A Few Observations Concerning the Recent Traffic Failure
Exactly the same for me! Some of my oldest sites have not been touched in forever (not even sure if I could remember the password at this point. They have no pictures, polls, etc., and I do not allow comments. Yet, they are making me nearly all my money in Adsense right now. Thankfully, because this profile has died. One of my oldest and most successful hubs has earned in a week what it was earning consistently every day. So, so, sad.
I see what you're saying, John, but what happens if we don't show up on Google? We, as writers, are providing the best material for our viewers, so we want to show up on the first page if possible. Right?
You missed one, but I see Hollie beat me to it....................
First, I don't pretend to know the answers (or anything about anything, for that matter), but a lot of the following questions, doubts, maybe frustrations, have been gnawing at me for quite awhile now; so, in the interest of "throwing out there" some thoughts from - maybe - another perspective (even though they may useless or things that have already been thought of a zillion times by HP, itself), I figured I'd err on the side of trying offer - maybe - at least some morsel of another "take" (or of a take that someone else hasn't yet written about) in the interest of trying to offer input from the perspective of just one more Hubber (and searcher). (Apologies for the length of post here - and I'm not even including all the stuff that's been "gnawing".
) I don't assume anyone will even want to read all this, or cares about my personal "thoughts on the matter"; but right now doesn't seem like a time to stay silent. So I don't know... here goes.
I respect and understand that this is HP's site - not mine; that any site/business, of course, has its right to decide what its aims are and what kind of material is wanted. That's how it works in offline freelance writing. It's how it works pretty much anywhere that anyone writes. I know, too, that I'm certainly not the one who has built this site (or any similar), or who is even knowledgeable enough to do that kind of work. This is why I've never been all that free to voice opinions/criticism of how things have gone on with this site. I have, though, been watching the evolution of the Internet and Internet-writing for years now, though; and paying close to attention to trends at any number of levels observable by the "interested-yet-still-casual" observer". Other than that, I'm mainly offering thoughts from the perspective of a person, a writer, a reader, and - only occasionally, because I'm not particularly a big fan of what is found on the Internet - a searcher.
_________________________________________________________________
I read PE's article, and I very much agree that if Google would out-and-out say what it expected of this site a whole lot of people would simply decide to either do that ("honestly") or else just do something else. In the meantime, though, Google won't "just out-and-out say" - so that's out. My "issue" with a lot of the changes on here has been that Google comes out and makes a big deal about saying that people shouldn't try to "make Google happy", and yet standards that have been implemented on this site are essentially aimed at least trying to do just that. On the one hand, with the role that search traffic plays in the success/failure of this site and writers on it, it makes perfect sense for HP to try to get a reading on what "seems to do well" with Google. When all is said and done, though, it amounts to trying to please Google ("legitimate"/fair reason or not).
I understand if the aim is to be nothing but a "glossy magazine looking" site with images that accompany words. There are those magazines in the print world too. Not all magazines are all pictures. Some are all pictures, some are a mix of different types of articles/material, some "more serious" magazines have few pictures with their "main" articles. So, depending on what HP has in mind with regard to what it wants to be, stay, become... Maybe those requirements for/encouragements for x number of images/capsules etc. are just very important parts of HP's aim for its own site. I, personally, think the emphasis on all those extras on every Hub -regardless of the type of Hub/subject it is, have overshadowed the matter of offering high-quality material in the text capsules on Hubs. In the "real world" writing is supposed to do the job it is intended to do, so "high-quality" is most often a matter of whether the writing does that job. It might be a sales ad, an op-ed piece, an annual report, a humor piece - whatever. Now, maybe HP only wants that one kind of Hub on its site. That's its business and right. I believe it was Simone who wrote a Hub about the difference between "formal writing" and "content", and who essentially pointed out that "formal writing" isn't wanted on the Internet; and that "high-quality content" is. This was kind of at the height of the "we're making big changes" thing on this site.
Essentially driven away were all Hubs/Hubbers who had anything that at all hinted of "commercial" (and some of those Hubs were decent quality for what their aim was). Then essentially discouraged from writing on here have been the people who do "formal writing" (including non-fiction, own-unique-voice, writing). Researched non-fiction is, of course, encouraged; but unless someone writes what might amount to a short, well researched book; researched-info articles are pretty much re-hashes of the research that's already out there - and on sites with a whole lot more "authority" than this one.
