According to Paul Deeds' forum post, transfers of articles on Squidoo are beginning today. Has anyone had their account transferred yet? If so, how did it go?
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/123836? … ost2621573
I can't seem to find the link that says it, but I think this was put off till the 1st or 2nd of September?
EDIT: It was on the Squidoo Blog if I remember right
The info is on the forum post I linked. Here's what Paul Deeds said:
"I can't speak with 100% authority about what will happen on the Squidoo side in regard to locking of accounts and deleting of lenses, but on our side we are going to start moving accounts that opted in beginning as soon as August 25."
Ooh okay. Lindasmith had linked about the new change in date from Squidoo's end someplace else. I'm waiting for someone who just moved over to post as well. Wanna see what they look like
Me, too. I don't have a Squidoo account, but this whole scenario is mind-boggling.
With all you technical savvy, Writer Fox, I can't imagine you being mind-boggled!
I've tried to stay out of this whole transfer discussion, but you know that I always answer your questions so I guess I have to say something now.
My mind is boggled that HP agreed to accept 175,000 pages of content (featured to search engines) from a failed website that only made $18,640 last month from its major advertising income. Hardly enough to pay the Squidoo salaries for 15 people! I am also stunned that HP agreed, according to Seth Godin's Blog, to take on 7,000 pages of content from HugDug, since many of those pages only have 100 words of content. Notice the words Seth used: "HubPages is acquiring the key assets . . ." This is not a sale, nor is it a merger. The content being transferred is owned by the writers, not the website. It looks to me like Seth found a way to get out from under the financial drain without too much egg on his very public face. HP can certainly use some more good writers; however, it needs content that will make money, not drain money and resources.
For the individual Squidoo writers, I think this decision is a good thing for them because:
1) Their content might perform better on HP;
2) Their content will have a place to live, at least temporarily, when Squidoo pulls the plug in September.
In remains to be seen what increasing the content available to search engines by 52% over the course of 30 days will do to this website, not to mention that much of the new content will duplicate ideas (a big Google Panda No-No) already on the HP site.
This huge Seth Godin failure barely garnered a few paragraphs on search engine news sites. Godin, it seems, is not the big news that he perhaps was years ago.
Squidoo traffic began a nosedive in October, 2012, and has hit rock bottom.
By this time next month, scientists will begin to dissect this Squid impact on HP's presently stellar stats. Wait for it.
Do the quote functions not work? I did as instructed and can see the quotes in preview but they're not coming through on publication. I'll add them in again - so apologies to those who see them twice!
"[Writer Fox]The content being transferred is owned by the writers, not the website. ......HP can certainly use some more good writers; however, it needs content that will make money, not drain money and resources.
"[Writer Fox]In remains to be seen what increasing the content available to search engines by 52% over the course of 30 days will do to this website, not to mention that much of the new content will duplicate ideas (a big Google Panda No-No) already on the HP site.
There's no copyright on ideas - that's a basic principle of copyright. The fact that there might be two hubs on the same topic will, I assume, mean that the better site will do better - and the second site will also be improved as a result.
Any content (i.e. words and images) which duplicates content on HubPages was out of order on Squidoo before any mention of the merger/acquisition - just as much as it would have been if it were the other way round.
The notion that much of the content duplicates what's already on Squidoo is a bit insulting to lensmasters don't you think? That suggests that most of the lensmasters are out and out plagiarists. Not helpful IMO.
One of the things which will keep good writers and the external traffic that their sites already generate is the way they are treated as they arrive at HubPages. We know we're very lucky to have somewhere to go - however I'm sure we would all agree that nobody deserves to be treated in a way which is offensive whether they are 'oldhands' or 'newbies'.
From everything I've heard from people who have been lensmasters/hubbers for some years the problem exists on both sites - and the system for sorting this out is better on HubPages.
The major points are:
* the matter will resolve itself - the grace period is only 4 months
* as of Sunday it's now very apparent that a very significant amount of content has already left the Squidoo site and will not be coming to HubPages. The nature of the lensrank shifts suggest that there's good reason to think that a lot of this content was in the top 175,000 lenses when the deal was done.
* many people are only bringing their lenses here because they had just a WEEK to sort matters out. (You try moving 150+ sites in a week!). A lot of the content will be going to other sites within the 4 month period - but over a much more manageable timescale and hopefully without any knee-jerk reactions having been backed into a corner.
How did you calculate the 52%? I'm interested to know which numbers you used
Agreed about a significant amount of content disappearing on Squidoo. The ranking on all of my lenses took a huge jump over the weekend. I think a lot of people are either clearing out stuff that won't transfer, or moving it to other sites.
The notion that much of the content duplicates what's already on Squidoo is a bit insulting to lensmasters don't you think? That suggests that most of the lensmasters are out and out plagiarists.
You have misinterpreted the post. He didn't say the articles are word-for-word duplicates, his point is that the same subjects people wrote about on Squidoo have already been covered here.
For example, people wrote about the best accessories for such and such phone on Squidoo. At the same time, people have been writing about the best accessories for such and such phone on HP. The point is, will HP really benefit from having more articles about the best accessories for such and such phone?
HubPages is confident that some of the Squidoo articles are better than some of the present Hub content. That's what acquiring content is about. They also are betting some of the most-active users are going to be interested in coming over.
In the last four years, the published registered users on this site have gone from about 3 million down to less than 60,000. To get a group of experienced and content writers and their vetted, key content is a strategic move.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Yup the recent changes etc have made a few good writers leave over the few years that I've been here. On the other hand, after the featured hubs business and QAP came into force most hubbers who had just 1 hub etc got dropped down into the unpublished users category. So, that's one of the major reasons the numbers have dropped down drastically.
Just thought I'd point that out to our new friends from Squidoo as they shouldn't feel that they've just got onto another ship that's sinking.
Unfortunately the word TOPICS was missed out of the post - hence the scope for misinterpretation.
My point is there is no copyright on ideas - ANYWHERE on the Internet
What's the difference between one person's lens on laptop bags on HubPages and another article about laptop bags somewhere else on the Internet - and that might have been Squidoo?
There is no difference between two hubs on HubPages and two lenses on Squidoo and two blog posts somewhere else on the Internet.
Google will rank the one which best satisfies its algorithm.
HubPages will reward the one which best satisfies its algorithm. The best Hub will be ranked highest.
P.S. I've already come across a number of Hubs which duplicate content TOPICS.
I published a Brussels sprouts recipe here yesterday. There are about 35 bazillion Brussels sprouts recipes on HubPages. Should we only have one?
No, because Brussels sprouts are delicious.
The prudent writer on HubPages will check the HP site for similar content related to his idea before beginning to write a new Hub. For example, here are the Hubs Google has indexed for Brussels sprouts:
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid= … %20sprouts
If you want to write a Hub about a recipe for Brussels sprouts and mayonnaise, check to see what other Brussels sprouts recipes are already on HP. If you find Hubs like "Brussels Sprouts with Mayonnaise", "Fluffy Mayonnaise with Brussels Sprouts" and "Cooking Brussels Sprouts in Mayonnaise", go to each Hub and make sure that you can write something better, something entirely unique and something that doesn't make the same points. If not, find something else to write about.
It's more serious than Google just ranking the best Hub. Google Panda penalizes an entire site when there is page after page of basically the same content or even with Page Titles which are too similar. The Panda thinks a site is trying to game its system when that happens.
Since we already have multiple articles on the same topic already on HP, how will adding more make a difference? Are you suggesting HubPages should include a feature that says, if someone has already written about topic A, no one else is allowed to? I hardly think so. So I can't see why WriterFox's concern is valid.
