Is posting on Squidoo a waste of time?

Great treads. Thank you for sharing!!

Linkjuice is determined primarily by overall site relevance. That doesn't make Squidoo backlinks worth nearly as much as those from an equivalent little site of your own, even if Squidoo's have higher page ranks (which they often don't).

"Fixed that for you".

What other techniques are you talking about?

I use them for backlinking my clients websites...

So can a page on a site you yourself own and control.

You can do that on a site you yourself own and control without needing any "points" or "approval" from anyone, and without having to comply with their changeable, idiosyncratic and inconsistently interpreted terms of service, either.

What is your definition of "very well"? Are you referring to traffic or cash in your pocket? I don't mean to get personal, but would you say you are generating more than $100 a month, over $500, more?

Thanks.

What is your squidoo lens link, i'd like to read and hopefully learn a thing or two about creating a good lens, thanks.

Yes, definitely viable. Plenty of people are doing this, and making some money from it.

But typically not as much money, and certainly not as safely, as they'd make doing it on their own little site without Squidoo and encountering all its unnecessary risks and problems.

Even some of the people selling "Amazon/Squidoo-based WSO's" here admit that their own sites make them more money and have higher conversion-rates than their Squidoo pages. And that these Squidoo-based Amazon pages are simply "a way for non-techie people to get started" and that they should switch to their own sites once they know what they're doing (personally, I think they should start with their own sites and not fall victim to an unnecessary and undesirable culture of dependence, but that's just my own perspective ).

I offer you three threads little to read, about Squidoo ...

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...sappeared.html

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...en-locked.html

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...e-seconds.html

Read those three threads, and then tell me if you think it might be a good idea to promote Amazon products on Squidoo and rank the lens?

I would ask how it can possibly make sense in the long term to put your time, effort and energy into ranking pages on someone else's site rather than pages on a site you yourself own and control, but you might accuse me of sounding like a broken record if I asked that as well.

every website needs traffic. I use squidoo, as other communities, to develop relationships and lead people toward my site; off SE traffic.

it also showed SEO advantages. It ranks high for my keywords together with my site, so I cover more real estate on first page of google.

I do not use it to make money on site. My total earnings from 2010 to today are something like 30 bucks.

Like they ask for unique content, I change the format of the content for leverage. Create lenses as groups and build ebooks with them, then publish those in scribd and clones. Then use the same ideas to create presentations, there are sites for that too.

All of them leading to my sites.

I´m pretty happy with the results so far. And if one day the lenses are gone, oh well... never mind really. I have all my content, will find other property to put it on.

Yes, you can put the feed of your site, and the feed of your site´s twitter account.

If you took the trouble to READ carefully some of the threads linked to above, instead of arguing with their conclusions and warnings without having read them, you'd learn that that's wrong.

They can change their terms of service whenever they feel like it, and they can interpret them as inconsistently and idiosyncratically as they like. And they do. Not anything you need to worry about if you post your material on sites which you yourself own and control.

What part of this simple, irrefutable, factual statement is difficult to understand, Tanya?

But not as effective as getting that traffic directly to your own sites (because nobody's click-through rate from Squidoo will ever be 100%, so there's always traffic-loss involved, by definition).

It's easy to imagine that you're "gaining" traffic from Web 2.0 sites, when all you're really doing is letting some traffic which could otherwise go directly to your own site go to a Web 2.0 site instead, and eventually getting some of it arriving at your own site (i.e. losing some of it).

For example (and my example here is an article directory, not a Web 2.0 site, but the underlying principle is still exactly the same), no article marketer would or should want their potential customers reading their articles in an article directory (that isn't who those copies are there for at all!), for all the reasons explained in this post. The same is true of "Web 2.0 traffic". It's easy to imagine that because sites like Squidoo have a high-ranking "own home page" (which isn't very relevant to "your" pages there!) that "they have a lot of traffic" and that you'll somehow attract some of that traffic "just by being there". For the most part, it's just nonsense, and you'd be far better off attracting that traffic straight to your own site instead of trying to rank "your" pages on Squidoo instead, the point being that they're not really your own pages at all!

So ... trying to "generate traffic from" pages on other people's (Web 2.0) sites will produce more traffic than cooking the dinner and washing your hair, it's true ... but it'll never produce as much traffic as trying to generate traffic directly to your own site.

The hugely significant difference between that and something like guest blogging (for example) is that in the case of guest blogging, the person on whose site your blog-post/article is published already has the targeted traffic you want to attract. Some people apparently imagine that that's also somehow true of Web 2.0 sites, but to all intents and purposes it just isn't, and they've missed the key point.

That's why some activities (such as guest blogging, for example) are basically very good, constructive, positive, profitable ideas while others (such as Web 2.0 sites) are basically a poor idea by comparison. Not all traffic generation plans were born equal!

Having seen some of your Squidoo lenses, I'm not surprised. The ones I've seen are outstanding.

I think that if you'd done those on your own site, the pages would be just the same or higher in page rank than they are at Squidoo. I confess I barely believe in page ranks anyway - I gave up believing in them much around the time that Google did: http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...ar-2013-a.html

I'm sure. My guess is that some of those lenses get huge traffic? The ones I've seen are of enormous interest to writers. I've sent links to them to plenty of people (including friends in writers' forums), myself, so I know you've had some "warm traffic" that way. (Just as I'd have done if they were on your own site, of course. ). I'm sure I'm not the only one here recommending them?!

If it were me, I'd be wanting all that traffic and interest at my own site, not at someone else's. I don't think I've seen all your lenses (though certainly several), and I'd be really proud to have them on my site. I suspect that the quality of information/content is determining the outcome, not "on whose site they happen to be posted".

In 2010, like many members here (who commented on it at the time), I had a few relatively new, smallish niche sites of my own (some were 6 months old) on which very suddenly, in a Google PR update, some pages became PR-5. Like others here, I was really surprised. At the same time, I had some Squidoo lenses which I thought were really good, into which a lot of (mostly outsourced ) work had gone, and they were struggling for page ranks (not that it mattered much). So, my own "Squidoo page rank personal information" is out of date, I admit, but that's just how it is. I stopped using Squidoo quite a while ago, myself.

I'm not trying to be "smarmy" or "polite" or anything of the kind (I think you know me better than that?): I'm a real admirer of your lenses. There's convenient, helpful, useful information collated there that I've never seen anywhere else at all (and I look at "sites for writers" a lot!).