How many times have there been forums posts regarding this "experiment" of featuring and un-featuring" hubs due to traffic and trying to guess what Google wants.
Experts with probably more expertise than anyone at HP have said over and over that no-follow attributes can and will hurt a site. Yet HP continues un-featuring hubs that in their opinion are not getting enough traffic etc...etc...etc...
Not too long ago I believe it was paradigmsearch, that introduced a forum post where this was touched upon (again) and we still do not get answers or results from HP demonstrating that the "experiment" actually works.
Until it can be substantiated that un-featuring hubs benefits someone, shouldn't all hubs be featured?
BTW how many authors have gotten so fed up with this "thing" that they have actually left HP????
My opinion: HP is headed downhill fast and they are feebly attempting to stop it.
Any company that would allow someone in another country to duplicate the entire website and not do something about it is in real trouble. Maybe they are the ones copying the site for profit which the authors do not get a share of.
But on the other hand I'm grateful for my 10 cents a day.
Let's be specific here - you are talking about Hubs being unFeatured for "lack of engagement", not for quality reasons - am I right? On that score, I agree that an update is overdue. We do know why the system was introduced. Derek explained it.
HubPages had identified an urgent need to remove all low-quality content, because it's known that the Panda score is based on a site's poorest quality posts (regardless of how good its best is). UnFeaturing for low traffic was a fast way to do that - because it would remove all posts which Google didn't like, meaning it would catch all the poor quality stuff. Yes, it would also remove good Hubs with low searches, but in the circumstances, that was acceptable collateral damage - HubPages' survival was at stake.
Then the QAP was implemented, with a goal to put every Hub through QAP. That should've rendered the "low traffic" filter unnecessary. I don't know why they haven't removed it and it would be good to have an explanation.
Yes, I was alluding to the un-featuring of a hub because "lack of traffic". Staff does monitor these forums as evidenced by Mr. Meyer's responses and to round off the answer; my query is based on whether or not this process is actually working. If it is then I am willing to accept "collateral damages". I agree with you , we should get some sort of explanation.
Thanks for you insight into this issue.
This invidious policy means I do not currently plan to add to my collection of hubs any more.
Actually, it has had positive results for me, although not in the way HP would like. I moved five or so hubs away to a web site I set up, added a couple more pages and already am making more in Adsense and the odd Amazon sale from that than I make here, as well as having the satisfaction that no one will censor what I choose to feature there.
Since my hosting comes as part of a package I subscribe to primarily for other reasons, it's a win-win situation for me and a loss for HP.
Un-featuring a hub is a quick way of HP clearing out the crap that google does not like.... If google does not send traffic then de-indexing it removes it from the site in the eyes of google. In theory this can only help the site.. However it also hits well written hubs that get no traffic.... But then if they are not getting traffic how does it hurt you??
People should look at the pages that are being de-indexed and ask themselves why it is happening - it is not HP failing to send traffic; the hub is not attracting traffic from Google and the author should ask themselves why..
If there are already 100 hubs on that subject on HP then the answer will be simply to move it to another platform as you are competing not just against other websites but the content here also, google is not going to list 100 pages from HP in the search results just the top couple in its opinion.. The other option is to work on your titles and keywords so that you are not directly competing against older better performing hubs.
If no one searches for your search term / keywords / title then you will never get traffic - featured or not featured!
If there is excessive strong competition then again you are unlikely to ever get traffic.
You make a strong point. However, I would like to know the results (does it actually work). My understanding is that un-featured hubs are not seen in searches and are tagged with no follow attributes. Experts are saying that this is not good for a site (individual and site wide).
It also affects hubs that were getting huge amounts of traffic and due to perhaps the season, stop receiving traffic but have the potential of picking up again if they can be found by someone searching for the topic, if the "season" returns or the topic becomes a viable one.
Constantly editing a hub to make it featured is time wasting and can potentially make the edits completely change the original intent of it.
A little "sharing of knowledge" about the effects of this policy may put this topic to rest and let us move forward.
There are many "experts" on here and on the internet in general that have their own opinions - few however back up what they say with real data and factual evidence.. Even if they did Google would probably change everything 5 mins later and it would be invalid.
While I may not agree with everything that HP does they have the ability to see the effect of these and other changes they have made to the site and I am sure that they would not do something that is going to destroy not only our views but theirs also..
They have been talking about using the QAP results and the author score etc to alter the time frame before a hub would become un-featured and I certainly have seen some changes. I had a couple of hubs that were part of a set which saw only limited traffic, they have been un-featured a few times in the past but now they are featured and have remained so even though they get limited traffic.
what leanman said is exactly what I would say. But to answer your question about seasonal hubs.
