jump to last post 1-33 of 33 discussions (240 posts)

You Idle 'em, I delete 'em! Down to an even 100!

  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago

    So I've deleted all of the idled hubs so far and am wondering when I will have none left.  I'm not going to edit anymore until I see some sort of improvement in traffic.  Too much trouble for no results at all.  With all of the scrapers and with HP's brilliant program I'll soon have a brand new account with nothing in it.  Try idling something then, HP!  lol

    1. mattforte profile image92
      mattforteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You aren't going to see some improvement in traffic until you do so on your own.

      Thanks for coming smile

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Been there, done that.  Thanks for nothing.  roll

        1. Xenonlit profile image60
          Xenonlitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Me, too. I'm gettin' me views elsewhere.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Good for you, Xenonlit!  I hope everyone here follows your lead and stops putting up with the ridiculous idle program now in place here.  I think I'll begin removing my non-idled hubs before they ever get insulted by the QRAP or the MTurks.  I have absolutely no respect for either of them at this point.  Let the games begin! mad

      2. Isabellas profile image67
        Isabellasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It does not seem like the traffic is coming back at all. I have hubs vs Squids in a brand new account and they were not even comparable. No backlinks at all nothing and the Squid would average 10 hits a day, but the Hub was terrible and even with backlinks it is taking me about 15-20 days to get anything indexed.

    2. 60
      DJ Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Randy,
      I was thrilled when I saw the notification of new hubs, this morning.  I so enjoy your creative writings and was ready to sink my teeth into another good read.  I made my cup of coffee and settled into my comfy chair .  Of all of the notification that I received, I went straight to your entry.  I am a great fan of your writings.  Disappointment greeted me when I realized it was a thread.

      I have been with HP about two months and have followed your CW as well as your threads.  I am not really sure that I understand all that is discussed.  I am only a small fish in a very large pond.  I write for the love of writing and have only small hopes that someone will appreciate my works. 

      You are very talented, Randy, and have quite a following.  I humbly ask that you not leave HP.

      Sincerely,
      DJ.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for your support and appreciation for my work, DJ.  Actually, my fiction is the only hubs I do edit as I learn so much from the comments of others. 

        My experience here may not be the same as others, especially those who haven't been here as long and suffered the strange penalties on their accounts.  Sure, I could start a new account as some say they do much better than the original, but I don't want to throw good money after bad, as my dad used to say.

        I'll be around until they idle all of my info hubs, which may be a while as some of them haven't been stolen yet.  lol

        I will continue to use HP for my CW efforts until they decide to do away with it too.  So they're not getting rid me so easily!  smile

        1. 60
          DJ Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Randy,
          So pleased that you will continue your Creative Writings.  I rarely read info hubs.  No need for them.  I am one of those lucky women who has a husband who knows everything!!  ;-)

          Thanks,
          DJ.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks again, DJ!  This is a great community despite what it is going through now.  I hope it can survive this controversial system with all of its faults.  I don't think it can get any worse.  smile

            1. Wuzup Jones profile image60
              Wuzup Jonesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Community? It is a masquerade flea market, jack!

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                HA!  It is indeed that!  lol

                1. Wuzup Jones profile image60
                  Wuzup Jonesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Came by to see you on my raid.  cool   Probably gone any minute, now.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You are the wind!  yikes

    3. Dale Hyde profile image86
      Dale Hydeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Same here Randy.... I have just accepted that HP has double standards... They DEMAND unique content, which is like winning the lottery for any site, and then the toss it away with this stupid idling "bot" that they use. 

      What they need to do is review the articles after the bot flags them.  They are allowing a computer to idle hubs, unique material, and loosing droves of unique content on the site.

      Understaffed is the reason for the bot.....well, learn how to cut corners HP and learn how to run a business, lol.  I am in business as well and you know when I can not meet goals, I hire staff, more staff.  That is the way of the world. 

      Talk about the cost factor of hiring staff versus the loss of this prized unique material.... Bottom line is that someone is making a huge mistake.

      Actually I just posted a thread thanking HP for idling my hubs....it gives me unique material to put elsewhere.....I move all idled material.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I know Dale.  Apparently people don't come to HP looking for what I write, at least not anymore.  And I refuse to try and trick folks to staying on my hubs with all sorts of bells and whistles.  I'd rather they would leave if a silly poll is what turns them on.  lol  No, when I write an article I research it well and write it as best I can.  If it gets idled it's HP's loss, not mine.  They had their chance at it the first time,and one's all they get.  Let the others play their games if it suits them.  No edits for already good work, bottom line.  smile

        1. Dale Hyde profile image86
          Dale Hydeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is my feelings as well, Randy.  I do not see the "need" to continually keep tweaking an article.  Eventually, the whole article will be like our skin, renewed, lol, with no original intended content.

          As for adding the bells and whistles, I have seen no proof that that works.  I have done as HP staff has said they do, I've added good photos, videos, polls, you name it, I have tried it.  The hub they idled today was modeled in the same layout as promoted to do well in search.

          I have done searches for information and the top pages sometimes do not even have photos!  So I don't believe in the bells and whistles.

          My next hub to be idled if things continue to follow the same path, is the only one I used their Exclusive Title on.  That one never even got a good breath of air.  I promoted it the same as all my material.  Wrote a decent review, as that was what the title was focused on.  But I do feel it is on their "hit" list next time around.

          Good luck in all you do, Randy!  Take care.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Good luck to you too, Dale.  Things have a way of working out for the best!  smile

  2. Maralexa profile image87
    Maralexaposted 3 years ago

    Randy, I don't understand.  Why delete idled hubs if they are evergreen or have a good score.  Why should we edit and edit and edit just because they are idled.  This is an arbitrary label.  Do idled hubs really count against us with Google?  I may seem dim, but I just don't understand this whole issue.  Thanks for your comments back to me.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Personally, I'm fed up with this program, Maralexa.  I've deleted hubs which have gained me many thousands of visits in the past but now seem to be not wanted by HP.  I'm tired of editing them for nothing and am fully satisfied it is because Google hates HubPages, not my own work.  Until the big G slapped the heck out of HP for publishing pure junk I did just fine, but now it seems rather hopeless to even try.  Not to mention the thieves having free rein to steal whatever they like with no protection from either HP or Google.  It's just not worth fooling with anymore.  I would not recommend this site to my worst enemy.  (not exactly true if it ticked them off as bad as it does me)  sad

    2. Marisa Wright profile image92
      Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Idled Hubs don't count against you with Google, because Google doesn't "see" them.  That's not the issue.

      The issue is that no one can see an idled Hub, except people you send the link to, or people who visit your profile (if you have it set to show idled Hubs). What's the point of having an article published if no one can read it?   

      I also delete idled Hubs and move them somewhere else.

      1. GinnyLee profile image95
        GinnyLeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I thought that Google sees them, but doesn't "index" them in the search rankings.  I have not seen definitively that "no index" hubs do or don't play a factor in the determination of the quality of the site.  Hopefully, the "no indexed" spam hubs do not degrade the site's quality.

        1. Marisa Wright profile image92
          Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          HubPages have said that Hubs with low traffic or "no index" Hubs do no harm.

          1. janderson99 profile image85
            janderson99posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So why does HP Deindex them if their quality is OK?

            1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
              EmpressFelicityposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That is the $64,000 question.

              Perhaps HP just wants to get rid of its longer-term members.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                And we get the $2.00 answer, Emp!  sad

            2. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              DUH!  Yes, I'd like to hear the answer to this again.  I'll bet it's changed a bit since the first go-round.  I thought this was the very reason for idling hubs, that Google didn't like those with low quality=traffic and we were advised to have our settings to not show them on our profile?  Did I imagine this?  yikes

            3. Marisa Wright profile image92
              Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I've quoted Derek's post so often, I can't be bothered going back and finding it again.

              Derek wrote a very clear post. He said that HubPages knows that low-performing Hubs do not hurt HubPages.  However, there is a large proportion of Hubs which are low traffic because they're low quality or have been Google slapped - and they need to be addressed.  HubPages don't have the money or the resources to find those, so they've decided to idle ALL low traffic Hubs.   They know that will cause "collateral damage" (his words) to quality Hubs with low traffic, but they're prepared to live with that for now because they can't afford to do anything else.

              I posted that explanation on another thread, and it was confirmed by Simone, so there's two HubPages staff members telling you the same thing.

              1. 0
                summerberrieposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I remember that post of derek's so well. I wondered when he wrote it if it might have been an unintentional "slip of the tongue". I even made a comment about it on Randy's hub wondering if they meant to let that cat out of the bag. Prior to derek's comment HubPages stance was hubs become idled based on quality. Now, post derek's comment we are told they ALSO are idled based on traffic.

                I think extending the time for new hubs to gain "engagement" prior to becoming idle is a big step in a positive direction. Two months was not enough time.

                Personally, I think in the ideal world on HP, traffic would not be equated with quality and be factored out of the algo.

                Well, it was a memorable post and it is interesting people have overlooked it. Glad you are posting it. It helps put things in perspective.

                1. Marisa Wright profile image92
                  Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm glad it did come out, and now Simone has confirmed it a couple of times, too.  I wish they'd made that clearer early on, because a lot of the angst is because people felt insulted by the idling process - there was a lot of talk along the lines of "why aren't my Hubs good enough?"

                  Of course, people are entitled to feel annoyed that perfectly good Hubs are getting idled just because they get low traffic.  I've had several Hubs idled and while they weren't getting much traffic, the little they did get was worthwhile - even a few pennies a month builds up over time.

