I got to see Seth Godin’s next big thing at Web 2.0: Squidoo. He introduces the notion in an e-book (I still don’t understand his love affair with the form) but I got to see it on good, old-fashioned, no-download-needed, no-application-required paper.

It’s a good idea because it’s a simple and necessary idea. I’ll try to summarize:

With most topics on the web, it has become too hard to find the right starting point. The same is true for many web sites, including blogs.

So Seth is trying to create a new grammar for the essential introduction to whatever. He calls it a lens and though you’ll be able to create these lenses on his Squidoo, he also is very clear that you can create a lens anywhere right now. I could create a new page that gives you what I think are the essential starting points for a topic I think I know. Seth is creating a format for this and also an opportunity.

He showed me an example about espresso machines (Jason will be interested) that points to what its author thinks are the best links and posts to get you going on your quest. It’s the starting point. This could also be used for blogs; how many times have you come across a new blog and wondered what this person is really about? This is why Seth had some of us submit what we think are our essential posts. This becomes a lens to Buzzmachine that I create. And I suppose you could create one, too.

This is big. Seth does big things. He recognizes that now the web has to organize better around topics. But with the web’s size — with hundreds of thousands of links about any topic in any Google search — there’s no way to get started. Yahoo tried to answer that in its birth but gave up because it very quickly became too expensive — to outlandishly ambitious — to have staffers catalogue the entire friggin’ web. The Open Directory Project tried to open that up but it was still too complicated because, as its founders have said, people are either lazy or liars. . The original vision for About.com (then The Mining Company) was another variant on this theme until it shifted to becoming a resource itself.

Seth is taking both an open-source and a business approach to this. It’s open-source in the sense that he says you can create a lens without him; he just wants to see more of them.

The business approach is what will make this work: You can go to Squidoo, once it’s up, to create a lens and if you do, you’ll benefit in a number of ways: Because it is a co-op, you will get revenue from the (very targeted, high-value) ads and commerce links that appear there. Also, if you create a lens into your own site, you will bring in more traffic from people who know what they are getting into and looking for and you’ll likely improve your search-engine optimization (because, if you really do have the essential espresso starting point, it should rise high in the rankings). So the hope is that people will be motivated to create lenses that make unlimited topics more accessible. The fear, of course, is spam; I’ll be eager to hear how Seth plans to deal with that.

He suggests that this could be used by bloggers, celebrities, media outlets, politicians, and fans. He also suggests that there will be a landrush to the unique URLs (the first espresso site at Squidoo), but I think — or hope — that instead, there’ll be a competition among various lenses to be the best.

Says Seth: “The structured nature of Web 2.0, combined with the folksonomy of tags, makes a lens the perfect middleman between the content and expertise you’ve already got, and the surfers you’ve never met.”

So I should build — and will build — lenses to my site and to topics I care about. It’d also be interesting to see other lenses on the same topic, e.g., my lens on Jay Rosen and Jay’s lens on himself (well, actually, I’d pick a simpler topic).

  • /pd

    Jeff, don’t you think that this is a another version of linkin or craigslist ??

    The value proposition looks great, but in whoses value bucket will the value stream flow into ??

  • Tom in South J

    What happens when there are 50 lenses on one topic?

  • Tom – you either get a prism or the topic bursts into flames, depending on the location of the light source.

  • So bummed I missed this buit am really looking forward to carving time to read the ebook – it is very similar to many of the concepts found in Insytes, which I have been working on for the past year or so – in fact it could very well be the end or a new beginning of that idea since it seems so many people have smart teams working on it.

    I should also point out that Seth’s post last month on how to spread an idea was really helpful for me to focus my ideas around Web 2.1 – when we as creators spend so much time inside our own heads thinking about things, it is too easy to forget about how to best connect with people. That piece is probably a big reason why we were able to get such a good group of folks there…

    Thanks for coming by – am looking forward to doing more with Recovery2 in the near future.

