Squidoo Lensranking - How Important It Is And How To Make It Better

I've created this lens to put in one place information on LensRank provided by the HQ. I hope that this information and at least some of my ideas will help the HQ to improve the system and the lensmasters to craft the best lenses possible - so that they could utilize not only their talents and passion, but also the best available tools.

I empahasize here the importance of LensRank from the financial standpoint mostly, but not only - I look at its other aspects too... For many lensmasters earning revenue isn't the main reason they are getting involved in making lenses. However, for those who are serious about including Squidoo in their business model, the fair and transparent LensRank is crucial. I hope that the information, my analysis and the comments I'm providing here will be useful to those lensmasters and that the HQ may also consider some of my ideas...

This lens is already quite big and there is much more to be said about the importance of the LensRank. Those who are interested, can find more of my thoughts on this subject in my blog - "Mastering Squidoo" and in my posts in the Squidoo Lounge. I also have another lens - "Making Money With Squidoo" where I talk here about the technicalities and legalities of making money by building Squidoo lenses. I highly recommend is as a supplementary reading to this lens.

PS. My referrals to the TOS and FAQ are to their previous version so that the readers could compare both versions. In general, the wording was not changed, only the p. numbers.

Squidoo Terms of Service (The TOS) says this about the LensRank: "We use an automated algorithm—LensRank—to rank the lenses. We look at user ratings, lensmaster reputation, clickthrough rates, frequency of updates, inbound and outbound links, and lots of other factors and give the lens a number."

The LensRank concept is further explained here: "In early February 2006, we made a change to our LensRank calculations. LensRank (how we determine a lens's popularity) will still be based on the same formula, measuring things like traffic, click-outs, reader ratings, inbound links, and affiliate sales. ... We're now using a 14-day rolling window.... our lensrank calculations will be done using data from the past two weeks, rather than looking strictly at a lens's lifetime of publication. This will ensure that the freshest, timeliest, and most actively updated lenses aren't trumped by the lenses that perform just because they've been around longer. We're still rewarding the exact same qualities, but we're tossing the grandfather clause out the window."

Every lensmaster is able to incorporate various forms of content into her or his lenses. As a lensmaster, you are the owner of the content you place on your lens. However, because they're using Squidoo platform provided to them for free, they have to give something in return... By placing content on their lenses, they grant Squidoo a worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license, for as long as their lenses are displayed on Squidoo, to reproduce, display, modify, adapt and publish the content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting their lenses on Squidoo.

(source: TOS, p. 5 and 6)

Squidoo offers programs that may enable lensmasters to earn revenue through lead generation, affiliate sales, traffic to its partner/affiliate sites, and sponsorship ("CO-OP Services"). As a co-op, the Squidoo CO-OP distributes its earnings to the Members. Currently about 50% of Squido lensmasters are donating their royalties to charity.

The Squidoo CO-OP divides incoming revenue into two piles.

The first pile is called "pooled revenue". This is revenue that is not directly attributable by Squidoo to a particular lens. There are two kinds of such revenue: a/ revenue from selling sponsorship ads on a Search Results page (Interesting... So, the revenue from the Google ads appearing on each lens is not included here? It seems the answer is yes, meaning that that is "attributable revenue" - zuzanna), b/ revenue from affiliate programs that pay Squidoo income based on overall performance (as opposed to performance of one trackable lens).

The second pile of earnings is called "attributable revenue." This is revenue that is being tracked directly to a particular lens.

Pooled revenue is being used by the HQ to first pay the overhead and then to allocate the remaining part to the lenses. This allocation is based on the LensRank AND traffic.

Note: currently the details of this allocation are not being made available. Moreover, while the current overall LensRank is being shown on each lens the traffic part is not. Also, the lensmasters do not know how the revenue is being allocated (e.g., in what proportion between LensRank and traffic it's being done; based on what traffic - lifetime or last 7-day, etc.).

Attributable revenue is being used to: pay any remaining overhead (? -  wasn't that paid already?  - zuzanna) and then distribute the CO-OP share (50%) directly to the lenses that earned it.

Squidoo is a partly private organization/partly co-operative - if I can call it in that way - so its owners/investors have the right to promote certain kinds of initiatives by supporting lenses that serve their interests best.

It is understandable, of course, but at the same time, the HQ has to respect the fact that all of the lensmasters provide the content and without their contribution the whole project wouldn't exist - at least in the current form.

I believe that one of the most important and in fact the easiest ways to do that should be by using a FAIR and TRANSPARENT LensRank algorithm. An algorithm that would treat every lensmaster in the same way and which would allow every lensmaster improve their lenses and their promotion - by working on every item in the algorithm. In my private opinion, it's not possible with the current LensRank system...