You and I can write on the same subject, and yet approach it in a different way. This is not duplication, this is simply freedom of speech. What I say about an iPhone, may not at all resemble what you say. If duplication was the case, Stephen King just wrote a whopper of a book called 11/22/63, which focused on going back in time. Then we have The Time Machine by H.G. Wells written many years ago. Each author approached the subject differently. It happens more than you might imagine.
Exactly, Nancy. Take movie reviews. We all know which professional film critics' reviews we trust to mirror our own likely reactions to a particular movie. Each film critic has a different take on a given movie. Even multiple reviewers who love or hate the film will provide somewhat different perspectives and insights in their reviews. There are very few topics, indeed, that have not been written about on the web before. It's the unique perspectives and insights that we bring to our writing that makes them worth reading, even if a visitor had already read articles on the same subject before. When I google a subject I'm really interested in, it's rare that I click on only one link in the search results. I think the sea's plenty big enough for many POVs on the same subject.
Yes I think so too. Just because I've reviewed a movie, doesn't mean the next person is going to review it the same way. I remember two reviews on the movie "Amadeus" from two writers on Squidoo. One said it was great, just raved about it. The other said it was the worst movie ever. So the opposite POV was shown right there. I think maybe it's being overthought, and I understand why HP writers would feel that way. Again, we probably would be just as worried if the situation was reversed. We all need to take a deep breath, and a wait and see attitude for now.
I don't think HP writers are feeling that way, frankly. If you look around the forums and at the discussions going on elsewhere, you can count on one hand the number of Hubbers who have expressed concern about the move. The vast majority of comments I've seen are positive.
I agree. Here's a good example from my own work - I can write two totally different reviews using the same song. (I write a lot of music reviews)
Google Panda is not about a question of copyright. If you want to know more about the algorithm and how Google looks at "duplicate ideas", see my Hub on Google Panda. This isn't a discussion about insulting you people who were writing on Squidoo; this is a discussion about the effects of adding content which duplicates ideas already on HP. If you learn more about Google Panda and what it did to the HP site in 2011, you will understand why this is an important concern to those of us who receive 95% of our Hub traffic from Google.
And, I didn't accuse anyone of plagiarism and it's offensive for you to say that I did. It's plain to see that you are angry about all of this, but you should direct your anger toward Seth Godin and his management of Squidoo.
Adding 175,000 pages available to search engines increases HP content available to search engines by 52%. (Divide the increase by the original number and multiply the answer by 100.)
I do understand about Panda. My preference on such matters is to reference what Google wrote about it at the time - primarily the very famous May 6th, 2011 post on the Google Webmaster Central blog which lays down the very precise guidelines for what make for a good quality website.
However it was also possible to discern what Panda was about over and above what makes a website a worthwhile place to visit.
Panda was basically about making Google's advertising business profitable - which depended on Google search being the place to go with queries.
Various people had worked out that they could make a lot of money by using RSS feeds and/or copying content from around the internet, placing it on new websites or blogs or article farms and draping such content with Google Ads.
* The advertisers got pretty sick of being billed for adverts which were on sites which added nothing new to the equation. Hence the need for Google to act so they could keep on persuading people to advertise - and bill them
* The publishers (including me) got very sick of having their content stolen and appearing on 'spam blogs'. Reports of content duplication were going stratospheric.
They also needed to act to avoid annoying people who searched Google and kept coming up with entries - often from resellers - which all said the same thing. In other words there was a lot of copying - or DUPLICATION - going on. Because they all said the same thing people didn't know site to go to find the answer to their query. In effect it was substitute advertising which was extremely confusing. I know I started using other search engines and I guess I was not alone......
Google acted - via Panda - to
* levy heavy penalties on duplication
* in order to stop plagiarism and cut down on duplication
* so that the focus could be on keeping content fresh with added value
* so they could improve the quality of the search results and
* keep the advertisers happy and and hence maintain/improve billing levels
The duplication has nothing to do with similar ideas. It has to do with the extent to which any new sites adds a fresh perspective and fresh content.
Nobody has a monopoly on a topic.
Introducing new writers means that it's much more likely that people will need to put more emphasis in future on coming up with a new twist on old topics - because what Google likes is fresh content by an authoritative writer which adds value.
This is item #3 from that blog post: "Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?"
Advertising and search are two separate entities at Google, operating from separate buildings at Googleplex and they do NOT collaborate.
Do you understand about sub-domains?
My blog is a sub-domain of blogger - hence it ends blogspot[dot]com
When my lenses are transferred they will be on a sub-domain of HubPages - which ends hubpages[dot]com
Do you think when Google said #3, they meant that no two Blogger blogs (which they own) could ever write about the same or similar topic or use the same keywords? The number of Blogger blogs is so big people haven't been able to calculate it.
How about extrapolating that notion to sub-domains of HubPages?
Alternatively have you researched how many HubPages there are on the topic of Google Panda - and how old yours is relative to the others? Or who else has written about the topic e.g. Paul Edmondson?
I'm interested to know what would you suggest should be the criteria for weeding out duplicate hubs writing about the same topic and using the same keywords. Or do you think there might be something in the notion of sub-domains?
I also took a look at Google's about/company/products page plus their corporate management structure. There isn't anything which suggests that Search and the GoogleAds are not aligned with overall corporate objectives. This is not a group based organisation running completely different companies around search and advertising. In fact if anything it's an organisation whose products are well aligned and integrated - and where the revenue from advertising business funds virtually everything they do.
I'll explain Google's understanding of subdomains in search results. Google will only show two or three search results from the same root domain. It ignores the subdomain division because of abuse by spammers to have more results show from a single website. Google wants diversity in results. This may or may not affect you because I have no idea what subjects you write about.
But, other people transferring content from Squidoo are going to find their search rankings may be affected. Although a 301 will immediately direct the URL, it takes Google some time (a month or two) to adjust search results to reflect that the content is now on the HP domain. When that occurs, Google will determine which two results to show from HP for a search query. So, it will be important to many writers to find out what is already on the HP site. For writers who care about traffic from Google, here is a video which explains Google's position for showing multiple results from the same root domain.
So, WF, are you saying that everyone on blogspot.com should give up right away, because their blogs are all being judged as part of the root domain instead of as standalone blogs?
I'm not WF but would say that Blogspot (Blogger) blogs will never be judged because they are Google's properties.
Do as I say... not as I do
It may not be true but it does almost always turn out that way doesn't it :-)
There is a myth that Google favours Blogger because it belongs to them, but it's not true. Google simply can't afford to do that, because it knows that such a large percentage of Blogger users are rank amateurs - so if they allowed those blogs to feature prominently in results, they would lose all credibility.
I don't use blogspot because I prefer custom programming for my websites. Can you share a link to a SERP which shows more than two blogger/blogspot subdomains for a single search query?
I think your information is outdated. By my understanding, this is the situation:
In 2007, Google decided that all sub-domains would be treated as part of the main domain.
Subsequently, that decision was changed. Now, if Google considers that the sub-domains are controlled by the same entity as the main domain, it will treat them all as one domain. However if Google considers that the sub-domains are controlled by other individuals, then each sub-domain will be treated separately.
That, in a nutshell, is why HubPages decided to introduce sub-domains where we are each responsible for our own sub-domain: so that Google would treat them individually, just as they do on Blogger.
I've been trying to find the documentation that explains it, but haven't been able to find it. Suffice it to say that in 2011 when the decision to move to sub-domains was made, it would've been pointless if HubPage hadn't understood that sub-domains were going to be treated as separate.
The video I linked to was made a year ago. And, it's not "my" information; it's from Google.
In it, Matt Cutts explains how Google's decisions about showing multiple results for the same domain have changed over time.
Yes, I know. What he does not address is the difference between sub-domains owned by the same person and sub-domains owned by different owners. He doesn't specifically say that they've removed the distinction between those two.
