I have been experimenting with Google to find new techniques to drive more search traffic and I found one that is quite silly but has doubled my traffic within about a week of updating my hub.
Here it is: THE RATING CAPSULE
It's really quite silly, but I added a rating capsule to the bottom of my main traffic driving hub and personally rated the article 5 stars. The 5 star rating shows up in Google and it must make potential readers think that because it has 5 stars, it is better than the other results!
Like I said, this is such an outrageous way to increase hub traffic but I promise you it really works.
To see what it looks like, just search "Verizon Wireless Early Upgrade" in Google and you will see my "5-Star" article right away.
Of course, your article probably needs to be ranking on the first page of Google results to see a serious traffic increase, but for those of you fighting for the number one spot, give this a try.
You're Welcome in Advance
No thank you -we don't believe in cheating and rating our own articles.
What a great idea! I did this before but never paid attention to if there was a readership change. I'm going to do that more often. If I believe my hub is 5 stars, you bet I'm going to tell the world it's a 5 star article!
It doesn't even have to be a 5 star rating for the article. You can just rate anything you please with a generous 5 stars and when it shows up in Google search all it says is 5 stars.
It's risky using the ratings capsule to rate your Hub. It is only to be used to rate a product or service you're reviewing.
If you use it in an article that's not a review, it could eventually count against you with Google, because it's classed as misuse of the rich snippets feature. Right now, Google isn't very good at picking that up, but it's being talked about a lot so I'm guessing it's only a matter of time.
To quote from their guidelines:
"While rich snippets are generated algorithmically, we do reserve the right to take manual action (e.g., disable rich snippets for a specific site) in cases where we see abuse, deception, or other actions that hurt the search experience for our users. In particular, you should avoid:
Marking up content that is in no way visible to users.
Marking up irrelevant or misleading content, such as fake reviews or content unrelated to the focus of a page."
Your Hub would count as a "fake review" because you've used the ratings capsule (which is designed for reviews) in an article that doesn't review anything.
Thanks for the tip. I'm going to turn it into a rating then so I can still use the ratings capsule!
Yeah... the Rating Capsule is definitely not intended for rating Hubs; it is meant to rate a product, place, or service. But it's certainly easy to work said ratings into existing Hubs in a relevant manner!
I am curious about your answer. I put the review capsule on my review hubs and a few travel destination hubs. I understand you are saying people could rate an experience or destination/vacation choice - but not the actual hub... People can't rate how much they like an author's piece?
And if the answer is no, readers are not allowed to place a value on what they read, do you know if HP will be releasing another capsule that fulfills this purpose? I know I enjoy rating other authors when I read their work, not necessarily for reviews or products - but on the value I get from the actual article.
No, they can't. The Ratings Capsule includes a special piece of code which tells Google that the article is a review of a product, service, recipe etc. If you put it on an article that isn't a review, then you're misusing the code, and that's against Google's guidelines and can result in a penalty.
Hmm. I think I'd better be paying more attention here. I wrote, I think, two review hubs and included that capsule with the question of "was this review helpful" or some such. Maybe I'd better be re-thinking that, even though it sailed right through the Apprentice Program mentors.
I'd definitely air on the side of caution... if anything for the simple fact that it seems to be becoming a 'hot issue' and maybe they will put something in the learning community about it to address the confusions many of us now have as a result of it.
I hope it works out for you.
I wondered why you didn't react when I posted on your toothbrush review. Seems like you're not the only person who has misconceptions about the use of the capsule.
If I'm understanding it correctly, the ratings capsule uses the hreview markup.
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bi … wer=146645
Well, now you know. Any little bit of google juice it might provide isn't worth the risk it may be presenting, so I think it's gone.
Thanks for the help, Marisa. I had two of those, and have changed both to a rating of the product being reviewed rather than the review itself.
It can't be completely banned because on non HP sites, I have definitely rated articles based on the article, not on a review of a product, place or experience. So, there's some means that allows it... It just doesn't appear to be here
There isn't a means that allows it, it's just that Google isn't very good at noticing people who are breaking the rules - yet! And NotPC isn't the only person to find that it can help their articles rank higher, so people are doing it.