                2. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Absolutely in an ideal world traffic numbers would not need to be used as an indication of quality and would be factored out of the algo.  I fully concur.

                  If it were an ideal world, one in which Google actually sent traffic to quality articles rather than pieces of garbage with 500 backlinks or just big names selling stuff, we would not be in this position.  If there weren't tens of thousands of "writers" eager to game google's algorithm they could just tell us what they want.  That, too, puts things into perspective.

              2. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It is also causing unknown collateral damage to HP as people remove perfectly good articles when they are idled.  How can they expect the writers to keep editing perfectly good hubs over and over until they gain enough traffic to keep them featured?  I'm sorry, they get one shot at any I publish in the future or perhaps none at all until they show this is actually doing some good for the site.  I would not recommend anyone using  HP at the moment as they are asking way too much of the writers.

                1. Marisa Wright profile image92
                  Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Absolutely agree.

          2. Dale Hyde profile image86
            Dale Hydeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What HubPages says is not written as law. I disagree.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What are you looking at that would indicate that either low traffic or a noindex tag will harm either the subdomain or the site as a whole?

              1. janderson99 profile image85
                janderson99posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Paul E
                http://blog.hubpages.com/2012/08/introducing-on-idle/

                " Sometimes a couple of under-performing Hubs can hurt the reputation of your entire online portfolio in the eyes of search engines "

                Update March 2013 => Its a money thing, Server is full???!~ Paul E

                "Right now, each featured Hub is given some amount of promotion on topic pages and related Hubs.  We know this helps Hubs do better.  So, the idea is fairly simple to not feature Hubs with low engagement.  We want to use the internal promotion to focus it on Hubs that will benefit from it since we have a limited promotion budget. "

                1. Marisa Wright profile image92
                  Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Can you quote anyone outside HubPages saying that?

                  Paul E seems to be the only person on the planet who thinks low-performing posts can harm a domain.  I have said this many times, and no one from HubPages (or anywhere else) has been able to find a quote from anyone to prove otherwise.

                  It's well known that low quality posts will harm a domain.  Derek and Simone have said that HubPages is not idling low traffic Hubs because low traffic is a problem in itself.

                2. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I remember seeing that, but took it at the time to be speaking of actual poor quality rather than a well written hub that doesn't see traffic.  Such as those written primarily for hubbers, on how to use HP.

                  I also took the budget comment to be about the physical constraints rather than monetary; there are only so many things they can do to get a hub into view.  Only so many hubs that can be put on the "other hubs" thing at the bottom of each hub, for instance.

                3. Randy Godwin profile image94
                  Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Aha!  I knew somewhere Paul E. stated low traffic hubs may hurt one's subdomain.  I think was the first excuse for idling hubs and then the "collateral damage" post came out later after everyone learned editing them was fairly useless and began deleting them instead.  So why did staff recommend we not show idle hubs on our profile?  Has this too changed now?  it seems they are really jumping around a lot with the whole good/bad thing.

                  1. GinnyLee profile image95
                    GinnyLeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What frustrates me is why HP is not focusing more on addressing blatantly bad hubs (e.g. "Parenthetically, the threat of genetic copies as well as imitations like Louis Vuitton knockoffs is troubling the Louis Vuitton souk. The brand has obtained more than a few technological as well as officially permitted moves to hold it back.") that almost everyone agrees ARE harming the site.  This author has a nice portfolio of similar gems.  Aren't those causing more damage to the site than hubs with few views?

                    It doesn't take long to find such beauties as http://endonesia.hubpages.com/hub/perfe … e-athletes (in the Outdoor Shoes category of HP) with almost no text and eight amazon ads (scroll to the bottom).  Why put the onus on hubbers to flag these when they can (and should have been) systemically identified and addressed?  What is the leadership message that hubbers should take from that?

                    ***At least that hub is miscategorized, which should spawn action***

                    I think there is very valid reasons why folks are upset that their "quality" hubs are being swept up in the idling process - but super low quality, copied, spam, spun, CLEAR violations of the 50/1 rule are allowed to remain featured because they are meeting the traffic requirements to avoid being idled (unless they are flagged by a hubber that stumbles upon them). 

                    Shouldn't those blatantly BAD hubs be a bigger focus of HP instead of the good quality hubs that are either seasonal or simply don't get a lot of traffic?

                  2. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The recommendation not to show idled hubs came, I thought, as a response to "pending" hubs taking forever to be indexed.  Don't provide a link to it that you don't have to and the bots are that much less likely to visit before it becomes featured.

                    As a result of that understanding I have two older, idled, hubs on my carousel.  I won't put pending ones on until they're featured, though.

                  3. Marisa Wright profile image92
                    Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It all looks pretty obvious to me.  They obviously thought about how to present the scheme at first, and what Paul E said was the "spin" version.  I'm guessing they didn't want to talk about "collateral damage".

                    But obviously the staff weren't properly briefed because they started giving the honest version and they've realized there's no point trying to put it the genie back in the box.

              2. Dale Hyde profile image86
                Dale Hydeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I was looking at my own stats.  I had 10 hubs with the noindex on them and my overall views dropped.  Once I unpublished them and removed them from Google search, then deleted them, my overall views went up.

                Also, the hub score average on my account page went up.

                1. janderson99 profile image85
                  janderson99posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Just wondering, have you checked that they have actually been removed from the G index? I can take weeks, months before G actually says goodbye! Have a look for the exact title  + "hubpages". Anyway just checking.

                2. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Most interesting, although I would hope that HP with it's much larger database of information has looked at this and looked hard.  It would absolutely affect them as well, after all.

                  Still, I've got a couple idled now - perhaps I'll take a look at deleting them.

            2. Marisa Wright profile image92
              Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I have been doing a lot of reading on this subject, and I have not found any internet expert who says otherwise.  I started doing the research precisely because HubPages seemed to be claiming that low-performing Hubs would damage the site, and I had never heard of such a thing. 

              It is widely accepted that low quality articles will hurt a domain.  Of course, that's Google's definition of quality, which is not the same as the normal definition. It includes criteria such as length (which is why I'm still convinced poems must hurt a sub-domain). 

              It is always possible that if a Hub didn't get traffic, it was because Google judged it low quality.  Remove it, and your traffic is likely to improve.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I suppose people could write very bad hubs mixed in with very good ones on the same account, but I don't see this happening from most good authors.  It seems to be one or the other for the most part.  So I don't buy the idea of determining quality in such a manner.  And once again, quality, not traffic.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  While I don't know about "very bad hubs" we all have a bad hub here or there.  An early one, maybe, or one we rushed through and forgot to go back and take a look at.  One with a few too many typos we didn't catch or with a video that was taken off of UTube.

                  I know that it's my procedure to go back after 2 months and proof everything.  I haven't done even 1 of those 50 written in the AP - no time then and little since, either.  I could well have several with excessive numbers of spelling or grammar errors.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes but compared to some of the stuff still getting through yours would perhaps still be better.  The word "quality" when used by HP screws up everything in the discussions.  Better to use the real word "traffic" I'd think.  But who knows anymore?  lol

                    I'll also be surprised if HP doesn't suddenly stop idling as many hubs as they have been because they are losing too many well written hubs as well as the writers along with them.  No self respecting writer should be expected to put up with this very long.

                2. Marisa Wright profile image92
                  Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The thing is, low quality in Googlespeak isn't the same as what you and I would call quality.  So it is possible for a good author to create a low quality Hub.

                  Poems are a good example.  Google sees brevity as a flaw:  write a blog post that's less than about 250 words these days, and they'll penalize you for it.  My ballet blog got Panda'd for exactly that:  it took me ages to research the possible cause, but when I amalgamated those short posts, my blog recovered.   HubPages allows poets to ignore the Hub length rules, and I fear that's a mistake, given my experience.

                  The other problem is accidental keyword stuffing - which, you may remember, Jason poo-pooed at the time, but what did he know?  You can get Panda'd if a particular keyword or key phrase is repeated too often. Google's threshold is a secret (of course), but most experts advise keeping repetition down to 3% to 4% of the content.   It can be awfully hard to write about a specialist subject without falling foul of this - there is no other word for a pointe shoe, for instance (no dancer would call it a toe shoe). 

                  Finally there's Google trying to spot people writing to a formula, on the principle that they must be spammers.  So for instance, Market Samurai used to teach people to put their keywords in their URL, title, all their headings and sub-headings, and as anchor text in their links.  All the Market Samurai members I know got slammed by Panda, and they weren't bad writers - so I'm still wondering if Google sent someone to join MS and learn their formula, so they could teach their algorithm to look for it.  Result - perfectly good blogs and Hubs got trashed because their writers were doing what they thought was the right thing.

                  None of that has anything to do with quality really, but it's all part of Google's "quality" guidelines.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Very good points, and a part of google's definition comes from the gamers and black hats in the past as well.  Keyword stuffing, and keyword locations are an example.  (This bothers me, as I still try to do that very thing, too.)

    3. Rock_nj profile image90
      Rock_njposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Idled hubs certainly count against you in Google.  An idle hub get a NOINDEX meta tag, which Google read as Do Not Index This Page.  That means your Hub will no longer appear in Google search results, which will kill any Google traffic you are getting.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Hey Rock!  Some say yes, some say no.  I don't know who to trust any longer.  I do know gaining any new links is probably impossible the way things are set up now.  Actually, I don't think anyone knows much about the affects of no-indexing an article, despite the claims to the contrary.  So far, all of the advice I've been given from whoever has been virtually useless on my account.  So there it is.