Google looks at subdomains on the same website. And, it really doesn't care who owns the website nor the subdomain.
Algorithmically, I think Google treats subdomains differently based on a number of factors. Here are a few.
- How many are there (a few vs thousands) across the site?
- Are subdomains organized by author vs topic?
One thing we heard from google a while back is that their algorithms treat subdomains differently if they were redirected. We've seen differences in subdomains that were originally part of HubPages vs sites that have always been on subdomains. We just don't know why.
I think today, subdomains are mostly treated as independent sites, but there is a domain wide component. A significant ranking factor is how Google judges searcher satisfaction. My theory is that if we can increase the user satisfaction for the vast majority of users, then we can lift traffic for the entire site. It may not be as much as if we were organized by a single site, or a by topic site, but we also have been able to isolate a significant number of Hubbers from possibly going down.
At the end of the day, it's about creating content that is really good. Google is building algorithms to identify content that users like. We are also building ways of measuring how satisfied users are with Hubbers content. If we all focus on this, the entire community will rise.
Google's Matt Cutts actually discusses this issue about subdomains on the same website in the video I posted:
This video was released about a year ago and the update he talks about at the end of the video is already in place.
The bottom line is, when using an encrypted search, have you recently seen more than two or three Hubs listed on a search engine results page for any query? If you have, please post the link to the SERP.
You can track them down - not too hard to find two listed. I can't remember the query, but I saw 3 results from pinterest on a single query the other day.
WF, the question you haven't answered is - does this mean that all the bloggers on Wordpress.com, Blogger.com, Weebly, Tumblr and the rest need to give up NOW and move to a self-hosted blog? Because every blog on those sites is a sub-domain. The only difference between them and HubPages is HP's over-arching topic structure and quality control measures.
It depends upon what terms people want to rank for and how much competition is already on the root domain site for those terms. You can listen to Matt's explanation yourself and you will understand that it is highly unlikely that more than two results will show high on SERPs from the same root domain. This is the current information, not what you posted here from 2007.
But, since you've stated so many times on the forum that you no longer write new Hubs, this probably won't affect you unless new content moves from Squidoo which has "duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations."
I'm not concerned with how it affects me, I'm interested in your interpretation of the rules as it affects the wider blogging population.
So, are you saying that if someone wants to write a post on their blogspot blog, they need to check up on all the other blogs on Blogger to see if there is already a post on that topic? Or is it only material on the root domain they have to worry about (and since their is no material on the root domain, it's not a problem?)
Anyone who wants traffic from Google should always check the competition on search results and stay up-to-date with Google's announcements.
You're still not addressing the issue. Of course writers should be researching the competition on the internet generally, but you're addressing the specific issue of only two or three results being returned per domain.
If you are right in your interpretation - that is, that all sub-domains are treated exactly the same way - then when a search is done, Google will select only two or three Blogspot blogs to be included in the SERPs, because every Blogspot blog is a sub-domain. Whereas all self-hosted blogs are judged separately, and there are no limits to how many of those can be included.
So, that would be an enormous handicap for anyone writing on Blogspot, or Wordpress.com, or Tumblr etc. If that's the case, why isn't it being more widely discussed by bloggers? I find it a bit hard to believe that Google would throw away the distinction that used to exist, between sub-domains which are wholly owned and managed by the root domain owner, and sub-domains which are owned and managed by separate individuals.
Matt really did discuss this issue thoroughly. If you just take time to listen to that 4 minute video, I think he explains it very well.
If I take the video at face value and the update applied to all sub-domains, then yes, everyone should've closed down their blogs on Blogger, Wordpress.com, Tumblr etc on the day the update was launched. That didn't happen, there wasn't an outcry, there has been no concern from anyone about it - so I think there must be more to it.
And if an exception has been made for sub-domains which belong to individual users, then that would apply just as much to HubPages as it would to Wordpress.com, Blogger etc.
So, one more time - do you think that the video applies to all sub-domains, including individual blogs on Blogspot, Wordpress, Tumblr etc - simple yes or no answer?
I think you should take the video at face value. And, professional bloggers don't use sites like Blogger, Wordpress or Tumblr to host their blogs. A subdomain only "belongs" to the registered owner of the root domain. There is no domain registry for subdomains. As far as people knowing this information, they've known it for years. Subdomains are treated like folders on a site:
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&a … IRcEW2pAt4
If sub-domains are such a waste of time, what do you write on HubPages then?
I never said subdomains were a waste of time. Where did that come from?
Why did you stop writing on HubPages?
It's the logical outcome of what you're saying.
Say you write on a self-hosted blog: in the SERPs, your article stands an even chance with every other site. If it's ranked 20th in the SERPs, that's where it will be listed.
Now say you're writing on Blogger. You're saying that Google is only going to allow two or three links from the whole blogspot domain: so even if your article should be ranked 20th, it won't be, if there are already two Blogger blog posts ranked higher. To me that's a huge handicap.
I still write on HubPages occasionally when I have an article I can't use elsewhere, but these days I earn my living offline mainly.
Wrong on two counts
1) Yes they do
2) it's possible to use a separate domain on a Blogger blog if you wish to do so
I write as somebody who has a Blogger blog which has had over 2.7 million unique visitors since 2006 when it went public. Last Saturday - round about the same time the editing button was disabled on Squidoo - it topped 6 million pageviews since 2008 when Blogger started counting. I've never felt the need to change away from a blogspot domain. My blog gets the very comprehensive listing on Google - with all the added extras. My blog posts, which are all about art, come up on a regular basis relative to search queries for different art topics. I often see more than two blogspot blogs come up as a response to the same query in search.
And your qualifications for commenting as if you are some sort of expert are...?
I think the evidence speaks for itself.
If Hubpages subdomains were not treated as at least partially separate from the main domain, then we wouldn't have a situation where some accounts (subdomains) are hit with a panda penalty and some aren't.
If Google's Panda zapped "duplicate ideas" then practically the whole internet would have disappeared from Google's search! I don't know if you are not stating your opinion clearly or if you are confused about Panda, but duplicate IDEAS are here to stay. Who was it that said "there is nothing new under the sun?" Every day, Hub Pages is getting new accounts -- apart from Squidoo -- and every one of them will surely write about something that has already been written about on Hub Pages. It's naive and shows a deep lack of understanding of Google's practices to presume that a site will be penalized for having duplicate IDEAS. Now a single site, with a single author, that writes about nothing but the same ideas over and over may well be penalized -- most likely will be penalized. But that would be something like a blog that writes about nothing but the cases for such and such phone -- and even then, it is not clearly black and white. Some site, somewhere, could do well showcasing cases for specific models of cell phones, so it's not completely a lost cause.
But on a site like Hub Pages, with a multitude of writers, you can plan that you will have an abundance of duplicate ideas! Off the top of my head, Hub Pages is the last remaining large user-contributed content site left standing after all the google algorithm updates. Many of the others are still in operation but they are nothing like their original version -- HubPages is the only one still using a platform of user-contributed content and still doing well. That's because of Hub Pages' excellent response to Google's major changes: I still remember the blog post announcing that Hub Pages discussed the problems with Google directly and came up with best practices. That was when we were told to claim our name and that Hub Pages would be viewed as many subdomains, each author would be viewed separately by Google, instead of the whole site taking a hit because of some bad apples. I praised Hub Pages back then for that move, and I still praise them today for that move.
There is far more to what Google is doing than getting rid of duplicate content and duplicate IDEAS is something they could never get rid of! Your ranking is determined by many, many things, but primarily, if you focus on your own quality and making sure your Hub Pages are the best they can be and explore your ideas to the best of your ability, you will go far toward making yours stand out here at Hub Pages as well as in the search engines. It's about QUALITY. If you're going to write about cases for such and such cell phones, make sure yours is the best site about such cases as you can possibly make it.