One of the strongest arguments against revealing the LensRank algorithm is that it would encourage gaming. I think the ther real reason behind the "secrecy" is the presence of an opportunity for - let's call it - "stimulating" certain kinds of lenses. By saying that, though, in no way I am asserting here that any manipulating of the algorithm is taking place right now...

However, as I said, I agree that the HQ has the right to influence certain trends, support great causes, celebrate important occasions, etc. But at the same time, I think that it could easily be done by delicate, balanced promotion of those projects. Not as it was being done until very recently with the same kinds of lenses being shown on the Forum sidebar as "Lenses We Like", in a number of places at SquidU, in Plexodex, and - most importantly - by rotating them on the home page. That was much too much... I see a lot of improvement in this area - some important changes have been made recently - and it is very refreshing and encouraging.

But if we agree that extra promotion of such lenses is acceptable and makes sense, than another step is necessary... That those kinds of lenses should be separated from the mainstream! Wow, that's a revolutionary idea... But doesn't it sound interesting? And reasonable and fair?

Why not to create a special ranking for such lenses? I would call them "Social Conscience Lenses" (always with this in the brackets - "Inspired by Ilona"... Just joking!).

We do have now separate rakings now for each Topic, so technically that shouldn't be a problem, plus the lensmasters making such lenses would be recognized by ranking high in that Topic and possibly in other ways - chosen by the HQ.

I think this idea is worth careful consideration. Isn't it?

Introducing ILONA'S RANK - new way to calculate and present Squidoo LensRank.

ILONA'S RANK is my proposed version of LensRank.

I first tried it on data from Feb. 3, 2007, then on data from Feb. 9, 2007 and finally on data from Feb. 14, 2007. I was looking at the first 20 lenses from the Top 100 by LensRank and 6 of my lenses, but naturally can be done every day and for every lens.

My starting point for creating the formula (algorithm) to calculate the LensRank ("ILONA'S RANK") is Megan's recipe mentioned above: "As ever, we're constantly trying to come up with combos that reward a) good handbuilt content that is b) promoted well and c) recommended by readers."

However, I added a number of ingredients that I consider important when comparing the values of each lens.

My formula for calculating ILONA'S Pts that are used to rank the lenses (ILONA'S RANK) has 8 elements. I'm adding points for:

1/ freshness (called "Freshness" in my spreadsheet and "Frsh Pts"),
2/ star rating (looking at both the average # of stars and # of ratings - "Stars", "Rtgs" and "SR Pts"),
3/ presence of Guestbook ("GBYN"),
4/ number of blurbs in Guestbook ("Bbs" and "Bbs Pts"),
5/ being profitable ("MP #" and "MP Pts"),
6/ being blogged about or blooging about the lens ("MB #" and "MB Pts"),
7/ being surfed (viewed) a lot (i.e., traffic!) ("MV #" and "MV Pts") and
8/ having great content ("Chars", "Words" and "Content Pts").

So everything is covered! Isn't ILONA'S RANK better than current LensRank?

My algorithm is simple, easy to understand, can be easily and quickly calculated for each lens based on readily available data. It's clear and transparent. It solves most of , if not all of the current LensRank's problems. And, obviously, it shows the lensmaster where she or he can make an improvement to rank better. With current LensRank almost nothing is transparent, and lensmasters don't know what to do to improve their ranking...

The spreadsheet mentioned above - showing full calculations - can be seen here in Google Docs & Spreadsheets.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm showing below how the top 20 lenses would be ranked on Feb. 14, 2007 by ILONA'S RANK - if Squidoo accepted my ranking system. To show how other lenses - those from outside Top 20 - would rank in my system, I also used 6 of my own lenses. So here it is how those 26 lenses would rank:

LR#----Title---------------ILONA'S Pts--ILONA'S RANK

1-------Funky, Chic Bags---------------505.88-----1
89-----The Beatles Songs--------------441.14-----2
5-------Great Disney W. Photos------418.09-----3
19-----UpDos-----------------------------397.73-----4
18-----Affiliate Mktg. Guide----------381.32-----5
211----Eugeniusz Tytyk --------------363.29-----6
779----Tips For Buying----------------343.89-----7
670----Getting Married----------------319.29-----8
8------Disney Pins!---------------------333.63-----9
2------Handbags------------------------330.81----10
16-----Lumix-----------------------------311.83----11
10-----Tribal Tattoos-------------------290.96----12
9------Mardi Grass Musics------------281.05----13
243----Trading Currencies-----------280.02----14
14----The Devil Wears----------------269.87-----15
4------Cool Motorola-------------------259.01-----16
11----Automotive J. Starters---------253.60----17
203----Amber Jewelry-----------------230.39----18
3------Barbaro---------------------------230.34----19
12-----If You Can't----------------------228.78----20

13-----Corsetry--------------------------224.44----21
6------Japanese Tattoos---------------212.81----22
17-----OOAK Polymer------------------199.90----23
15-----Audrey Hepburn----------------189.87----24
20-----Creating a Profile--------------185.84-----25
7------Micro SD Cards -----------------147.02-----26

Note: Sorry for all those "---", but I couldn't find a better way to present the results here - without using iframe trick or anything like that. You can get much better view by going to this Google Docs & Spreadsheets page.