      2. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
        Marcy Goodfleischposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If its just traffic for that page, I can handle it.  I'm just not convinced yet that it doesn't impact the whole subdomain. Still hanging with it, though, and updating things as needed.

  3. Paul Edmondson profile image
    89
    Paul Edmondsonposted 3 years ago

    Hubs that get removed from Google's index typically don't count against you, although as John Mueller has told me, people can still access the URL so if you think your Hub isn't useful, deleting may be the right decision.  I've personally unpublished many Hubs. 

    I think if a Hub isn't working for me, I either fix it up, do nothing or unpublish it.  I actually update my best performing Hubs the most often.  I add more capsules, rewrite pieces, and try and get better pictures and videos. 

    Since we each have our own subdomains, it's up to us how we manage them.  Removing an unfeatured Hub is hghly unlikely to improve your traffic.

    I've mentioned this in a few posts that we are changing the time frames for featuring content.   When we do, some previously unfeatured Hubs will be featured again, so you may want to hold off on removing them, but it's up to you.

  4. Maralexa profile image87
    Maralexaposted 3 years ago

    Thanks for your response, Randy.  I am so sorry that you are so frustrated with Google and HP.  I can only imagine because I didn't start writing on this site until August of 2011.  So I had no experience of HP before Google's big hit.  I really would rather you didn't leave HP.  I respect and appreciate your comments (whether or not I fully agree with them).  You have given a great deal to us.  Your comments are insightful.

    Do I assume correctly that you delete idled hubs because they show up on Google in a negative way?  Do they reduce your "score" with Google?  My idled hubs change so much.  They come back, then go again.  It makes no sense.

    I don't have enough hubs to make a difference. Yet!  But my hubs are not junk!  They are well written and follow most of HP's "rules" of how to write a good hub.  I agree that many, many hubs I see here are "not very good" according to HP's rules and advice.  But, other than starting my own website or blog, where do I go?  I haven't seen other sites better than HP.  Am I being a little naive?

    I'm also wondering what this business is with adsense ads and who gets credit for what.  I either have to trust HP and just continue writing or leave and go somewhere else.

    Randy, you help others and you seem to do so well here.  If we are in a new "paradigm" with HP and Google - can't we just learn what the criteria are and go forward?  Or is this too naive as well?  Please, be frank.  I would really like your comments.

    My sincere thanks again.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Please don't let me cause you to do anything drastic, Maralexa.  I don't think my experience is typical of  that of many other Hubbers.  Along with Izzy and several others, my sub fell to the floor literally overnight and nothing I try seems to improve things on it. 

      Even the hubs which used to be ranked number 1 or on the first page of Google aren't worth anything anymore.  Hubbers who are fairly new to the site and don't have near the info or quality hubs I have outrank me on topics now.  Even some which I planned ahead for over 3 years for a topic were idled right before the peak time for them, despite the links they had gained and other hubbers outranked me when the time came.

      This is very frustrating to me and I don't look for it to change anytime soon, despite the idle/feature program which has everyone up in arms.  It seems HP cannot make up it's mind whether we need to keep these hubs, edit them, or simply get rid of them.  The whole Hubspeak thing is disgusting to me now and I see no need to muddy the waters with such unprofessional behavior. 

      If I'm not mistaken we have been given mixed messages about how these idle hubs affect out accounts and now we have another telling us they don't hurt us at all.  I wonder how many people have already removed the formerly destructive and now harmless hubs?  How do we know just who, or what to believe anymore.  Personally, I don't have much faith in what staff says anymore and am weary of trying to decipher their messages and methods.

  5. Maralexa profile image87
    Maralexaposted 3 years ago

    Paul, do you mean that, a "hub that isn't working for you" is a hub that HP has idled?  Or one that isn't getting the traffic you desire or believe is appropriate?  If I have a number of hubs that I consider to be "good" but are never likely to get great traffic from Google, should I delete them and maybe set up a blog where I can feature them?

    "Removing an unfeatured Hub is hghly unlikely to improve your traffic".  Thanks for saying this!  I haven't been too quick to delete some hubs for this reason. 

    BTW, I know I'm not a big player here.  Just 30 hubs to date.  But this is where I want to learn what works best.  So I am going to continue producing hubs on my favorite subjects, write them well and see what happens.

    If you (HP) will do everything possible to make HP attractive to Google, I feel we will have a continuing valuable relationship.

    There are a number of issues that continue to irk many hubbers but it seems you are working on them.  Keep talking to us.

    Much appreciated.

    1. 0
      Jane Holmesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Randy, I am fairly new at HubPages, but agree with Maralexa that you have helped us a great deal. I would hate to see you leave HubPages. I don't understand all of this yet, but I am learning. I have had some big frustrations with other sites that I have not run into with this one, so am hoping it will work out for me. Thanks for all you advise. You;re a great addition to HubPages.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Jane!  I don't believe my experience is the same for most hubbers.  I cannot advise you what you should do about the idle hubs.  I do appreciate your support though.  smile

    2. Simone Smith profile image91
      Simone Smithposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Maralexa!
      I'll follow up for Paul; Hubs that aren't doing anything for you on HubPages may indeed work better on other sites, but often all that is needed is some small improvements re: quality and search-friendliness.
      We're by no means going to say we only want you to have content on our site- it's not a bad idea at all to have a portfolio of work that spans across multiple sites. But we're also still refining the Quality Assessment Process and many Hubs that are not Featured would still do splendidly here with some edits (and after we refine the QAP to be as accurate and clear as possible).
      In short, we want you here, though it's great to be in multiple places; please pardon our dust!

      1. Becky Katz profile image84
        Becky Katzposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I thought seasonal hubs were immune to idling, but my Halloween hub and Christmas hub have been idled several times. I am tired of changing pictures or letters on a wonderful hub that it is just not the right season for people to be looking for.
        The idle feature has driven more GOOD writers off of HubPages than bad writers and spam writers. Y'all might want to rethink the idle feature.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I've had a couple of seasonal hubs go idle, too.  They were published too close to the season to get much traffic and didn't get enough to keep them going for long enough.

          I've decided to let them sit idle until 2 or 3 months before the next season.  At that point I'll edit them to get them re-featured and hope for the best.  If they still can't get enough traffic through the right season, they'll be dumped.

        2. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
          Marcy Goodfleischposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Becky - I do know that many very good writers have left, or are thinking of leaving HP, but I don't agree that more good apples have fallen off the tree than bad apples.  Here's why:

          HubPages has many, many thousands of 'Hubbers,' which means it has a track record on the Internet, and it's constantly attracting new writers.  When I started on the site, I think there were around a quarter of a million 'Hubbers' (a term I've put in quotes, because only a fraction of these are actively writing, or have even written anything at all.

          The idling program was intended to sift out the deadwood, the truly bad or illegal content and to implement some quality standards. The number of new hubs each day, alone, is a HUGE task to filter and manage. I fully agree the QAP is not perfect, but HP never said it was - it was just the best approach the site could come up with to address a monumental task.

          Although we don't have the numbers, I'm sure there have been thousands of 'Hubbers' who are long gone and may have been abusing the site, whose junk hubs have now been idled.  We still find the hubs internally, but they're no longer hurting the site's rankings by being indexed.  It's very frustrating to everyone who speaks up here that genuinely good content has been idled.  I'm frustrated, too, but I'm not giving up on HP.

          I truly hope everyone will stick with it, and continue to give ideas & feedback (also known as complaints, in many cases).  The ratio of 'Hubbers' who are on the forums is very small compared to the nearly 200,000 still on the site (I think that's what I read somewhere).  So we have many 'silent' people who are probably long gone, haven't logged on for years, have hubs that are deadwood, and need to be idled.

          These people aren't Hubbers - they're 'Hubbers.'  They aren't trying to edit & stay published - they don't care, and they've moved on.

          The number of people active on the forums is also a VERY small percentage of the good and active Hubbers here. I believe the site will find a way to identify the competent writers and work out mechanisms to keep good work visible. In the meantime, with more than a million hubs in the inventory, they have no choice but to change things globally at first and then adjust those changes as round two.

  6. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 3 years ago

    This is correct, and sometimes they 'miss' the no-index tag and it remains indexed.

  7. Michael Willis profile image76
    Michael Willisposted 3 years ago

    I have been deleting idled hubs also. With so many of them seasonal in a way to traffic periods, I fear they may just be idled. I know HP gives a different time frame to seasonal hubs. With high competition for indexed material when the seasonal periods begins again, why have to start over with gaining the audience every year?
    I have been working on blogs and planning websites for those I have deleted and once these gain more relevance will move other hubs to these sites. This way there is not the feature/unfeature to worry about.

  8. CMHypno profile image88
    CMHypnoposted 3 years ago

    Randy, I used to have around 260 hubs, now I have 113.  As soon as they are idled I take them down and move them elsewhere. At the rate at which they are being idled it will soon be 'sayonara' HP.

    There has always been house keeping involved in maintaining hubs and improvements to be made, but at least in the past you could do it at your own pace.  Not prepared to play the 'idle tweak feature idle tweak' game.

    Also there is no point writing new hubs on my sub since, like you and Izzy, since August 2011 they gain no traffic.  Just not worth the investment in time like it used to be for me.

    I applaud the people who are still doing well here and wish them the very best, but I could tweak for eternity and still not get my traffic back here.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes Cynthia, I started to include you, with Izzy and myself, as examples of who got screwed on the very same date, with the very same effects.  We never received an explanation for it with Google claiming there were no manual penalties put on our accounts.  So something happened we had no control over and seemingly, no one above does either.

