Is Squidoo a good way to bring traffic to a website?

by dogg74
19 replies
Hey

I would love to hear people view on Squidoo? is it a good way to bring traffic to a website.

My website is comparethegame.com just want to find other great ways on getting traffic, and I hear Squidoo is one?
#bring #good #squidoo #traffic #website
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by dogg74 View Post

    I would love to hear people view on Squidoo? is it a good way to bring traffic to a website.
    A page on Squidoo's website is no better or worse way to bring traffic to your site than a page on anyone else's site. From the potential traffic-generating perspective it doesn't matter.

    What matters is that a page on Squidoo's website is a page you can never yourself own or control.

    Someone else makes up all the rules, changes them whenever they feel like it, interprets them all as idiosyncratically and inconsistently as they like, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it, when that happens. That's just part of the reason why you're so much better off with a page on a website you own and control (even if it's on free hosting - this isn't a "free or paid" discussion at all).

    It's about mindset, really, and long-term security: either you like to be in control of your own business and its traffic-generating systems, or you're willing for your business to be unnecessarily dependent on others' sites.

    This is a marketing forum in which some members promote Squidoo-related tools/advice/services, and it's "in the nature of the beast" that they're going to disagree with me, of course.

    Originally Posted by dogg74 View Post

    I would love to hear people view on Squidoo?
    There are many here. These posts/threads contain - among other viewpoints - many perceptions and discussions of some of the well-known and not-so-well-known drawbacks of Squidoo ...

    Anyone make money on Squidoo?
    Anyone Making above $ 100 Per Month with Squidoo ?
    Affiliate Market in Squidoo?
    Too Much Advertising on Squidoo??
    Is Squidoo still okay to post article to?
    How to subtly advertise on Squidoo and Hubpages?
    How do I Use Squidoo Effectively?
    Advice on Squidoo
    What's the value of a Squidoo Lens?
    Using Hubpages, Squidoo, and Tumblr to generate backlinks
    A question about squidoo..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6909565].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author StunningWarrior
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      A page on Squidoo's website is no better or worse way to bring traffic to your site than a page on anyone else's site. From the potential traffic-generating perspective it doesn't matter.

      What matters is that a page on Squidoo's website is a page you can never yourself own or control.

      Someone else makes up all the rules, changes them whenever they feel like it, interprets them all as idiosyncratically and inconsistently as they like, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it, when that happens. That's just part of the reason why you're so much better off with a page on a website you own and control (even if it's on free hosting - this isn't a "free or paid" discussion at all).

      It's about mindset, really, and long-term security: either you like to be in control of your own business and its traffic-generating systems, or you're willing for your business to be unnecessarily dependent on others' sites.

      [/URL]
      I partially agree and partially disagree. Yes, you don't own your Squidoo lenses. That is bad. But Squidoo is a much higher fidelity source of traffic than the article directories. Maybe Google doesn't distinguish between text-only articles and Squidoo lenses, but it sure makes a difference to the surfer's experience. I would put Squidoo, Hubpages, etc. above ezinearticles, go articles etc anyday. Furthermore, look at your namesake - Squidoo is around 200, Hubpages and ezinearticles both around 350. So Squidoo is getting more traffic. Now I haven't calculated traffic/lens against traffic/article and obviously even if I did this would be meaningless because all that matters is the traffic to one's own lens or article. But even so, alexa.com says that Squidoo is more popular than any other third party website which you can seriously use to drive traffic. If you're using organic search, not ppc, for your traffic, then you really need to look at Squidoo.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7071973].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

        I partially agree and partially disagree. Yes, you don't own your Squidoo lenses. That is bad.
        Agreed. It's dreadful, in fact. Unnecessarily risky, pretty silly, and all the other problems explained in all those threads linked to above.

        Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

        But Squidoo is a much higher fidelity source of traffic than the article directories.
        It's a higher fidelity source of traffic than half a pound of cheese, as well. But what does that have to do with anything? :confused:

        No article marketer, for all the reasons explained in this post, is trying to use article directories as a source of traffic. That isn't how they're used at all.

        Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

        Maybe Google doesn't distinguish between text-only articles and Squidoo lenses, but it sure makes a difference to the surfer's experience. I would put Squidoo, Hubpages, etc. above ezinearticles, go articles etc anyday.
        In terms of "surfing experience", I think you mean? Yes, of course ... so would I, overall. No comparison at all. But that isn't what we're using article directories for.

        Article marketers are putting copies of their articles into directories for publishers to find, not for potential customer traffic to find.

        Owners of ezines, newsletters, and Webmasters of niche websites know that Ezine Articles is the place to go to look for content to syndicate. The purpose of putting an article into a directory isn't for customers to see it there - it's for publishers to find it listed there and re-publish it. An article directory is simply a stepping-stone to re-publication somewhere relevant, where customers do look. The purpose of article marketing is to get your articles published as widely as possible in front of the already-targeted traffic you want to attract to your site. So you want them to be re-published on sites and in ezines/newsletters whose readers/visitors/subscribers comprise the people you want to attract to your own site. And the sole purpose of an "article directory" is to announce to publishers the availability for re-publication of your content, to fulfil that purpose for you. All explained in this thread: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872

        Respectfully, there's no point in comparing a Web 2.0 site with an article directory: for a marketer, they serve two totally different purposes!

        Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

        Furthermore, look at your namesake - Squidoo is around 200, Hubpages and ezinearticles both around 350. So Squidoo is getting more traffic.
        That makes Ezine Articles better for me to use, and Squidoo worse for me to use for that purpose, doesn't it?!

        The last thing I want is for any of my potential customers who search in Google to find one of my articles in an article directory or on a Web 2.0 site, rather than finding it on my own site! That wouldn't be a very sensible arrangement for me, would it?!

        Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

        alexa.com says that Squidoo is more popular than any other third party website which you can seriously use to drive traffic.
        You're trying to compare apples with grand pianos, here.

        Article marketers (who know what they're doing) are not using article directories "to drive traffic"!

        That isn't how they work, and it isn't a purpose they can usefully fulfil for us. As so many have discovered to their cost - that's how all the people starting off the threads with titles like "Is Article Marketing Dead?" have been trying to use them, isn't it? And you're talking about trying to use Squidoo the same way. That's a counter-productive way, in the long run, to an article marketer.

        After all the Panda updates of 2011, when the article directories' traffic was decimated, that was a good thing for article marketers, not a bad thing: it made it much easier for us to attract the potential customers to the copy of the article originally published and indexed on our own sites, and safely to have the article directory copy there for publishers only (who know where to look) to find it. These Google updates always seem to give a tremendous boost to article marketing, and actually there are reasons for that!

        Articles in directories are there only for the few people who search inside directories (not in Google!!) to find. Those people are publishers, not customers.

        Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

        If you're using organic search, not ppc, for your traffic, then ...
        Respectfully, I totally disagree with you. And I think you'll find that about 99% of the Warriors who are making a living from article marketing do, too.

        What I want to happen, when one of my visitors types one of my articles' keywords into a search engine, is for them to find an article on my own site listed there, not one in Ezine Articles, and definitely not one in Squidoo!

        I want that traffic coming straight to my site, not swanning off to Squidoo, from which I'll eventually get back only some of it! That would be just "poor planning" and "wasteful".

        It makes no sense at all for me to give Squidoo the benefit of the initial indexation-rights to content which could have been published on my site first, rather than on theirs.

        For many article marketers, getting this right can even be the difference between making a living and not making a living.

        Respectfully, the facts you're adducing, purportedly in support of your contention, are actually arguments against what you're saying, here!

        Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

        ... then you really need to look at Squidoo.
        On the contrary: it's if (and to the extent to which) you're using organic search for your traffic that you need to take particular care to avoid such sites, so that you don't lose so high a proportion of your SEO traffic by building up someone else's site and business rather than your own.

        I think a careful read through this thread, which discusses in more detail why it's such a big mistake to have your unique content indexed on sites other than your own, will help you: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...marketing.html
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7072064].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author StunningWarrior
          I think we're talking at cross purposes here. The process that you describe is not possible with Squidoo because of the proprietary nature of the page layout. You can't just copy a lens from Squidoo to another site. So publishers don't go hunting on Squidoo.