I do have seasonal hubs (currently in season) and they get around 200+ views a day. But other times 5 - 10 at max. I even have a hub with just 3 visits in a month and it's featured. Being featured doesnt depend on traffic. It's all the quality (What's good quality and what's not calls for a whole new debate). Mturk people rate it and if it's featured it remains featured until you make any changes to the hub.
Not so. If it subsequently has insufficient traffic, it will be unFeatured for "lack of engagement".
I agree, which is why I don't do it. If a Hub has been unFeatured for lack of traffic, I do some research to see why it's not getting traffic - is it just that the search volume is too low? Is there too much competition? Has it been stolen and the stolen copy is outranking me? Or is there some way I can improve it to attract traffic, like better keywords, more varied media, more content?
If the changes are not likely to attract more traffic, then there is no point in tweaking just to get it back through QAP and featured again - it's not going to make you any money, anyway.
By the way, that's why just changing the title gets your Hub featured - because it goes back through QAP every time you make a change, and naturally the quality is good enough for it to get Featured again. But that's not going to boost its traffic, just put it back where it was.
This transcript of what Matt Cutts says in a video is pretty telling:
“I’ve talked about this a little bit in the past, but it’s worth mentioning again. rel=’nofollow’ means the PageRank won’t flow through that link as far as discovering the link, PageRank computation [and] all that sort of stuff. So, for internal links – links within your site – I would try to leave the nofllow off, so if it’s a link from one page on your site to another page on your site, you want that PageRank to flow. You want Googlebot to be able to find that page. So almost every link within your site – that is a link going from one page on your site to another page on your site – I would make sure that the PageRank does flow, which means leaving off the nofollow link.”
http://www.webpronews.com/google-dont-u … ks-2013-09
That is about making a link no-follow, not about not indexing the page. Different issues..
Yup totally different. No-indexing is helping the site. Look at the traffic on quantcast. All other rev sharing sites traffic drops while HP remains good. You'd think after getting rid of thousands (no indexing) traffic should have had a drop as even the trickle adds up right?
But, the HP traffic still remains high as where it was a few months before they made this change. Even better I guess
To see if I understood what you said: when a hub becomes un-featured, it gets a no follow attribute and gets de-indexed. So if this is correct, then how can the hub become featured (receives traffic) again without the constant editing.
I can understand a hub becoming un-featured if it is poor quality but some of my hubs have gone from featured to un-featured despite being 2-3 years old with large amounts of past traffic but with recent low traffic statistics.
I may be wrong in my assumptions but I believe that traffic is the main driving force behind featuring/un-featuring hubs instead of quality.
This can have the effect of making authors keep writing and editing constantly.
Not true. The people at mturk are paid to review each piece. This happens only after you edit/publish a hub. If the quality is good, it doesn't go back to them no matter what your traffic conditions.
Your 2 - 3 year old hubs have been taken down due to some quality aspect (In their eyes, not that your work is bad quality, TBH i've not read any of your hubs). But just saying that there was a lot of backlog and so some old hubs may get unfeatured as they pass through the system.
My issue is that some recent hubs passed mturk review, were featured and after some months became un-featured. What I noticed is that while they were receiving traffic they were just fine but after a lull in traffic then they became un-featured. Thus my assumption that it is based on traffic rather than quality.
The hubs is question were recipes. When published they were featured after approximately 24 hours (I assume because they passed the mturk review). They were receiving a decent number of views, then the views became a trickle and then they were un-featured.
How can I then assume that it is due to quality and not traffic?
Is it fair to assume that Mturk does it initially and then HP does it for lack of traffic?
That is what it appears to be. But until we get some clarification I see no other way to be sure.
Featured status is dependent on the QAP which evaluates content for quality and has a reader engagement component as well.
You can find further explanation in the FAQ here.
In other words; it's featured first due to quality (mturk) and it stays featured or not depending on traffic.. Is this correct?
Thank you , that clears it and makes more sense. I can argue with quality but views is another matter and that is not due to anything that HP does but rather the content I chose to write about.
Thank you Mr. Meyer.
... and as has been pointed out many times before, that means Shakespeare, Darwin, Sartre and many other great names of literature, science and philosophy, were they living and eager Hubbers, would probably find their hubs rapidly became censored for "lack of engagement". Meanwhile, empty content for the feeble-minded masses continues to be feted.
