I noticed that this guy is adding huge lists of hubs to
His pages are outranking the orginal articles which are not showing in the SERPS (probably because they are considered duplicates).
He copies a paragraph from the article, the image and provides a link back.
If this GOOD, BAD or UGLY. What should be done about it?
As far as I can see, he is just providing a dofollow backlink to a lot of hubs, though what he gets out of it, I don't know!
When a Hubpages subdomain gets slapped, like mine, everything outranks it! Not sure that is a problem for most hubbers, or is it?
In my case one of my hubs has disappeared from the SERPS and has been replaced by his summary - Its a worry! He uses theexact title and copied text. Google displays his rather than mine!!!
Have you been slapped by Google? I mean a slap like mine where Google took its traffic elsewhere, when I never did anything to annoy them, that I know of.
The point is that when Google takes your traffic away, all backlinks/copies made by plagiarists show higher in the rankings than your hubs.
I don't think this guy is doing anything other than providing a backlink and it shouldn't rank higher than your hub unless something is wrong with your account.
He does exactly as HP does. http://hubpages.com/topics/home/gardening/3174/hot
He does exactly as I do.
And here's my rant for the day...
I literally feed HP and other hubbers traffic each and every single day.
But I have yet to get a god damn ad-click out of it.
I am beginning to get highly perturbed about that.
I got 6,000 views today across my subdomains and no clicks.
I'm considering taking HPads off to see the difference.
No, but I have new subdomains that are unaffected.
It was such an odd thing at the weekend. Bing sent me 1,400 views to one hub on this account, Yahoo another 450, other subdomains, comcast, AOL etc sent me more.
A big fat zero from Google!
On my other accounts, Google traffic is per normal, and Yahoo and Bing combined usually only totals 10% of what Google can bring.
So what you are saying is that other hubbers benefit from the links on your pages and offsite but hubbers seldom click on ads. However part of the payment via the ad program is for "impressions" and so no click is required. I think that is why HP puts so much emphasis on internal linking via related hubs and hubbers - Impressions!
No no no you have that wrong.
Internal linking strengthens a subdomain in a way you cannot imagine. I had no idea myself until I tried it.
A strengthened subdomain is popular in the eyes of all search engines, but in addition you will see searchers following those links.
If we all did it, Hubpages as a whole would be strengthened. In the past, they had us interlinked with really crap hubs, but there are many hubbers here I am happy to link to.
So someone leaves my page by visiting another page, what is the difference if they were leaving anyway?
As far as I can see, the ads do not relate to the content in many cases, so not much chance of them leaving through an ad.
I have never looked to other hubbers for traffic, our main traffic should come from search engines.
I experimented with internal linking.
On one sub of less than 20 hubs, I interlinked them as far as possible, and added links from across the site where possible (my choice of links, not the suggestions tool), and saw the traffic DOUBLE overnight. Search engine traffic, I might add.
Are you doing that through suggest a link? Or are you finding the hubs you want to link to by yourself?
I do it by highlighting the words I want hyperlinked and use the link tool. It shows my own hubs that relate, or others that relate, but if its not my own hub I open an HP search in a new tab and choose a hub myself, or occasionally I choose a hub they suggest because I know the hubber writes good hubs. I then check the link to make sure it is up to par, just in case. If there is nothing obviously suitable, I choose a web site page, usually wikipedia or other authority site.
I have amazed myself at how well this strategy works.
Just to add, the subdomain I intensively linked has just seen its highest ever traffic day - far higher than anything I have ever seen on this account - and it only has 20 hubs!
It's my rant, and I'll cry if I want to,
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to.
You would cry too if it happened to you...
Thanks for your posts. I'll start adding some links here and there.
Twylah is OK! They simply create a page for you and its connected to twitter. From what I see its a pretty good setup.
Even If the snippet thats copied from your hub is ranking higher than your hub that is not a problem. That only means Twylah has a higher PR because there is fresh content added several times a day from other users.
If and when your hub start to sink lower in the serps. People will see that back link and still be directed to your article. So its a win win situation.
Its annoying when TWYLAH copy outranks the original as the user can't see your SERP snippet => loss of traffic. Google only shows one copy - Twylah!! Very annoying when someone else can copy summaries of all you articles on their Twylah page to promote their business!!
If/when I sign-up with Twylah, I'll do yours first.
This one guy is producing hundreds of links a day back to Hubpages. Google are cracking down on spammy links, surely this guy is harming the site as a whole. He also copies and pastes the first few lines of our pages, is this not dup content? Not to mention he also uses our image on his own personal page. He must be bringing in thousands and thousands of views a day to his Twylah pages and it's all our hard work he is profiting from. I don't see how this can be allowed.
The site putting up the dup content is the one that is supposed to be harmed, not the original.
So, obviously Google isn't that bothered about it, or his own site would not rank so highly.
Unfortunately, when our subs are demoted for whatever reason, all dup content shows above our original work.
