An explanation on submission guidelines

The group is for fine food, wine, or entertaining and not intended to be an open group for recipes, but for epicurean wine and dine lenses.

A number of twttrstrms have been submitted of late - these really aren't lenses, are they? That's the reason why they have been declined

Of course if a lens is submitted about some gourmet dish etc and has a twttrstrm module - that's an entirely different thing

Nearly all the Twttstrm lenses I've seen have been virtually content free zones. They look like another scheme to get a lens online in a few minutes. I would reject most of them too.

Drifter makes good twttrstrms. It's almost as though the strm is an afterthought

As with ALL the available templates, the TWTTRSTRM will allow one to be a 'producer' while another will be a creator.

A template is a template. But for me, a template is a canvas. I know this is true for quite a few of us. I used to get frustrated when I saw templates barely fleshed out and loaded with wikipedia content, but now I don't even notice. If I walk into a lens that looks like it was part of a housing project, I quietly close the door and leave. But there are those that I do make it past the foyer.

TWTTRSTM templates can be modified and played with, but really any template depends on one thing for survival, and that is content. I have one TWTTRSTRM that has certainly been hot at times and probably will ebb and flow until an all out war happens.

But you actually write !

I still say there only 15% of people on squidoo who can put two words together and in doing so create a lens - as opposed to mouse clicking some WYSIWYG command

I remember a monstrosity on Ben Kingsley. Do you? Or are you, like me, trying to forget?

Introductory module said "Ben Kingsley is an English actor". That was it.

Number #117 in LR .. geeeeeeeeeeeeeeze

This post was last modified: 04-29-2009 01:21 PM by susannad.

I never saw the one on Ben Kingsley.

I liked the idea of someone selling a Johnny Cash lens when she had nicked all the text from Rolling Stone. I know she said she wrote some herself too but I couldn't see what she wrote and I'd bet money she never asked permission to use it. If she had been given permission she would have had to say so with a copyright attributing it to Rolling Stone.

It seems amazing that Squidoo don't crack down hard on plagiarism and no-content lenses.

And after that lens was sold - it was locked.
2 others of hers - also sold are also locked
I wonder if the people who bought them asked for their money back, or have any hope of getting their money back under a sweeping caveat emptor. All I can say is, they should have read the thread

You called her on it in the thread and she claimed it wasn't plagiarised for some reason but I didn't believe her as I'd seen the original on Rolling Stone.

Squidoo might be able to force her to give refunds on locked lenses by refusing to allow her to transfer any more lenses as she's still trying to sell some.

This post was last modified: 04-30-2009 10:21 PM by Carol.