Don;t recall anything about tier 1 being 'bumped up', but I do recall a similar discussionabout  changing the tier system a while ago. I think the general sentiment was 'don;t try fixing what  isn't bust'

Here's some figures to playwith currently -
(all are guestimates based on no figures in particular)

tier 1 - approx 2000 @ $10 each = $20,000
tier 2 approx 8000 @ $1 each - $8,000
tier 3 approx 50-80,000* @ 3cents each =  $1500 - $2400
total = $30,000 approx

to follow the OP's suggestion another $12,000 dollars would have to  come from somewhere
to expand tier 2 by another 12,000 would cut payouts by more than 60% in this tier.

So, you can maybe do the math based on this, but if you can think of a  fairer way to divide that some of money without watering down the top tier I can only see it being possible if they abolish tier three totally and this would only result in a raise of a 10-20cents on a tier 2 lens.

What is more feasible is watering down the top tier and possibly expanding it to include the top 5,000, though this would then mean the difference in pay between top tier and mid would only be 4 fold as opposed to the current 8 or 9 fold.

Alternatively, if the top tier payouts were halfed, the 2nd tier could easily be expanded to a ranking of 15,000 and stay at current levels.


*tier 3 numbers are at best a guestimate, even the lensmasters who track  their earnings religously can;t say for sure where tier 3 ends.

edited to tidy up some (probably still) shaky maths and a couple of typos.

Last edited by The_Book_Garden (11/06/2008 8:42 am)

ener-g - thanks for your comment. Indeed, that is what I was addressing.

Book - what I meant by being bumped up was that for a long time Tier One was a 7.00 or so payout and then with Glam that got bumped over 10 bucks. My idea is to NOT touch that Tier.

My idea on Tier Two is `when more adsense split is available' that it shouldn't go to bump up Tier One further and it shouldn't be used to increase Tier Two - it is that Tier Two (with that increased money) would expand as a tier. I would not favor cutting the amount in half to double the size of the tier  - it would be to use that money in this manner instead.

If I remember correctly from the last time this was discussed, the question was why are the tiers staying the same when the Lens Population has grown so much.

The Tier cutoffs have not materially changed from when Squidoo had 200,000 lenses - it now has what, 750,000?  Granted, there are a lot of WIP in that number, so they wouldn't get payouts, but the current system basically says that if you're not in the top 85,000 out of 750,000 lenses, you don't deserve a piece of the ad pie.

There are lenses bringing in traffic, making sales, etc, that aren't getting a piece of the pie, and they're doing the right things to deserve a slice.

JMHO

IMO Squidoo is not losing members due to ratings glitches - nor do I think they affect the overall lensrank for a month in any meaningful manner.

The point Kat brings up is true however --- only about 1 in 9 lenses share in any cash and only 1 in 70 lenses makes even a buck or so a month in adsense sharing (and these odds can only go higher unless the bracket is extended).

Which brings up --- why is it so hard to remain in the top 10K --- I certainly hope it is NOT due to advantages being given to the `lens assembly lines' of some lensmasters. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that NO lenses should `have juice' based on who they are or even who visits them. Let the lensrank be a purer thing not dependent on advantages given to some.

I guess that would be my four cents.

RickPhillips wrote:

IMO Squidoo is not losing members due to ratings glitches - nor do I think they affect the overall lensrank for a month in any meaningful manner.

Agreed, both glitches we witnessed this month were sorted within hours, (thanks Gil) and Gil stated that lensranks for the monthly average are taken at the end of the day before the next update so these glitches will have no impact.

RickPhillips wrote:

The point Kat brings up is true however --- only about 1 in 9 lenses share in any cash and only 1 in 70 lenses makes even a buck or so a month in adsense sharing (and these odds can only go higher unless the bracket is extended).

Not if more revenue is achieved. The Glam ads certainly brought a lot more revenue, and most lensmasters are aware there is a lot more 'real estate' on a lens down the right hand side that could yet be used to increase revenue.

RickPhillips wrote:

Which brings up --- why is it so hard to remain in the top 10K --- I certainly hope it is NOT due to advantages being given to the `lens assembly lines' of some lensmasters. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that NO lenses should `have juice' based on who they are or even who visits them. Let the lensrank be a purer thing not dependent on advantages given to some.

I guess that would be my four cents.

Why it's so hard to remain at the top is purely down to changes in fashion/season and the increasing competition from new lensmasters making quality lenses on topical subjects. The pie is shared in a manner that means those that are at the peak get the most, as they contribute most to traffic, new visitors, interaction and clickthru's and all the other attributes used to calculate LR.

Lets look at an analogy  from the world of sport. A team can have say 50 people on the team, only 20 are chosen to play in a match, only a few of those are the 'superstars'. So do all team players get paid the same? No!

I've said this many times before, especially in regard to chasing lensrank, that it just  is not worth creating a lens with the goal of earning money from it getting to the top tier and staying there.
Very few lenses stay in the top tier for long, the ones that do tend to be instructional and not based on selling items, so these can be great if you pick a new subject and create a 1st class lens on something that will be popular, unfortunately most have already been done and redone. (just look at how many squidoo html/css/style lenses there are in the top 2000)
So if you want to earn money from squidoo you can't guarantee making it from an instructional lens, so making one is purely an altruistic indulgence and if it pays off, celebrate! If you want to earn money you have to choose a niche that you either have a lot of knowledge on or are prepared to research and hasn't been done to death already (like 6pack miracles or amazing diet secrets or secret wealth for a few examples), and if you're really good and/or lucky, you'll see it pay off. This doesn't happen over night, some people have a natural skill with writing others have to work hard and practice, but along the way you will learn to create better and better, and earn more and more.