My worry would be that in the past, Google has always worked out how to detect these tricks and punish the people who use them, so I reckon they'll work this one out, too - eventually.
There are many ways you can show your appreciation on HubPages. You can vote a Hub up or down, mark it as Interesting, beautiful etc.
If you note Smartandfun's post, it seems that's not clear in the Learning Center, so maybe worth adding something to that effect?
when I click on your 'Verizon Wireless Early Upgrade' hub on Google, it says 'No longer published'.
'The article you are looking for is no longer published. The author may have chosen to unpublish it, or it may have been unpublished by a moderator because of a violation of HubPages rules.'
Did they delete your hub because of this?
The hub is unpublished because the four people I upset in this thread all reported the hub and it auto unpublished. Now I have to wait for the HubPages staff to turn it back on. So ya... last time I try to be helpful.
If it really is the case that a hub gets automatically unpublished from receiving four flags, this is a matter of huge concern. It means that any four people can get together behind the scenes and work in agreement to sabotage an author' s hubs. Heck, you don't even need four people! One person could create four new accounts to do this, and another four, and another four....
I'm positive-minded. I like to think we are all here to help each other - not blast each other. I hope there aren't any folks being malicious when newbies make mistakes. Well, if there were people flagging all the time, then HP would realize they were a repeat offender and there would be repercussions from HP for that kind of negative behavior.
I like to think the best of people. I think we should all help each other and come from a place of love when we approach others we feel are making mistakes. After all, we're all in this together. The better one of us do, the better all of us do.
It is a pretty common (and often annoying) feature on websites with user generated content, especially ones that earn money. I know for a fact that YouTube will often remove a video if it gets reported too many times for certain violations. This is typically done by a robot and may or may not be upheld once an actual human being gets around to reviewing it. It'll happen even faster if a big corporate movie or music studio makes a DMCA violation notice.
The thinking is that keeping up deeply offensive or illegal content can hurt the other users, lead to lawsuits, and potentially damage the entire brand. It also means that people being pouty can get your work temporarily suspended which is just the worst.
I might be making it up entirely, but I feel like I remember HP said they had something similar in place. I do know that they'll always review a request to republish a Hub as long as it isn't irrevocably inappropriate (like, say, a hub titled Porn Stars I Stalk).
I imagine it keeps people happy when super-offensive stuff comes up (racist, violent, etc) and there's no one on staff to monitor the report queue.
I could also be talking out my butt though!
How do you know that people in this thread reported your hub, NotPC? Reporting is a confidential process that only the HubPages team and the person doing the reporting know about. It’s not fair to accuse people of reporting your hub if you don’t have any evidence that this is true. There’s no such thing as “auto unpublishing” a hub, either. A human has to make the decision to remove a hub from publication. I can understand that you’re upset about your hub being unpublished and I appreciate your effort to help other people, but please don’t blame people unfairly.
The hub may have been very good but you stated that you "personally rated your own hub with 5 stars". That was a mistake.
As someone stated previously ratings capsules are for products not hubs and if there was no product it was wrong..
The link to your article, "How to successfully get an early cell phone upgrade from Verizon" is going to a page that says the Hub was removed. Does this have anything to do with your rating trick?
Nah, I found out it was because I had too many eBay links lol. I replaced all the amazon links with eBay links because I live in Colorado and Amazon doesn't accept Colorado in their program.. I removed the reviews capsule thinking that was the problem and the HP staff said that was fine having the reviews capsule on the hub because I fixed it and used it correctly, the problem was having too many eBay capsules. Removed all those and am awaiting re-publication. Stay tuned!
I checked the rating capsule out for the first time. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Should I be selecting Single Person Rating or the Rating that allows anyone to rate the Hub?
If you are rating a product like a computer or restaurant you can do the single person rating. If you want other people to say what they think about a product or restaurant then you choose the anyone option. It's kinda up to you as both options are equally as effective. As a few hubbers have said, it's more about having the capsule than it is about what the rating is. Ratings that say a product is bad is just as useful to people, if not more useful, than a positive review. I know when I'm reading product reviews I always read the ones that rate a product poorly so I know what to look out for. It kinda just depends on what your hub is all about.
