan 26, 2014

Sorry about the duplicate posts folks.

2,575 posts
Member since Aug 31, 2009

I will say this, the lack of time to move the articles is awful. You download them, and they all come out disorted.

I don't really care personally that Seth sold his site, he clearly hasn't been paying any attention to it for the last year. I know this hurts people, and I sympathize.

But honestly, I actually think a lot of you would do better on Hubpages. They're bigger than Squidoo, so you might lose some money in the short-term, but you'll probably do okay in the long-term.

Even if you move your lenses there (I personally would do it), then just leave them there, and start making websites.

Hubpages is bigger than Squidoo, I was making more money on Hubpages than Squidoo before they banned me. Just don't rely on Hubpages, that's all.

They will burn ya too. Squidoo has been in the toilet for awhile. Makes 100% sense for Seth to sell.

1,552 posts
Member since Jan 26, 2014
godfather25 said:

Just don't rely on Hubpages, that's all.

They will burn ya too. Squidoo has been in the toilet for awhile. Makes 100% sense for Seth to sell.

Agreed.

Yet, I wouldn't transfer my work to HubPages (for numerous reasons) but also because I could better spend time on my blog/other sites than trying to make lenses "fit" the HP template (there's bound to be major problems/bugs with this transfer).

11 posts
Member since Oct 11, 2010
RoseWrites said:
Dancingqueen said:
 Would people prefer that Squidoo did what Helium, Today.com and many others did - just close down and let all your articles disappear?

Actually yes, I would prefer that. My work is not Seth's to sell. And, for the entire time that my lenses are online, I am also earning money for Squidoo (I didn't have an affiliate account like I do now). Foolishly, I split 50 - 50 with Squidoo (since I liked the idea of half benefiting charity).

Oh and your line "but if you feel unhappy" made me laugh . . I'm not unhappy at all. Have a nice day everyone.

Squidoo has just reduced the payout threshold to $1.  Would you agree that you assigned publishing rights to Squidoo?   Would you agree that publishing rights have a value?  That's what they have sold to Hubpages.  You assigned those rights to Squidoo so they own them and they can legally sell them.   They didn't sell your articles per se. 

You have also assigned publishing rights to Infobarrel.   If they so choose, they have the right to sell them too.  

Like I said, you have an easy solution.   Allow your articles to be transferred to HubPages (so they earn money right up till the last minute), then delete the articles from HubPages.  You can do that yourself with the click of a button - unlike Infobarrel, you don't have to write to the site and ask permission.

 

1,552 posts
Member since Jan 26, 2014
Dancingqueen said:
Like I said, you have an easy solution.   Allow your articles to be transferred to HubPages (so they earn money right up till the last minute), then delete the articles from HubPages.  You can do that yourself with the click of a button - unlike Infobarrel, you don't have to write to the site and ask permission.

 

HA! I have an easier solution, I legally am already entitled to "earn money up 'til the last minute" they are online. I am also earning money for Squidoo (and my share is simply held in escrow). Furthermore, my content is owned by me - it would be illegal and possibly deemed theft to move it elsewhere (without my express permission first).

And wow, Seth et al. must really want to be paid by HP execs for my work eh? The way you are pushing that "You can do that yourself with the click of a button" line.

Good luck convincing the minority of intelligent writers who (unfortunately were on Squidoo) who saw right through this scam - which could possibly be deemed a form of click fraud.

1,148 posts
Member since Nov 18, 2009
RoseWrites said:
Some people had hundreds of dollars at stake (as TanoCalvenoa mentioned) and a family to feed. I think your final comments were uncalled for - but I suppose looking at your profile page (on here since 2009 and only 2 features) explains why you would feel the need. Good luck with your sites.
 
---
 
I legally am already entitled to "earn money up 'til the last minute" they are online. I am also earning money for Squidoo (and my share is simply held in escrow). Furthermore, my content is owned by me - it would be illegal and possibly deemed theft to move it elsewhere (without my express permission first).

Rose, some of us write stuff on the web to make money and not to get featured. Some of us don't even care much if some of the things we write are even read! Some of us don't really care where an article exists either so long as it's making us money. If you don't want your articles on HP then opt out (that option is on the table after all) otherwise allow the transfer but stop complaining about the legality of this - it's just two publishing platforms that now have a single owner. That new owner is merging the platforms into one. This isn't complicated.

I'd like to see you flip out over bank mergers - I bet you lose sleep over that. "...but I put my money in xyz bank yesterday and then they sold my assets to abc bank over night. There's no way that can be legal, it's my money after all! They should have just not merged!"