          Perhaps more detail will make things clear.

          Firstly, my best content goes on my own site, no question. But that's not going to get me on page 1 of Google, even after the Panda algo changes.

          But for some strange reason, it is easy to get a Squidoo lens on page 1, and thereby get at least 100 times as many visitors to my lens as I get directly to my site.

          So my second best content goes on Squidoo. This is still high quality and unique, just not as good as the stuff on my own site.

          And most importantly, I write the lenses so that there's always a piece of information missing that encourages the surfer to click through to my site.

          And this is where the higher fidelity point comes through - click through rates from Squidoo are orders of magnitude higher than from article directories.

          Let's say that 15%-20% of people click through. That still means that for every 1 direct hit on my site I get 15 to 20 indirect visitors via Squidoo.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7077003].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

            click through rates from Squidoo are orders of magnitude higher than from article directories.
            You say that as if it's a good thing, but it just isn't. Well, it's good for Squidoo: it's not quite so clever for you, though.

            Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

            Let's say that 15%-20% of people click through.
            That actually means you're unnecessarily losing "only" 80% - 85% of your traffic.

            Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

            That still means that for every 1 direct hit on my site I get 15 to 20 indirect visitors via Squidoo.
            It just doesn't, I'm afraid ... I'm sorry you see it that way.

            On the other hand, I'm happy for all my competitors to see it that way.

            See if the last paragraph of this post, made yesterday by "Black Hat Cat", explains it more clearly for you than I've managed to? http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post7070899 ("Just so there's no mistake in my point....if someone wants to build up a Squidoo Lens, provide tons of content on it, promote it, get it ranking, etc.....it absolutely will send you traffic. But that's not Squidoo helping YOU get traffic, that's you helping Squidoo get traffic with the hope that some of it trickles your way. Anyone who prefers that strategy, knock yourself out. I prefer doing all that promotion for my OWN properties so ALL the that traffic comes my way.")


            • One of the (very few) things that a Web 2.0 site like Squidoo has in common with an article directory site like Ezine Articles is that it's very easy to imagine that you're getting traffic from it, when what's actually happening is that you're generating traffic to it (and getting back only a small proportion of that traffic, instead of all of it, which is what you could just as easily have had instead).


            It's actually a very simple, straightforward point, which these long discussions sometimes obscure rather than illustrate. Unfortunately, that reality is also aggravated by frequent posts (in many threads - not yet in this one) from people with Squidoo-related services to promote in their sig-files and WSO's, and even by some forum trolls (again, not yet in this thread) trying to stir the pot by "warning" people that it's not as simple as it looks, and not a black and white issue at all, and so on.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7077256].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author StunningWarrior
              Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

              That actually means you're unnecessarily losing "only" 80% - 85% of your traffic.
              But it's not my traffic. If the traffic doesn't go to my Squidoo lens then it goes to some other dude's website on page 1 of the serps, not to my website.

              My options are:

              1) Get 1 visitor to my website
              or
              2) Get 100 visitors to my Squidoo lens and then 15-20 to my website

              Am I helping Squidoo? Absolutely. I don't disagree with you at all. But just because I am giving Squidoo loads of traffic it doesn't mean that I get no benefit. If I could get my own site to rank like I can get a Squidoo lens to rank then obviously I would want traffic direct to my site. But I can't, on most occasions.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7077365].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                Banned
                Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

                But it's not my traffic.
                Indeed - we agree there. My point is that that could all be your traffic, instead of Squidoo's, if you wanted it.

                Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

                If the traffic doesn't go to my Squidoo lens then it goes to some other dude's website on page 1 of the serps, not to my website.
                I promise I don't mean it impolitely, but that's because your own website isn't on page 1 of the SERP's, and that in turn is because you've shot it in the elegantly high-heeled foot by giving sites like Squidoo the initial indexation-rights to your unique content.

                Squidoo didn't get there because it's an "authority site", and the page-rank of its own home page doesn't help you. Your Squidoo page got there because you put your content on it, to send your traffic to it. Again, not criticising you: simply recording an objective fact - you've ended up with a website that can't outrank "your" pages at Squidoo, by building up their business instead of yours.