There are many people at Squidoo who are already at Hub Pages. It's not as if Squidoo is sending Martians over to Hub Pages who thrive on duplicate content. I know for some people Squidoo has a bad reputation for silly, useless, money-grubbing content. But did you know that Hub Pages has the exact same rep among some people? There are good and bad everywhere. Squidoo has a ton of excellent writers who produce good, interesting content in their own niches, just as Hub Pages does. It IS offensive the way you worded your comment. Perhaps your concern is more about so much material coming over to Hub Pages in such a short time? But duplicate ideas is not a worry -- unless your ideas are NOT written in the best manner.
Again, Hub Pages had a stellar and unique response a few years back. No other similar site acted to protect the people who had created it, except Squidoo. Unfortunately, Squidoo's response was not the best, but they still tried. Clearly now, Hub Pages had the better response. It is the way the site responded back then that determined the point we're at now -- NOT so much the "bad" content of Squidoo. Hub Pages had some HORRIBLE content back then (not ALL of it, just some of it). It was known as the place to be for those who just wanted to set up pages of scant info to game the search engines and earn ad money. THAT is what Google was going after. Hub Pages made such a cool and all-American decision to let each writer at Hub Pages be responsible for their own content, with some oversight by the site! That is why Hub Pages is still here and Squidoo is closing. Now the content on this site (HP) has improved greatly, without a ton of strict rules, malice and hatefulness -- Hub Pages just set up the authors' sites and let the chips fall where they may, so to speak. Google penalized the bad here at HP and elevated the good. HP emerged stronger. Squidoo's content was not as overwhelmingly bad (imo) at that time, but they chose a different path and that path led away from success -- every other similar site back then reacted similarly to Squidoo, trying to clamp down on everyone and trying to patch the problems with stricter and stricter rules and never really able to to hit the problem head on. I hope you get what I'm saying. Squidoo's content wasn't the cause of the demise; it was their response to Google's changes that caused them to fall. And when their content arrives at Hub Pages, it should not cause any problem -- at least not long term -- because I trust that Hub Pages will continue to respond proactively to the constantly shifting search algorithms. Do you have to worry that you may have more competition? Yep. Could you personally lose some traffic? Yep. But not because of duplicate ideas or poor content by Squidooers. No, if you lose, it will be because you failed to be the best on your ideas.
Thank you for your astute and open-minded comments. I had 353 pages on Squidoo to transfer. They have not started coming over yet, although I pushed the transfer button almost immediately when it was announced.
I've seen "the good, the bad and the ugly" on Squidoo. Whenever we saw any of the bad and ugly, we sent in abuse feedback, the same thing I would expect Hubbers to do, if we don't live up to your expectations. That being said, I understand how protective all of you must feel about your site. We probably would have felt the same way, should the reverse have occurred.
We know that there will most likely be those ex-Squids who either do not make it, or choose to leave.HP. If they haven't the credibility or the "chops" to make it, they will be weeded out in time. We have four months to make it or break it, and I don't believe for one moment that HP, with all the good writers here, will go down the tubes in that four months. We also need to take into consideration those ex-squids whose writing contributions will boost HP.
I would say, give us a chance to fit in, to do our best, and if it's not good enough, then kick our patooties out! Time will tell, who stays and who goes. Those who stay will do nothing but advance HP's prestige online. Thanks for letting me have my few moments on your forum.
Well said. A lot of people are cutting pages before moving here, and of course, some have no time to do this because of the short notice. I had just over 600 pages. I deleted about 60 or so because I know my heart just won't be into reworking them. When the rest of my pages get here, some will stay, and some will get yet another cut; either moved off of Hub or outright deleted. It's impossible to work 600 pages in a week. Four months will even be hard.
We may begin moving a small number of closely-monitored test accounts this week and will ramp up the import around September 2nd. There is still quite a bit of back work and testing left to do.
Thanks for that update Marina - there's quite a lot of people anticipating an imminent move so that's useful to be able to feedback to them - they can stop watching their dashboards!
Thank you for the information, Marina. I hope the earthquakes are over.
As of the time of my post, they've had 14 quakes in the Bay Area so far today.
I don't think the earthquakes are ever over. The one on Sunday morning did not hit very hard in San Francisco. I actually slept right through it.
Mine came through today. Some came through a bit weird. Several are missing photos, among other things. I have a lot of work ahead of me in the next forty days. For once I am grateful I am such a slow writer, as I had only a little over 100 lenses to transfer. Lots of folks have 300-400 lenses, and some have multiple accounts. I surely do hope experienced Hubbers will be patient with all of us as we hustle to reformat and bring our new hubs into compliance with HubPages guidelines and rules.
The migration beings September 2nd, according to this post at Squidoo:
http://hq.squidoo.com/squid-news/import … ransition/
Paul Deeds, Co-Founder and General Manager of HubPages, says HP is starting today with people who have opted in for the transfer.
I think there's a few of us "early adopters" or people who opted into the transfer very soon after the announcement that are waiting with baited breath.
The latest post from Squidoo HQ states "If you haven’t deleted your account by August 29, 2014, your account and pages will be moved automatically to HubPages beginning on September 2nd. Some accounts may move sooner, but those will only be from the group who has opted in. "
To me that means:
1. If you opted in early then as originally advised and in line with what Paul Deeds has said content will start moving from today.
2. If you didn't opt in AND you don't delete your account then content will start moving from 2nd September.
What I'm seeing in the post I referenced is this:
"3. September 2, 2014: HubPages will begin the import of opt-in members. We expect this to move quickly, and you will be notified by HubPages once your account is transferred."
For those that opted-in, lens migration could begin as early as today. Could. For all we know, they might have all sorts of back end problems for days.
Anyone who thinks this is going to happen quickly, smoothly or without undesired after-effects has no idea what they think they are talking about.
Absolutely! It's one of the reasons I opted in very early - get them moved and then sort out the mess afterwards. I am sure that the HubPages team will do everything they can to manage the migration but there are inevitably going to be "issues."
I only have to think of the challenges that we faced when migrating from one personnel system to another which had been many months in the planning.
I think what they're expecting to happen quickly is the actual sucking of articles from one site to the other. Having been through this sort of transfer of content from one site to another on a much smaller scale, once the scripts are in place, the import part happens pretty fast. It's what happens after the scripts are finished running that isn't so quick and easy.
And now, I must go hover over my inbox, and my Squidoo dashboard, and my HubPages account with bated breath...
Transferring data from one system to another is nerve-wracking - and as I know well of old this is very definitely one of the areas where things can go spectacularly wrong.
I spent a considerable amount of time last week backing up all my sites so that if something goes wrong in the transfer I've still got all my content.
Speaking for myself I would really gave liked to be given the option of opting for a category which was NOT 'Early adopter (PS also subject to all the beta testing mistakes)' and was instead "Wants to move sooner rather than later but only after all the problems are sorted!
Writer Fox, does the fact that the domain name is paid till 2018 have an impact?
The fact that the Squidoo domain name has been paid until then doesn't mean the site will be online until then. It is my understanding that the site will go offline at the beginning of October.
The site is closing in October but what if the domain name is still on? I mean it's paid till 2018 - I think HugBug (that is how I name it) is also paid till 2018. I know the webhost should be also up and running but isn't there any option for the webhost to become shared with a very low price so as to keep the 301 live till 2018?
Actually the wording is this one:
Starting in a few weeks, all traffic to Squidoo will automatically be redirected to the relevant pages on HubPages instead. We’ve been busy building transfer tools that will make it easy (and mostly automatic) for content to move from the Squidoo site to HubPages. Together with some members of the Squidoo team, I’ll be working with HubPages to ensure that we make the best possible transition and impact going forward. Squidoo pages will cease to be visible in September or early October.