    BTW – RE:Tom’s question, when you get 50,000 lenses on one topic is where the value comes from because you are able to connect with people like you and understand how they are seeing things – the hard part in this will be getting – also the collective wisdom will filter out the lenses that are either smeared or cloudy, allowing the best to rise to the top.

  • Tom in South J


    That’s hilarious.


    I hope that’s the case that the best ones rise, but i can sort of see lenses morphing into basically everyone’s opinions on topics. Which sounds pretty much like blogs are now. I’d love for this to be aggregated somehow so we can insure the best rise up and become the authoritative lenses on topics.

  • Anyone smell anything here? And no, I don’t mean money. I mean the stuff that gets stuck to the bottom of your shoes when you take a walk through your local stud farm. Squidgy just doesn’t begin to capture it for me. ; )

    Thoughts anyone?

  • if you read the ebook, you’ll notice that the terms “Squidoo” and “LensRank” are trademarks of Squidoo.

    Which suggests that there will be some sort of internal ranking of lenses via a LensRank.

  • It will be easier to judge once one can actually see the pages. In the meantime, it all sounds very myspace.com and the like to me.

    The A-List will get first crack at all the various URL’s ( Since that is who knows about it first and will get the first invites) As usual for Seth, the idea is superb. If he can figure out a way that the people with the most expertise rise to the top vs. the people that have the most connected network/tech savvy early adopters that read his blog.. it will be invaluable for all.

  • howard -yeah, that’s likely to happen with the A-List. The Attention Economy isn’t that much different than the Money Economy in that regard, usually. On the other hand, Ning pretty much did their beta developer applications on a first come, first served basis, so you can never tell. The old cynical definition of an “expert consultant” was anyone more than twenty miles from home with a briefcase. It’s not much different now, in many respects

  • Jeff, Squidoo just completely loses me. I’m trying to get it, but I’m finding I’m not able to grab onto anything. I love Seth and I want to support this…but I need to understand it quickly and don’t have time to read an entire ebook to understand the basic idea.

  • Raza


    i think google got much before then seth. The even use the same terminology of lens.

    Lets see what you have to say now .

  • All I got from Seth’s ebook is that Squido is a “personal page” webhosting service, that Seth, a great marketer, is trying to sell us as the “next big thing”. But the emperor has no clothes.
    It’s a goddamn webpage, not even a blog, and the only catch is that it should be restricted to a specific topic. But so is Wikipedia, and at least there you got some quality, since there are a lot of editors.
    In my opinion, I prefer Wikipedia, and I use it as a “lens” resource (starting point for my topic-specific research) quite often.

  • The idea is not new. This is indeed just an automated service to create subject-specific pages. This is what allowed the web growth in the beginning, people making pages with lots of information about a particular topic and links to other similar resources. I don’t know the number of homepages being created today, but it may look to some that blogs captured some of the mindshare and that personalised pages (like Yahoo 360) have captured some more.

    The idea of recreating the homepage with Web 2.0 tools has some merit, but I am not sure how much value does that add. Yet, it might be possible to exploit the gateway theme a bit. Del.icio.us is a great tool, but the tags are a little bit too random to be useful for the first glance. Wikipedia is great, but it is explicitly not a link gateway. Squidoo may become useful in many respects, but how useful is questionable.

    The concept alone is not particularly new or special so the actual software must be really top-notch for this to amount to something in the end.

  • Michael

    I’m not sure why I wouldn’t use wikipedia for this. It lets you have an explanation of a subject, and at the bottom you can add ‘external links’ that can be used to create a common lens view of a subject instead of many competing lenses.

  • I think the idea of people competing to have the “best lens” on a particular topic might be good in the long run. In its infancy, however, there probably is going to be a lot of miscellaneous and irrelevant info, until the lenses of real value reveal themselves.

  • I get why this is good for Squidoo, but for most people, who gives a squidoo?

    It’s a nice idea. Or neat. Or any of those other bland words.