                I suspect that you see the 15% - 20% click-through rate you're getting from there as "something extra" which you wouldn't otherwise have at all, instead of seeing it as losing the other 80% - 85%. There are other ways!

                Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

                My options are:

                1) Get 1 visitor to my website
                or
                2) Get 100 visitors to my Squidoo lens and then 15-20 to my website
                You could (as I do, and as countless article marketers here do) get all 100 of those visitors directly at your own website instead, rather than losing 80% - 85% of them.

                Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

                .But just because I am giving Squidoo loads of traffic it doesn't mean that I get no benefit.
                Nobody's disputing that.

                You're getting a benefit of 15% - 20% of that traffic. If you compare that with "not doing anything at all", you're getting a benefit, for sure. As Black Hat Cat explains so succinctly in the last paragraph of his post to which I've linked, in my post above. But compared with the equally easy alternative, you're losing out - heavily.

                Please excuse the observation that the conversation is starting to remind me of all those (in so many article marketing threads) who say "I can't rank as well as my Squidoo pages, so I'd rather have 15% of that traffic than nothing at all". I'd rather have all of that traffic, myself - and I get it. As do so many others here.

                Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

                If I could get my own site to rank like I can get a Squidoo lens to rank then obviously I would want traffic direct to my site. But I can't, on most occasions.
                I understand this. I'm sure you're right about that. But the reason you can't is the policies you've pursued in relation to Squidoo, by having chosen to send your traffic there. You, not Squidoo, have made "your" Squidoo page what it is. Please excuse my putting it bluntly, but "you did it to yourself". Sorry!!
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7077483].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author StunningWarrior
                  Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                  Indeed - we agree there. My point is that that could all be your traffic, instead of Squidoo's, if you wanted it.

                  I promise I don't mean it impolitely, but that's because your own website isn't on page 1 of the SERP's,

                  ...

                  I understand this. I'm sure you're right about that. But the reason you can't is the policies you've pursued in relation to Squidoo, by having chosen to send your traffic there. You, not Squidoo, have made "your" Squidoo page what it is. Please excuse my putting it bluntly, but "you did it to yourself". Sorry!!
                  I'm not interpreting your comments at all as impolite. I wish everybody could be as civil as you are being.

                  And yes, I did do it to myself. I agree completely - it was a conscious decision.

                  Don't doubt it - I do want that traffic to be mind. But I've repeated this multiple times. I create a website with good content and it ends up on page 4 or 5, or sometimes 14 or 15 I create a lens with good content and it ends up on page 1. There's no difference in the approach. Analysis shows that the niches are similarly competitive. But I only seem to dominate a niche with a lens, not with my own site (typically WordPress with the SEO plug-ins - I am not naive). I've revealed details to a couple of friends with IM skills and they are as stumped as I am. Maybe I should produce a "Squidoo Voodoo" report because I can rank lenses easily in medium-competitive niches.

                  I continue to experiment, but in the meantime I need to put food on the table so I use an approach that works for the sites that are not part of the experiments.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7077613].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ElenaK
        Originally Posted by StunningWarrior View Post

        I partially agree and partially disagree. Yes, you don't own your Squidoo lenses. That is bad. But Squidoo is a much higher fidelity source of traffic than the article directories. Maybe Google doesn't distinguish between text-only articles and Squidoo lenses, but it sure makes a difference to the surfer's experience. I would put Squidoo, Hubpages, etc. above ezinearticles, go articles etc anyday. Furthermore, look at your namesake - Squidoo is around 200, Hubpages and ezinearticles both around 350. So Squidoo is getting more traffic. Now I haven't calculated traffic/lens against traffic/article and obviously even if I did this would be meaningless because all that matters is the traffic to one's own lens or article. But even so, alexa.com says that Squidoo is more popular than any other third party website which you can seriously use to drive traffic. If you're using organic search, not ppc, for your traffic, then you really need to look at Squidoo.
        I agree with StunningWarrior....Treat Squidoo is a community website and with over 1 million lenses ...you bet you will get tons of traffic.
        There are tons of information about Squido on this forum , but one of my favorite
        is Squidoo 52 Week Amazon Lens Building Challenge is on Facebook by Tiffany Dow. Check it out.
        http www dot facebook dot com / pages / Squidoo-52-Week-Amazon-Lens-Building-Challenge / 233392012874
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7077693].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Greedy
    Alexa Smith has given a great response. I agree with it completely.