Do you hubbers really feel this is cheating or is it just making a hub look more attractive?
I feel it's more of an exploit of a feature that is really meant for recipes... nothing against the terms of service about it I don't believe, but it doesn't seem like an honest way to get readers since they are not reading because it really is a great hub, but rather that they are tricked into thinking it is.
But to each his own and if it helps you, great. Best of luck.
Wow harsh! It is currently ranked number 2 in Google in any search that has to do with early upgrades for Verizon Wireless. I feel you may have misunderstood the technique. This hub has always generated quite a bit of traffic because it is a well written hub. When searching Google, many people just click the first link because they assume it is the best. In my case, the person in the Number 1 spot just has a whole web of articles online and has his stuff set up with Google, like the Google Authorship. I am currently in the process of being verified for Google Authorship, but the process takes months. Your post was a bit condescending in my opinion, which is not very cool considering I was trying to help other hubbers. Maybe when you have a little more experience under your belt you will be in a better position to criticize my writing. Until then I recommend you hop some hubs and focus on what you like about certain hubs and what you don't like. Then apply those observations to your own hubs. Cheers and welcome to HubPages!
Oh my... I didn't realize you would take what I said as a negative comment against you as a person or criticizing you. That was not my intention...
You had asked if anyone else saw it as cheating so I simply responded with how I feel it might be an exploit from my point of view, but if it works for you that's great. I just wouldn't feel comfortable myself doing it. I don't mean to say that I look down on another for using it, especially if it gives them the ranking they desire. #2 in a Google search is pretty impressive if it's a good hub but not if it was gotten through a exploit. Again, personal opinion.
But if you want to be rude to a new writer and say something as petty as "i'll get more views than you will see in a year" then by all means, please.. continue to be rude to someone who answered your question. Saying that actually doesn't bother me when the views I get will be honest views from my own hard work. It's nice you found something that worked for you, I just personally won't use that.
Never did I once condemn you for it. I answered your question and told you I didn't think that it was against the terms of service that would deem it cheating for you to be in trouble for it. Trying to HELP you. But thank you for being rude to me in response when I wished you luck.
I would apologize for you mistaking what I said as a harsh criticizing of you, but you were quite harsh to me when I only wanted to answer you on whether I thought it was cheating or making a hub more attractive. I do not find it to be cheating, but an exploit.
I didn't know you wanted experienced hubbers to answer. I'm sorry if new writers don't have enough experience to dare question you.
Have a nice night and I hope next time you will try to understand someone's answer before you are so rude to them for being honest, and NICE about it. Congrats on your success. Perhaps if I ever become half the hubber you are I'll have room to talk without backlash. Good night.
You were quite right, actually - it is cheating, pure and simple. However I think NotPC was simply misunderstanding what the ratings capsule was for.
I've seen other Hubbers include a ratings capsule in their Hubs with a "rate this Hub" invitation, so he's obviously not the only one to misunderstand.
Now hold up here Marisa, if you check out my ratings capsules now, they are clearly rating services provided by Verizon Wireless. The capsule is being used for the correct purpose. Before you go off calling me a "cheater," why don't you actually read the hubs...
But they weren't before, were they? And I did say I was sure you weren't doing it deliberately. I was just saying that at the time Neineh made her post, it was the case, even if by accident.
You've been giving some great advice on the forums lately, this one was just a dud - it happens.
I'm sorry to hear your Hub got unpublished, but don't blame other Hubbers. No one had to report it, because you'll notice Simone saw and posted on the thread, so clearly the thread was noticed by the forum moderators.
There is no such thing as automatic unpublishing, so even if twenty people reported it, it couldn't be unpublished until a moderator reviewed it.
Thank you Marisa. I appreciate the backing.
I think I used it as a "rate my hub" in one of my earlier hubs. Now I'll have to go recheck.
Hmmmm... I am undecided on this. Some people see it as "cheating," and maybe it is. I can't decide. What exactly is it cheating? Google thinks a ratings capsule is a ratings capsule? How is a ratings capsule different than all the other bells and whistles we are encouraged and expected to place on our hubs to increase "viewer engagement." It might as well be a poll or a quiz. What's the difference? Someone sway me in one direction or the other.