    In the corporate sense, I think a well-written “about us” page takes care of this. ZoomInfo’s already doing customized pages for business users, and there are myriad social/business networking sites out there. As for blogs, if they can’t sum up what the blog’s about in the little “about this blog” box on the right or left side, then they’ll do no better with a Squidoo page, which sounds like it will be too much information.

    As for his e-book example of milling around department stores, most people I know aren’t going there for meaning. They’re going there for the black dress they need or a new pair of shoes or some wardrobe upgrades, and they just take their sweet time finding what they want.

    It’s idealist, and I can see some people using it. But “next big thing”? Ehh.

  • In regards to the whole “competing to be the best lens” issue, I agree with Ken – ultimately, it will be for the best. I blogged my whole opinion about it on my site:


    The gist: There really isn;t a need for a “best lens”. The lens you consider the best on a topic may be completely different than the one I consider best. Ultimately, that’s whe whole point – it’s not about the “best lens” or best anything anymore, it’s about “the best lens for me”. And, besides, many of us will wind up reading multiple lenses on a similar topic, just like many of us do with blogs right now. We get a fuller story and more complete coverage on a topic that way. It’s like competitive cooperation or something. Paradoxical, but very, very useful.

  • Jersey Girl

    I agree with Rob, who I think hits the nail on the head – my “starting point” on a topic may be totally different than Rob’s. I use google or yahoo to give me options/choices – based on what I need to find – what level of detail – mostly not determined until I see the choices, then I choose an entry. The idea of somebody pre-establishing a starting point for me is not appealing.

  • Will

    Squid sounds like another attempt to provide an alternative to search. Web search and blog search rule the day. If you want in-depth info, then Wikipedia is great.

    While I love Seth, there’s the sense that somehow we’re on the verge of a magical tranformation on the web where all ideas are suddenly remarkable, or even interesting. Some software or “lens” is going to make boring ideas and topics exciting. Much like the “new economy” was going to make rural mechanics rich if they only put up a website.

    The “new idea economy” will likely go the way of the “new economy”.

    If you can make search better, then great. Lenses don’t do much more than searchrolls, which I can’t find much use for.

    Some kind of UserRank SearchRank something may add a nice layer to search effectiveness, but frankly, I think search is pretty damned good. Wikis have a long way to go, I think, but as far as the discussion here, I smell what an earlier poster caught wind of. I have two dogs. I know that smell well.

  • I see Squidoo as a way to formalize what people already do in the margins of their blogs. Blog Rolls, Archives, About Info, RSS and other tools. In a way, this format has happened defacto over time by the evolution of this medium.

    Way too simple? Probably. Something Google will try to buy for millions in a year or two, probably as well. What search engine doesn’t want to own the lenses that help them define the ranking of pages.

  • I see many of the previous comments were in tune with my previous opinion: Seth’s great merit is to drive attention to a necessity of today’s web : dependable sources of information, providing us valuable start points into the information nexus. But I don’t see any incentive to use Seth’s product for it, while there are other, more trustworthy information sources around (wikipedia’s external links being one of them).

    I guess it all depends what his Web2.0 service will provide. But given the current buzz around it, I don’t really believe it is worth it. Therefore, if Squido won’t give me enough reasons, I’ll probably make my own lens using wikipedia.

  • peter

    This is an attention economy. It Seth can generate more attention than geekfests like Wikipedia, then he has a value proposition.


    Doesn’t matter. Google has never been.

  • On Lenses: A topic has a lot of lenses devoted to it, you’ll get metalenses devoted to covering the lenses. A metalens being any lens that presents the author’s opinions regarding lenses that cover a particular topic.

    On Negativity: It’s everywhere. A new project or product is announced and you get the negative ninnies proclaiming the foreordained failure thereof. You can picture a sour old persimmon all scrunched up in his chair, gleefully cackling away as he post his forecasts of gloom and doom. If things went consistently right for any great length of time the poor fellow would end up on a rooftop prepping for the asphalt swan dive. Just can’t handle success.