My thinking has been that this site ought to prohibit, along with things like "flat abs" or "build credit" Hubs, INFORMATION Hubs on subjects that people expect genuine authority/expertise on when searching. To me, it wouldn't involve prohibiting writing about those subjects, as long as it was made good and clear that Hub was from a "my concerns about", "my experience with", "what I think the public needs to be aware" of type of angle. Ironically, the seemingly almost universal belief that the only "high quality" material is information-from-research could (at least I suspect) potentially be backfiring on a site like this. Maybe not, of course. It's just something that HAS occurred to me.
What it looks to me has happened is that with the emphasis on aiming for "search friendly" (again, reasonable and sensible enough in this business) has turned HP into a site that is full of either search-friendly-but-not-particularly-human-browser/reader-friendly. That's great for the stuff that is "way above the quality line" enough that it does well with Google. It's not great for the majority of those SEO-aimed Hubs that don't stand out above the rest - and let's face it, a lot of people aren't great at making the actual "words part" of the Hub stand out without the help of pictures (and "what-not"); but a lot of searchers who want info want words that stand out first and may only in SOME types of searches care much about the images. And - as, in education-related discussions people refer to "teaching-to-the-test" - it very much has looked to me as if a whole lot of people are on this site are "producing Hubs to the 'test'", rather than a) truly asking what they have (or can get) to offer a user/reader, and/or b) truly aiming to go well above and beyond the minimal standard beyond just x number of pictures and other capsules. I don't know how HP staff thinks, but I'm not even sure that those guidelines/standards for x number of non-text capsules are "written in granite" as far as their idea of quality goes; but even if they're not, a whole lot of Hubbers have interpreted them as just that and interpreted all Hubs that don't exactly meet those (HubPages' own) standards/ideas about how to "add quality" to a Hub. So, while even HP, itself, may not actually think pictures are the most important thing in a Hub; a whole lot of Hubbers sure seem to think that.
Respectfully (and I really do mean that, because I do respect and appreciate the efforts, accomplishments, and apparent integrity/character of Paul Edmondson). PE posted a forum post "ages ago" with a link to a blog about food, and there was a reference to how great the blog looked and how great the images on it were. I clicked, and I'd agree that the images were impressive. The blog was "all pink and glossy-looking" (and actually had a grammar "issue" in, if I recall, a "major" line on the page); and no doubt the big pictures of food were attractive (as pictures of food go). I kept looking for some substance on the blog, though, and I keep seeing - like - links to other stuff that still didn't have much substance. It was a very pretty looking page for those inclined to "food-picture-looking", but if there was any substance or real information on that blog I sure as heck couldn't find it - and believe me I went looking. Maybe I just missed it; but one point that Google has always made (besides the whole thing about substance and quality) is that users should easily be able to find what they're looking for.
There are so many different types of pieces of writing, and if fluff and pictures and quickie snippets of information (or else info regurgitated from research already available online) are what HP wants its site to be that's not my call or business. If the aim/idea, however, is to offer a mix of writing of different types and on different subjects I don't think one-size-fits-all quality works. What can be confusing to users is that, on the one hand, HP allows fiction and poetry and some "non-researched-info" Hubs. It allows other, non-fiction, type of Hubs than straight "info-only", and even mentions "insight" and a few other things for those new to sign up. They've added "long form" and "magazine style" (if I have the wording correctly) these days; but, again, there are a lot of magazines, some of which have 3000-word articles or first-person stories with pretty much no images on the page.
HP had been a rich mix of stuff that included loads of good writing, as well, of course, as the loads of "crud". Now it looks to me like a lot of the crud/spammy stuff is still out there, the fiction and poetry are still on here, and there are still a few Hubs offered by writers who have the audacity to think they have unique experience, information and/or insight and the nerve to think they have something worthwhile to offer "from their head" or in their own voice - but then there are all the kind of " still somewhat flimsy" in a lot of cases, "info-only", researched Hubs. That, though, goes to how many people want to put in the time, effort, research, and whatever else to come up with "way above flimsy-ish" - only to have no guarantee of pay, the risk of theft (and stuff that has appeal also has appeal to thieves) and/or the risk that it might be unfeatured (when the person may not have otherwise have put in all the effort if he weren't trying to write a Hub, rather than something else).