The ratings capsule was created to take advantage of Google's rich snippets markup. It contains a special piece of code which signals to Google that you've written a certain type of article - in this case, a review. There are other rich snippets, like the one that's used for Google+ authorship. Google takes a dim view when they're misused, although to be honest, I don't think they're very good at detecting when that happens.
I like the ratings capsule. I always thought you could use them to rate products, experiences, places and authors. Looks like most are in agreement on the first three I listed but not on authors. I actually think this would be allowed since we do rate hubs and authors when we "hop hubs." But I reread the guidelines again. The guidelines are totally silent on rating or not rating hubs or authors. I am not interested in breaking rules so, if it actually IS against the rules, I'd like to see HP update the guidelines and make a statement to clarify either way so I can make corrections, if needed. "No you can NOT rate hubs or authors." OR "You CAN rate hubs or authors." There need be no debate if HP clarifies their policy.
Right now, I'm just totally confuzzed... Have I not understood rating capsules all this time? I'm SO glad I only used it a few times and basically on my review hubs. Imagine the major headache of having to fix almost 100 hubs over a lack of clarification on the policy? Ouch! At this point, I'd rather not bother with ratings capsules, with such a lack of clarity. I think I'll stick with polls and quizzes for now, Lol
The ratings capsule is a great item when it's used . Notpc's mistake was telling us he got 2000 views by giving himself 5 stars.
In my mind that's very similar to clicking on our own ads or hubs to increase views and thereby increase money.
I did not take what he said to mean that he repeatedly clicked on his own ratings and continually gave himself 5 stars. If that was true, I'd say it was unethical. If he did it once to rate himself, I'd say it was just fine because everyone should be able to rate themselves once. The rest of the time should be for the reading audience to give ratings... but it doesn't seem like there is a venue for readers to do that, after all.
Still not worth the hassle of reading between the lines, as there's nothing in the guidelines speaking to this, so then I'm not even going to bother trying to figure out how/what to use the ratings capsules for. I have enough going on without adding another unnecessary element to consider. I prefer to follow the motto of K.I.S.S.
Li Galo, it doesn't matter whether he rated once or several times. Both are wrong, if the ratings are for his own writing and not for the product he's rating. It would still be wrong, even if he asked other Hubbers to rate his article. Because that is not what the ratings capsule is for.
The ratings capsule on HubPages contains a special code that says to Google "this article is a review of a product or service". So if someone is searching for a review of that product, Google will include that article in the search results, displaying the stars you've given the product.
The result is that a person searching can see, at a glance, how many good reviews a product has had, without even clicking on each individual review.
Obviously, if you use the special code to review the article, not the product, that's going to give the wrong impression on the search results - and Google certainly doesn't want that. So it says it may penalize you for doing so.
Now, some sites do misuse the special code. But equally, there are several sites which have a "rate this article" feature - but it doesn't have the special code embedded in it. So although it may look the same, it's something entirely different and Google doesn't care.
I can see you are trying to be helpful. I appreciate that but, unfortunately, I don't understand some of what you wrote, lol. (smile) This is because I don't speak computer talk so I don't know what those words even mean, lol.
Skipping the computer speak, I do understand you to say is that there is no way to rate authors except inside the HP community (when we do internal ratings). If that's true, then you've confirming what I've stated earlier. That would mean the only means HP has for rating writers is internal. But there's nothing wrong with rating yourself or other authors. Clearly that's fine with HP, since I do rate other authors here at HP request, evaluating grammar, etc. At this point, from what I do understand from your comment, it appears there is only an internal means to rate writers, not an external means for readers. We, who thought the external means was through the ratings capsule, were just wrong. Too bad. Oh well. Time to carry on. It doesn't mean rating writers or yourself is wrong. It just means we "got in the wrong car" to do it.
As to this "code" problem as you describe it, I can't really answer you on that point. I don't speak or understand computer talk. I don't know what embedding is or how to do it. No matter. I'm here to write. Like I said, K.I.S.S - especially for simple folks like me, Lol.