  • Alan, I totally know what you mean. It’s really irritating. For example, I’ve come up with more than one half-baked idea totally aimed at carving out a little control for myself over the web and its content. Maybe even plump up my wallet a little. I had great spin – no product – but great spin. One of them (a sure win) works like this:

    You post information on (or link information to) a site run by me; information you think is valuable. I decide if it is and allocate a ranking to it. I stack every page (or iPatch as I call them) with a host of commercial advertisements. I get paid to put these ads on your iPatch, and you get paid too with the additional vague promise that should a sale result from a click-through, you’ll get a percentage of my kick-back. My part I’ll just donate to charity and you believe me because I’m a real nice guy.

    The key is that my site (I’m calling it Squidgy by the way) is the definitive starting point for everyone’s search which is only right because I’m such a marketing genius.

    Let’s say you’re looking for … just off the top of the head, okay? … an espresso machine, If you click onto my iPatch on espresso machines and I tell you the Sludge-O-Matic espresso machine is the absolute best available on the market today, you’ll believe me because I’m a real nice guy. And if any of the people with other espresso machines purporting to be the best on any of the pages, sorry, iPatch’s, linked to my starting point tell you THEY are the best, you’ll believe them because anyone posting on, or linked to from, my site is a real nice guy too.

    Plus, your site ranking through the major search engines has the potential to go through the roof if you’re getting lots of hits on your iPatch’s hosted by me (for me) or connected by you to me (for me).

    Everyone else can do the work; collect the information, present it, update it, do the research, whatever. Me? I’m going to sit back, put my feet up, make an espresso or two and make a deal with a few thousand companies in tons of categories. I’ll put them on everyone’s iPatch’s and I’ll give them a ranking of say, 1,2 or 3 in their product or service category depending on how much they pay me to advertise on other people’s pages. In return, I should get a pretty sizable kick-back from all of the click-throughs, in addition to being paid to put up the advertisements in the first place.

    It’s an advertising pyramid with me as Ra, or at the very least, the Son of Ra.

    Oh wait, I forgot – my part of the click-through part of the revenue would all be donated to charity because I’m a real nice guy. We’re talking half of .0001% of each sale so I don’t really care about it anyway. But I would like to clear something up here for those of you who suspect I may be being shifty. We’ve got big costs here, okay? All of that overseeing I have to employ people to do on my behalf. You know what? Never mind – I’ll just use interns, but I’ll have to expense their lunches and dental care and train fare and probably a few other miscellaneous items – new porsche, team-building conference in the Bahamas, all essential to the work we’ll be doing. The point is though that I never said ALL revenue, especially future revenue, would be donated to charity. What am I, nuts? Lazy maybe, but not nuts.

    So there it is, Alan. The idea in a nutshell.

    What happens next? Along come these negative defiers you reference and start questioning the proposition, daring to criticize it for the sham that in truth it really is.

    I was incensed. I could have immediately come onto the forum and defended the idea, teased out objections, answered questions, provided more information … persuaded them to see it the way I wanted them to. Part of the reason I didn’t do that is because I am lazy and it sounded like too much work to me. But more importantly, it would have a been a huge risk to my public image because you know, things can really get out of control on an open forum where people are going to freely speak their minds. I mean, we’re talking major PR disaster potential here, you know? Precisely the reason I do not allow comments on my site.

    So what I did was, I made myself a few espressos and seethed at the screen. I took it personally. A couple of sycophantic groupies tried their best to defend my idea on my behalf. It didn’t work, but at least it saved me from running the risk of being exposed as a potential fraud and let me live to see another day.

    Some people say this Attention Economy is for the birds. They say that if the substance isn’t there, Marketing can’t put it there or really make us believe it is there for more than a few minutes. They say the focus has to be on quality, especially when it comes to software. They just don’t get it. I intend to skate by with some basic programming and storage (it’s been giving me a little trouble, but we’ll eventually work out the kinks I’m sure). Anyone complains and I unPatch them. Problem solved.