Consider for just one minute that you and a handful of others out there in the wide world of the internet are simply reacting poorly to business as usual announcements.

11 posts
Member since Oct 11, 2010
RoseWrites said:
Dancingqueen said:
Like I said, you have an easy solution.   Allow your articles to be transferred to HubPages (so they earn money right up till the last minute), then delete the articles from HubPages.  You can do that yourself with the click of a button - unlike Infobarrel, you don't have to write to the site and ask permission.

 

HA! I have an easier solution, I legally am already entitled to "earn money up 'til the last minute" they are online. I am also earning money for Squidoo (and my share is simply held in escrow). Furthermore, my content is owned by me - it would be illegal and possibly deemed theft to move it elsewhere (without my express permission first).

And wow, Seth et al. must really want to be paid by HP execs for my work eh? The way you are pushing that "You can do that yourself with the click of a button" line.

Good luck convincing the minority of intelligent writers who (unfortunately were on Squidoo) who saw right through this scam - which could possibly be deemed a form of click fraud.

I have nothing to do with Squidoo - I don't even have lenses there.  I do write on HubPages and it's not the evil depths of hell you seem to think it is.  In fact my articles there earn far, far more than my articles on Infobarrel, which is why I've left very few here.  I've tried to explain the legal situation and I'm not the only one who has tried to explain it to you.  I can only suggest you actually sit down and read the terms of service at Squidoo (and Infobarrel as well, by the way) and if you're not able to understand it, perhaps get some legal advice before you start accusing anyone of breaking the law when they sell publishing rights which they legally own. 

1,148 posts
Member since Nov 18, 2009

Ohh yeah, I should note that Squid already unpublishes lenses it doesn't like, they call them WIP lenses and I don't hear you or anyone else complaining about them. If they don't want to keep certain things online through this merger then it's their right to make that call however they wish. The precident has already been set.

1,552 posts
Member since Jan 26, 2014

HA! I'm not flipping out at all, I'm stating facts - it appears that you two (Dancingqueen and chezfat) are far more upset than I am about this. And no, this isn't "business as usual." Where has the precident been set?

1) Squidoo's own terms of service (for the second time in this thread) states: "Squidoo does not claim ownership of the content."

2) @Chezfat, your quote "Some of us don't really care where an article exists either so long as it's making us money" is why you and I are just different people. I tend to do things for other reasons - because they are simply the right thing to do. The majority of writers on Squidoo were blackhat practicing scumbags. I'm only doing this to help the minority of honest writers on there (not even myself). Yeah, imagine that, some people don't actually chase the dangling carrot of money.

But you are right, this isn't complicated. So rather than click a button or some link, re: your suggestion and Dancingqueen's "If you don't want your articles on HP then opt out," I think it's far easier to just leave them there until August 31st at midnight (to get the maximum money I am owed).

According to the newly revised Squidoo FAQ it states: "If you haven’t deleted your account by August 29, 2014, your data will be moved automatically to HubPages in September." 

I reckon that means that my stuff can sit there until August 31st at midnight ET without me clicking some button or link. Not complicated.

Lastly, your quote "you and a handful of others" is actually numbering in the hundreds (I have 467 views and 308 reads on my article about this already - and it's not even featured (yet).

If my commentary bothers the two of you, here's an idea: don't read it.

Oh and @Dancingqueen, your line "I've tried to explain the legal situation and I'm not the only one who has tried to explain it to you." Gee whiz, I think ONLY you and chezfat are upset - where are these other geniuses?

Have a nice day everybody,

Rose

 

 

1,552 posts
Member since Jan 26, 2014

Oh and if by precedent you want to mention bank mergers - here's the comparison:

A bank would be entitled to let me withdraw all of my money (right up until August 31st at midnight) even if they were merging - so I could put my money elsewhere. The ONLY thing the bank could reuse was my old account number (similar to a Squidoo URL - which is simply an address). 

4,294 posts
Member since Mar 1, 2011

This will actually be fun to watch the Squidoo refugees start migrating to this site and trying to post the garbage the majority got away with over there with the 800 outbound links and crummy content.  We'll see how many of 'em can make it!

Time to swim with the sharks, now, squids!

1,982 posts
Member since Apr 13, 2011
vicdillinger said:

Time to swim with the sharks, now, squids!

Wasn't that a cheesy film? Megasquid vs Supershark or something like that?

1 ... 3 4 5 6
© Copyright 2008 - 2019 by My Passion Media Inc. Terms of Service Privacy Policy XML Sitemap