      To this day I still get very little Google traffic and if not for Bing and Yahoo, all of my hubs would be idled.  And yes, I think the word "Idle" suits the limbo these hubs are placed in perfectly.  Izzy and i were told our hubs read awkwardly because of the keywords in them.  Even after rewriting them nothing changed. 

      One has to experience the frustration to understand it, I believe.  smile

      1. CMHypno profile image88
        CMHypnoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Randy, like you I got no explanation and the HP staff just started either ignoring or treating my enquiries like a nuisance.

        I also got a lot of flak in the forums from the 'stop whining, everything is perfect, it must be all your fault' crew who, interestingly, all then howled like kicked puppies when their own traffic crashed a few months later. I even got a hubber who claimed that some of my history hubs were copied and that was the reason that I had been slammed.  A quick session with Copyscape soon sorted that one out!

        My hubs are not perfect by any means, but what I want is some real pointers, as the general stuff like looking at keywords, adding videos, polls, maps etc has just not worked.

        But basically I think that I have just moved on.  I come back to delete idled hubs and catch up with you guys and that is it really.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I know what you mean, Cynthia.  If it happens to someone else it doesn't seem to be so important.  We still have no explanation to this day.  smile

          1. Marisa Wright profile image92
            Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's because HubPages doesn't know. You, of all people, know that HubPages management are not internet gurus!  But then, neither do thousands of other website owners across the internet, who all got Panda slapped at the same time you did.   They included owners of highly successful and respected sites, who could find no reason for the slap and got no help at all from Google to work it out.  For months, there was lengthy discussion on webmaster forums on how to recover, and the eventual conclusion was that if you couldn't see what was wrong, the best thing was to delete everything and move the content to a new domain.  That's because if you've been given a low Panda score, that score will never change unless you do something to change it - and if you don't know what you need to change, what can you do?  The weird thing is that just moving the same content to a new domain often worked - whether that's because it was the comments that were a problem, or sites linking to the old site, who knows.

            At the time, I tried to tell both you and Izzy that you'd been Panda slapped and the only sensible option was to follow their example - delete your sub-domain and start a new blog.  But no, Izzy clung to the idea that she'd been sandboxed and would recover, and you were unwilling to sacrifice your comments.  So you've both contributed to your own problems in a way. Think where you might be if you'd bitten the bullet then.

    2. 0
      Casimiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      CMHypno, to where do you move them, and do they garner more sustainable views on the new sites?

  9. paradigmsearch profile image89
    paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago

    Darn slow today for a Monday...

  10. Paul Edmondson profile image
    89
    Paul Edmondsonposted 3 years ago

    @Randy Godwin  I know it's tough and frustrating trying to understand these google updates.  We are pretty frustrated as well, but we keep persisting.  Trying new things and getting as much information as we can to help people out.

    I can't explain why some people do well and others slide down and some get whipsawed when their content seems of similar quality.  Google tells us they look at subdomains independently.  That appears to be the case since since with every update some go down and some go up.  The experience on HubPages is shared so maybe it feels like more of just a HP thing, but I monitor a few independent sites and they seem to experience the same thing.

    There are lots of Hubbers that have found a way to succeed and have more traffic than ever (there is hope). 

    The best advice we have is:
    - Make Hubs for the love of it on topics you are passionate about (randy, I think you do that)
    - Take great photos and videos that make your Hub look great - that's what people share.
    - Promote your Hub (tastefully) just a bit.  Pin it, like it, tweet it, blog it.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I appreciate your suggestions, Paul.  I know you guys are trying things to get HP on track but I wonder why some of us got hit so hard and others did not.  If it were a quality issue--my definition not HP's--I would be more understanding, but then I know others with good writing skills who have been treated similarly.

      Apparently you guys don't have a clue and neither do we.  I feel fine about the many hubs I've so far deleted, as well as, those still featured.  I do my research and create the hubs  as best I can.  It just isn't working for me and I don't feel any amount of fluff--polls, graphs, movies, etc--will make a difference.  I'm not going to waste any more of my time on uncertain articles just for the hell of it.  At least I get enjoyment from writing my fiction.

      I see very little change in updates, Paul.  My numbers stay relatively the same since Google rarely sends me more traffic than Bing or Yahoo.  Not much difference since I got slapped down in Aug.  2011, even with more hubs published once upon a time.  I suppose I just don't have what it takes.

  11. Steve Lensman profile image82
    Steve Lensmanposted 3 years ago

    I don't understand why Randy would want to delete his idled hubs, a bit drastic isn't it? I have 18 hubs sitting idly by and they still get the occasional bit of traffic away from google. My profile page lists all my hubs and comes in very useful. Yesterday on analytics I spotted 6 of my most idle (and oldest) hubs being viewed, made me smile. smile

    1. Len Cannon profile image88
      Len Cannonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I dunno, why not? If you can find a better place for them to make money, do it. There's literally zero harm to anyone.

  12. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
    Marcy Goodfleischposted 3 years ago

    Super long post. Sorry. I just sincerely hope we don't lose people like Randy and the other good writers who are going through this & frustrated.

    Randy - I've said for a long while that you need to write a book.  You're a born author and storyteller.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks Marcy, I appreciate your opinion on my fiction.  Perhaps It is better for me to give up on writing info and how-to hubs on HP.  I really don't have the heart for it anymore.  I've always succeeded on content farms and did for a while on this one too.  But this site has frustrated me more than any of them as far as understanding what they really want from me.  No big loss as I'm tired of trying to satisfy them.  I'll just do my own thing and be happy with it.  smile  Besides, I'm looking elsewhere for better things.

      1. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
        Marcy Goodfleischposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Noooo - don't leave HP!  Niche-ify your writing & put the fiction in a book or something.  I deleted poetry, essays & some fiction, and I will probably delete more. But I also like having a venue for 'how-to' work, and a way to get income for those pieces.  I wasn't here a few years ago, so I don't have the depth of the battle scars others have.  However, I can tell its a different site, and it was forced to change. 

        Gosh - can you imagine how Paul E felt to wake up one day and have the site you run suddenly tanked in terms of traffic? No warning, no solid information on why, and hundreds of angry writers screaming at you (like it was something HP did, not Google). And then having to figure out a way to combat what Google did?  I'm surprised anyone on the staff is still here, when I think what that would have been like.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well Marcy, it wasn't thousands of angry writers when several of us were chosen to be made examples of, and this makes it even tougher on us.  Add insult to injury when a couple of us were told we wrote awkwardly and this was why we were so chosen, and all of the while we could see others with barely legible content not being affected at all.  But I'll be around until they idle all of my hubs at any rate.  How long it takes is up to HP, I suppose.  I'm glad you care, though!  smile

          1. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
            Marcy Goodfleischposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That would have made me angry, too. I don't understand it completely, but maybe, since Google uses non-human filters, there's no ability to parse out creative prose and fiction (including things sometimes incorporating idioms or literary writing), and the wrong things are punished.  Not fair, and not good.

            Sigh.

            1. 0
              Jane Holmesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe its time to ditch Google. If they are the ones causing this problem, perhaps we should drop that affiliation and see what happens.

              1. Marisa Wright profile image92
                Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Jane, Ithink you're confusing Google Adsense with Google the search engine.  The two are completely separate. 

                HubPages has no "affiliation" with Google the search engine.  It's just that the vast majority of internet users go to Google when they want to find something on the web - so that's how we get most of our readers.

                The only people who browse around HubPages are the members, who are pretty much all writers - and although the membership is large, only a small number is active.   So if you're here hoping to earn some income from your Hubs (as many are), relying on the membership isn't enough.  You must attract people from outside HubPages, and the only way those people can find your Hub is on a search engine - Google or Bing or Yahoo.   Google is still by far the most used, and therefore most readers arrive from there.

    2. Rock_nj profile image90
      Rock_njposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The Hub Idle program was sold to the HP community as an effort to improve the quality of the writing on this site, with the broader goal of improving HP in the eyes of Google.  But now HP admits that Hubs are idled due to not having a traffic heartbeat.  Quality is not the issue.  If you have a low quality Hub with high traffic, it is not idled.  If you have a high quality Hub without traffic, it is idled (it could be very well written and good content, just obsecure and not searched much).   A low quality hub might not pass QAP, but that's another issue. 

      The Idle program was misrepresented to us from the beginning.  I think that and the fact that the explanations are always changing, and the constant need to tweek perfectly good Hubs, is turning some Hubbers off.  If the Idle progam is causing some good Hubbers to delete their content and leave (and it certainly has, not all the ones who have left have been the bad apples), then it's not helping improve the quality of this site, its rep, or its traffic.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There's the rub, Rock.  There's nothing one can hang their hat on to rationalize carrying on with the present state of HubPages.  Some see nothing wrong while others get the shaft.  And yes, I don't think anyone can say we haven't been told things which now have changed.  First the idled hubs hurt us and we need to hide them from our profile, and now, seemingly they don't.  Can anyone tell me how we can trust anything HP says when they can't make up their minds?  I'm simply not going to care if they tell the truth any longer or not.  You guys can do as you wish and I'm fine with that.  smile

        1. Rock_nj profile image90
          Rock_njposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It's interesting that your Hubs were penalized for using keywords in an unnatural way because I have been raising a ruckus about this Idle program, and Simone suggested that I try to improve the SEO of my hubs to attract more traffic (which essentially means usuing keywords more often, which leads to unnatural use).  Round and round we go.....

