Well, many know, that I have been wrestling with this "related searches" ads thingy for quite a few days now. I took me some effort to figure it out what it actually is, but I got the answer. I'm finished with the calculations... almost. Here is the final analysis, with solutions:-
1) The "Related Searches" are links, and not ads.
2) The 60/40 revenue split refers only to ads placed on a hub, not to revenue collected from any links, so the "related searches" links do not break the contract between HubPages and its writers.
3) However, the "related searches" are commercial links.
4) How many commercial links are hubbers allowed to post per hub? The answer is: 2.
5) The problem is here: Most hubbers do not use commercial links. Those who choose to do, can post maximum 2 links per hub. But there are already 11 commercial links now on every hub, called "related searches". Two links versus eleven links.
6) This current configuration is grossly unfair. HubPages administration has two solutions to correct the problem. Either they raise the maximum limit of commercial links allowed to hubbers, to 11; or they cut down the "related searches" links into 2.
7) The "related seaches" links should be conditional. Only those hubs, which have commercial link(s) posted by hubbers, should be allowed to have "related searches" links. And the number of commercial links posted by hubbers, should determine the number of "related searches" links on those hubs.
I think you have a duplicate thread going here. But I posted a reply to this on your other thread:
The 'related searches' look like Google AdWords links, but they are not. AdWords links directly take you to the destinations of the advertisements. Whereas the "related searches" links work as keywords for a page of 'relevant' ad, which then takes you to the destination of that advertisement.
HP knows this very well, and that is why they are so confident.
Have a look here - http://www.ehow.com/facts_5766101_nutri … rries.html
[Btw: You should have posted the reply here, and posted on that thread the permalink. Because this is the new thread. ]
That link took me to a page about 'Edible juniper berries', so I don't quite understand your point.
If you go to one of your Hubs and copy the 'Related Search' capsule and paste it into a Word document (without clicking on anything), you will find this URL code when you put your cursor over the 'Related Search' text:
That identifies it as a session ID of Google AdWords. It's an AdWords ad unit.
"Nutrition of Edible Juniper Berries"
If you follow that link and observe that page a bit, you'll find Ad units on its pages with blocks to the right and at the bottom.
Right Block Label Related Ads, which work just like the "Related Searches" linkunits. Because HubPages 'related' searches are not really 'related', so I suggested that page. You can compare.
Whatever. But the fact remains that 'Related Searches' is a Google AdSense program and Hub authors should be paid the agreed and advertised percentage for clicks.
Every 'AD BY GOOGLE' isn't Adsense ad.
Adsense is Google's ad program. In what way is a Google ad something different from an adsense ad? I see no distinction.
Also, yes: 1) Hupages can ignore hubpage's rules and 2) you can link to hub pages as many tinmes as you want on any hub--so that isn't one of hubpage's rules.
All ads from the Google network are through the Google AdSense program.
Being under Adsense program, and being an Adsense ad - I think these two are not synonymous. There are Google ads which does not belong to the Adsense ads category.
As far as I know...
All Google ads are from Google's AdSense program and are purchased by auction on Google's AdWords program.
Do you have any concrete evidence that the 11 "related searches" links are Adsense ads?
Yes. It's in the URL for the "Related Searches" link.
Yes. You look at them and they clearly are. This is not even something Hubstaff dispute. The related search ads are Adsense. Hubpages get 100% of the earnings from them. This has already been established and confirmed by Hubstaff in the previous threads on this topic.
2) Actually, I think linking to HP IS one of the rules. "Links to well-known resources like Wikipedia, news sites, etc., are not held to this same standard." (TLC)
What could possibly be a better resource than the fine writers of HP?
Sometimes HP ads are Google ads. That may be the difference.
In this case it is because that's what the URL is.
Just to clarify a bit.
Sounds like you're classifying a "commercial link" as one to any page that has income producing ads on it. As you say, the RS links are commercial because they go to a page with ads. It also sounds like you are distinguishing between an ad and a link - ads are links that earn by clicking or viewing while links don't. OK.
We are allowed unlimited "commercial links", although limited to two per domain. Except HubPages (and a handful of "authority sites"), where we are allowed unlimited links. Even RS links follow this rule, as do the other links (both commercial and not) that HP puts on each hub. HP does not even take advantage of the "two links per domain" that we do.
Fair by the letter of the agreement? Yes, of course. A little sneaky and skirting the edge? Also yes, of course.
Either you haven't read the Opening Post, or you don't want to. . .
HubPages now has 11 commercial links on every hub, while hubbers can have maximum 2 commercial links per hub. It's grossly unfair.
And apparently you didn't read the post or don't want to...
Every hub can have unlimited commercial links, limited only by two per domain, except for those to HP pages which are unlimited. Saying it is limited to two doesn't make it so. RS links are to HP pages, which are unlimited. Fair.
So HP can have any number of commercial links per domain, while writers have only 2?
And please explain this section. . .
