I recently started writing on Daily Two Cents to mitigate the whack-ness that is now Bubblews. Is Daily Two Cents a viable way to create quality backlinks back to my blog and HubPages articles? For instance if I wrote a small piece about global warming and link it back to my meatier hub article on global warming, would this be considered a quality backlink?
Remember that Google counts only one or two backlinks from the same domain.
So if you're trying to get backlinks to impress Google, there is no point in writing more than two posts with links on any site.
If you've found a place where you are attracting real readers who are clicking on your links, then that's a different story.
Just to clarify, so I can only choose two hubs to direct a backlink to from DTC? Meaning I can't have one backlink from DTC to each one of my hubs?
You can have as many links from other sites to HubPages as you like, subject to the rules of those sites.
The question is, why? Are you trying to impress Google? If so, then it's only worth creating one or two links because Google won't count the rest. You could have two hundred links from DTC to HubPages and Google would still count only one or two.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying you have to choose two Hubs and then you can create lots of articles each pointing to the same two Hubs. I'm saying Google looks at DTC and at your sub-domain, and it will count only two links from one to the other, no matter how many different links you create.
If you're getting readers on DTC and lots of them are clicking on your links to get to your Hubs, then that's great and worth doing.
It appears Daily Two Cents wants only fresh content, not work that has been previously published. Are you finding that to be true?
After posting that question I emailed them and was told that content that was previously published but then was removed and de indexed is OK to use on their site. Interesting!
Thanks, I've been wondering about that. It's confusing because they say in their FAQ that you can't post anything that was published elsewhere but then I've read somewhere, from something written by their admin, that you can as long as it's deleted and de-indexed. Glad you confirmed this.
You'll find that applies to ALL sites which claim they don't want "previously published" work.
In practice, if an article has been removed from the internet and de-indexed, it's as if it never existed. Yes, it can sometimes be found in the "Wayback Machine" but no one checks that.
I generally think that chasing backlinks is a bad idea; Google likes natural backlinks. Also, Daily Two Cents won't give any link juice, they have no reputation yet. The only way the links would be valuable is if they were driving a lot of traffic to your articles.
As an owner of the site, I can also tell you that our links are nofollow anyway so no juice. That said our articles tend to get indexed quickly (sometimes within minutes) so it could be a good way to get more eyes on your hub.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make in my earlier response.
That's a good thought, it might be worth it for me to reconsider my strategy.
i think that you write a new summarize article at DTC, add in HP link, should be alright
There are social sharing buttons for the 4 most popular social networks. There's even a sharing button to share inside the HP community. There must be some sort of value-add because when HP Team removed the G+ button some of the writers here had a ka-nipshin!! Regards, Daily Two Cents – sometimes I summarize a HUB I like throw in a contextual link that will redirect readers to the HUB if they click on it. In my mind, I'm complimenting the HUB writer for a terrific read and suggesting to those who visit my posts or articles that they might enjoy thr HUB too. Y'all are going back and forth. This is where I'm coming from. I consider it a professional courtesy. “Google” is not going mandate to me what is etiquette and proper protocol!
Backlinks on Daily Two Cents all automatically have the rel="nofollow" attribute, so they wouldn't be quality backlinks. If they were dofollow that would be different as long as the post on DTC was a quality article that was highly relevant to a hub topic.
They have a page rank with Google of Zero which is as bad as it gets.
I went to check out bubblews and the site was down for maintenance. From what I can gather from the Forum bubblews isn't as good as HP. I'll try bubblews later to see if it back up. I need backlinks too.
Bubblewsis getting worstnow. It used to give writers one cent per like, one cent per comment and one cent per view and one cent per connect. Very good earning compare to hp but now, they had cut down tje earnings and most writers are quiting now
Ah gotcha! Thank you for your assistance Marisa, I appreciate it.
Why are you posting links?
If it is to direct traffic from what they have just read so that they can get more information then fine - go ahead and do it.
If you are doing it because some SEO guru said to build links from everywhere forget it! Building links from sites that anyone and everyone can use free of charge will provide you with little if any boost to your rankings.
If Google can see a host of links all coming from different sites like this then they will see you as a spammer that is just dropping promotional links everywhere... This is what penguin is there to spot and penalize you for.
If the site is like Bubblews (which will likely refuse to pay you if you post links to HP as you will earn from those links) then there is little point in posting the links there at all.
What Google and other search engines are now looking for are natural links from other sites and other authors. If your work is good then they are reasoning others will link to it.
However they are against any club that exchanges links too. They check automatically and manually (if sites are reported to them). Therefore the only valid way to get links is for you to participate on other sites and forums giving helpful and considered original ideas and information.
If you can build a reputation for doing that then your personal author rank increases (and yes while no longer showing pictures they still track this). Only then will you gain good links and traffic. Bear in mind that whatever we say today Google and the others update the way they do this all the time as software improves and they get better at catching spam and exchanges and auto linkers etc.
They want people to appreciate and link naturally.
This is precisely what I wanted to say. Not sure why people are still chasing backlinks; that method is a bad one and outdated. The whole point of Penguin was to penalize people for unnaturally putting backlinks out on the Net.