    Personally I like paid traffic sources for reasons she listed.

    Great site btw! Nice design & domain name. Catchy.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6909653].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author IMDealBox
    If you are into gaming niche than you MUST use yahoo answers as well. The best traffic source for your niche. Also gaming forums comments.

    Squidoo, as Hubpages, is OK for traffic if you can RANK HIGH. I have a Hub that is on 3rd spot on Google's first page and i get about 250 visitors a day! And i never built any links or anything and it is for a extremely competitive keyword...

    ALL my other lens and hubs that are not on first page get almost no traffic. So while it is OK to use Squidoo as additional traffic source...you must rank the lens on Google's first page to get any results!
    Signature
    I.M Hound: Intelligent Business Solutions & I.M News
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7077100].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jeffery
    Alexa,

    Can we agree on this three points pertaining to an online business:

    1) The main objective of an online business selling goods is to sell the goods?

    2) The main objective of an affiliate site is to resell the goods?


    Can we agree on this point about traffic to our online business:

    1) Traffic may or may not create sales, but when done right, traffic creates sales?

    Here are my points and not necessarily an argument with you in any shape or form.

    1) Business owners, online and offline, are constantly in search of methods to increase sales.

    2) Sales are sales and it does not matter where the sales come from as long as the sales method does not exceed the profit.


    Online, Squidoo and similar sites are methods to increase sales, yet not the best method to increase sales for all the reasons you point out.

    With that said, from my own experience, I suggest to online business owners:

    1) Focus and work on all traffic methods that create sales.

    2) Squidoo and similar sites may not be the best traffic methods, but sales are sales.

    Squidoo and similar sites may end tomorrow, Article Directories may end tomorrow, Hosting companies may end tomorrow, A business owner's webmaster may end tomorrow... end result may be that one or more methods of traffic are temporarily suspended and in some situations terminated permanently.

    In any event, traffic is traffic, it is just that there are many different traffic methods, some traffic methods are better than other traffic methods. Sales are sales and online those sales are generated by many different traffic methods.

    As long as the cost of generating traffic does not negatively impact profit there is every reason to utilize every traffic method available to an online business.

    Personally, I utilize every form of traffic that I know of and when one drys up - thats okay - other traffic methods are still in play. Yes, some are better than others in terms of ROI, some may go away tomorrow, but that is just business.

    Personally, I do not spend too much of my advertising budget on Social Sites simply because as Alexa has pointed out - Article Syndication simply is a better method. However, not all online business owners (sole proprietor) have the talent to have their articles syndicated.

    With that said, Article Marketing and Article Syndication and Web 2.0 Advertising will always have a place on the internet to earn an income and drive targeted traffic to our sites.

    What works best for one person model may not work best or at all for the next person. One model may see immediate results for one person and may see no results for the next person.

    No one person is right when based on results! It is how we go about achieving the results. We are taught to have a plan before we venture into proven methods and methods new to us. Plans can be very different even when the method is the same. That is usually because the business model differ.

    For instance, gamers play games and the majority of gamers spend more time playing games online and visiting Social Sites compared to all other industries. Except for XXX and specific sports when in season.

    It only makes good business for a business owner in the game and sports niche to put the business in front of the buyers.

    Do the research, gamers with money to spend pay for two products more than all others: Online fees and the game itself. Where do most gamers buy the game? Advertise there. What are the most popular game play sites? Advertise there. Just do not put too much advertising in sites that only write about the games. The majority of online gamers prefer to spend their time playing games and claim bragging right at Social Media Sites.

    Game site? Yeah, Social Media Advertising has always sent targeted traffic to my websites and as long as people play games that traffic will convert to..

    sales.