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, the message is constantly changing.  I'm weary of believing it anymore.  I think they are weary of changing too.  But what choice do they have when they don't know?  And they certainly aren't going to admit they don't know.  I found this out a while back.  Que sera!

  13. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    The thought of deleting one of my reviews makes me uncomfortable. So if they idle, I'll just have to suck it up and update them :V

  14. Healthy Pursuits profile image87
    Healthy Pursuitsposted 3 years ago

    I worked for a while on idled hubs to get views again. Then I stopped both working on them and adding new hubs. I have simply watched for a couple of months now. I have seasonal hubs and a few others that have been idled and I've left them alone. My page views are fairly constant at about half what they were before they took a nosedive. I've considered moving them, but decided not to do anything for a while. If I see my page views go up again and stay up for a while, I'll start writing again. If that doesn't happen and I want to move on, I'll do that.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's about the same as me. HP.  It's too bad HP is disliked by Google these days, but it wasn't anything I've done, I'm pretty sure.  I've been a loyal member here 4 years this month, more loyal than HP has ever been to me, for that matter.  I suppose we're all part of the "collateral damage" caused by so much junk on the site.  Nothing of our doing at all.  Nothing to be sorry for and everything to be angry about.  Too bad for us. 

      I simply don't see how HP can keep good writers on the site with this system, but perhaps they don't intend to.  It doesn't take great talent to produce the kind of drivel they seem to want for today's average searcher, especially those using mobile devices.  No, I don't like it either, just the way it is.

  15. 0
    Arlene V. Pomaposted 3 years ago

    I "get" your pain.  I had 230 Hubs before the idling started.  I think I am down to 86 after moving and deleting.  And writing elsewhere or starting other writing projects.I didn't have a lot of Hubs go idle, but I either deleted them or changed them.  I haven't participated in HubPages for a long time because of the massive changes that I couldn't keep up with.  But once that idling started, there was my sign.  As far as I was concerned, my HP account was on autopilot with very little help from me.  I still make payout, but it takes longer.  Money is not the issue for me as a writer because I have been retired since 2002, and have a pension that takes care of me.  If I don't have fun--I won't do it.  That's my definition of retirement.  I had fun for about a year (writing and commenting), but at this point, I've lost motivation when it comes to this site.  I haven't deleted my account, but a lot of people that I started with are long gone.  I do miss my friends!

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Arlene, long time no see!  You are among those who I mentioned earlier who have already left, for all intents and purposes.  Like you, I'm semi-retired and am certainly not going to write when there is no enjoyment in it, especially when I have to keep editing something which doesn't need it.  I think they expect the impossible from us now, or at least the improbable. 

      So you've already deleted almost 150 articles?  I suppose you had even less faith in this program than I did!  lol

  16. 0
    Arlene V. Pomaposted 3 years ago

    Randy, I changed, moved and deleted.  And I listened and learned from the experiences of other Hubbers.  Each time I "returned," something changed--but never for the better.  More like a temporary fix?  As a writer, one needs growth.  And risks!  HubPages works for some, but not for me.  I figured a long time ago that chasing the pennies isn't for me.  I tried writing content.  Although it paid, it was enough to figure out that I'm not a fan.  When you write content, you have to do it in volume.  Otherwise, it's just not worth it!  $$$  I am a dinosaur with a journalism background.  I can live with that, so I'm off to chase other writing projects.  I did finish a novel last fall, so that #1 on my list of things to edit and hopefully submit by the end of this year.  I am not one to make a living from my writing.  I didn't do that as a youngster, and I certainly won't be doing it in retirement.  Writing is part of the reason why I retired at 44, but back then, it involved an editor on my ass, a desk, health, dental, sick leave, vacation, retirement, etc.  Randy, as a retiree, you know the drill.  Whenever you get restless with something, and it just does not fit your lifestyle, nothing says you have to stay!  This includes Turk and reading Hubs for pennies.  Are you kidding me???

  17. janderson99 profile image85
    janderson99posted 3 years ago

    The HP Morale Game

    http://www.a1niches.com/snn.jpg

    Down Scope

    1. Rock_nj profile image90
      Rock_njposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Like Chutes and Ladders.  That is a lot like what writing for HubPages is like.  Very witty!  :-)

  18. Kangaroo_Jase profile image79
    Kangaroo_Jaseposted 3 years ago

    From a users point of view, I keep seeing over and over again people 'talking' about quality writing in the forums. I am yet to see what people define as such?

    1. Dale Hyde profile image86
      Dale Hydeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I feel that quality writing is based on a particular subject, reseached, proper use of the language and grammer.  No spam on the page.  Proper layout is needed as well.   A 50 line paragraph is way too much.

      1. 0
        Jane Holmesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Particularly if its all one sentence! Laugh, but I've seen it!

  19. GinnyLee profile image95
    GinnyLeeposted 3 years ago via iphone

    Wilderness,

    I am sure you know that QAP is supposed to be stopping new junk, not the idling program.  I like the QAP for stopping bad stuff coming in.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry - I keep confusing myself with idling, pending and QAP.  Actually they are all parts of the same program - get rid of the junk.  I don't like the idling any better than anyone else, but am more than willing to give a dime per month if it is actually useful.  So far, with a dozen or so idled and a half dozen removed, I haven't lost even that, so it hasn't hurt anything other than my pride.

      Others, losing 100 hubs, will lose more of course, but the actual monetary loss to any single hubber has got to be very low in relation to their earnings.  Even those few in the boat with Randy and Izzy, G slapped to the bottom and stood on, won't lose very much.

      Let HP make a change for more time to mature and I could be reasonably happy with the idling part of the program as well.

  20. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago

    I believe Google has made no secret of their dislike for content farms, Wilderness.  I'm wondering if there is anything these writing sites can do to forestall being slowly closed down, despite the silly precautions some are now taking.  I think they may be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Give it a year or two and we'll know if G intends to shut down content farms like HP.  If they are, throwing the baby out is going to happen anyway; let it happen and give me more time to establish myself elsewhere.  If not then something has to be done to remain viable and although I'm certain this program is only a guess all I can do is hope the guess is right.  I have no suggestions and can only hope that TPTB, having talked to G, have something more to go on than I do.  They may be right, they may be wrong, but for sure doing nothing is not the answer.  Not after nearly 2 years.

      1. janderson99 profile image85
        janderson99posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        As I stated elsewhere, it appears that both HP and Squidoo have a QUOTA and that G tweaks the ratings with each Panda update to keep traffic for both below their quota. Squidoo is being driven down at the moment in steps back to their designated quota. HP has been steady for 2 years despite all the pages that have been added and site changes. I suspect that HP will have to put a very strong case for G to lift its traffic quota. Otherwise HP could have the same traffic in 12 month time as it has now. I suspect that HP is driven by the need to put a very forceful argument to G that it has improved quality and it can provide the proof (QAP).

        Bye for now! QAP QAP QAP said the duck - dive dive dive!

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Could be so, Janderson.  At any rate, it is indeed a mess now.  And I'm not so sure HP can prove they've increased quality very much unless we are using HubSpeak.  Is the GoogleSpeak definition for quality the same as the HubSpeak version?  Imagine a conversation between those two!  yikes

          1. janderson99 profile image85
            janderson99posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "Is the GoogleSpeak definition for quality the same as the HubSpeak version"  - not the same, but probably related - G could probably run tests using its own "quality scoring system" or simply look at improvements in overall ratings.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I think you're right, except that HP doesn't seem to have added hardly any pages.  They seem to have taken off nearly as many as they've put on.

          But I really don't doubt much that G is intentionally holding traffic down for the big content farms; that seemed to be the focus of their first attack with Panda.

  21. IzzyM profile image86
    IzzyMposted 3 years ago

    I think the question we should be asking is

    does low traffic = low quality (in the eyes of Google)?

    Most of my hubs were not getting much traffic after the Google-slap, and most of them are now idled.

    My traffic is the lowest it has ever been.

    Perhaps my main account is not atypical.

    I think it was Dale Hyde who posted that his traffic has recovered to his remaining hubs after he unpublished and removed his de-indexed hubs.

    That would suggest the idling process is working, at least in some cases.

    We all know there are shockingly bad hubs on HP, but if Google is sending them traffic (and that will keep them from becoming idled), then are they judged to be 'high quality' in Google's eyes?

    I think we really need to know.

    We might have so-called 'stand-alone' subdomains, but we are all heavily interlinked.

    It could be someone else's 'low quality' hub that pulls yours down, in which case no amount of editing in the world will fix it.

    1. GinnyLee profile image95
      GinnyLeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1  Outstanding post Izzy!



      I would think that the answer is "not necessarily."  There could be a phenomenal page that simply doesn't do well because it is competing with lots of other great pages on the same topic.  It just may never rise to the top.

      There certainly is the other category of pages that are clearly subpar and are reflected as such by being WAY low in the google rankings. 

      Conversely, I think that some crap hubs may get traffic because they are targeting keywords that are not competitive.  Even a bad hub may rank if there isn't much competition.

      I think more effort should be focused on the truly bad hubs where there is no question about their poor quality, REGARDLESS of the traffic they receive.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And this is where I find the idle program a bit disgusting, GinnyLee.  I used to keep a 100 profile score and could rank for the #1 hub on unique info in a matter of minutes all around the world.  I received almost 2000 views a day and was making pretty fair money for about 70 hubs at the time.  I'm lucky now to receive a couple a hundred views a day for my how-to hubs, almost none of it from Google.

