Michael took the time to respond to my previous post. The comments in full are:
I've heard that squidoo is claiming significantly more traffic than their Alexa rankings suggest, but the checks they are still sending to top lenses are so low that it's hard to believe this. I think it would be great if Squidoo publicly reported what they are donating to charity (if they do this already I don't know about it). If it's substantial, or trending towards substantial, I will retract my statements. But from what I see, Seth is trumpeting how much they are doing for charity when very little is actually being donated.
I want to reiterate that I don't have access to hard data in coming to conclusions...I'm just making assumptions based on alexa and hearing about very small payouts to lensmasters.
I appreciate Michael coming by and responding but this doesn't address the "I'm not proud" comment. In addition, I don't understand how a specific amount going to charity (being substantial or trending towards substantial) gives cause to a determination of a retraction. I'm sure Michael isn't saying that if he decides it is enough charity then he will say, okay, I guess squidoo is in the good column. Some could read it that way, however, which would be a shame as by all accounts, Michael is a nice person. Maybe the "I'm not proud" thing is some culture/valley speak, dunno. Maybe Michael has something personal grudge/thing with Seth Godin, dunno that either.
Money is going to charity, that point is not in dispute. The people getting the money are extremely grateful, that point is also not in dispute. In most case, people getting some positive value/money out of Squidoo are way outside of the echo chamber and probably don't know or care about Michael Arrington (or me for that matter).
They end up, along with the actual workers inside of Squidoo, being the collateral damage resulting from these types of flip remarks.
I would have hoped, "oops, not proud was over the top", could have been the response from Michael but so be it. I also would have hoped that "I've heard" and "I don't have access to hard data" to be cause enough to temper one's shots until one could rely on direct information and real data but again, so be it.
I would have hoped Michael would take his own pulpit and clarify he wasn't meaning to take shots at people donating money to charity vs. commenting here about what the requirements would have to be in order to get at least a retraction. But so be it, people can conclude what they want.
My offer still stands, Mike:
"So, Mike, here's a deal. You sign up, in public, to stop taking shots at Squidoo and others that actually try to do a little good and I'll make a donation to your favorite charity."
Why are we talking about charity at all? The point was that the base Squidoo service is lame. Giving money away to charity doesn't make your main business immune from criticism.
Posted by: pwb | September 18, 2006 at 00:53
Nov 8th. 2006
"Total Money for Charity: $11,472.32"
This is found on the Stats page of every Lens (All 50,000 of them)
Is MA still going to match LOL
Posted by: Jeffryv | November 08, 2006 at 22:46