    Jeffery 100% :-)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7077498].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Hi Jeffery,

      As ever, I agree with the "underlying spirit" of everything you say.

      Originally Posted by Jeffery View Post

      Online, Squidoo and similar sites are methods to increase sales, yet not the best method to increase sales for all the reasons you point out.
      I prefer to express this point slightly differently (especially in conversations like this thread!) and say that Squidoo and similar sites are methods which people can use to get increase in traffic/sales compared with not doing it at all, but a huge decrease in traffic/sales compared with what they could equally easily do instead. I admit it doesn't read very differently from what you've just said, now I've set it out again. And clearly we have no fundamental disagreement on the point.

      Originally Posted by Jeffery View Post

      I suggest to online business owners:

      1) Focus and work on all traffic methods that create sales.
      You'll perhaps think me terribly pedantic () but I think this point, expressed in this way, obscures more than it clarifies.

      Let me try to explain why, because I suspect it may be the heart of the apparently differing opinions we might have ...

      Yes, clearly "focusing and working on all traffic methods that create sales" sounds like a good thing to be doing. But hold on a moment, because with businesses "like ours", we should be analysing what works well and what works badly, and doing more of what works well and less of works badly, shouldn't we? (Nobody's going to argue with this observation, I think? ).

      It's all very well to say "focus and work on anything that brings you traffic", but if one system of using "that content" (the content to which Stunning Warrior refers above) brings you 15% - 20% of the available traffic, and another method brings you 100% of it, I know which one I want to focus and work on.

      So, if you'll excuse my wording it this way, I think these exhortations to "focus and work on everything that can work" can actually be a little misleading!

      Originally Posted by Jeffery View Post

      2) Squidoo and similar sites may not be the best traffic methods, but sales are sales.
      Sales are sales, yes. But getting sales from 100% of the traffic produced (from whatever the specified content is) is clearly better than getting sales from 15% - 20% of it.

      Originally Posted by Jeffery View Post

      As long as the cost of generating traffic does not negatively impact profit there is every reason to utilize every traffic method available to an online business.
      I don't quite agree. Sorry. When there are two alternative methods (either, but not both of which can be done - and that does apply here because unique content has only one initial indexation process, in the case of this example either on a site you own or on one Squidoo owns), one of which produces far more traffic and sales than the other, my submission is that it can actually even be a mistake to "try every method". It makes no sense to me to give away initial indexation rights to unique content to Squidoo, even though you get some traffic that way, because you can get a lot more by doing something else with it instead, and you can't do both, by definition: content can't have two initial indexations, and Squidoo won't accept what's already been indexed on your own site.

      So it's about doing more of what works well and less of what works badly. Using Squidoo works really badly. By Stunning Warrior's own admission, she's losing 80% - 85% of her traffic there. (Ok, that isn't quite what she said, because she doesn't see it as "her" traffic, she sees it as "Squidoo's" traffic, but that's only because of what she's chosen to do with the content, I think we can all agree? It's only "their" traffic because she puts her content there: they didn't have it without her, after all! ).

      Some methods are better than others. Sometimes there are choices. "Do everything" isn't, ultimately, the right approach in every case. This is my contention, and to the extent that it's my contention it's also where I disagree with what you've said.

      Originally Posted by Jeffery View Post

      Personally, I utilize every form of traffic that I know of
      Hmmmmmm ...

      I have no wish for a pedantic quarrel on a pleasant Sunday (and least of all with yourself!) but I imagine that, if pressed, I can name forms of traffic that you know of but which you don't use at all, because you've correctly decided that comparatively they're a waste of time/effort/energy/resources.

      And I am talking comparatively, here, after all. Indeed, that's the crux of my argument.