        No one can tell me what happened or who put the whammy on my work here.  Or, no one WILL tell me if they do indeed know.  I have my own ideas, of course.  I suppose I am what HP refers to as "collateral damage."

    2. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good post, Izzy!  And my traffic too sucks at the moment.  I see nothing encouraging at all coming from this program except an impetus to look elsewhere.  I find the recent news of "idled hubs don't hurt us" laughable from Paul E. in light of the previous statements to the contrary.  I wish they'd make up their minds!  yikes

    3. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
      Marcy Goodfleischposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Izzy - I posted at least one comment about deleting a few idled hubs. Any of mine that have been idled were done so for traffic (since most had been reviewed & scrutinized through either AP or QAP). I deleted poems and essays, which, while fun to write, aren't going to be seen in search engines.  And I felt they didn't fit what, after a year, seemed to be my thrust in writing.   

      I also edited and improved, wherever possible, hubs that are fact-based, informative, etc.  I'm not sure which horse came before which cart, but my traffic is now double what it was before the September slump and is slowly climbing every few weeks. I feel certain that, for me, deleting hubs that were low-performers and were not 'informative' made a big difference.  If nothing else, it got rid of things I'd rather not have to maintain here, and I can use the writing elsewhere.  They were not low-quality - they're simply things nobody will ever search for on Google.

      But so many writers here have produced good and factual hubs that have been slammed - so I'm curious what Google used to send traffic here (to HP) before, compared to now? Bear in mind, even with my increase in recent months, my traffic is nowhere near what the veterans of the site were seeing before Panda, and it likely won't reach those levels - at least not from what I gather from reading the forums.

    4. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We know that, in google's eyes, low quality = low traffic (or at least that's what they claim) but we don't know the other way around to be true, no.

      As to whether or not low traffic hubs are pulling down either subdomains or all of HP is till up in the air.  You're right - cases like Dale's give an indication of at least the former, but I don't think there is enough data to actually answer the question yet.  As work proceeds on the backlog of junk we may learn more.

      G says that low quality backlinks (links from a low quality site?) hurt, and if true, the site architecture may now be hurting rather than helping as it used to.  Again, time may tell as those "low quality sites" (subdomains of junk) and the junk in them are removed.  Or maybe HP hasn't set the quality bar high enough.  Or maybe G is telling stories again.

      1. IzzyM profile image86
        IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        We don't know that at all.
        The hubs I have left that Google continue to send traffic to are not of a very high quality at all. They didn't send traffic to my 'quality' hubs.

        That is why we should perhaps re-consider what Google sees as 'quality'.

        It may be that those really poor hubs that Google are still sending traffic to are there because of backlinks pointing to it, or because of some internal structure pointing to them.

        What is quality?

        It would seem to me to be a waste of time publishing high calibre hubs full of lots of useful info.

        You might as well rush out of a couple of hundred words full of keywords, spend your time adding artificial backlinks to it, and sit back and enjoy the traffic.
        Or maybe even if your onpage SEO skills are good, you can skip the backlinking stuff and still enjoy traffic.

        Or maybe internally, HP really do give some authors extra help by manipulating the linking process?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          True. We don't know how Google is defining quality.  We don't know what google considers "low" quality.  We don't know how google is determining quality - the method, not the definition.

          We know that google has claimed to be sending traffic only to high quality, but have only limited evidence point to that as false.  We know that google claims to be discounting "bad" backlinks, that it used to simply count backlinks as a determining factor in quality  We don't know if anything has actually changed.

          No matter what HP or we do, we're shooting blind in the hopes that it will help.  We can listen to googles declaration that they are shooting for quality and believe it (to at least some degree, I do), we can decide it's true only if it doesn't cost them much (again, I do) or we can decide they are total liars. 

          I hold those beliefs almost entirely because google is a business and in competition with others.  If the other search engines offer a better product (and who wants junk in their search?) google will lose out in the long run. 

          As a conclusion, then, I do think that we are better off in the long run in providing quality rather that extensive off page SEO.  On page is somewhat different; it seems to me that we have to tell a stupid algo what the subject is and that requires some on page SEO.  I also think that to a large degree old methods of putting out hundreds of backlinks is likely to work.  For a while, until google gets better at finding what it calls quality.  I also think that google will generally agree with us on what quality is, they just don't know how to build that very human response into an algorithm.  They're learning, but they've got a long, long way to go.

          Internal links: HP can help there, I think, but the problem is in determining what and where to do it.  In some respects HP is in the same boat as google; their internal search engine has to be effective in providing what the reader wants and providing quality quality is a part of that.

          So how do you do that?  They can't examine every possible hub before supplying those "related hub" links - they have to use an algo to do it with.  What's in that algo?  Traffic?  Hub score (they've said they're trying to bring that more in line with true quality)?  Topic and category?  Reader satisfaction demonstrated by time-on-page?  Number of backlinks?  Length and varied capsule usage?

          All of those seem reasonable.  I know that WMT tells me that I've got a handful of hubs with backlinks from within HP in the hundreds.  I know that, in general, those hubs all have high "scores" in those areas (except of course topic and category) and I know that other hubs with few HP backlinks in general do not.  It seems, then, that HP is doing what it can with their algo to provide useful, quality backlinking to those hubs that "deserve" it.

    5. Marisa Wright profile image92
      Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No, and I don't know how anyone could imagine it did.  Low traffic may just mean that not many people are searching for a topic. 

      If you have a low trafficked Hub, you could look at the keyword tool and see what the search volume is.  If it's high, and you're getting low traffic, then Google doesn't like it for some reason, so it could be a quality issue ( at least, quality as Google defines it, which we all know isn't the same as real quality).

  22. GinnyLee profile image95
    GinnyLeeposted 3 years ago

    I personally like the QAP process to stop new crap from coming in, but it does make me wonder when I come across http://liamodowd.hubpages.com/hub/Color … Brown-Eyes

    At first glance, this article isn't blatantly bad, but many of this writer's articles have an outbound link to ht tp://www.pop-digital.co.uk/pop/seo/link-building/ which, for the low price of 149 pounds will create a nice backlinking package for you. 

    Maybe they were featured after QAP due to human error?  Please don't think that QAP is stopping all bad hubs coming in...

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If the hub isn't really bad, what's the problem?  That other hubs have the same backlink, or that that backlink is to a site you don't like?

      I mean no offense, but there are an awful lot of hubbers using HP to drive traffic and SEO to their other sites but that doesn't make them poor writers nor their hubs poor quality.  Defining poor quality to include such hubs would be censorship in the worst sense, far beyond what is already being done.

      1. GinnyLee profile image95
        GinnyLeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No offense taken.  I think that writing hubs that are of high quality with a link back to a personal site is a great idea!  Was this hub "high quality?" or "not horrible?"

        Regardless, the point is that the Hubpages TOS http://hubpages.com/help/user_agreement prohibits "Link to pages or sites that are unrelated to the topic and content of Your Hub" - In this case, the link is to the SEO backlinking service which doesn't meet the topic of the article (eye color).

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Aha!  More information is always good.  Most definitely the backlink is against the rules and should be taken out.

          Ginny, this whole thread is primarily about quality and the undesired results when HP tries to enforce it.  HP has said that the requirements are quite low, that the goal isn't only "top quality" hubs and that lower quality hubs are being allowed in.  Can you imagine what it would be like if the bar was set to only "top quality" as defined by HP?  Their entire network would overload from forum usage in just hours as "beautiful, perfectly written stellar" hubs were taken down one after another.

  23. wrenfrost56 profile image83
    wrenfrost56posted 3 years ago

    As mentioned before I too was initially under the impression that the idle feature was a tool for weeding out low quality hubs, but knowing that some of HPs best writers (Like Randy G) have been slammed I am now aware that it is more an issue regarding traffic.

    This however is unfair, and every time I hear that a fellow member has deleted hubs a part of me dies, it seems like such a waste of perfectly good work and time.

    I have only deleted 3 of my hubs, the rest I have moved and oddly enough they are now getting more traffic then they did here. (Go figure?) I am going to keep at it here though because some of my work actually does pretty well and I like the community.

    What really does hack me off though is the fact that people can steal our work, post it anywhere and sometimes there is not a thing that we can do about it! I don't that will ever stop being annoying.

    Please do stop deleting work people it is upsetting, think of what you could be denying the world. sad

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for your support, wrenfrost.  I don't think anyone knows what to do about this mess now.  Yes, HP is deleting lots of well written hubs for some reason, while others who get little  or no traffic to their hubs aren't affected at all.  I know for a fact some hubs by others get a free pass by HP even though some of their hubs get absolutely no traffic at all.  Lets face it, this program stinks for ridding the site of badly written junk.

      HP leaves us no choice but to delete our hard work and place it where it is appreciated.  Serves them right.

      1. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
        Marcy Goodfleischposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Randy, I agree that, at some point, the site would benefit and writers would benefit if they would stop idling good content.  I can see that 'one size fits all' had to be the strategy at first, but even if they started slowly and stopped idling a few good writers at a time, it would help sustain the volume of good content here, and would be a sign of collaboratively working with writers.

        It's very time consuming to keep tweaking content in order to made it readable by search engines. Although we've seen posts by staff suggesting that these pieces might need videos, or polls, or new photos, that's not always the case.  Many hubs with ALL those elements simply don't get a lot of views yet.  If they're about obscure topics, they may never get a huge number if views - but they are worthy pieces of work.

