August 9th, 2013

More deleting Squidoo lenses: I'm clipping and saving first...

My Squidoo Bio on August 7, 2013

Again several of my Squidoo lenses rated 100 by the site's (new and improved admin claims) completeness auto-checker that includes a "quality content" checker were flagged with warnings of "poor quality" content by the site's other (please-please-Google-or-else) auto-checker. Already following admin's fix tips already, all of these were written in the first-person, included pictures I snapped and offered no affiliate sales links or copied content. I probably repeated keywords too much -- perhaps appearing to "stuff" -- because shaman-linked words have precise meanings synonyms would not express correctly.

Today I deleted these and dozens more (not yet warned or locked), though Squidoo's blog urges lensmasters to keep tweaking.

As I stated, for me this would be too much creativity-stifling trouble for too little remuneration.

But my shamanic lenses linked (and link, those still open) into the outline of a book-to-be (someday, maybe) and, re-reading them this morning, I realized the content is OK. So before deleting I'm clipping content I might republish to Evernote, then printing PDFs and txts via Print Friendly & PDF (the browser tool) and saving those to Evernote and Dropbox to make recycling easier. In the lens workshop tools Squidoo offers downloading the content as xml and I did that too.

Other lenses I deleted without saving were "lensographies" (organized Featured Lens collections) and keyword-themed "mini-readers" built on modules that aggregated web content (some phased out by now). These I curated, adding links, vids and pics of interest for my education and entertainment (each about a topic I study). But Squidoo doesn't want lenses like this anymore -- I understand.

Still, I'm perplexed that Squidoo's completeness auto-scorer rated even these 100, while their auto-Google-pleasing-checker issued yellow warning flags. Can more distant site-wide auto-checking ever induce enough dedicated and effective human-tweaking to produce the desired web content effects (with sufficient mutual benefit for all involved)?

Weirdly, many of my flagged lenses were "Squid-angel blessed" and/or praised highly in the guestbooks  -- so, apparently, human quality checkers couldn't pick out and highlight whatever any better.

That was enough deleting for one day, but I am far from done.

My Squidoo disappointment and downfall is really only one dragged out freelance writing live-and-learn (I maintain, so I can grant meaning and worth to all those months of hours I would otherwise sadly deem wasted) -- always self-publish important content as ebooks (or books) first and last; advertise across many social networks (not depending upon any); and never fret or sweat over what content production sites pitch then switch just to stay in business.

 
Jester me, Blogger

My tweets