      Originally Posted by Jeffery View Post

      One model may see immediate results for one person and may see no results for the next person.
      Well, technically this is, of course, true. But still - and perhaps more relevantly to our discussion here - sometimes there are underlying realities that predicate that some models are going to work overwhelmingly better for the vast majority of people than others are. (To take a silly but obvious example: look at all the people trying to use mass, automated article directory submissions for the "benefit" of their own backlinks, as a way of gaining SEO traffic and sales from it. You and I know that for 99% of them this is going to be a waste of time, and indeed that that's why so many of them are starting off threads here with titles like "Is Article Marketing Dead?" ... because they imagine that what they're doing is article marketing and they're not getting any sales from doing it. There you go: their results may vary a little from person to person, exactly as you rightly observe above, but all the same nobody who's earning a living through article marketing actually imagines that they're doing something sensible. And they're not. And the philosophy of "trying everything" doesn't make it any more sensible, does it?).

      Originally Posted by Jeffery View Post

      Do the research
      People don't, though. They haven't tried the alternatives properly. They "already know" (because in 500 threads here over the last 4 years people have been telling them that "Squidoo is an authority site" :rolleyes: ), that they can rank their Squidoo pages better than their own site, and when they try it that does indeed happen for them (surprise surprise! :p ), and they don't know that they can choose something overwhelmingly better instead.

      The reality is that "trying everything" includes trying some pretty ill-conceived and heavily odds-against activities which have far better alternatives. There are sometimes, literally, "alternatives", when "you can't do both".

      Sometimes, it's no good saying "Why does it have to be an either/or? Why not do both?".

      The answer is that (a) sometimes you can't, and (b) sometimes one is (with reasons!) overwhelmingly better than the other for almost everyone, and (c) sometimes one is even based on an Urban Myth of Internet Marketing. One must acknowledge this, surely?

      I think I agree with everything else you say, and with (at least my perception of) your reasons for saying it.

      It's an interesting discussion, too.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7077658].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tmtechno
    If you build it they will NOT come.

    That is the truth in online business. Anyone dare to disagree?

    So how do you make them beeline to your business? You will need to create pathways to your online property.

    Unfortunately, unlike offline business these pathways are not permanent, any / all can vanish for a variety of reasons.

    That makes it imperative to use each and every channel which can act as a pathway to your business whenever and wherever available. Of course there is the small matter of calculating ROI.

    Squidoo is a brand and Google has been favoring brands for a long time. A well made lens has the potential to rank high and quickly. That makes it a high return investment.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7077732].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 181liquid
    I love it when the big dogs stomp-there's plenty of info to be picked up
    THANKS...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7077986].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ted Mayer
    Thanks for your questions and your answers.Valuable information flowing through this thread.

    I totally understand when StunningWarrior says that she can rank better a Squidoo lens that her own site. Also I understand when Alexa Smith mentions that , although we are getting a plus of traffic because of your Squidoo lens you are loosing the (big) rest of the pie to squidoo and feeding the squidoo beast with your own original and exclusive content.

    Like Jeffery said, "a sale is a sale" but definitely why go for the small coins when you can get the big ones ?

    In a way I suffer the same "problem" as StunningWarrior and I use Squidoo to get a little more traffic to my website ... but to be honest, the changes of ToS of squidoo the thin content policy that is not applied to some squidoo lens master but just for some other cases ...well I'm done with it , and done with creating different accounts to avoid if one get's banned you've reduced the damaged etc etc
    I have never tried article syndication maybe that will be my next step and hopefully a more rewarding one. And combine with some other ideas that I don't have them but hopefully I will learn them.
    The truth is , is better to go for the cake than going for the pieces.
    Thanks once again
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8037632].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author giuseppepuma
    Hey buddy

    your from the uk 2 : - ), any way to answer your question, squidoo is very should I say authoritativeness in googles eyes, so will rank your website in the search engines, squidoo is more of a higher traffic source than the sold called article directories like ezine articles etc. Also I recommend hubpages is pretty good for traffic and can earn bit revenue from it

    I have checked on alexa ranking and indicates that squidoo is more higher ranked and popular than article directories and hub pages which is a bonus to drive tremendous amounts of traffic.

    few tips

    to your success

    ciao for now

    Giuseppe Puma (Your British italian friend)
    Signature

    head over to www.entiver.com
    for a Free Consultation for a private membership portal + Custom optimized Funnel

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8037798].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author opalfx
    i never hear about Squidoo for traffic. i totally forgot about it. i mostly hear about it with linkwheels.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8038118].message }}

Trending Topics