jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (34 posts)

Suggestion: Links to Unrelated Hubs is Killing Our Traffic- Urgent Fix

  1. janderson99 profile image86
    janderson99posted 4 years ago

    This issue has been raised many times in the past – but given the 20% drop in traffic it should be rectified urgently (good enough is no longer sufficient (IMO)
    Links to unrelated pages is something that Panda and Penguin have hit sites for.
    If an author puts an unrelated link on their page they get hit with a VIOLATION. Yet HP puts six ‘Discover more Hubs’ on every page many of which are clearly unrelated.
    HP has said that it is looking to improve the algo, but my recent tests have shown it is still very bad and may be a major cause of declines in traffic.
    I looked 75 hubs , half my own and half random other hubs, and counted the number of links that were clearly  NOT RELATED. The statics out of the 6 were:

    The average number of links NOT Related was 2.6  i.e.  about 3 of the 6 were unrelated

    0 NOT related 17%
    1 NOT related 20%
    2 NOT related 15%
    3 NOT related 15%
    4 NOT related 11%
    5 NOT related 12%
    6 NOT related 9%

    What this means is that on average every hub on HP has 3 unrelated links on it. For about 10% of the hubs ALL 6 were unrelated. Only 17% of the hubs have 6 links that are ALL related. If HP applied its related links test to the 'Discover more Hubs' it would generate violations for 60% of the hubs - more than 2 unrelated hubs.

    The problem is that the algo appears to run out of puff – finds a couple of good ones and then gets desperate and guesses the rest. For obscure topics its hopeless. A quick fix would be to make the test much tighter and simply to only list ‘stellar’ matches  - this would be much better that dumping in bad matches. this would mean some hubs would have 6, some 3 and some none but they would all be well related.  I suggest this needs to be fixed urgently to help address traffic losses.

    1. Mark Painter profile image61
      Mark Painterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Janderson99, you give your conclusion, but not the examples on which your statistics are based.  So, I can only comment based on my own testing.

      Relevant may be in the eye of the beholder.  My impression is generally the Hubs suggested are not completely unrelated.  A Hub on cheesecake will probably get other Hubs on deserts, but maybe not more cherry cheesecakes.  My guess, and we can all only guess, is that they are related enough for Google's algorithm.

      In my experience, when the selection misses badly, it is usually because the Hub is in the wrong category, or in a very general top level category.  The algorithm gives greater weight to nearby categories, and the category of your Hub is something that you do control.

      1. janderson99 profile image86
        janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Do the test with the example in the last post below with examples. Google doesn't care about categories -what it cares about is the title and keywords. If HP stuffs up the hubber cops a penalty for over-promotional with unrelated links, HP loses income, the hubber loses income - why not fix it. It is silly to blame the hubber!

    2. dragnhaze profile image60
      dragnhazeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      At first I had thought that the irrelevancy was what was causing my drop in views, as I have noticed the same problem, but then I started analyzing my analytics and discovered that there was a possibility that I had someone harassing me, so I filed a form with Google here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/vie … aTBQbkE6MQ and about a week later my views came back up for about a week and a half then the same day that my username gets searched for on Google from someone who lives in the same area as the suspected harasser, my views started dropping again, but maybe it's just a coincidence, and it really does have to do with the irrelevancy of the hubs suggested at the end of each hub.

  2. theherbivorehippi profile image83
    theherbivorehippiposted 4 years ago

    I'm glad you brought this up. I noticed it the other day, and thought the same thing myself. Then I thought maybe it was just me being negative because I hate these constant changes. I SO miss Hubpages the way it was a year ago. sad Not to go off topic...but are our avatars in here shrinking, or is it my imagination? Maybe I just don't come around enough. hmm

    1. janderson99 profile image86
      janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yep the images (nips) are getting smaller. One HP staff person has stated that the text is much more important than the author. It has been a cosistent policy to give authors much less prominence through the layout changes etc. I don't understand their thinking - it smacks of de-valuing the authors, and perhaps not giving them the respect they deserve. It is afterall the authors who contribute the content. Why not brag about them. It should be a Win Win situation - happy hubbers and happy HP.