"Except HubPages (and a handful of "authority sites"), where we are allowed unlimited links. Even RS links follow this rule, as do the other links (both commercial and not) that HP puts on each hub. HP does not even take advantage of the "two links per domain" that we do."
From the learning center, http://hubpages.com/learningcenter/publ … d_22732854
"Rule 1: Your Hub can have a maximum of 2 links to any one domain. Links in the image source field in the Photo Capsule count toward this limit." (bolding added). You can link to 50 domains if you wish, just no more than twice to each one.
"Links to well-known resources like Wikipedia, news sites, etc., are not held to this same standard." HP has always considered HP pages to be in this category; a good thing as I typically link to a half dozen other hubs, both my own and other hubbers.
This, then, should be self-explanatory. RS links (all 11) to go HP pages, where we are allowed unlimited linking. We are allowed as many commercial links as we wish, limited only by 2 per domain (such as HubPages.com).
You haven't really explained this one. . .
"Even RS links follow this rule, as do the other links (both commercial and not) that HP puts on each hub. HP does not even take advantage of the "two links per domain" that we do.""
C'mon, Gik! Hp does NOT put ANY links to any domain other than HP - how much clearer can I be? We are ALL, including HP, allowed unlimited links to HP - we ALL follow the rule of no more than 2 links to any domain outside of HP.
How can hubbers have their own "Related Searches"? How can we all do the same thing that HP is doing?
Even if we could I am not sure how that would help with the problem of these links siphoning our potential earnings away..
Start your own site. You can put all the HTML on it you want, and even split earnings with other people you allow to write as long as they follow your rules.
Hubpages does not allow affiliate marketing types to link to their sites, if they are filled with products - or at least that's what several of my friends have experienced. So it's not a freebie to link out to any site.
Now that everyone knows about the Related Searches, it's their decision to continue to write here. As I continue to see things like the ads on topic pages and a linking scheme to promote them over our hubs, it's apparent to me that things just keep getting worse for Hubbers. Again as long as Hubbers can get this information to make informed decisions about the deck that is being stacked against them, it's their choice.
HubPages staff are getting much better at hiding their profit centers in plain sight.
I have had warnings against more than 2 links to my own hubs and have had to reduce their numbers accordingly to get my Hubs re-featured. Yet I see many Hubs by others with a whole list of links to their own hubs at the bottom of their articles resembling the former RSS capsule. What's going on?
To your own hubs or to other sites you own?
If the former there has to be something more to it. Maybe the hubs aren't considered relevant to the topic or maybe there is some kind of glitch.
To my own Hubs and they were all relevant because most of my articles are in the same niche. Yet some hubs I read have no less than 6 or 7 links to their own Hubs, that is 6 or 7 links to the same domain.
Being in the same niche won't mean they are necessarily relevant - I've seen (and written in) some pretty large "niches".
Having said that, HP seems to take a pretty wide view of relevancy - it doesn't really sound like that's the problem. Whereupon I have no other suggestions.
This is a really gray area on Hubpages and everyone seems to have a different interpretation.
If you link to the same website across many of your Hubs, then HubPages usually finds this to be too commercial - even if the content is relevant. If you just link out to the same website in a few of your Hubs it's seems to be okay for some websites. Different Hubbers have been treated differently on this matter. There is no exact number or ratio that is a given.
HubPages does not accept links to all websites. I know people who have been told that their link went to a website that is too spammy and commercial. The Hubber in question had over 50 Hubs and only one hub had a link to the site.
It probably depends upon the reviewer and the site and the mood of HubPages at the time. There are a lot of Hubbers in my family. We've all had different experiences. We all make our living in affiliate marketing and HubPages has been very difficult to work with over the past few years.
The 2 links rule does not apply to hubpages or to a list of other basic resource sites like Wikipedia.
I have never heard of this rule being applied to links *to* hubs. You can link to other hubs as much as you want.
We shall never understand the inconsistencies of HP. To get back to this thread about the dreaded Related Search ads, please Vote about it here http://simeyc.hubpages.com/hub/Related-Searches
by Bestedex3 years ago
by Paul Goodman5 years ago
Article for discussion. I know that this recent development has already been mentioned by some hubbers in forums. But I am now wondering if this might be the main reason why we are seeing the current traffic...
by Tony Casey6 years ago
Hi AllHow many links are you allowed to your web site?
by Marisa Wright5 years ago
Whether I agree with HP's new policies or not, I respect the site's right to set their own rules. However, I think one of the reasons Hubbers are getting upset isthey're getting warnings based on rules they don't...
by Bill Yovino4 years ago
Hi All,I received an email from Hubpages -"We are writing to notify you that your Hub contains Unrelated Links or Products. Your Hub remains published, giving you the chance to address this violation."There...
by Dorian Bodnariuc12 months ago
"Paranoia" must think some of you, and honestly, I used to think the same. I didn't even believe that this was possible, even though Google mentioned that they have ways to detect link spamming. But the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.