        Similarly, fiction, poems or essays may not be very searchable, but unless there's some Google penalty we don't know about, I'm not clear why they would be idled if the content is good?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I am pleased some of you guys are benefiting from this program, Marcy.  I suppose I'm just one of those who are doomed to failure as far as their work being appreciated on HP.  There's just nothing I can do to get on Google's good side, and believe me I've tried everything HP has suggested so far.

          Some of us have been slapped with some unknown penalty shortly after we switched to subdomains.  Apparently we did something wrong we aren't aware of and nothing seems to help.  HP doesn't know, Google claims they haven't put us on their $hit list, and so we seem to be in a certain limbo as it were.  Over a year and a half has passed and my traffic has only gotten worse instead of better, so yes, I am a little perturbed when people who can barely write a legible sentence talk about their traffic improving.

          But what I detest most is the lack of transparency from TPTB, or the fact they keep changing what they say hurts a writer here.  But no worries,  I've given up on listening to staff for anything worthy of helping out my account as it's too frustrating to deal with anymore.  Let them play their little games with people who trust them.  It ain't me!  smile

          1. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
            Marcy Goodfleischposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Randy - I didn't say I benefitted from idling, per se; I said I believe I gained some traffic by getting rid of things that Google doesn't seem to pick up in searches (such as obscure titles of poems).

            You mentioned in another post that you used to get a lot of traffic and be rated high for 'unique' content.  I haven't heard of that part before - is that also something Google ranks in some way?  Or used to rank?  Did that continue after Panda?

            BTW - based on my own traffic, you are getting good traffic still.  As I said, I would be amazed if I ever get to the point (the level of traffic) of some longtime writers here, either before or after Panda.

            1. PaulGoodman67 profile image89
              PaulGoodman67posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              All these sites have to constantly keep changing their rules and advice, because the internet itself is in a constant state of change.  Over at Squidoo there is currently uproar because Squidoo have made some big rule changes that affect certain people.

              I deleted more than half my hubs and have seen my traffic gradually rise over the past 6 months.  Did the deletion directly help my traffic, or was it something else I did, or was it something HP did, or was it a combination?  I don't know, but deleting weaker material didn't seem to harm me.

              HP can give advice and they can improve the structure of the site to make it more Google friendly - but since sub-domains came in, hubbers have greater powers to control their own fate.  If you think the HP advice is wrong, then you are free to ignore it and do your own thing.  Heaven knows, there is an endless amount of "experts" offering their own version of "advice" out there!

              1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
                EmpressFelicityposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We do? What did I miss? AFAICT, all that subdomains did was make each of our own accounts more vulnerable to the slings and arrows of search engine rankings.

                ETA: if we knew it was a question of "do X or Y and you'll definitely get more search views", then you'd be right. But the fact is that it often seems to be entirely random whether a subdomain does well or not.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It is not random at all; it is entirely dependent on the vagaries of the google algorithm.  There is a very good reason behind having a subdomain that google likes or not having one.

                  They just won't tell us what those reasons are.

                  1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
                    EmpressFelicityposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If you don't know why Google's algorithm does or doesn't like your site, then you're almost as much in the dark as you would be if it *were* completely random. Let's face it, nobody really knows if idling hubs is doing the site any good with regard to Google. To me, it's the online equivalent of doing a dance to appease the rain god. Or wearing a tin foil hat to keep the lions away.

                  2. Pearldiver profile image86
                    Pearldiverposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    C'Mon..... Google... Google... It's ALWAYS Google! 
                    A tiresome justification for everything non transparent!

                    I don't believe Google attach NOINDEX tags randomly on my newly published hubs!!  sad
                    Please.... Get Real...
                    HP Intentionally Selects and Directs Google etc to IGNORE selected new and other hubs - Not the other way around!
                    Personally, I'd like to know who actually makes that self management decision on behalf of MY Sub-Domain!! 
                    Wouldn't You?
                    Creating sub domains merely allowed HP to DUMP the dirty links that had been attached to previously HP Selected user accounts!  I don't believe for a minute that it had anything to do with Google making that decision... I believe it was timed to coincide exactly with the Panda moves! 

                    This whole Idling thing was 'trialled' a year earlier and during the Competitions that were run here... All My Quality Submissions were Never Indexed... where previously my profile and many hubs had appeared on pages one and two in SEs...
                    HP manipulated all the 'link juice' THEY selected... It had Nothing to do with Google selecting many of us hard working and unsuspecting hubbers to Slap! 
                    HP killed the selected links and the selected user brands tumbled!  Show me I'm Wrong!  smile

                    Why can't we get some Reality on this issue, huh?

            2. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Had to step out for a bit and just returned, Marcy.  The reason I said I was ranked for unique content is because when I first joined I wrote content which was not found on the net at that time, and wrote it very concisely and also where it was easily understandable. 

              Some of these hubs got hundreds of views a day with no backlinking or linking to other sites.  No TOS violations, no infractions on my part, just the best content on the subject, and still is for that matter IMHO.  Now even a newbie writer with less info outranks me on Google.  One of these hubs had around 70,000 views after a year and a half being published.  Another year and a half later it has yet to reach 75,000 views.

              I included many step-by-step photos in these hubs made as I was actually doing the jobs myself and was told by many it was the best info on the net.  Sometimes I spent hours merely answering questions and giving advice to visitors about the hub.  Unlike many successful hubs, some of mine required a lot of time on the questions posed by searchers, not to metion hours of actually creating them.  I had several such hubs at one time.

              I am still outranked by many inferior articles on Google--not bragging but I do know the difference when I write about a subject I am well experienced in.  No one can tell me anything about why I'm being ostracized by Google when Bing and Yahoo are not doing the same.  Not Google or HP.  Believe me, I sure asked enough times.  So all of this talk about HP and "low quality" articles really ticks me off right now.  I really think it is very dishonest of either HP or the Big G to try and redefine what a quality article is by using traffic as a factor.

              Sorry for the long post, but I wanted some of the newer writers to realize that no matter how hard they work on their articles, no matter how valuable they are to very interested searchers, their success and hard work can be wiped out literally overnight with the click of mouse.  And no one can tell you why.

              1. Barbara Kay profile image85
                Barbara Kayposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I am wondering about the fact that most of the writers losing traffic from the Panda from back in September of 2011 were hubbers that earned a lot of money and had been here for a long time. Age seems to have something to do with it and success too. I think I'd open a new account and let Google think I was someone else. I'm just making a wild guess at this.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                  Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Izzy tried this, Barbara Kay.  It seemed to work for a bit but I believe she just recently reported her other accounts were doing bad now.  She, CMhypno, and I were all struck down on the same day and I can assure you we all knew how to write original and well researched content.  None of us have recovered from that horrible day and Paul E made things worse by inferring we wrote "awkwardly" as the reason for the plunge.  I'm pleased now I didn't live very close to Frisco at the time.

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, there is something you can do about it.  There are very few sites and hosts that will refuse to take down copied material.  Read up on filing DMCA's and if you can't find where to file the form I've got a hub in my carousel explaining exactly how to go about it.

      Don't let the thieves get away scot free; go after them!

  24. Pearldiver profile image86
    Pearldiverposted 3 years ago

    Two things I know about.. Business, Business Management, BS & People..

    One either MANAGES the business completely effectively and efficiently, never Bulls***ing to the people who rely in good faith on THAT 'competent ability to manage'

    OR

    One does not Manage the business competently!

    Factually, like it or not, there is No Middle Ground on that issue!

    Therefore, there is NOTHING acceptable, ethical or competent, about any Business Manager whose personal ability amounts to solely 'ALMOST' Managing the business and doing so, on the basis of limiting the factual information required to make any informed decisions, by those who for whatever reason, rely in good faith on the competent ability of that Manager to manage effectively and efficiently!

    Being aware of this... I prefer to consider what is Not being said here, as opposed to what is said badly, incompetently and non factually!

    There is a lot of BS attached to this so called Idle Issue... and it has Almost Managed to destroy the personal hopes and good faith of a great deal of people, who trusted this site was being Managed competently! 

    Please..... Stop continuously Insulting us with justification for your expectations that we accept Less than you would accept if the tables were turned! 

    Rule #1 of Business is:  That you either Manage the Business or You Fail to Manage the Business! I believe that rule also holds true of specific business functions!  But Hey.... maybe I'm just some dumb dude from nowhere important.. who doesn't know squat and is too direct to be worthy of respect or a 'HELPFUL' Accolade!  roll

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      + a bunch, PD!  I respect honest people!  smile

  25. paradigmsearch profile image89
    paradigmsearchposted 3 years ago

    I wonder if someone who worked at Helium now works at Google. In certain respects, SF is a small town...

  26. LindaSmith1 profile image60
    LindaSmith1posted 3 years ago

    Sticking up for HP does not earn money, give you brownie points, raise your hub scores, etc.

    The HP system is broken, and has been broken for a  long time, and is not doing a thing but get worse.  I am with Randy too!  Every hub that goes Idle, I remove it.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image62
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Of course it does.  You just would never be privy to those rewards.  I personally have gotten thousands of dollars in kick-backs, choice on who to remove/ban, use of the company jet, and to top it all PE brings me strawberries and rubs my feet every Friday. 

      I don't like you so you don't get to be in the club.

      Or perhaps people with different opinions of HP might just have them because they think differently than you.  Just maybe.