      1. derek gulbranson profile image80
        derek gulbransonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think you're misquoting me on that. You make it out like I or HubPages doesn't want to promote authors, which is so far from the truth as to be almost offensive. We live and breath every day trying to promote our authors and care deeply about their success.

        I was referring to the design of the forums. Forums posts are about discussion. There is no discussion where who you are takes more prominence than what you say. Hubs and other content are a different story, and I was not referring to those interfaces.

        1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
          EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          OK, so over the past few months you've:

          Shrunk people's avatars
          Added links to other hubs at the bottom of each hub. Some of these hubs are related, but others aren't, as was pointed out by the OP
          Added links to other hubbers in our profiles
          Removed the "Search for content by..." bar on our profiles.

          If you took any of these things individually it wouldn't perhaps mean a great deal, but added together all of them show a progressive de-emphasis of us as individual writers. It now looks more as though we're your employees.

  3. jacharless profile image81
    jacharlessposted 4 years ago

    Spot on.
    The rebuild of the Taxonomic (topical data structure) seems to have thrown a gear. At the risk of sounding presumptuous, on the surface its seems HP has tried desperately to meet the ever changes goal posts of BigG and might be shooting themselves in the foot.

    The Tax and Folk of HP is the  topics and term capture for related articles -reinforced by commentary, Q/A, forum etc. So structuring them to fit the SITE is more relevant than complying with the overstuffed engine that thought it could but has proven it cannot.

    @50 million UV per month, HP has leverage, articles, links and enough word of mouth to focus on their internal search engine. If not, then there is little hope of real progression, breaking free from This Old Engine and finalizing the bugs.

    Furthermore, 40% or less for INTERNAL relevance is just awful and kind of ridiculous. 

    1. janderson99 profile image86
      janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      James, not quite  sure what you are saying, but to fly off in another direction I have suggested that HP should go the whole hog with the SUBS and get rid of all the directory links (hot, latest etc) which bind all the subs together and can taint all with the same brush if Google applies a universal penalty. The directory functions could be done by on-demand searches. My guess is that most of the traffic comes via direct hits on the pages and that the useage of the directory is minimal anyway. This would mean that the SUBs were truly independent like on other sites with SUBs like Bloggers etc. The new topics pages means that hardly anyone will get off the first page - so why have all the others listed. There should be a search facility for searches within topics - this would essentially replace the directory links anyway. Just thoughts IMO. I have dumped directories from my own sites apart from the site maps. Each sub owner could look after their own sitemap.

      1. jacharless profile image81
        jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You're right. It was 17% not 40% relevance.
        We're essentially on the same page.
        The directory of categories {Taxonomy} in relation to relevant content, links {Folksonomy} seems to have thrown a gear, even using data-vocabulary.org as their breadcrumb builder. I think HP can do better and has enough links, content internally to stop worrying about BigG {the little engine that  obviously cannot}. They should focus on a range of at least 75% relevance for related content, instead of 75% compliance with G.


  4. Novel Treasure profile image85
    Novel Treasureposted 4 years ago

    I'm not as savy about some of the technical stuff, but I do know that my traffic has tanked and tanked to like only 25% of what it was 3-4 weeks ago. I can't say that I know why. But I do believe it's directly related to the changes.

    I wish I felt like our voices were heard. There have been literally hundreds of posts or forum threads regarding these issues and I've only seen a handful of responses from the HP team. It's becoming really discouraging.

    1. janderson99 profile image86
      janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It was most likely the last Panda that did it - not much info was issued on what was targetted but HP took a 20% loss of traffic overal. But some hubbers have seen increases in traffic - so that makes it harder to understand the causes and solutions.

  5. derek gulbranson profile image80
    derek gulbransonposted 4 years ago

    Hi janderson99. Thanks for the suggestion.

    We think of "related" not as a binary yes/no but more in terms of a percentage of relatedness. A Hub on cheesecake will probably get other Hubs on deserts, but maybe not more cherry cheesecakes. So in your list of Hubs with the tally of what % of them you considered "related", the interesting information for us is more what you considered related and why or why not. Feel free to include links or screenshots to specific example Hubs.

    We have done considerable testing and refinement on the algorithm that selects related Hubs. Our guess is that they are related enough for Google's algorithm, but it's particularly difficult to get informative data on that.