To me, what it looks like has happened on this site (and don't go by my Hubs these days, because I've been doing all kinds of experimenting with them; so honestly, I kind of hate them all and certainly don't think they're an example of a "quality Hub") is that some of the efforts aimed at increasing the level of quality on the site have, in some ways, resulted in a kind "blight" with regard to uniqueness, true substance, true "passion" about the subjects (and not just "passion" for aiming to "get tons of traffic and make a lot of money" with whatever it is they do write online). (And please: Don't post the whole thing about how nobody will earn money if they don't get search engines traffic and how "pleasing" search engines is the only thing anyone has to worry about to get that traffic. Most everybody on this site already and/or w/ an Ad Sense acct has known that "news flash info" for years.) ). It's a different Internet world now, and there isn't going to be a whole lot of traffic to stuff that doesn't measure up in quality - at least not from Google and not for now.
The Internet originally was its own little world that operated its own way, largely because of limitations of technology. It was a "whole different thing" from "the real world". Over time more and more "non-technical" people began to inhabit the Internet world, and for awhile they needed to learn how to function in it. As it has become more and more "non-technical-person" friendly, it has become a bigger and bigger part of the larger world; and the larger world began to impose its standards for quality on the Internet, as far as I can tell. I understand that there are people with far more expertise than I in "the whole Internet workings in general", but it also seems to me that while some of that "specialized" thinking is obviously important and valuable; at the same time a whole lot of people are still hanging onto the idea that the Internet is a separate world from the larger world - and it no longer is. For example, the common Internet belief that "Nobody reads any more," is just not true. Maybe a lot of Internet people don't read, but "real-world" people still read - and a lot of them are the ones who expect higher quality online (or else they'll leave and find something other than "content" somewhere else). I'm not saying that a whole lot of "conventional wisdom" about what people online want is wrong. I'm saying, though, that it is a "tunnel vision" approach that doesn't factor in a whole lot of standards or people from that larger world, which is now the same world in which the Internet exists. Advertisers and searchers are "larger world" people - not just people who live in the Internet world, Internet-writing world, content world. Sometimes a lot of people forget that, I think.
One other thought: I wonder if a site like HubPages (or even if Google, that sort of does this a little now in some ways) would be better off having "more obviously and 'dramatically'" divided sections for different types of Hubs (maybe rather than, say, subdomains). I know there are now templates for things like reviews and recipes, but I wonder if a more clear-cut and obvious "categorization" would make it easier for HP to have a set of standards for different types of, say, non-fiction Hubs (maybe "how to's" would be one section of the site, something like "personal insight" stuff would be another, and - as someone recently suggested on the forums - something like "opinion" would be another section).
I can't help but think that rather than trying to complete with one or another type of other sites, assessing what this one has to offer and offering it in the best and highest-quality-looking (and "being") way possible is the way to stand out (rather than looking like a "wannabe" copy of other sites).
______________________________________________________________
In any case, I hope Paul Edmondson and others understand that none of this has been intended to be a criticism of HP, and has only been an attempt to offer that "different perspective" (if it's all that different at all anyway) "from the HP trenches". Simone commented that she wished a lot of people on here could know the HP adm better and see how caring (or whatever word she used) they are. I'm fairly certain a whole lot of people on here have a pretty good idea and have tremendous respect for what this site was built up to be, as well as the efforts being put in to make the site better. If there's one thing I've learned in life it's that things can get better and/or be held together when people act like a family and decide to work together - not when people act like a bunch of squabblers and fight with one another or put others down. Please forgive the "rah rah" speech, but I think with the present difficult times people on here should aim to have that "pull together" kind of thinking - not the "rip the site and/or everyone else on it but oneself and one's own ideas" to shreds verbally. I'm not saying people who don't want to stay should stay, but, to me, as long as anyone keeps coming back it would be more constructive in general to offer input, ideas, concerns without implying or out-and-out saying that "everyone else" who does things differently than the one doing the "offering" is "bringing the site down with their crap". I can't help but think that a whole lot of people who have disappeared from this site may have done so not because they weren't willing to ride out some traffic/earnings problems, but because that negative "flavor" of so many people on here often seems to have become the "overall attitude" on the site. (If I click "submit" on this particular "airing of months' worth of pondering/stewing/wonder/doubting it won't be without having to tell myself, "Oh, stop making a big deal about things and just go ahead and post what you think someone ought to say." Here goes (apparently 
) (Damn this insecurity I have about so often having a lot to say and also having the typing speed that lets me say it so easily. )paradigmsearch, thank you. I feel at least a little better about it.