Thanks and Cheers
Actually, I didn't use a single word of computerspeak in that post, I turned it into as simple English as I could. "Embedded" just means "hidden".
I don't think anyone on this thread has even suggested there's anything wrong with the concept of rating an article.
The point is that the ratings capsule is not the way to do it, because it is a special capsule which tells Google you are writing a review of something. If you use it in a Hub that is not a review, you are lying to Google, which is not a good thing.
The important thing is, if you see a Hubber who has included a ratings capsule for that purpose, you should warn them that it could get them into trouble with Google.
However you don't have to be scared of using the ratings capsule in the correct way, which is when you are reviewing a product or service. When you are doing that, it's perfectly fine to include a ratings capsule - but you must use it to give the product or service a star rating, not your writing.
I think once Marisa Wright's warnings are heeded one might remember Simone's words, "But it's certainly easy to work said ratings into existing Hubs in a relevant manner!" There are lots of creative and effective ways to use the ratings capsule to help your hub stand out without compromising your integrity.
That's too broad for me. I need examples. Otherwise, it's hard to wrap my mind around the phrase "a relevant manner" because that's too subjective. That is why there is confusion on understanding the use of it already. One person may think the use is relative while another my cry foul. Without specific guidelines and examples, then it is too undefined for me.
Personally I don't think it's worth trying to game the system. Use the ratings capsule when:
(a) you're writing about a thing - a product, service, recipe - and you want to give that thing a star rating.
(b) You're writing about a thing - a product, service or recipe - and you want your readers to give it a star rating.
Those are its official uses.
It's not gaming the system to review an author's work. I do it on other websites when I read articles and rank them. I'd love for my readers to rank me, too. It's interactive and honest feedback. It seems HP hasn't a medium for that, hmmm. Well, I never used to even use the ratings capsule before, until I was approached by staff at HP who TOLD me to use it. But you know, after this thread, I don't see the point of doing it in the future. I'm not into drama or confusion and that seems to be what all this is about to me. No thanks to that. I'll just skip using it from here on out. I never missed it before I was told to use it and I don't need it now.
This is the usage outline for the review microdata that HP utilizes:
The goal of a review rich snippet is to provide users with review information about a specific product or service, such as the star rating (1 to 5 stars) and the name of reviewer(s).
The following guidelines apply to review snippets:
When using review markup, the main topic of the page needs to be about a specific product or service. For example, using review markup on a page containing multiple products is not supported.
Review of adult-related products or services are not supported.
If the markup contains a single review, the reviewer’s name needs to be a valid name (Person or Organization). For example, "50% off until Saturday" is not a valid name for a reviewer.
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bi … wer=146645
There is certainly protocol for editor reviews / user submitted and even aggregates of both.
The spirit of the original post is valid - just missing a little bit of nuance to make it a proper match with its intended purpose.
Ive been experimenting with microdata formats since the first announcement that G was going to use them in SERP's and implemented them at x - almost a full year before HP/W - the clickthrough increase is very real.
This is probably only a short window of opportunity - eventually utilizing the known serp influencers like review microdata will be standard and will no longer make your article stick out - so get it while its hot!
Personally, I dont think the number of stars makes much of a difference - people like negative and positive revuews to get a better picture of the pro's and cons's so there is no reason to make inflated reviews just to standout
I think you're missing the point of the OP's post, Sunforged. I misread it too, the first time.
I agree, the ratings capsule can be used in two ways - one, the author can rate the product himself or two, the author can invite others to rate. Both are acceptable.
The point about the OP's Hub was that it was not a review of anything. Instead, he used the ratings capsule to rate the quality of his Hub. I think you'll agree that's not an appropriate use?
I understood his usage.
"The spirit of the original post is valid - just missing a little bit of nuance to make it a proper match with its intended purpose."
The thread quickly derailed into whats "right and proper" ( which was amusing as you appeared to be the only one who actually understood what the "ratings" capsule actually was) and skipped right over the nugget the OP gave you (the readers of the thread) on the usefulness of the review microdata in SERP's.