    It sounds like you want this ability so that you can try it and see if it's adversely effecting your traffic. I'm not inclined to provide this option to Hubbers because I don't think it's possible for individuals to perform an effective test on their own. The effect of the changes could be slight and take several months to be seen. Even if you made no other changes to anything on your subdomain, it doesn't seem you could form any reliable cause-effect conclusions. More likely you'd have several changes that all do different things and you wouldn't be really sure which change caused which effect or even if all the changes weren't solely the result of Google changing things. Or worse, you'd decide some one change was responsible for your traffic changes and then be left with incorrect conclusions which you now felt were backed up by tests.

    I think the only way to answer definitively is to remove related Hubs site-wide in an A/B test fashion. Unfortunately, we're also not open to this idea because, based on the testing we've already done on the algorithm and the increased traffic our changes have caused, we are pretty confident removing related Hubs entirely would have a large adverse effect on traffic for all Hubbers. That tends to make them upset and start looking for someone to blame.

    But I don't want you to think that we think we've licked the related Hubs problem entirely. We definitely don't think it's perfect yet and are open to suggestions on how to improve it or specific examples of where it's failing.

    1. janderson99 profile image86
      janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Once again Derek, thanks for your reply. My concern is that bad links HP imposes damages the ratings of my pages.
      I know the flogged horse has died - but you asked for it - some examples!
      The ones below with original articles in bold are admittedly the bad apples - but I would contend that if I put links on my pages to most of these myself I would get violation notices! What's good for the Goose should be good for the Gander. What I suggest is that you make the test tougher and only show the good ones !!!

      Best Vegetarian Fast Food - Healthy Choices, Low Fat, Low Calorie

      Low Oxalate Vegetarian Warm Mushroom and Cream Cheese Salad
      Cottage Cheese Salad Recipe
      Recipe for the Optional Veggie Cottage Cheese Salad
      Our Family's Favorite Lemon Garlic Cheese Salad Dressing
      Homemade Bleu Cheese Salad Dressing
      Watermelon and Feta Cheese Salad. This Tastes So Much Better Than It Sounds!

      How to Get Rid of a Beehive

      How to Choose the Best New York Bed Bug Exterminators
      How to Use a Steamer to Kill Bed Bugs
      Get Rid Of Roaches
      What You Should Do To Stop Roaches
      Termite Treatment Cost
      How to Prevent Termites from Invading Your Home

      Slow Roasted Dried Tomatoes Recipe

      Variations on Famous Salad Themes
      Easy Appetizer Bread Recipes: How To Make Flatbread Lavash Appetizer Pizzas
      Chicken For Dinner: Healthy & Easy Recipes
      Awesome Seafood Recipes
      How to Make Beef Jerky at Home | Drying, Recipes and Safety Tips
      How to Cook Asparagus in a Pan, on the Stove, Grill, Barbecue, Bake, Steam

      Easy Risotto Recipes

      How to Make Homemade Noodles
      Quinoa with Garbanzo Beans, Feta Cheese and Bell Pepper & Kale
      Cabbage Recipes
      Traditional Italian Tomato Sauce Recipe - Just like mamma's
      How to Make Oven Taco Pizza
      The Best BBQ Side Dishes

      Should Helmets, Protective Headgear Be Compulsory in all Sports?

      How To Build The Fittest Female Soccer Player
      Diving: Oscar Performances by Soccer Players
      Top Twenty Best Football Quotes- The Great Football Players
      Best players in Real Madrid history
      Top 10 Football Players
      How To Be A Good Football Player : Basics

      Tips for Running with Jogging Strollers: Pros and Cons, Guides

      Schwinn Double Jogging Stroller
      Easy Exercise Ideas for Moms with Young Children
      Astigmatism in Children Exercises
      Tips for buying a bicycle trailer
      Kid’s Glasses: Choosing Eyeglasses and Frames for Children
      Nissen Fundoplication in Children: What to Expect from a Parent's Perspective

      Acupuncture for Children - Is it Safe and Effective, Are there Side Effects?

      Types of Acupuncture
      Bauhinia Forficata Pata de Vaca
      Side Effects of Maca Root
      What is Reiki? Is it Real or Fake? Discover What the Scientific Studies...
      Chinese Medicine for Unusual Chronic Pain
      Study: Traumatic Brain Injury and Criminal Behavior

      Playground Slides : How Parents Can Reduce the Injury Risks?