In case the 301 redirect doesn't last for more than two months, it's just another lie from Mr Godin...
ROFLMAO. As if he would take the time to answer... He doesn't even allow comments on his blog
Yeah, I know. But he says that he does read his own email, even though he may not answer it:
I'm not one of the Godin's faith you know But who knows, I might end up writing this mail and let you know if I ever get a reply...
I think you should write to him. I would imagine that a lot of people will want to know how long those 301 redirects will be in place. Without those, each of your articles will lose backlink value and will start all over again on search engine rankings.
Lens transfers start today for users who opted-in to moving early. That's been stated on BOTH HubPages and Squidoo since this whole move was announced.
People will receive email when their account moves over.
It will be interesting to see how lenses convert into hubs, I want to see this too.
Haha love the last image! Btw writer fox there's gonna be 301 redirects so not much to worry about duplicate content. Unless you were talking about already existing hubs that are similar to the lenses moving over.
BTW one big worry is the fact that lenses that weren't ranked at all have been entering tier 3! That's basically saying a lot of lenses have been moved already to other sites or scrapped totally.
Either way, there's not 175k pages of high quality coming over, there's also some that don't deserve to be here. The scary part is that they're going to remain featured for 4 months!
Anyway back to topic - Anyone moved yet?
The arbitary cut off for being featured of 175K (it used to be 450K) is no indicator of the quality of pages and merely an indication of the elements which went into the algorithm. So to say that pages which are/were ranked below 175,000 are of lesser quality is not necessarily true.
There are no doubt pages ranked better than 175,000 which are of poor quality in the same way that there are no doubt featured hubs on HubPages which could be of a better standard.
If you have a Squidoo article that is not in the top 175,000 when it is moved, all you have to do is make a slight edit (changing one single word) and that will send it through the QAP process for review. Within 3 to 24 hours, it will either become a featured Hub or you will be given an opportunity and advice on how to improve it.
You can find out more about how the QAP process works here:
This is the ratings chart for creative writing like poems and short stories:
This is the ratings chart for articles:
Here are examples of Hubs and what ratings they received:
Thanks Writer Fox that's a useful set of links which I will point others to.
Without checking none of my lenses are any lower than circa 55,000 but I will certainly be doing some early editing to get them into the QAP and see how they come through.
I have been encouraging others to create some Hubs to get used to the process. I have been doing that because although I have an existing account I haven't created any for a while. It all seemed to run smoothly, quite speedy processing and the other day I got a "You have passed Bootcamp" which was a surprise as I didn't realise I was in it. But good to know all the same.
^ What pkmcruk said!
Back in July I started moving some Squidoo lenses to HubPages (my other account), because I could not keep them from dropping into WIP status - meaning that their lens rank was worse than 175,000.
One of those WIP/poorly ranking lenses has been selected here as an Editor's Choice in Travel. Another got huge traffic because the husband of an author I wrote a memorial to linked to it on his Facebook page. They have all received far better traffic on HubPages than they ever got on Squidoo, they are articles I'm proud of, and I don't think it's fair to say that just because a lens is poor ranking in Squidoo means it's poor content.
I did preemptively delete about 30 of my 250 lenses before the transfer; some to move to my own sites, some simply because I knew they weren't worth saving for here or elsewhere. I am sure I'll be trashing another 50 or so that I just didn't have the time to deal with before the transfer, but might have elements I want to salvage into something new.
Squidoo's failure, imho, has a lot less to do with the quality of a lot of the writing there but how they mistreated some of their best performing and most qualified writers in the past year, locking lenses that were perfectly valid, making changes that hurt lens performance instead of improving it.
Agree! "Squidoo's failure, imho, has a lot less to do with the quality of a lot of the writing there but how they mistreated some of their best performing and most qualified writers in the past year, locking lenses that were perfectly valid, making changes that hurt lens performance instead of improving it." ~ sockii
What exactly happened in October, 2012? Is that when the Megan person left and the Bonnie person took over?
Thanks for answering this question. I'm going to write an article about the demise of Squidoo for another website. I just spent two hours reading old posts on the Squidoo forum. It seems that many, many writers were unhappy with management decisions since Megan left.
I'm one of them. That is why I focused more on my HubPages account - despite the fact that I didn't take any advantage of subdomain introduction, I've always felt safer here than on the other side.
If you want to read a good analysis of the situation Greekgeek's post today on her blog is well worth reading.
Changes in management and ever increasing payouts had a definite impact on the site. You are very luck to have such an involved CEO (Paul Edmondson) here and it's something which I know many Squidoo people will be pleasantly surprised by.
Would that be "ever decreasing payouts?"
What I don't understand is how the guy could let the business fail for two solid years and not come up with any idea on how to turn it around.
Maybe because he had other ideas? I've watched a video from Megan's seminar and she clearly admitted that she did lose interest in Squidoo as soon as it ran smoothly... How about the owner? The Godin's god... god to himself of course... He might just enjoy building new projects, put them together and then run away?
No I think the ever increasing payouts had a detrimental effect because it became incredibly attractive to people who manipulated things in order to achieve Tier earnings. But it's a long story and I think the majority of "refugees" are focused on moving on to a different story.
You're assuming that Seth was involved with Squidoo's operations on a regular basis.
From what I saw, after Editor-in-Chief Megan Casey left Squidoo in August 2012 to start her own business, Squidoo was run by committee. Seth put his nose in from time to time, but I got the impression that he was having to drop his "real" work as a marketer, author and keynote speaker whenever Squidoo's staff called him in for emergency crisis management.
They had a lot of ideas. I just don't believe they were the right ones.
I'm surprised that he didn't care more since it is his name and reputation which are linked to Squidoo. This business failure pretty much nixes all of his "leading the tribe" theories.
Reading that Squidoo forum is like a soap opera: Why are they locking my lenses? Why doesn't anyone respond to my emails? Why did they close my account? Why is my 'Lens of the Day' locked?
And the forum doesn't tell the entire story. You can get more answers by looking at the blogs of involved Squids like Greekgeek. Many business decisions were made that were only to the detriment of the site.
On another note, while there are squids who are removing content and not transferring over, there are also many of us who have been on both sites for years as well as a knowledgeable prolific bunch of lensmasters.
Maybe only because the site's death was planned long ago.
Ditto to what Paul said
Greekgeek always came up with very sound and robust explanations for what was going on - most of which was apparently ignored by HQ
PS I've got a very healthy balance sitting on my dashboard right now. It's the tier income from advertising which has crashed.
Why tell the story if you weren't part of it? It's never going to be as good as those who understands the situation a lot better than somebody who is coming to it cold. They also access to have much better evidence and data than you could ever have if you were not part of it.
There are a lot of good people who have already told the story who were sat in the middle of it, who piped up about problems only to get banned from forums for their supposed negativity. They've been writing about the end of Squidoo for a while and are now releasing further instalments of the story.
It depends which forum you read - the censored one from which many people were banned or the "we've moved on to a better place" Yuku forum where people have expounded at length over the last two years as to what went wrong.
However the authors of those posts are in a much better position to tell the story of Squidoo.
Yeah, I was talking about duplicate ideas between Hubs already on HP and the new articles moving in from Squidoo.
Also, I don't see any value to a 301 redirect once Squidoo is taken offline. When that happens, the 301s disappear, too.
Writer Fox, the 301 redirects would help get them some sought of ranking boost in the beginning (Approx the same as what they already had). It would eventually go away, but that would give them enough time to gain some new links (that's the plan I guess)
My hope is that they will remain published, not featured, for 4 months and only high quality lenses stay featured.
Scroll to the bottom of this page you can see the number of published hubs: http://hubpages.com/about/us
Not all of them are featured just a certain percentage of those. Writer Fox probably got the exact number of featured hubs and hence got the 52% (value).