      Didn't you complain and say you were leaving ages ago?  No one begged you to stay then and no one is going to do it now.  Since you keep saying the same thing and never doing it then we've got to assume that something is keeping you here.  We never hear about that though, just how very angry you are.

    2. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      As far as we know.Linda. 



      I recommend doing the same until HP makes up their mind up about the idled hubs.  In the meantime, it's a total waste of time to either create or edit hubs.  This is my take on it and I'm not trying for any perks with the system by sugar coating the facts we are aware of. 

      And yes, expect someone to come along and ask you to leave if you don't like it here.  tongue

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image62
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't ask her to leave... she keeps promising that she will and I keep getting my hopes up.

        I mean she said she was going to and didn't.  You say that makes HP a liar.  So what does that make her?

        1. 61
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          When are you leaving?

          Uh oh, here comes the ban

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image62
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            LMAO!  You know if I actually had the power to ban you would be able to hear a pin drop in the forums.

            How's that tin-foil collection coming along?

        2. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

           

          lol  We all have our druthers, Melissa.  And there are definitely some whose druthers are listened to more than others.  I feel sure sure there are some who feel the same about both you and I as far as that is concerned.  But I've never felt I had the right to ask that of others. 



          Where did I "say that makes HP a liar" because of something another writer says?

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image62
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Once again, she is the one who said she was leaving... I just asked when.

            I'm sure there are a few folks that would like me gone, mostly though I'm likely so irrelevant that many wouldn't care either way.  However if I made a huge fuss about going, I would expect someone to say something if I didn't.  Like... perhaps... "Didn't you say you were leaving?"

            Especially if I said it very... very... very frequently.

            I didn't say you said anything about what a writer saying makes HP a liar.  But you have kinda ridden the "You said you were going to do this but didn't" thing about HP.  So if HP is a liar because they didn't do what they said, then you have to consider other people/entities who said they were going to do something and didn't liars as well.  Or else it's hypocritical.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What anyone else says--including you--means nothing much to me as they have their own reasons to ask questions.  I believe I've given Hp every opportunity to answer my questions on the forums, and because they beat around the bush, sometimes ignore them completely, and then change the answers, there is a  good reason I don't have a lot of faith in their trustworthiness.  Nothing to do with other hubbers here though, I can ignore those I don't like.  Try it yourself sometime.

    3. 0
      summerberrieposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Linda, you are not the only one who has made the choice to remove your idle hubs from HP and place them elsewhere. I enjoy your hubs and hate to see them dwindle down. But like you and Randy and many more of my hubber friends, I understand the move you are making. Hopefully, you will not dwindle down too far and will always have enough featured for others to enjoy here on HPs.

  27. LindaSmith1 profile image60
    LindaSmith1posted 3 years ago

    Randy: I am only taking the ones I want. They can have the trash since that is what they favor now! I think I may have published on hub in 6 months here.

    When I leave is not anybody's concern. Go  harass each other MelissaBarrett and woisit. When you start paying my bills, then you have some say about what I do.

    1. 61
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Leave me out of your rant. My question was not directed towards you.

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image62
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Stop making me hopeful then letting me down.

      If I have to read your constant stream of "I'm leaving" then I get to say "What's taking you so long?"

      I don't think "I'm Leaving" means what you think it does. I always thought it meant that eventually the person saying it would actually be gone.  Just waiting for that to happen.

      1. 61
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You had to read it? Case of OCD?

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image62
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Occasionally.

          1. 61
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Shocking.

  28. LindaSmith1 profile image60
    LindaSmith1posted 3 years ago

    Melissa,, when you start paying my bills, then you have something to say.  When are your going to grow the F  up?   I have left essentially, with over 100 articles NOT ON HP!

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image62
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You need some help getting those last ones off?  I'd be happy to lend a hand. Does that mean we won't have the pleasure of your up-beat and positive -not to mention exceedingly productive- forum posts anymore as well? Gosh golly gee I would sure miss those.

  29. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago

    And another thing while I'm getting a few things off of my chest.  It was suggested that because I had so many links to my RV hubs--someone checked for me and there were tens of thousands just to those hubs-- that Google thought it was some form of nefarious backlinking going on and slapped me for being too successful.

    Imagine that!  lol  I never used backlinking at all other than simply posting my hubs on facebook.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That doesn't rule out nefarious purposes, Randy.

      That's far, far more than anything I've seen on my best hubs.  Is it possible that you've been victim of someone trying to destroy your hubs?  You might look at few of those sites and see if they are legit or just garbage dumps.

      WMT can give you a list of all your backlinks

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        They were checked by someone I trust and they all came from all sorts of RV establishments and forums.  I used to spend inordinate amounts of time answering all sorts of questions from those who said my hubs were the best they could find on the net. 

        As you can imagine most were ranked either #1 on the first page of Google or near the very top.  I once had an RV hub rank #1 in the world in the first 30 minutes because the content was so unique.  Yes, I worked hard to find such topics and make them the best but it was all wiped away in the blink of an eye.  Would you be ticked off for being punished for creating what everyone wanted?  lol  Yes, you could say I really don't have much patience with BS anymore.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          OK - I didn't realize that someone had done more than just look at the number of backlinks. 

          Well, it was a thought.  Another one that didn't pan out, unfortunately.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, and I would be just as angry if the same thing had happened to you, or Simey, or anyone else who worked hard to create the best content possible.  It is a form of theft that goes on regularly  these days and no one, especially HP or Google seems to give a hoot about it.  Nope, I'll never edit another idled sales hub because I don't want to waste another second listening to HP's ever changing spin, and even more likely because I won't put anything here again to make money as long as they have this crappy, ill-conceived system in place.

        2. Marisa Wright profile image92
          Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If you didn't get an email from Google telling you that you had an "unnatural link profile" or similar, then I'd say it's highly unlikely that was the problem.

          I never got an email like that, but I know a few people who did, and their blogs were decimated.

  30. AccumulateAmerica profile image60
    AccumulateAmericaposted 3 years ago

    You know I have to say  I am disappointed in Google. Even with out being a writer. As a consumer stance before I began to get into all of this writing. When I would sit to a search engine, and look up information on something. Much better combined than a library let's face it. Often times the hits that were old provided much better information than those that were new. Except in the industries where change is constantly occurring. Topics like technology. Although for the mass amount of private researchers even the old techs had their place. After all most people do not enjoy buying new equipment every couple of months. So often times have those old out dated items. Sometimes still needing that information that was a long time learned. I feel as if Google is forcing people to be up to their level. Which defeats the purpose of independent ability. I think this will be a death blow for Google. Especially since there are many other search engines, and those are even growing in popularity. Places like the Bing. Which from my perspective came out of no where. It was just suddenly there, and a competitor of Google. Google is still a business, and still needs to remember it has to compete. So I am left wondering since I signed up in HP. Why only Google?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If not for Bing and Yahoo perhaps all of my hubs would be idled now.  I abhor Google........

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        On this one I will fully agree, Randy.  I hate that company, that steps on anyone and everyone without a care about what it's doing, who gets hurt or how badly.

        It is the epitome of what is wrong with some of the corporate world; they make WalMart and Monsanto look like pikers in the abuse category.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm glad we agree on this, Wilderness.  Perhaps someday they will be dealt with by some entity other than us ordinary citizens.  I'm not holding my breath until it happens though!  smile

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm probably so wrong it's pathetic, but if Google doesn't get it's search engine in order soon they're going to lose out to Bing and Yahoo.  They've improved results somewhat in the past year, but not nearly enough.  I'm seeing more and more visits from alternate search providers - give lousy results and you'll lose customers every time.  Especially when the competition is so easy to use; you don't even have to drive across town!

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I hope they do lose out to Bing and Yahoo.  Perhaps then they will pay more attention to the actual meaning of the word "quality."   Hubpages would do well to do the same instead of merely falling into line with them. Unless of course, they wish to contribute to the dumbing-down of America in the near future.  Certainly not a favorable legacy to remembered by.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Neither Google, Bing nor Yahoo ever did understand quality.  When it's defined by how many backlinks you can spread out there I see that as a problem. 

                I fully understand it's a massive problem to apply such a subjective, insubstantial thing to software, and I applaud Googles (stated) efforts to do so, but they aren't succeeding and their methodology is hurting, and hurting badly, a great many people.

                Panda, for instance, could have been set up on the side over a small portion of the web and watched what happened IF it were applied (without actually doing so) but instead the world was subjected to it willy nilly while it flopped.  Google had the resources to do that, and could have, but it would have cost.  Instead authors the world over paid the cost.  As you know even more that the rest of us.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                  Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes I do know more than some.  This account is apparently dead to Google, as am I.

  31. LindaSmith1 profile image60
    LindaSmith1posted 3 years ago

    Here is an interesting read about the Google slapdown on Hub Pages, a bit about Squidoo, etc.
    http://www.squidoo.com/how-googles-pand … es-traffic

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A little dated, maybe, as there have been many changes since Panda, but still a very worthwhile read. Greekgeek is always worth reading.  Would love to see her update that.

      1. PaulGoodman67 profile image89
        PaulGoodman67posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, GreekGeek is always great.  But like you say, she has written far more recent stuff on this topic, in these forums as well as on Squidoo etc.

  32. AccumulateAmerica profile image60
    AccumulateAmericaposted 3 years ago

    Hey thank you for that informative link. Now all of this is beginning to make a lot more sense to me. smile Thank you LindaSmith1!

  33. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago

    Down to 94 hubs to go!  Deleted 5 more today.  Is this considered decomposing?  lol

 
working