That's great to hear that Infolinks could wind up being so profitable. With the changes that you've stated, they should be a lot better. I think the global opt out should really squelch a lot of the concerns.

I know there was another concern about the infolinks taking over an existing link as well.

Thanks for keeping us updated!

Megan

Thanks for that update and it certainly presents some interesting information for all to reflect on.  I like the fact that you have clearly listened (read) the feedback, which has been heated at times.  When the site started there was obviously a statement that there would never be any interference with the content and that caused some concern amongst many.  However, with what you have outlined above there are options which anyone who doesn't like the infolinks can take.  I like the idea of a global opt out for those that want it and I also like the fact that we can opt out at a lens level.  Given the commitment to improve the relevancy of the links and to provide a way of getting back to the lens I will carry out my own experiments - I was going to say for a month - but I guess that depends on how long you keep the test running.

Overall I am pleased to see how much you have listened and responded to what the members here have been saying.  Interestingly earlier today I was reading on another forum that one of the major article directories had implemented a similar scheme to infolinks without any consultation.  Angry or should I perhaps say frustrated lensmasters have spoken this week and you have listened and at the same time balanced/juggled your needs as a commercial business.  So thank you!

Now if you can just do something to make the Glam Ads relevant :-)

Best regards

Paul

Sounds Awesome!  Great post, Thank you!

Sounds awesome Megan. Thanks for the update.

xtnshun wrote:

Would the text-links ad pool revenue be shared on the basis of lensrank?  (Rather than traffic).

All pooled revenue is distributed based on Lensrank, of which traffic is only one factor.

Okay, I may have overreacted when I stated that I hoped Infolinks would be banned!

Addressing these points is great, plus is someone looking into the issue of Infolinks taking over links put in by Lensmasters? I'll admit that I haven't seen it for myself, but others have mentioned it.

Most of the examples I've pointed out were extremes, and were on other people's Lenses. So far, ones I've seen on my own have been acceptable which is why I've held off actually opting out.

Unless I come across something that I consider totally offensive on one of my own, I'll leave them be, and see how the extended experiment goes.

Last edited by CleanerLife (07/09/2009 1:26 pm)

I think you have addressed all of my concerns as well.  If the links do all you say they will and they don't lead to spammy sites, I am all for them.  Thanks for the update.

Very informative update.  Thank you kindly, Megan! 

Sounds like you and the infolinks folks are bending over backward to accommodate us.  If it were anyone other than Squidoo I'd say that's amazing, but since it is Squidoo I'm not surprised at all. 

I think Squidoo should run for Congress.

It is very good to hear that you are working on keeping the intro as text ad free.  That will help a lot.
I am pleased that you are working on a new window for the ads - so the original lens is not lost when someone clicks on the info ad.
And the increased filters should be a big help in keeping our lenses G rated.

I am extremely protective of my Grandmother lenses - so I will see what happens in the next week or so - I have already opted out on some of them because the info ads were so far off base.

I feel much more encouraged with this update.  Thank you for listening.

Cinetech wrote:

MeganCasey wrote:

The test has thus far exceeded our expectations in terms of daily revenue. That's a big deal.  And it can make a difference to the lensmasters who want a new way to earn extra royalties. We ran a side by side comparison of actual lensmaster royalties vs. projected lensmaster royalties with InfoLinks turned on, to see what the real world effect would be. For top earners, people already making a few hundred dollars a month, InfoLinks can add an extra $100 for you.

- Have you taken into account the people that are being turned off by the ads, the same
people that won't be buying anything from Amazon or eBay since they didn't stay long enough?

- Have you taken into account the visitors that won't be returning to the lenses as a result?

In the long run I see this as an exchange of revenue.
For those of us who have informative lenses is not going to be great,
i.e. less traffic, less backlinks, less top SERPs.

Same question (especially concerning affiliate sales) - traffic may be the same for now, but are people just as likely to buy something from our lenses with the new ads?


Also another thing. It's great to prevent InfoLinks from appearing on the intro. However I've also seen them appear in the actual module title! That should be prevented as well.

Chadrew wrote:

It's great to prevent InfoLinks from appearing on the intro. However I've also seen them appear in the actual module title! That should be prevented as well.

Good catch. I hadn't seen any InfoLinks in the module titles. (Could you point us to an example we can pass along?)

Great - it was the over-riding of my own links that bothered me and I wasn't happy with them in my intro module either

If those 2 issues have been addressed I'm happy