@MAM, it's understood that what's said may be taken in the wrong way. I'm sure Writer Fox only meant that hubpages and squidoo are two different sites - each with many writers which in turn brought out the problem of similar content. It doesn't mean that some lensmasters are plagiarists.
It's simple knowledge that before writing something most people are going to check for similar hubs here on hubpages and tweak their hub to make sure it's put forth in a different angle (In case a hub on the very same topic is already in existence). But now that the two sites are merging, there's a high possibility that two articles that are written in the same sense on the same topic will be clashing for attention - that's about it.
In the end, the best content is going to win which would make hubbers (you and me and all of us) focus on editing our hubs to make them the best on the platform if not the best anywhere on the internet.
Didn't read through what I wrote as I'm on my phone. Forgive me for any grammatical errors.
Nope - I can't see the number of hubs. Is that on the main site rather than the Discussions Forum?
I think it's a huge assumption that writers check what's already on the site before they write a new Hub. I doubt that's the case.
I sure don't. If I have an idea for a good article, and it looks like there's good search traffic and not much competition, I don't worry about whether any of the competition is on the same host. (As a matter of fact, I avoid reading similar articles, so I won't get discouraged by someone else's wonderfulness.)
Agreed Valerie! With as many writers as there are online, there are very few topics that haven't been covered. However, you can always cover them from a totally different angle, a different viewpoint, and a totally different title. The same...only different, haha!
I think you are correct.
However, we do get a warning if our title has already been used, and oftentimes changing the title forces a change in the slant in the way an article is written.
Perhaps you have a greater understanding of this topic than I do. I guess it was my understanding that since a 301 is a permanent, rather than a temporary 302, all juice is redirected to the new location permanently.
Are you saying if the previous site goes away it "undoes" this redirection in Google's eyes? Also, we know that all "content" is going away from Squidoo in October; however, I'm not certain that the site itself won't stay in place for quite a while. Do you know more on that?
A 301 is a permanent redirect. However, if you want Page A redirected to Page B, the URL for Page A must still be online. If the site hosting Page A is offline, there is no way to redirect the URL.
I have no idea if any of Squidoo will be online after October. Someone needs to ask Squidoo.
Perhaps this is something that Paul can clarify? My guess is that in the "deal" that was done this is something they talked about as I would think that it would be in HubPages best interest for the 301 redirects to remain in place indefinitely.
Here's some more information on how a 301 redirect works. This is from a website which moved to a new domain about a year ago:
HubPages will own the squidoo.com domain and all 301s will be hosted and managed by us by the end of September.
The 301s are permanent.
That's an extremely helpful answer Paul - that makes complete sense of the redirects proposal.
Woot! Woot! Permanent redirects - it's Christmas in August!
Great! Thanks for not leaving us in the dark. I really appreciate it.
Oh Wonderful! That's really great news! Thank you HP for being so accommodating to us, it's truly appreciated.
Thanks for clarifying that Paul which is very helpful
Thank you Paul.
I am SO relieved to hear this news as I have given out 1,000's of business cards over the years with at least one of my Squidoo pages on them.
I have also spent many years on forums and on facebook... and have referenced one of my self-help or other Squidoo links when it was pertinent to do so.
What a relief
Ha! Saw this from my Nook today. First thing I did when I got in this evening was check my lenses. Yup! Still there. I checked my hubs. Yup! Same number.
Now that I am a bit more familiar with the workshop platform, I'm content to peck out a few new hubs and wait for the deluge (all 35) of lenses. Ha!
I was also under the impression that the move will begin around the 2nd for those who opted in. There's still a bit of work to do, I think.
But, for me who opted-in very early, I would love not to have to wait much longer. Right now, we can't even edit our lenses or create new ones. So, there's nothing we can really do over there.
My rankings have gone up a bit, but some have fallen. One thing I've really noticed is that page views there have really dropped big time. I've noticed it on other sites, too.
On the contrary my traffic is up - but then I've been communicating with my readers via my blog and telling them what's going on.
I don't want them to be confused when they go to their bookmark for a site - and it looks completely different!
@Marisa, I'm not entirely OK with what you write although they don't always rank them on the 1st result pages. And luckily for most bloggers out there
But Google always indexes Blogspot blogs, they even index stolen content hosted on their platform and before the genuine one. So I'm not sure they don't favor their own properties.
In addition it is very hard to have them to suspend those accounts or even have the content removed. Best situation is your genuine content that wlll end up indexed higher than the stolen one - though not always the case.
However I noticed one thing: if you neglected a Blogspot blog, it's hard to make it work as it used to be. Did the experiment with some of my blogspot blogs and one of them never got its former traffic back.
@Lobobrandon - It's something I've often witnessed
I've had a lot of my content stolen by Blogspot blogs. In fact I had about six different Hubs stolen just recently. I've never had a problem getting it removed and most of the time, the whole blog gets closed down. The main thing is to ensure you use the correct avenue to report it, they're useless if you fill in the wrong form.
I use the correct one but it is really hard to have them removing stolen content. Not only Google, though. Not long ago we dealt on here with stolen content posted on Blogger blogs. How long did it take for the content to be removed? Not sure it is yet either. But I haven't been looking at the culprit these past weeks.
I don't stress about it, so I usually leave it a month or so before I check to see if it's gone. So I can't say for sure how long it takes, just that when I do check three or four weeks after my report, it's usually done.
When you consider I've been here 7 years, you can imagine how many DMCA's I've had to file. I've got some (e.g. on Chinese or Indian sites) that I'll never get rid of, but I've never had any Blogger ones that were refused.
I've filed DCMAs and they've all been fine.
Still, I currently have three copied hubs and I haven't bothered doing anything about them - just because they are on weird domains and don't seem to show in search results. For all my major keywords, my hubs are the ones that turn up.
Do you think I can just ignore them or should they be dealt with anyway? I mean, isn't Google smart enough to realize that my version is the original and the other has been copied?
Dmcas against blogspot blogs do work. At least the two times I did it.
I thought it was just me! Yeah I manages to rank #8 for a term that received over 6k searches a month on blogger but gave up on that blog for maybe a year or so. Tried to get it back up with new content and a few links - never succeeded.
Dunno if you experienced this too but one of the blogs I revived used to get huge traffic during all the time I did not post on it. Suddenly, after the first new post (years later), it stopped. I was extremely surprised to see that big traffic disappear in just one or two days.
Haha sorry for laughing but that's funnier than my case. In my case once I stopped posting it lost all rankings and dropped down to the 9th page or so. In your case it dropped when you began to post again - weird!
I think that most of what happens on the Internet is more a question of personal experience than general rules. One rule may apply to everybody but actually from personal experience how many could say they noticed the rule's impact? Hm...
This. The more I learn, the more afraid I am to dispense advice, because maybe my experiences are too dependent on my vocabulary. choice of writing topics, or some other quirk unique to my publishing journey that won't apply to anyone else!
Not that I've stopped giving advice altogether. Terribly naughty habit.
That blog losing all its traffic when you started posting again sounds extremely aggravating. As a professional web dilettante, my immediate reaction is to howl, "WHHHHYYYYYY?" We can speculate until the livestock come home, but there's no way to know for sure.
I switched the topic one of my hubs was under because that was a tough one to figure where to put it. Now I need to also look at competition because there is a lot of experienced Hubbers in here even from other places. I am trying to hang in there. Thanks for any information like this Marisa.
Can we able to transfer multiple Squidoo account within one account of Hubpage? I have multiple account of squidoo and multiple lens in it. And I want to transfer all these lenses in one account of hubpages. So any procedure for that?