    One last thing: if I hear another word about Wikipedia and Craigslist or any of those other ‘great’ ideas floating around the web that ‘work’ really well and are backed by that sickeningly naive, open, friendly and genuine interest in helping and informing people, I’m personally going to disPatch someone off a cliff and it will be on YOUR head. ; )

  • Not sure why people seem so angry…

    We built something. I wrote an ebook about it. It’s all free. We didn’t interrupt anyone, force anyone, hype anything or claim that we and we alone were changing the world. I don’t view my role as inventing brand new ideas and somehow forcing them on people. Instead, I try to surface stuff that we already know, deep down, is probably right–and then I work to capture those ideas in a way that’s easy to spread. That’s all I can promise.

    There’s a whole bunch of things in our society that are really and truly broken, causing suffering, enhancing ignorance and endangering our children. I wish I knew what to do about those things… but finding information on the Net is not one of them.

    The constructive thoughts in your comments are much appreciated and I’m sure you’ll have a bunch more once you actually see the beta. Thanks for those.

    Squidoo might work. It might not. Either way, I hope to enjoy the ride. Lighten up, guys.

  • /pd

    Actually Seth, your propogate the “idea virus” very well. Its actually an old idea , put into a new box, like witha “free prize inside” kinda thing :)-

    yeah I agree, it may or may not work. Oh well so be it !! at least you tried.

  • Seth, so nice to hear from you. I have to admit I was expecting something more along the lines of “well, actually, Noel, that’s not how it’s going to work.”

    Oh well, guess I was right. ; )

  • RK


    If these folks seem angry, the reason is right there, in your Squidoo pitch: “to create, share and discover meaning online.” Expectation set in rather high with that elevator buzz of a statement, so now the scramble is on for the “meaning” of Squidoo. That’s all. Unmoderated commentary often comes across as angry commentary, that is, until new information is added. Good luck with this new venture! Looks interesting.


  • Isn’t this just Wikipedia with external trusted links?

  • Nice try guys.

    Jaan, I don’t think so.

    RK, who’s scrambling? Who cares enough? We already know the meaning of Squidoo – the lining of Seth’s pockets for the least possible effort, masquerading as good intention. Seth, by the way, did not deny this. Well, he’s a marketer and since he himself has said that all marketers are liars, I can’t honestly say that I’m shocked; just vaguely sick to my stomach.

    As for anger; that’s a cheap technique used by people to distract from the merits of a discussion that isn’t going their way, a technique I don’t use.

  • Pingback: The Daily Eudemon()

  • My thoughts on Squidgy

  • Noel: Just wanted to let you know I enjoyed your comments more than the article itself (and agree).

  • * thats not to say I don’t think you are being just a tag unneccesarily cruel. But entertaining, yes.

  • OK Guys – seems everyone is kind of missing the point here for some reason. While I have not seen the beta yet, as someone who has spent the better part of the last year (and over 3 years total thinking about this stuff) I think I get it eventhough I may not be as eloquent as Seth in explaining it to a mass audience.

    1 – It is so many things integrated together that there is no frame of reference for it really – I mean if you called it a Personal Knowledge Portal would that sound better? It might be more descriptive, but it barely scratches the surface of the impact. It is search, it is blog, it is tagging, it is conversation, it is annotation,it is reputation engine, it is ad-hoc collaboration and so much more, all tied together in a neat little bow that makes it pretty and appealing to average everyday business people – you know those people who dont care what language it is written in, they just want to know that it works.

    2 – the biggest problem with search and relevancy is that it is a mostly unstructured data set – our most asvanced AI has only gotten us so far and does not look to be providing the final solution anytime in the near future. The true key to search relevancy lies in the right hemispehere of the human brain which provides context A Whole New Mind provides good reference points on this. So to really create relevancy take the best elements and put them together – the best aspects of search tech with the power of the human experience.