      Brachial Plexus Injuries in Children: Strengthening Exercises-
      How to keep your child safe around pets and animals
      Bounce U. Review for Children Who are Two (Years Old): Entertainment for a...
      Double Strollers: How to Pick the Right One
      Why Parents And Children Should Join A Martial Arts Class Together. Things To...
      Your Child and How Much NyQuil

      Women More Sensitive to Pain than Men, After All

      Sinusitis Dizziness Explained
      How To Stop Torn Rotator Cuff Shoulder Pain
      Types Of Headaches
      The Scourge of Chronic Sinusitis and GERD Combination.
      How to get rid of a chronic sinus infection


      What's your score - How many are clearly UNRELATED!!!

      1. Mark Painter profile image61
        Mark Painterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        None of the examples seem like JC Penny putting links to women's clothing into discussions of theoretical physics.  They show other material HubPages has on similar topics, and give a chance for other Hubbers to get their Hubs noticed.

        1. janderson99 profile image86
          janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But they are UNRELATED and Google will see them as UNRELATED.
          Question: If I put these links on my pages myself, how many violations would be triggered?
          Followup: Next time I get a violation for similar unrelated links can I send them to you so you can convince HP that the violation was not justified?

          1. Mark Painter profile image61
            Mark Painterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If you have concrete evidence that Google determined these links are unrelated, I would be interested to see that.  I don't see that level of sophistication in their own search results, and personally don't see the examples you gave as irrelevant.

            1. janderson99 profile image86
              janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No worries! I give up! Have a nice Day! The Flogged horse has been buried!
              Cheers and Best  Wishes

          2. derek gulbranson profile image80
            derek gulbransonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Absolutely. If Google gave you a violation for related content that we put on your page, we're absolutely interested that. Feel free to send directly to me via private message or I can send you my email address.

            We're obviously not interested in sticking unrelated content on Hubs. I kinda agree with Mark though that the examples you provided don't seem so unrelated.

  6. Shaddie profile image95
    Shaddieposted 4 years ago

    Janderson, I'm not a big stickler for my own earnings here on Hubpages (after all, I feel I am generating money from absolutely nowhere since writing takes such little effort), but I have noticed that absurdity of the "Related Hubs" below my articles. Some of the things that pop up are not only completely UNrelated, but they offend what my Hub's message was. Here are some examples:

    The Argument For Altered Dogs
    What is an Exotic Pet?
    Animal kill shelters are just as guilty of abusing animals as the owners they took them from
    Giant Animals
    Top 30 cutest animals in the world
    Ever Wonder What it Would be Like to Be Eaten Alive By an Animal?
    Leucistic Animals and Leucism.

    In an article specifically geared towards the heated argument of docking and cropping dogs, I get absolutely no links towards similar Hubs (and they ARE out there, I used many as reference). What do I get instead? ...Cute...animals? ...Personal opinions on the sensation of being eaten by wild creatures? Is this for real? What the flip, HP.

    Boring Dog Names
    Useful tips for getting a puppy
    Labrador Retrievers: Meet The Breed
    All About Healthy Dog Treats For Labrador Retriever Dogs and Puppies.
    Labrador Retrievers
    Great Gift Ideas for People that LOVE Labrador Retrievers and Other Dogs!
    Best Names for Dogs and Puppies

    In 6 "Related Hubs" there is only a whopping total of ONE here that corresponds properly with my article. All the others seem to be geared towards Labrador retrievers for some god awful reason.

    Alaskan Wolf Hunting
    The Truth About Polar Bears
    Wolves: The Pack
    More Kinds Of Antelope
    How do Wolves Hunt?
    The Ethiopian Wolf - The Most Endangered Animal in the Dog Family

    Out of 6 links, there are only 3 concerning canines of any kind, and only 2 that relate to gray wolves which are the kind my article is about. Honestly - cheetahs?? What does that have to do with Alaska??

    1. derek gulbranson profile image80
      derek gulbransonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for the comments Shaddie.