Nope it's not possible unless you copy and paste the content of each lense. But you'd lose the chance of getting 301 redirects
Yeah, I knew that I will lose the chance to getting 301 redirect but according to HubPages guidelines, they are not allowing multiple account from same IP. So if I create new account of each and every squidoo account, then probably they are band my this current account. So what's the solution for that?
You can have several accounts here. You do, however, need a separate email address for each account, not a separate IP address.
You can create multiple accounts from the same IP.
Awesome, Paul, thanks!
Question - and multiple accounts can be tied to the same AdSense account?
Jennifer, Adsense allows an individual to hold only ONE Adsense account. Therefore it stands to reason that your only option is to use the same Adsense account everywhere - your blog, HubPages, etc etc. That includes multiple accounts on HubPages.
I've been on my lenses today and checked around. Some people that I know have more lenses seem to be missing, but that could also mean they deleted some.
i deleted dozens of lenses that would take too much work to convert into suitable Hubs and/or were specific to Squidoo (tutorials, Squidoo community, lensographies). I'm sure a lot of people did the same.
Greekgeek I figured some of them will be useless, but some are just sentimental. I did go through a delete some, but I think many of the sales lenses will really need fixing. A lot of work changing them for 2 years just to have them dumped, but you know that.
I deleted several as well. Especially ones that were specifically squidoo related. It would be nice if others did the same. I know a lot of people had things like lenses with their angel blessings and other squidoo specific lenses. These really have no meaning here. Perhaps if we get rid of a few thousand lenses, then a few thousand others would take their lensrank spots be transferred over featured.
I know I have some good lenses that just dropped so far due to lack of traffic that they aren't featured anymore.
Yep. I had utterly burned out on updating to keep up with frequent filter and policy changes, so I hear ya.
It'll be a pain, but I really do think it's going to be more stable here, once we get over the initial hurdles. That's going to sustain me during the updating.
I might have deleted a few more lenses on my first visit to my second account - but for the fact the delete process takes so long (as in "hear the cogs whirring very slow"!)
On reflection on my second visit I decided it was quicker to do a "save as webpage" and review again when they get here!
However it is very clear that a substantial amount of content has moved off Squidoo - but whether that is deletions or moves to other sites is debateable.
I rather suspect that in the wait for the transfer, those lenses people know are moving elsewhere might be being reconfigured as new sites elsewhere and then deleted via the link on the dashboard - as in there's no need for them to go to HubPages. The longer the wait, the more likely this is to happen - assuming the delete button works.
Not that I'm testing it you understand!
Still nobody getting their lenses transferred in yet? I am curious to how it will all go and look!
Yes, this is exactly what I have done MaM. First of all, I didn't have time to review all of my lenses. I deleted the ones that were Squidoo specific, and left the rest to review once they are here.
As to numbers of lenses, besides the fact that many people have either had accounts locked and closed or left voluntarily in the last two years, with the latest announcement a slew of lensmasters just took their stuff and ran with it, not wanting to come to Hubpages. That will affect all of the numbers.
As to the discussion regarding how Google ranks subdomains, I believe that both of you, Marissa and Writerfox are simplifying the entire process. Google seems to treat its own products better many a time. However, issues are not black and white across the board. Many people do have blogspot blogs both on their own domain and blogger's subdomains. Especially very old blogs that started with Blogger was the place to be. I have one that is at least 7 years old, although I don't use it much.
Marissa, I am not exactly sure what it is that you trying to get Writerfox to say, but really, there are so many factors involved, including the author, their own reputation, SEO practices, Googles filter of the day, and where else they write. Do you think if Seth Godin had a blog on blogspot that Google wouldn't take it seriously? There is no hard and fast rule for any of Google's rules.
That's why I was trying to get clarity, because I feel WF is seeing things as too black and white. WF is insisting that a Google search will never include more than two or three Hubs because of the new Google update announced in that video - which says that Google won't show more than two or three results from one single domain.
The implications of that would be huge for writers. It says that if you, me, Relache, Greekgeek and WriterFox had all written a fantastic Hub on the same topic, only the best three could show in the SERPs - the rest would never, ever get a look-in. Whereas if we had each written the article on our own blogs, all of them might be included. If that were true, writing on any communal site would be a huge disadvantage.
I think WF is right about ordinary communal sites (e.g. Infobarrel, Zujava etc) - but I think our saviour at HubPages is our sub-domains. It's pretty obvious to me that Google must make some kind of exception for multi-user sites like Blogger, Wordpress.com etc, otherwise the SERPs would be a nonsense - and our sub-domain structure is just the same.
Well, yes and no. I don't think that you can separate Hubpages that much from other similar article sites. Zujava doesn't have subdomains. Neither does Infobarrel. So they are not the same at all.
Blogger is a Google site, so it is in a different category too.
However, I do believe that there is some truth to what WF is saying. SERPs for larger scale keywords will not show a lot of results from the same domain unless there are only a few domains that offer the information. On the other hand, with personalized search everyone gets different results. And, even before personalized search, the same results did not come up every time.
In your example, if all of us wrote about the same topic, we most likely wouldn't all write about the same aspect of that topic, so our hubs would show up in a variety of differently worded queries.
Yes, that's what I said. Zujava doesn't have subdomains, neither does Infobarrel, nor Yahoo! Voices, nor Helium, nor any of the other rev-sharing sites which have failed. It was when sub-domains were introduced that HubPages started to recover, so maybe sub-domains are a crucial part of why HP is still here and the others are either dead or not doing well?
And I'm not sure why you're debating with me and not with Writer Fox. I don't think we're disagreeing, basically - I'm not the one saying there's no point writing about a topic on HubPages if there are already two or three Hubs on that topic, which is why this whole debate started.
I saw one guy on thenSquidoo forum who said he had a lens transferred yesterday.
Really? I haven't read that. Are you talking about the official HQ run Forum?
It was on the Squidoo forum, as I initially said in my comment. He had 1 lens transferred. He said it looked a lot smaller as a lot of elements were taken out. So, he's working on editing it.
I found the lensmaster, looked at his Squidoo account, and looked at his hub and looked at the URL of the hub in question
The big question for me is why does this suffix when attached to the squidoo domain (he doesn't have a subdomain) NOT produce a redirect FROM the lens TO the hub.
Next question is how do lens URLs translate through to HubPages URLs
Third question is whether or not this really is a transfer.
Paul (one of the Moderators on Yuku) states
That person is mistaken - he has created a new hub. His original lens is still on Squidoo.
So I think that probably explains that particular rumour.
We haven't moved any Lenses to production yet. Still on track for the 2nd.
I wonder how many have been transferred and how they look ???
Whew, here we go
No Diana - there is NO EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING HAS HAPPENED and we shouldn't expect anything to happen before 2nd September.
They are STILL beta testing
Try practising patience http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/124194
I am being patient
Just saw the comment about someone's being transferred already and was wondering if it was really true and if so how everything looked
The person who claimed to have a transferred lens appears to have manually created a hub with the same title as a lens in his Squidoo account. I don't know why.
Official forums MaM... Someone left a link to the thread in Yuku...
OK, hmmm. Yeah, someone asked him to produce a link to his transferred lens and he said he couldn't because it was still on Squidoo. Maybe he was confused about something.
I think we just need to bear in mind that not everybody quite understands what is happening and how it is happening. Lots of people find it all very confusing.
The thing we have all been told is that WHEN the lenses transfer we will get an email
So no email = no transfer
Simples! (as they say over here in the UK!)
@ ajtyne This is one of the main targets of the Google Panda, from Google's official announcement:
"Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?"
HP already has a problem with this. Adding 175,000 more pages within the next 30 days is going to create some more problems. I hope HP is at least checking the transferred articles for duplicate titles, because right now you won't find that on HP.