How do you feel about links from Pinterest, Facebook etc...
Google has started using social media sharing as a measure of an article's popularity, kind of like how they use backlinks. I think the idea there, too, is that it should occur naturally, not just the writer sharing their work all over the Net. I do wonder if Google will find a way at some point to determine if they are unnatural too; because it's just as easy if not easier to figure out how to manipulate social media for rank as it is to get backlinks on other sites to manipulate rank; just like people can form exchange group sites, they can do that even easier on Facebook and elsewhere.
I guess I'm not a big fan of social media in this regard. I don't promote my work on Social media that much. Gives me an uneasy feeling and I have a suspicion it will become a problem in the future for the reasons I stated above.
How are you promoting your work?
I've tried Google+ too, which seems to give a little pop, then it fizzles.
I do a little bit of promotion on Facebook, G+, tiny bit on Twitter and a little on Pinterest. I don't really post every article I write. And I, of course, post other things on those networks. I'd rather rely on keywords though. I've had very successful articles that I've never promoted at all and they received all their traffic organically because of keywords. For me, I'd rather do it that way. The stuff I've post to social media has not really done all that well. I guess that's another reason I don't use social media very much.
I guess what I'm saying is I hardly do any promotion and try to find keywords that work. Seems easier in the end.
I'd say you're right. Google only wants links that are naturally created by readers. Since our accounts are so interconnected online, surely it shouldn't be hard for Google to work out who's doing the pinning, Liking etc and to discount them if they are created by the author?
So if I pin an article and 300 people pin or like it, would you think that would be viewed as a negative on me? Likewise if I post an article to Google + and 27 people Plus it woud I seem spammy to google> Just curious. I spent some effort on these things - are we shooting ourselves in the foot?
How would that be negative. Actual people passing on the material and linking it is the essence of "naturally occurring".
No, that's absolutely fine - YOU didn't create all those links, other people did.
Here's another thing I've been thinking about, since I'm on the subject. I've noticed the more successful writers on sites like this are already writers on "legit" magazine sites of some sort. They already have a source of "legitimate" backlinks and a network. So, I think Internet writing is a lot like the non-cyber world: It's who you know.
So, it's a bit rigged in that regard.
It seems that Google and everyone else are assuming that most people are spammers! This is as factual as assuming we are all terrorists. If one examines the Mathematics (Statistics) it is quite apparent that too many assumptions lead to totally inaccurate conclusions.
Google made their money by having advertisements on other people's sites. Now that they are very rich they have become bullying and assume they have a right to dictate terms to people. This reflects a recent Berkeley study that showed that the rich and powerful are actually more inclined to be bullying and assume an air of entitlement. They run red lights more and are less likely to stop for pedestrians at crossings etc. etc.
Ironically this behavior persists as their companies expire and sink to leave no trace. This could easily happen to Google, because there are other search engines and advertising channels that actually treat their customers and clients with respect and as if they matter. Berkeley felt that these tendencies led to the last recession and could lead to the total collapse of Western Economies. Politicians have complained that the study was written by liberal academics. It will be interesting to watch the long term outcome.
One of my Hubs looks at a British business experiment that treats staff and customers as important, and shares the profits among the staff. Their long term results are quite fascinating. I wonder why so few other businesses get the lesson demonstrated by their success?
In this case I think they have cause. If the number of spammers were just a small proportion of online writers, then they wouldn't have to take these measures - but they are a HUGE proportion and therefore Google has to be suspicious of everything.
Google's big problem is the impossibility of accurately measuring quality of writing without human intervention. Because of that, it has to rely on other signals which are far from perfect and subject to manipulation.
Actually that is not true the number of spammers is not that large. However the amount of spam even a single person with an automated system can put out is huge. Google's problem is that to detect it accurately you to need to be human and not a robot.
I wish they would hurry up getting it right! They are not helped by the fact that many "legitimate" businesses also use automated posting systems. The problem of detecting the bad stuff is thereby made more complex.
by Mary Hyatt2 years ago
Someone told me of a fairly new writing site called Two Cents Worth. It was started by two women and I think it is being patterned after Bubblews from what I have read. I checked out their site, but...
by Rafini2 days ago
I just joined Niume and created my first post. Very, very surprised to see all the sharing buttons! I'm guessing this means sharing is not considered duplicate content. I really like the platform, so...
by Marisa Wright6 years ago
IzzyM and I have been chatting about backlinking, and disagreeing on what's the best way to go about it. She's been spending hours backlinking her Hubs on social bookmarking and backlinking sites, because she feels...
by Anne22 months ago
Where else do the amazing author's on Hubpages display their work? Considering Hubpages is very fragile at the moment, I am researching a split of my hubs to another site as an insurance against hub pages going down....
by Jason Menayan4 years ago
There is a lot of bad SEO (search engine optimization) advice out there, and the use of automated services that procure backlinks to your Hubs is one particularly egregious example. Using services to get backlinks can...
by IzzyM6 years ago
First of, I don't really know what I'm talking about, or to be more specific, I don't know the name of what I am talking about.But thanks to a few hubbers on here, I have taken to backlinking the easy way. You backlink...
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.