So in conclusion, if you want to earn money solely from achieving the top tier or 2, as opposed to affiliate sales, you'll have to work a lot harder at it, as there is a lot more competition out there trying for a piece of the pie. And in reality if you are prepared to work so hard for the gamble that you will earn $10 I'm sure even in developing countries you would be able to earn more money by working the same number of hours.
Though if you are prepared to invest the time you  can use squidoo as a great learning experience in web publishing and earn enough for a few treats along the way.

I'd say this was my 4 or 2 cents worth, but I'd have to check the current exchange rate

Because I am not going to delete the rest of that post...

"Agreed, both glitches we witnessed this month were sorted within hours, (thanks Gil) and Gil stated that lensranks for the monthly average are taken at the end of the day before the next update so these glitches will have no impact."

BOTH Glitches?  There have been far more than 2.  I can't tell you how many days My new lenses bypassed WIP and had a lensrank of "0".  How can it NOT affect lensrank?  You don't need to defend Gil...everyone knows he does an outstanding job, but let's not get overly sentimental here. 

Rick does make a good point, however, that it seems to be WHO visits a lens, and links to it that carries more weight than a lot of things that should.  Now, I love Squidoo...but there comes a time to put the cards on the table and not over-romanticize things.  There ARE problems with the system.  I am confident Squidoo will rectify them, but in the mean time, there are lensmasters suffering...

A team can have say 50 people on the team, only 20 are chosen to play in a match, only a few of those are the 'superstars'. So do all team players get paid the same? No!

Problem with your analogy is all the players still get paid SOMETHING - although of course you are correct that #50 isn't getting paid the same as superstar #1.

The problem as I see it is under the Squidoo payout system right now using your analogy foundation - players 1-3 get paid Superstar money, 4-8 get medium money, 9-25 get peanuts, and 24-50 are getting nothing.

24-50 might be used as just the scout team -but if they are on the team and contribute to the team in any way, they should be compensated for it.  Back in Squidoo terms, there are lenses bringing traffic to the Squidoo site, but are outside Tier 3 and therefore get no ad revenue.  If they're lucky, they can grow that traffic and eventually get off the Scout Team and on the field. 

vbright105 wrote:

can't tell you how many days My new lenses bypassed WIP and had a lensrank of "0".  How can it NOT affect lensrank?

The 0 lensrank does not affect anything. It's a glitch that happens sometimes while lensranks are being recalculated. It always gets corrected.

Rick wrote:

Book - As a person with two lenses in the top tier - neither of which is an instructional - and both of which have low low sales within them (but have lots of traffic) LR is important and so is adsense sharing.

Well gee thanks Rick. I've got 11 currently in the top tier with over 7,000 weekly visits. Dropping drastically from 10,000 visits, and 25 in the past 8 months that were in the top tier.

edited to add:
before all the lensranking changes, bugs, what ever you want to call them; I also had 60 of my 83 lenses in Tier 1 and Tier 2.

Last edited by flowergardener (11/06/2008 1:29 pm)

poddys wrote:

How about if the rates were fixed, so Tier 1 pays $10, Tier 2 pays $1, and Tier 3 say 10cents.   If a percentage of the income was allocated to each tier, then the number of lenses in that tier would depend on the income.

I like this idea.

0.1 cents.

At least I have 2 people that like my idea  
I never thought of it that way before - it just came to me - sometimes it's good to think outside the box.

Really everything comes down to the size of the pot that is to be divided up amongst the ranks.  If the amounts for each tier are set (for example $10 per lens in the top tier), and the ratio to be paid is also set (for example 33% of the total pot goes to each tier), then it's just an easy calculation to figure out how many lenses get included in each tier.

As an example, not a good one because the number of lenses stinks...

Let's say that the pot is $30,000.
That is $10,000 for each Tier (33% allocated to each).
Let's say that the fixed rate for Tier 1 is $10 per lens, Tier 2 is $1 per lens, and Tier 3 is 10cents per lens.
This gives:
Tier 1 - lensrank 1 - 1,000  ($10,000 / $10)
Tier 2 - lensrank 1,001 - 11,000  ($10,000 / $1)
Tier 3 - lensrank 11,001 - 111,000  ($10,000 / $0.10)

Not a good example - too little in the top tier and too much in the 3rd, but I hope it makes the concept a bit clearer.   I assume that the ration between the tiers is already fixed into the current algorithm, it would only be necessary to set the rate per lens for each tier.   

A more conservative rate per tier might be better than an aggressive one - in a bad month would you prefer to see more lenses with $10 or fewer with $12 for example?

The bigger the pot, the more lenses that would share in this.

Flower - your point is well taken on the drop in your revenue based on fighting for lensrank.

I fully agree that visitors should be most important -- and it is the only reason my two in the top tier are there. Certainly not sales. And, I doubt angel blessings.

Poddys - IMO the top tier should not shrink to just 1000 -- that said -- good example that is well explained.