    3 – now throw reputation into the mix along with trust and ego

    4 – connect with people’s passions

    5 – Check out one of Squidoo’s comeptitiors Wink and find the common thread

    6 – Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia, but does not address the question of a persons expertise, the accuracy can be somewhat in question and the interface is unwieldy to an average, non technical person

    7 – people have been wandering around the web spreading their knowledge and reputation, but it has never been connected properly to build value – just like I am writing this here instead of posting on my blog because I want my thoughts to be heard in the conversation and I am not guaranteed that if I just post to my own blog – but how cool would it be if what I was sharing here was posted to this conversation, my personal blog and my company intranet? without having to do anything more than hit submit…

    8 – yes it is blog like, but it appeals to those beyond the early adopters, which is really the brilliance of his messaging “everyone is an expert on something, even if it is only yourself” – spent a month trying to figure that one out and the best I came up with for Insyes was “be known for what you know”

    9 – the brilliance of the business model is the use of a Co-Op structure ala REI – the members not only belong, but they are part owners who share in the revenues – the more they contribute, the more they get from it. While the actual dollars are unknown, my best is that it will pay better than AdSense does for people like me

    If you take a look at the entire situation surrounding conversations, knowledge, connections, relevancy, community and publlishing, you will see that the approach thus far with regards to Wikis, Blogs, SocialNets and everything else is very nascent and not even addressing 20% of the problem yet. Worse still, most of those things as they exit today were created with a technological feature focus for early adopter tinkerers rather than having a human dimension at the core. In short, they are cool technologies, but not close to being mature solutions. From what I read and understand about Squidoo, ths is a huge step in that direction.

    I dont know about the execution, but the idea is right on target and will begin to change things quite dramatically within the year. Especially since, like RSS readers, many competing entries are beginning to emerge and this will one day soon have its own ‘namespace’ in the lexicon of the tech industry and be treated by analysts just as portals once were.

    I put a very rudimentary flash file together to model the discovery, use and sharing of knowledge that is more of a holistic view on the issue. It may not look good, but I think it makes a good point.

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive »()

  • Godin gets the award for churning out the most information and out-of-the-box ideas. He has been on an amazing roll particularly as of late and as one of the first posters said, I can’t even figure out when to read the ebook…yet Godin is coming up with the ideas and sharing them with the rest of us. It’s pretty amazing. While you may not think Squidoo is different, it certainly is, particularly by todays standards. In any case, if marketed correctly (which Godin is the master of) it will soar!

    He will be speaking at a marketing event in central NJ (Edison, about 40 min from NYC) on Novemeber 17th. It’ll be interesting to see where Squidoo is at and what he has to say. More info on Seth Godin event here.

  • I am trying to get into the next Squidoo Beta as I missed the first one sadly. I really like to get a jump start on these things because it can really help when your one of the first ones to test out things like this. Really makes you feel involved on the latest technologies.

  • Pingback: shift+control » Blog Archive » New Spin on Blogging()

  • Les

    Found this thread through Susan Mernit ( http://susanmernit.blogspot.com/2005/10/blogon-kick-off-seth-godins-kick-off.html ) which I found through NetSquared ( http://www.netsquared.org/blog/celeste-w/we-the-clueless. )

    Just like he did here, Seth responds to criticism by accusing the blogger of being emotional. In this case, the blogger was raising some good questions about the Squidoo model and why Seth was calling not-for-profits “clueless” for not embracing it.

  • Yossi

    I am interested in your comments in regards to Google Co-op

  • good stuff

  • Squidoo doesn;t work . i spent two hours on it there today. Links didn’t produce searchable meta tags, i was at youtube watchng my fields play and then unless i directly constructed the link by hand that search module didn;t work.

    There seems to be nothing in the store. according t Squidoo there is no erchandise worldwide on middle earth or Eowyn. Since there are tons of dolls an collectibles form the movie, that’s crap.

    You are essentially buiklding someone else’s search engine for free. They are populating their data tables ad playing stupid when users attempt to search for their own lens.

    Worse ,when you widen their contact pool by distributing your lenses to the modules you created, there is no link, browsers have to sn up and register!!!