      So it's looking like the issue centers around different definitions of "related". In your example "Boring Dog Names", we'd consider all of those Hubs to be sufficiently related. There's no mention of particle physics of cherry cheesecake recipes, they are all related to the topic of "dogs".

      I think your example "The Argument For Altered Dogs" is also a good example case. The matching algorithm does not understand the meaning of words, so it will never be able to differentiate between imaginary dogs and real ones, or know that neither "stuffed turkeys" nor "stuffed bears" are considered "animals", nor does "stuffed" mean the same thing in both contexts. Only humans can make those distinctions. Unfortunately when we have given authors the ability to help inform those related links, it has been abused to the point of making the whole feature useless and detrimental to the effectiveness of Hub interlinking.

      The algorithm does optimize itself over time, so high traffic Hubs are more likely to show related links that other human beings also view as related.

      These comments are helpful. I hope you don't feel like I'm shooting you all down, but the problem is not as easy to solve as it first seems.

  7. jacharless profile image81
    jacharlessposted 4 years ago

    Hmm. If I may...
    Given John's examples, there appears to be some relationship issues, but not completely unrelated.
    For example:
    Best Vegetarian Fast Food - Healthy Choices, Low Fat, Low Calorie
    Taxonomy options would be:

    Food >> Vegan & Vegetarian >> Recipes
    Food >> Food Facts >> Fast Food >>
    Health >> Nutrition Information >> Calories From Fat/Low Fat

    So three crumbs can serve just this category. Not including folksonomy {tags}, Similar Titles, verbiage/content and enhancements {video/photos}. Here are the "relative" articles:

    --Low Oxalate Vegetarian Warm Mushroom and Cream Cheese Salad
    --Cottage Cheese Salad Recipe
    --Recipe for the Optional Veggie Cottage Cheese Salad
    --Our Family's Favorite Lemon Garlic Cheese Salad Dressing
    --Homemade Bleu Cheese Salad Dressing
    --Watermelon and Feta Cheese Salad. This Tastes So Much Better Than It Sounds!

    All of them directly contain the term Cheese and Salad. Neither appears in the originating Title. Only one contains a Title word: Vegan. And all the relative articles indirectly contain the term Recipe. Based on this, I would guess this article was a Recipe and not informational. So, yes, this could throw someone into a curious spin if searching for Vegan food information and several Cheese Salad recipes came back.

    How to Get Rid of a Beehive
    --How to Choose the Best New York Bed Bug Exterminators
    --How to Use a Steamer to Kill Bed Bugs
    --Get Rid Of Roaches
    --What You Should Do To Stop Roaches
    --Termite Treatment Cost
    --How to Prevent Termites from Invading Your Home

    Again, the term Beehive does not match the relationship query -directly. Which can be good/bad. Good because Beehive could produce a relevant result for Beehive Hair-do's. lol  Not relative at all. All of these elements could appear:

    Home & Garden >> Pests >> Pest Control >> Extermination
    How-To >>

    Seems any of the above topics could draw a list of probable results in all four crumbs.
    Maybe, just maybe the vocabulary-data needs refining for internal results and searches. Else it is specifically being used as an external compliance measure, based on a Search Engine's Taxonomy for indexing and Keywords.


    1. WriteAngled profile image91
      WriteAngledposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, John's title includes "vegetarian", so cheese is OK from that point of view.

      More to the point, 3 of the 6 the featured recipes are for cheese-based salad dressing and a salad, which includes cream cheese. These are unlikely to be low fat/low calories, which is the other major topic in John's title.

      Also, a salad dressing recipe does not come into my definition of fast food. Even if the dressing is fast to make itself, it is only a minor part of a meal and you are still left with having to chop, slice or otherwise prepare the salad ingredients, and perhaps also prepare something else if the salad is a side dish or starter. I understand fast food as being a full meal or fairly substantial snack that is thrown together and cooked in 15 minutes maximum.

      Were I searching for veggie fast food, I would not bother looking at any of those supposedly relevant titles.