As far as I am concerned, this means the world has definitely reached an all-time low in the 21st century!
And you are probably right....like always.
I suspect those writers would not work as content writers. Or if they did, they would adapt to be successful at it. Shakespeare was not some nobleman amusing himself--he did what was necessary to appeal to the public and make money. Even if that meant sucking up to rich patrons with praise sonnets or adding rude jokes to his plays.
I don't follow? HubPages is marking un Featured Hubs with a "no follow" so why isn't it the same thing?
I don't know if it was an effective strategy or not. But I found it was a pretty low bar to get over so I guess it did not bother me too much.
Is the unfeaturing an automatic thing or is there someone at the controls who can tell if an older hub with lower views is actually of superior quality?
I would think any "no follow" or "no indexing" on content is a negative act. Basically, it is telling the search engines that you think your site contains s*ite.
Anyway, I'm not going to invest any more effort here while this policy is in place.I find it insulting and offensive.
My Adsense earnings today on my own site are equivalent to about a week's earnings on Hubpages (Ad program + Adsense + Ebay). The material that forms the core of my site hardly ever got any views while it was here in the form of hubs despite being well researched and well written. Strange that it should finally take off after being moved to a site with less than ten pages.
No matter what HP does or does not do their tactics don't seem to effect my numbers one way or another. Their tactics do succeed in discouraging me. Are they trying to do that? I was lured to this community with the only stipulation: write what you love and participate. I'm still doing both!
Another of my points. Last night I published a hub. A couple of hours later I got the message from HP that my hub could be featured. I looked at it and sure enough it was not featured.
I changed the title and nothing else, re-published it and guess what? It is featured.
Assuming this is a quality issue then why changing just the title makes it now be feature quality?
The FAQ section helps but does not give a definite answer as to what matters most. I still hold that views play a more crucial role than quality does.
If this turns out to be true then it can be detrimental to some authors depending on what topic makes the bulk of their writing.
Another point: Just now, I took a hub from another site to HP, having deleted it from the other site first. HP email me saying that they have unpublished my hub as it is a duplicate......????? Nowhere in their terms does it state that you can't publish a hub that used to be published elsewhere. They even stated that if I continue to attempt to publish duplicate material, I will be banned. This happened once, and I have done nothing wrong.
Surely this happens a lot and they could update the T's&C's?
The terms of service does prohibit content that is published elsewhere.
If you move content from another site, please allow 5-12 days from it being unpublished before you try to publish it on HubPages. This way you should avoid it showing as duplicate.
If you believe the issue has been resolved, then you can submit your Hub to be evaluated for publication.
Check to make sure there aren't millions of copies of your article floating around the internet. That happened to me when one of my articles was copied and pasted everywhere, and I moved it to HP. After filing numerous DMCA notices, I got all but two of the copies removed, and emailed HP the archive of the original page at archive.org. HP staff then marked my hub as original and let it be published.
I don't worry about the featuring or un-featuring of hubs. Once a dozen of my hubs became un- featured and then when I revised them they became featured. Sometimes the hubs become featured and un- featured on their own. So I think it is not a serious matter. But I am no expert in SEO and traffic etc.
What I do is tweak them or come up with another article either in HP or in my blogger account to link the weak articles. I did that recently to boost up 2 or 3 articles that were not getting any traffic. The downside, is that my hubber score went down 3 notches. Well, I know that if some of my work will not get enough traffic, they might be unfeatured too. So I tweak them every now and then. Hopefully, that helps.
by Shauna L Bowling18 months ago
I recently had a hub un-featured for engagement, as the half-circle indicates. I think this is an unfair practice and should be eliminated entirely. Here's why I feel this way:Our hub traffic is often affected by the...
by qeyler11 days ago
I've been writing here for quite a few years, I go back to the ancient era before the 'featured' 'not featured' declension.I have found that 'fixing' a Hub which is not featured is a total waste of time, as in a day or...
by Luis E Gonzalez3 years ago
From what I have seen featuring /not featuring a hub does little for traffic and it appears to be a catalyst that is sending authors to other sites (Bubblews comes to mind). My understanding is that once a hub becomes...
by TIMETRAVELER217 months ago
Awhile back the team started unfeaturing articles due to lack of traffic. Many here think this is a bad idea, and I agree. Doing this upsets many writers and has nothing to do with quality or how Google...
by Lena Kovadlo4 years ago
If a hub is not featured does that mean that it doesn't get any search engine traffic from Google or other search engines?
by Simone Haruko Smith4 years ago
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...
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.