Yes, but this is NOT the same as "duplicate ideas." This is exactly what I was talking about. They are talking about for example, people who put spun content on multiple sites or on the same site so that they can profit from the ads that are displayed with that particular content -- content that was written once and then "spun" either manually or automatically by replacing a few words and rewriting the sentences, but the outcome is still virtually the same content. A properly spun article passes Copyscape but is still thin, unhelpful, repetitive, often stolen content. They are not talking about duplicate ideas. Unless I am not understanding what you mean to be calling duplicate ideas, but from several of your comments, it seems you are talking about articles that were written on the same topic. If two or more persons are striving to write their best content, to truly provide useful information, entertainment or other useful content, there is not a problem that two or more articles are on the same topic. Each person should be bringing something new to the table. In the case where you find that a Squidoo article comes over and closely matches one of your hubs, the best thing to do is to tweak your hub, providing new, fresh information, more up-to-date info or just a different, more personal twist on the topic. That is how you compete. But the SEO of the site is not messed up by the new Squidoo article; the problem would come if the new article provided better or more info than yours, or if the author has more or better links to their article. In such a case it would cause their article to outrank yours and you may lose some traffic, not because of duplicate content/ideas but because of better article promotion (linking) and/or better or more complete content. Google knows HubPages is a multi-author site, made of of lots and lots of "tiny sites" if you will, so there is going to be a duplication of ideas -- there are millions of health articles all over the internet, millions of dog training articles, etc. There is room for all, but only the best will be at the top (at least that is Google's goal, altho it hasn't fully been realized yet).
This is a bit oversimplified, as there is more involved, sadly, than just quality.
I hope you can understand what I'm explaining. I don't want to argue, but I think this misinterpretation is confusing and scary to so many people, plus makes a small rift (that could grow) between the people from Squidoo and old Hubbers.
There are so many misconceptions about seo. When Google's algorithm corrected for those websites that had tons of nonsensical links, many people panicked and still are panicking, thinking they should remove ALL links to their content. They think all links are bad, but that's incorrect. If all links are removed, the search engines really have no way to find content. For the average Hubber, focusing on quality and sharing your content will mean success.
Okay, I still have lenses on Squidoo and no Squidoo lenses on HubPages. Have I missed a post explaining the delay?
Arachnea, they hope to have them all finished by the end of the month. Mine are also still on Squidoo. From what I understand they are moving only a few each day, trying to make sure they come over in good condition. Don't worry, there are lots of us with our lenses still there.
Arachnea, some accounts have transferred already. Mine and many others have not. As I recall, HubPages expected to have all of the lenses transferred by the end of September. Today is only Day 2. Some of us will have to wait longer than others.
Like you, Arachnea, none of my 76 lenses have transferred over yet.......don't think we've missed any posts, so maybe tomorrow?
Mine transferred over today. Most of them look pretty good, too. They're still on Squidoo, also.
Snakesmum, so glad your transfer has been made. Good for you! I'm going to visit!
Nancy - you have to hit reply in the box relating to the comment you are responding to - otherwise you pick up the last comment posted
Or hit the "post a reply" button bottom right to post without picking up a quote
Comment based on the fact you're responding to the person who posted in the post before the one that is quoted!
Hi Nancy, No, my lenses haven't transferred over yet; still waiting and hoping!
And I thought I got in pretty early pushing the green button. :-)
I pushed the button early, but there was a foul up with my account (mostly my fault) that the team had to help me through...but we finally got it straightened away. I suspect that put me at the end of the line, haha! But it's okay, I will deal with it, whenever it happens.
Whatever happens, we'll deal with it! I guess a lot of people are ahead of me, due to the time difference between the US and Australia.
Sorry you had a mix up with your account, and hope to see your lenses here soon now.
Good to hear your lenses, now hubs, look pretty good here.
Shall go and check them out. :-)
Transfers have begun Relache has an account here at HP for Squidoo lenses under the user name Schwarz. You can go check them out. They were all from Squidoo. The process appears to be working well so far. Patience is the key as the HP team are resolving the issues as they arise. Her lenses look great as Hubs! The technical guys here seem to be doing a great job. Thank you all for that.
I can't wait. I'm looking forward to working on my new 'Hubs". I hope they come over soon!
My lenses transferred today. I pushed the transfer button about 2-3 hours into the time of announcement. Seems to be a slow process.
The majority of the pages look pretty good. Each hub will need a summary added. I have deleted two pages, so far.
Hope your trans goes smoothly when it happens.
Mine transferred mid-day today. I'm pleased to report things look pretty good and my stats are showing traffic at the typical rate. Now, if clicks continue to convert at their old rate I will be the happiest camper on the block.
Finger crossed for mine to move this weekend... Good luck everybody with this transfer and the change
I was just on your hub Olympic Rio Australia, but there was no place for comments. Glad the transfer is completed. Onward and upward Mick.
Yay!!! My lenses are finally transferred but I'm a little bummed by some of the red skulls. Oh well, at least there's not too many I'm just glad I get to start editing now.
mine came over on the 8th ~ i've not had a chance to look at them yet or make changes ~ so little time and so much to do
i just saw that comments came over ~ woot!
My lenses have been over for a few days now, and today I've cleared the fourth and last of the red skulls.
Hopefully no more will appear as they are checked by humans instead of robots, but I'm planning on updating one or two a day until they are all changed to the HP standard.
So far, everything has come over ok, so Thanks HP for making it so easy.
Hi all (first post)...
I pushed to start the transfer process last night...and I'm completely transferred over now. In fact, it happened within about an hour or so - very impressive and smooth (thank you, HubPages).
It's an old "other" Squidoo account of mine that I transferred - about 70 lenses. I'm thinking I'll end up deleting quite a few of them - they're pretty junky at this moment.
The fixing them up process has been pretty good so far - but wow, sure wish we could be delete multiple capsules at one time. Some things from my old lenses came thru really funky and made a capsule for like each line of code.
But hey, my mouse clicking finger sure is getting a good workout
Anyway, just wanted to say hey to all and good luck!
Hey Jennifer, good to see you here. Welcome to HubPages! I've only been here a few days myself, but I'm loving it. Hope you do too.
Thanks, Nancy! Nice to see you as well
So far, so good. I have a lot of unpublished hubs (yep, had some junk over at Squidoo) and only being able to clean up and publish 3 (or is it 4?) a day is really slowing me down. I want to just get in there and get them all fixed and pretty ASAP (or trash 'em..lol!)
Other than that, I'm thrilled so far. WAY less buggy then the previous location and the way HubPages flat out TELLS you what the issues with a Hub are is AWESOME!
In fact, it's quite refreshing!
Hope it's going well for you, too!
by Tim Bader2 years ago
Hi,I've got several hubs which have suddenly become un-featured "due to lack of engagement".On the one hand, fair enough, in that they haven't had a lot of traffic, if any, since they were transferred from...
by Georgianna Lowery2 years ago
I'm not knocking anybody (or maybe I am) but I have seen several "Hubs" that transferred from Squidoo that are composed of nothing more than very thin content and a whole bunch of merchandising links (and even...
by Tony2 years ago
There has been a lot of discussion in the last few days about HP changing the rules and people being un-featured or even un-published for spam and over promotional activity. So I just want to add my...
by Lorelei Cohen2 years ago
This drop in traffic seems to have affected the majority of us who transitioned here from Squidoo. After we updated our articles are traffic virtually stopped dead. The question is why? Was our redirect from Squidoo...
by David Stone2 years ago
I think I know something about writing articles. I created a new hub yesterday. HubPages took 24 hours before declaring, in one of their mystery messages, that it was of sufficient quality. You know what? It was too...
by LindaSmith12 years ago
I cannot believe the amount of lenses from Squidoo, strictly about Squidoo are not only on Hub Pages, but they are found at the bottom of other hubs under Related Hubs.
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.