  8. janderson99 profile image86
    janderson99posted 4 years ago

    Here's a few good ones from a very famous HP author

    Family Houseboating Vacation to Lake Don Pedro

    Lake Hennessey Camping and Fishing Vacation
    Adventure Island Water Park in Tampa FL, the Sister Water Park of Busch Gardens...
    What You Need to Know Before Visiting Wilderness At The Smokies Indoor and...
    Finding gold and silver jewelry in water
    Metal detector for Water Hunting

    How To Make a Graph with the Appearance of Massive Growth by Changing the Rise and Run

    How to increase Zazzle sales
    "Buy 1 Get 1 Free" - The Effective Psychological Pricing Trick
    What is a Manufacturer's Sales Representative?
    Three Effective Ways to Insert Images in HTML Email Templates
    Business Mind Mapping with MindManager

    Cost Savings Tips for Companies

    Office Solutions for Entrepreneurs
    The Future of the Office Cubicle - Change or Die?
    How To Set Up A Turnkey Money Making System
    How to create ebooks free
    How to Start a Hot Shot Trucking Business

    1. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Right, a large part of this is where Hubbers are placing their articles.

      How To Make a Graph with the Appearance of Massive Growth by Changing the Rise and Run
      All of them are published under: Business and Employment » Marketing and Sales »
      So, yes, these Hubs were published in certain Categories and therefore are being considered relevant by the Parent Topic, then by sub-topics {crumbs}. This is what I mentioned earlier about Vegetarian being included with Cheese, Salad and Recipes. They are clustered by the Category Food » . So the callback can only get what it knows or finds in that Category and then tries to match-up Title, Description, Tags, Content/Verbiage that fits.


      1. janderson99 profile image86
        janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Paul E!

        1. janderson99 profile image86
          janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It should not depend on the category - Google will look at title and keywords -  IMO

          1. jacharless profile image81
            jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It has to. The internal categories/topics are setting the stage for where Hubs can be published and how they are discovered//explored. This is to organize data and the site as a whole for internal searches, sharing, feed, navigation, commentary, etc. However, externally they have integrated data-vocabulary.org schema, for compliance//extended relevance for breadcrumbs { sub-categories-as-keywords }. Here it is from the horses trough:

            This is effecting everything from SERPs to Previews, Page Rank -even PageMap, SiteMaps {RSS and XML} and as of recent Page Layout. It is also connected to the pilot program Google Authorship//G+ validity. In short, they are applying DV.org recommendations//formula for Search Indexing Category hierarchy.

            Here is the link to the google doc for deeper explanation.


            1. janderson99 profile image86
              janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              How about search for keywords (+synonyms) in title, within category and ONLY show matches - If none don't show

              1. jacharless profile image81
                jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Not a bad idea.
                Even better: show six {6} Hubs by the Hubber and only two {2} Discover More Hubs.
                This highly reduces the relevance issue.
                Hubbers Group their articles and these sectors navigate the visitor on-hub.
                Then, off-hub -in main site areas- Topics as usual...


                1. janderson99 profile image86
                  janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Great Idea.
                  I think the algo should give preference to matches within the same sub.
                  Groups can be a bit of a mixed bag.
                  The key is relevance  - the test just needs to be smarter.
                  It is good most of the time but it puffs out.
                  So, if good matches can't be found none should be shown. If there is no match to a keyword (or synonyms) in the titles don't include the link - simple test, easy to implement.
                  It need to be fixed - this could be pulling HP down in a major way.

    2. derek gulbranson profile image80
      derek gulbransonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That graph one is a great example. Thanks for that. I can't really conceptualize how the algo would relate those. Though in its defense, again, no cherry cheesecakes, particle physics, or what seem like "violation"-level mis-matches. But we'll look into those more.

  9. Maralexa profile image86
    Maralexaposted 4 years ago

    Thanks again Derek for your comments - appreciated.  But, I agree with Janderson99 that there is a problem here and I like jacharless suggestion to show more hubs by the hubber than other hubbers' hubs.

    I suggest that you place Discover More Hubs BELOW the comments rather than just before the comments.  Show MY related hubs before the comments but not other peoples' hubs.  i don't want readers going to other hubs before they vote and comment on mine.

    Also, because of this thread, I have changed my groups and my categories for some of my hubs.  I notice that HubPages seems to choose Discover More Hubs from the category in which I have placed my hub.  HubPages seems to choose MY related hubs from the Groups I create for my hubs.

    I hope my comments are constructive.  I appreciate what HP is doing here and I very much appreciate this forum thread.