Will, (The "off-the-chest" thing sometimes builds up for months, even years, before I finally manage to do it, though.
) You ought to hear what people in my personal life have to hear about from, say, 1989 - or occasionally, even 1959
I think (maybe) I know what you're saying. I've often thought about how that list is out there, with regarding to what Google's looking for. The one thing I do often think about is how Google tells "everyone" not to write with the idea of what might do well in search, or what Google might "like"; and so many changes seem to come from aiming to do well in search. When I read PE's article, though, I interpreted what he was saying as Google's not being willing to tell HP what it ought to be doing/requiring on the site - that kind of thing. Maybe I interpreted incorrectly..
My traffic has been getting really ugly. I thought I had escaped this latest Google fiasco, but apparently not. And then I had one of my rocket surgeon insights. I went and looked at how I was doing a year ago, a month-to-month comparison. My traffic is higher this year than last year. Bang, accurate perception/perspective reestablished. As long as my traffic remains higher this year than last year, I won't defenestrate myself.
My traffic has gone down hard due to the last Panda Update. I used the [url=http://www.barracuda-digital.co.uk/panguin-tool/]Baracuda Panguin Tool which tells you when the latest Panda/Penguin updates where released and how your traffic fared. As you can see from the graph below, mine went down a lot after the update. Try the tool, did you get impacted?
If this is what Google "softening Panda" looks like, I must say that I preferred the hard version!
It's reached the point where I've decided to have fun with it, so to speak. I've set up a one-click access to my GA August 2012 daily traffic chart. Every morning I will compare this year's date with last year's date. If this year's date is higher, all is well. If this year's date is lower, defenestration plans will commence.
here it is
Another one for data since February.
There is GOOD EVIDENCE that RELATED SEARCH ADS have triggered the DECLINE for HP - Too many ads. They were introduced mid to late March.
Thank you Janderson for providing proof in the pudding of what we thought was the culprit of decline all along: The dreaded misleading so called Related Search Adds.
Have you emailed this picture to Paul Edmondson?
I have duplicated the picture on Paul's own thread here:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/114897? … ost2447779
With a little luck he may look at it at think again about the Related Search Adds fiasco.
Related Discussions
- 361
I really think this Idled hubs idea is ridiculous
When it was first introduced I was annoyed by it but made an effort to tweak my hubs to get them out of Idle status. Now, a whole load have got zzs against them again and many of them are hubs that at one point were very successful and even now still have scores above 70 or higher.One of the hubs...
- 64
Will having non featured hubs lower your overall rating/score?
I'm thinking the answer is probably yes?If you have hubs that have been deemed "not featured", for one reason or another, will that factor into lowering your overall score/rating as a HubPages member? Example--let's say your overall rating is 75. If 10 non featured hubs become...
- 56
Is HubPages finally cleaning up the site by leaving the trash behind?
Only the best Hubs on HubPages are being moved to niches, so everything on the niche sites is spam free and trash free. There are no pieces written in broken English or written in ways that appear to be spun. Everything that's low quality is left behind. Even the ads are high-quality on the niche...
- 120
How Does Idling of Good Quality Pages with Low Traffic Benefit HP?
Many good quality pages are Idled (become unfeatured) via ‘Analysis of the how engaged readers are with a Hub over an extended period of time’ – essentially because they get low traffic.It appears that this process was initiated to reduce the number of ‘low quality’ pages on the site. The concept...
- 163
HubPages earnings
I am writing articles for this website since past 3 months. At present, I have 38 featured and published hubs. I have joined for Amazon and google Adsense program. Past two months I earned like very less amount, less than 1/2 dollar. If I continue writing and publishing at the rate of one article...
- 112
We're Updating Featured Hub Grace Periods and Quality Thresholds
Happy Friday, Hubbers!Next week we will be raising the quality threshold for newly-published Hubs (meaning newly-Featured Hubs will, on the whole, be of higher quality) and will also be giving Featured Hubs (for those with high Hubber Scores) longer grace periods- up to a year for some.More...