I should know, I was there for a year. In fact, I'm not sure I'm not back there, seeing as I ended up with a huge traffic drop yesterday, right back to where I was before my traffic returned.
Meanwhile, if you are in Google's good books, your work will rank above Twylahs, and in fact will benefit from the backlink he is providing.
In recent times I have found it takes as long as a month for my Hubs on this account to get indexed. But they show up on Twylah much sooner, and often seem to get higher in the SERPS.
This I keep hearing about benefiting from the banklinks is wrong. Are people not keeping up to date with everything Google is saying?
Yesterday my other account on Hubpages crashed, I notice that my Hubs have been replaced by these Twylah pages showing snippets from my Hubs with a link to me. I don't see any traffic coming through those links though. So I strongly disagree that this site is benifiting me or anyone else.
I still stand by my original statement. Why is this guy aloud to profit off all our hardwork?
Your post has hit the nail on the head of what is wrong here.
Normally, HP has such a high standing that all new hubs got indexed within hours, sometimes minutes, of publication.
Now, if the Googlebot visits while the hub is in pending mode, it sees the noindex tag and leaves. Sometimes it doesn't return for weeks.
If someone comes along and copies even part of our work in the interim, then OUR work becomes the second-indexed, and therefore seems like the copy in Google's eyes.
I am a bit miffed just now because another of my subdomains writes only about sharks.
There has been a fatal shark attack in California, and as soon as the poor victim's name became known, I wrote a hub about it.
Normally, I can expect 1000s of views within the first week or two.
Now, I get nothing, and by the time my hub is indexed, its old news.
Not a good system at all, and is costing both me and HP money.
Obviously I should take those articles elsewhere.
Totally agree Izzy, some of my articles are written with the need to be published quickly, when they get Googlized in a months time it to late for the really serious traffic to come in. Plus everyone else has already wrote about it by then so you find yourself way down the SERPS.
I noticed this also, from one of the tech sites I write for. Seems he is scraping content -mostly from Hub Pages- to boost his sites rank// twylah [power tweet] page. In essence display re~tweet. It is not necessarily duplicating content, but is borderline spinning. It is a clean backlink though, so no complaints here.
http://www.twylah.com/faq >> FAQ about using twylah.
But Google have come out and said they no longer reward backlinks that are simply generated either automatically or simply for the sake of a banklink, in fact they now downgrade a site with these kind of spammy links. They want quality links that are there for a geniune reason. They have also said about anchor text that they don't want the entire name of the page in the link, they want it to be a natural anchor text link.
For example if a hub is called 'how to build a really big tower', Google do not want the anchor text to always be 'how to bulid a really big tower'. They want it to be varied, so the anchor text could be 'big towers' or 'building a tower' or 'guide to towers'. The guy on Twylah uses the entire URL as the link, something Google have said they do not like at all.
Well, that is his problem, not ours.
Essentially his links will get dumped for spinning content, not Hubbers.
On another point: these "back links" are identical to a RT on twitter, a Facebook Share, a Stumble etc. so the exact link is especially valuable as it is a "clean" link directly to the Hub. Should the link be a redirect, which from what I am seeing is not, then there is no reason Goo would frown upon it. Yes, granted, Goo wants everyone to use G+ for authorship//back linking to continue forcing their product on the masses. Nevertheless, links are the backbone of the internet. The more inbound, clean, exact domain-to-title // exact link-to-title links, the better the PR value.
Finally it is not just WriterSC, it is an entire website directly connected to Twitter, via their API.
#2, 3, 4 are direct links to my article; #6 is a referral from another Hubber.
The twitter stuff is not even coming up even though he back linked it.
On Goo, Bing -even Yahoo- this same article is pulling top position. Nothing to worry about after all.
by Melanie Shebel3 years ago
http://www.pinterest.com/source/hubpages.com/Looks like there are no hubs on Pinterest (I noticed no Pinterest traffic today and had to investigate.)Hubs are no longer pinnable.I wish hubbers wouldn't spam social...
by Chuck Bluestein3 years ago
Now, not before, when you place a link, you have a choice to click rel=nofollow so that search engines ignore it. So in future hubs that you write or if you want to go back and edit, do not check this box for links to...
by Paul Goodman5 years ago
Article for discussion. I know that this recent development has already been mentioned by some hubbers in forums. But I am now wondering if this might be the main reason why we are seeing the current traffic...
by Will Apse3 years ago
In his hub 'What We Don't Know About Google Panda?', Paul Edmondson points out that Google seems to expect sites to leap high above any bar that might reasonably be set for quality purposes.Paul seems less than happy...
by Silver Rose5 years ago
Here's a post from googlewebmastercentral posted yesterday:http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot. … ernal.htmlLook at the table where they show the differences. Previously scholar.google.com/ and...
by Paul Edmondson5 years ago
About a month ago, I posted a blog post and forum post recapping our response to the Google Panda algorithm update, and announcing our test of moving Hubber accounts to subdomains. Many of you volunteered to move your...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.