    And it doesn;t work wither , becasue all the lenses i built immediately vanished into the 33,000 top search rank, BUT when is earched the terms, names, keyword, and meta tags i had juts put intot h squiddo, it returned the “this has returned tno results” would you like to be the first to make tthe first lense on thsi topic?

    what a scam.

  • Why is a free and useful service, a scam? Not at all. It’s getting better and better, and I will proove it :)

    Wish me luck!

  • I’ve played around with Squidoo a bit for clients putting up company profiles and such. I’m wondering what kind of traffic these lenses are receiving, what the demographics and for lack of a better term, “psychographics” of the users are. How many are Internet marketing savvy people browsing through their competition, and how many are target customers or otherwise users who will become engaged somehow with the ongoing lens? Since I can’t set up analytics for these lenses I really wonder if anyone has been successful in turning a profit with Squidoo.

  • Pingback: Lists Web 2.0 Squidoo Style » Webomatica()

  • Generally, you expect start-ups to improve. After all, nobody can really be expected to anticipate all the ramifications of a new web presence. Squidoo just gets worse with time. Arrogance, apathy, and denial. It had promise, but the idea that it is some kind of “semantic web” app (like it claims to be) is just false. Rampant tag-spam incentivized by the brain-dead lensrank algorithm makes Squidoo’s internal search the most irrelevant I’ve seen in ages. Didn’t Google stop blindly accepting keyword meta tags three or four years ago?

  • Pingback: SES: Humans? That’s HOT - Internet Insider Report()

  • Ken

    The concept is similar to that of oondi (http://www.oondi.com) except that oondi will pay out 100% of the advertisement profits to the authors. Their hosting costs are covered by clicks which occur on non-author owned pages like the index but I suppose it’s basically a non-profit organization similar to Wikipedia rather than a commercial one like HubPages or Squidoo.

  • There have been a lot of comments and questions on what really happened with Google & Squidoo

    I interviewed Seth Godin on the “Squidoo Slap”


  • Interesting post with many fascinating thoughts in the thread. As an investigative journalist and newspaper owner, I approached Squidoo with a different set of eyes and asked many of the same questions that came up here. I wasnt cracy about Squidoo com to begin with…however I have come to see the real value of Squidoo. I think Squidoo’s real synergy happens when you use web 2.0 properties to promote it. If you use those stratgies to promote your lens, the supposed SQUIDOO SLAP doesnt matter… We wrote an article on it on our site http://powersquidoo.com/attention-the-squidoo-slap-is-over-2/2007/10/12/
    Also I’d love to hear other Squidoo lensmasters opinions on how we have dressed up our lens at http://www.squidoo.com/powersquidoo/

  • Tricia Lefkowitz Austin

    Okay…it’s 6/2008…Former lensmaster. I am an educated person. I can’t say I know a lot about the internet. However, at 43 I know when a whole lot of people maybe taken down a road to no where. Squidoo, I had never even heard of Seth Godin until Squidoo, is simply a way of convincing (many other tactics are used to motivate people to make lens upon lens.) All the while Mr. Seth gets the pay off. Do they really donate as much to charity as they say? Even if they do, the “squidoo team” makes a whole lot with all those ads etc.. I think it’s funny, it was a journey. Ultimately my favorite lens dedicated to my ailing Father’s paintings was put in the “purple zone”. Seth likes purple…didn’t he write some book I Like Purple Cows? Oh, no that’s not right. But back to my point, no one ever responded to my questions about why I could not even get to my lens to edit it. I got the nice auto. emails…we’re a small group…we’ll get to you soon…no not soon enough. No longer lensing. Just curious on any up to date stuff on squidoo?

  • I think the idea of people competing to have the “best lens” on a particular topic might be good in the long run. In its infancy, however, there probably is going to be a lot of miscellaneous and irrelevant info, until the lenses of real value reveal themselves.

  • Pingback: Emily Chang - Designer » Blog Archive » The Social (Activist) Web()

  • Pingback: Squidoo | LOHAD - random rumblings on marketing and more()