As you can see, four of my lenses replaced four lenses from the Top 20. Is it a significant difference? I think so, but it depends on anybody's point of you... If you'd like to see how your lens would place in my RANKING, please leave a bl

The spreadsheet mentioned above - showing full calculations - can be seen here in Google Docs & Spreadsheets.

Here are the explanations for the formula used and the rationale behind it and its 8 ingredients (crucial part!):

LR # - LensRank as of Feb. 14, 2007
Title - Short title of the lens
Category - Category chosen by the authoring lensmaster
Freshness - Freshness - how many days ago (counting from Feb. 14, 2007) lens was updated. Updated today=7 pts, updated yesterday=6 points, over 7 days ago=0 pts
Frsh Pts - Freshness Points - Formula: (7 minus number of days since updating)*14 - to give the top lenses about 100 points for freshness - item valued highly by search engines and social bookmarking places (including Squidoo)
Stars - how many stars lens had on Feb. 14, 2007
Rtgs - how many people rated the lens (gave stars)
SR Pts - =(Stars x Rtgs)/4 - again to give the top lens in this category 100 points
GBYN - presence of Guestbook - Yes=20 pts, No=0 pts. It's important to make it possible for the surfers to express their opinion about the lens. It is not anonymous, therefore it's more important than stars and ratings
Blbs - number of Blurbs in the Guestbook
Bbs Pts - number of points for blurbs. Formula: number of blurbs multiplied by 2 - to show that blurbs are more important than star ratings!
MP # - position on Top 100 by Most Profitable on Feb. 14, 2007
MP Pts - calculated by subtracting the MP# from 101 - i.e. #1 on MP gets 100 points - (101-1)=100 pts, #100 on MP gets (101-100)=1 pt. Lens not in Top 100 by MP get 0 pts, which makes sense - everybody should strive to earn as much money as possible - we are a co-op - and it should be rewarded if your lens is a seller! The more it sells, the better - each co-op member and charities profit from that! So this item really is very important...

MB # - position on Top 100 by Most Blogged on Feb. 14, 2007
MB Pts - calculated subtracting the MB# from 101, i.e. #1 on MB gets (101-1)=100 pts, #100 on MB gets (101-100)=1 pt. Not on Top 100 by MB get 0 pts. Blogging is good, so get reward for blogging and being blogged about!
MV # - position on Top 100 by Most Blogged
MV Pts- calculated by subtracting the MV# from 101, i.e. #1 on MV gets (101-1)=100 pts, #100 on MV gets (101-100)=1 pt. Not on Top 100 by MV get 0 pts. It's obvious - traffic is very important, it's a result of your promotional efforts AND of your lens being frequented because of having great content - informative and entertaining!

And now, ladies and gentlemen - a very important part and unique idea - my attempt at valuation of the content of each lens!

Chars - number of characters in the lens' code. Most of the characters come from the programmer's work and that part is common - the same at each lens. But this is a simple measure of the content - how much the lensmaster wrote or used the modules in other ways.
Words - even better indication of the lens content than the number of characters as the words have to make sens, otherwise nobody will look at the lens. That's why while both characters and words are being considered in the rank calculation, the number of words gets higher weight. By the way, using this item is also great a checker if there is or isn't any trick being played with the lens and the content - the rule of thumb is that the number of words should be about ten times smaller than the number of characters. Simple and easy!
Content Pts - as explained above, both items considered to express that great - "hand-created" content is of utmost importance. That's why the formula is calculated to let the top lens for this part to get 200 pts. So the formula here is: 1/ Divide the number of characters by 10,000. 2/ Divide the number of words by 100. 3/ Add items 1/ and 2/. Again, simple but so powerful!

ILONA'S Pts - I'm adding points for: freshness, star rating, presence of Guestbook, number of blurbs, being profitable, being blogged about or blooging about the lens, being surfed (viewed) a lot and for having great content.

ILONA'S RANK - lenses in ascending order - based on ILONA'S Pts.

Text Copyright: Copyright © 2007, Ilona Zuzalek 2007 (except for Squidoo own material)
Photo credits for pictures used here: www.freeimages.co.uk
Squidoo trademarks: Squidoo, LensRank, etc. (see Squidoo TOS)