With just a teeny weeny drop of creativity you could work a ratings capsule in to just about any article online as has been mentioned by many now.
I hadn't read the whole thread, now I have and I have nothing to add.
It really does read like people enjoy finding ways to limit themselves (and others around them) rather than seize upon these new opportunities afforded to them.
I didn't miss the nugget, maybe others did.
My main concern was to prevent people getting carried away with the "ratings capsules can help" message, and using it for totally inappropriate purposes. However, as soon as the ratings capsule was launched, I added one to every review I had ever written. Mad not too, I reckon.
Thanks for the post sunforged. I was really bummed out with a good portion of the responses to this thread considering I only had good intentions and it pretty much just turned into an attack against me and even my character... my favorite so far is the old lady ripping on me for having a low hubber score.
One more thing I would like to add is that adding a ratings capsule to your hub is not going to magically move your hubs to the first page of Google searches. You actually need good content to be ranked highly.
oh yeah... and LOL at the person who says adding the ratings capsule was like me clicking my own ads! I'm sure I'll get hated on again for posting in this thread again but whatever...
This is very interesting, I was curious about a few points: How does the ratings capsule influence search engine results? Do such capsules contain code more read by crawlers? I don't know, I'm fishing here. That's the first question. The next is about content. What if the content is rather general, or, at best, mentions, possibly, multiple products? It seems that article would exclude use of ratings review capsule unless it was drastically re-written.
I meant in reference to what sunforged was talking about; that with some creativity you could make any article suitable for using the ratings capsule (paraphrasing); and another comment he made was that the general rule was that the article would have to be about a specific product. So, I was speaking generally, wanted to know how that would work; personally, if I'd have to do some re-writing if I wanted to use the ratings capsule, because my articles tend to be general. If I were to say specific articles of mine, maybe the movie reviews I've done or the one I've done on safety in the martial arts, maybe a few others; those are the only ones I have that come close to specific product review. Also, I was curious about what he called micro-data; I'm thinking it must refer to code in the ratings capsules, but I don't really know; or that it's just that it's little bits/extras in content that influences search engines.
Edit: Correction: sunforged said with creativity you could fit a ratings capsule into any article. Just saying, I don't know how to do that with my articles, they are either general or mention multiple products. I can think of one that speaks of one product.
In your Star Wars Episode 111 hub, you have two products listed. Take off one of the products and place a rating capsule under the other. One way to do this visually is to write a heading: Star Wars the Complete Episode Gift Pack. Write a one to two sentence review in that capsule such as....Great gift pact for the star wars fan in your family.....ect...Then list the product capsule and underneath use the ratings capsule. Choose a five start product and rate it. Push all three capsules to the right of the page and highlight in blue. This way they look like one continuous capsule...just a thought.I would also move the ebay product towards the bottom right/center of your text and not placed at the bottom.
If you read Sunforged's post, it explains it. The capsule contains a special code ("rich snippets") which signals to Google that you've written a review.
That doesn't mean you'll automatically get on the first page of Google, but it does mean your review will be favoured over reviews that don't use the special code, so it does give you an edge.
Likewise, the furore in the thread was because the OP used the capsule in a Hub which was not a review, which some people felt was deceptive (which it is, if done deliberately - but NotPC was just misunderstanding I think).
If you don't want to run the risk of annoying Google then I have had huge success with this...
... which has driven literally single figure visits to my fantastic pages on a good traffic day.
Just in case I wasnt specific enough, (although the OP DID state this) the rating capsule (review microdata) does not influence rankings (at least not that I can prove) but it does create a highly visible search result that sticks out when surrounded by more mundane results.
Im using my phone, ill check back later to see if my phrasing we poor the first time, i think i said serp inlfuencer.. should have had the word clickthrough in there but thats what i get for using jargon anyway.
Use stars, people click more cuz more pretty than other results.
Ok so my hub has now been republished successfully but is nowhere to be found in search results... Anyone ever been in a similar situation? Will it ever get back up in the search results?
Just pointing out that by unpublishing hubs, HubPages is kinda ruining the reps of their writers and cutting off huge amounts of traffic. Obviously my hub is just a small slice of traffic for the site as a whole, but if this is their standard it's no wonder they have fallen so much in rankings...
I agree. HubPages is trying to enforce all kinds of standards on their writers, but is killing their traffic in the process (and losing a lot of writers, something like 85K have quit over the past 18 months).
What may have happened is that HubPages gave your Hub a NOINDEX tag, so Google deleted it from its index. Give it a few days to see if it shows up again. If not, Google may not re-index it for a long time, unless you go to WebMaster Tools in Google and ask it to Fetch your HubPages domain. I heard that forces Google to reindex Hubs that were slapped with the NOINDEX tag.
This NOINDEX thing that HubPages is doing is annoying me. It has repercussions well beyond just a notification on your HubPages account. It can kill Hub traffic for a long time, as Google does not automatically reindex a Hub when HubPages has removed it from their NOINDEX blacklist.
Thanks for the tip, I'll definitely check that out!
Hey so I went and resubmitted my hub through webmaster tools and it is totally back to normal! Thanks for the awesome tip rock_nj!
Glad it worked. I just heard about it from someone else recently.
The other thing that should be noted is that often even though a hub has a no_index tag on it, it can take several days for Google to re_index it - so if you can amend the hub and get it back to being featured then there may be no harm done at all!
If not - then Webmaster tools is an essential aid....
I have an article which has been passed and is nowhere in the search results. I think I may have overdone the keyword. So I have removed a few and am going to wait a fortnight to see what happens..
Before it was unpublished my article was ranked number 2. It went from recieving 200 to 500 views per day depending on the time of year, to 8 views a day.
I know... Especially when they could have just sent me an email saying you have too many eBay capsules, which was 3 at the time... I also was just using eBay to kinda fill in space that needed filled in to make the hub look better. Instead they unpublished the hub and basically made me guess at what the errors were. It said stuff like: There is either a problem with the title or you have too many keywords or you have too many links. Seriously? lol ok so there is a "problem" somewhere in the hub...
Losing that many views per day is the equivalent of losing $45 dollars a month.
The rating capsule is to be used for recipes and reviews ... it should not be used in general hubs ...
What! No way! You mean that's what the 90 posts before you were talking about?
Not really .. there seems to bit a 'flame war' on whether its good or bad, so I decided to post my opinion as well .. no need for hatred mate
If you don't want to see hatred you shouldn't have posted what you did in that other thread. Just wait.
Which one? ...
And believe me, sometimes I do want hatred ... Or at least when I believe I am right
There is a writer here who does not believe their work deserve criticism, and this person will trot out a laundry list of accomplishments in an attempt to prove it. It's kind of fun to watch it all unfold, actually. Play along and you'll be fine.
Hope so ... I haven't had 'forum fun' for a long time now ... Last I remember was the religion flame war I had in another forum topic here in Hubpages ...
Have fun, but don't do anything to get yourself banned, unless you don't care about being banned.
by Scott Bateman9 months ago
Quite a few of my Hubs have related Hubs. I try to put a few links in a Hub to another related Hub when it seems appropriate. But I see that the editors often remove them. I have tried to find out why in past forum...
by Susana S6 years ago
There have been several theories about what content Google is penalising and rewarding in the search results but at the moment it does seem a bit random (from my end). Let's compare notes and hopefully we can see some...
by Paul Edmondson3 weeks ago
I wanted to share two trends I see in content that are very successful today. The first one is what I call the opposing argument to the search term. Google wants balanced search results. You will often see articles that...
by Simone Haruko Smith4 years ago
Happy Friday, Hubbers!I am happy to announce that the new Special Layout Options for recipes and reviews that we introduced on our blog earlier this week are now live. Head over to the HubTool and have a look!In...
by Isaac Asante2 years ago
Hi guys,For a while I've been using Google's Keyword Tool to research high-paying keywords and their estimate monthly traffic. Normally, what I do is that I look for Low competition keywords with around 1,000 monthly...
by Marina24 months ago
Today we're changing the internal search engine on HubPages to run Google Custom Search. We know that search on HubPages didn't always work as intended, and we expect Google to ultimately provide more relevant results...
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.