I really like what Russ has to say.
If nothing else, jump to #3.
Thank you! Learning of SEO the big picture and the details I see easily the importance of strategy with this article. Both short term and long term strategy. Doors are opened to opportunity through learning. For me this article was enlightening with how the details create the big picture for an article's success, yet overall it is the big picture that guides. I saw newly learned SEO knowledge at work with successful examples. Next, reading those invaluable links within.
Agree, agree...agree! I cannot tell you how much time I spend updating and refreshing my hubs and despite the experiences of others here, I have never had an article go unfeatured because I did some refreshing.
More interesting is the fact that no matter how many times I do this, I find something I can correct or improve or add. Always the article is better for it.
This has improved my writing skills immensely over the years. In fact, when I look back at some of my early writings here, I literally cringe. It pays to do this, but, yes, it is a ton of work.
Personally, I like the challenge and the creative aspects of it, but that's just me!
TT2 - I agree with you. As a published author, I cannot tell you how many times I reviewed/rewrote content in my chapters before publishing the book.
I try to review/update my hubs at least quarterly, and I have not had any unpublished yet from this.
Thanks Paul. Keeping hubs up to date is definitely important. It's something I do on a routine basis. Not only with keeping info up to date, but also other things that are required for Google's changing requirements. Such as what I did recently to make sure my hubs were mobile friendly.
That article gave me a lot of other important ideas and helped reinforce the need to keep articles looking fresh.
I think one of the reasons people have stopped updating hubs is probably because of the persistent trend for such hubs to then become unfeatured. (There are regular threads within the forums commenting on this).
It's not a great incentive is it?
Paul - You might like to also review the comments by Garrett French further down the post about curators versus Editors and the extent to which curators become valued because they determine how linkable a page is for a topic. I've adopted the curatorial model for years and it's worked well - right up until when I came to HubPages which for some reason seems to 'blank' comprehensive curation of a topic. I've come to the conclusion that HubPages simply does not understand the model - despite the fact that Google does.
Makingamark, I hate to confess it but I don't fully understand what you mean by the "curatorial model", do you have any links to sources that would explain it for me?
The article Paul references shares two models regarding URL linkability - The Curator and the Editor. Both are shown to have value while there is contrast too. That discussion is about 1/3 into the article. It follows the emphasis Paul points out with the article's points of interest where the third is:
Feature #3: Fresh
A Key quote is The truth is that if you are not updating your content regularly, Google will have to assume that your content is losing its reliability. So why not? Over time, you will build up a great backlink profile by sheer longevity, while at the same time keeping content as fresh as new competitors entering the space.
A tie between the curator and editor is this quote Tactically speaking, the curators support broken link building and "link request" efforts, while editors support PR and guest posting campaigns.
Another quote is "Curators are - relatively speaking - quite rare. The existence of curators seems to be topically-driven and are especially prevalent across health and education." However contextually that portion of the article should be read
A quote for the Editor approach is "my strategy would be to promote via PR, ideally in conjunction with the ranked schools to help them get the most out of their top ranking." PR has meaning being Public Relations . . . I believe. An example shared above was guest posting campaigns.
BTW, as novice I am I discovered the article comments very informative seeking understanding with additional views.
When I first saw curated articles (if I am understanding what curated articles are correctly), I got a funny feeling, because they were taking a bunch of copyrighted images and presenting them as a group for people interested in a particular topic. (i.e. 5 fabulous crafts with toilet paper rolls, life hacks, etc.).
It kinda does provide a useful service to have all the articles in one place, making it easier for the reader to look at the different ideas and choose their own, but on the other hand, they are making money off of someone else's hard work. I think it would work fine if they got permission to use the images and some of these curated articles are really helpful, but a lot of them I have seen are just a way to get link juice. I've seen "curated" articles that only have one link.
I guess what I am saying is that you have to make them ethically.
Just popping in to sayyyyy...
If there's one thing Makingamark is it's ethical, as is her content. (And she's certainly more than that.)
I guess what I wanted to get to the bottom of is - are you (and I) understanding the definition of a curated article correctly, and how can one be sure one is doing it ethically?
Maybe an article-curator is a guy who who locks-up Wikipedia articles, so no one can further edit them. Or something like that.
Actually I'm the sort of curator who actually creates/writes the Wikipedia articles!
You could look at my hubs to get a sense of it what a curatorial website looks like
Or you could take a look at one that I moved my botanical art hubs too. Try looking at botanicalartandartists dot com with a www on the front end.
I create comprehensive compendiums about various art topics for people who want to educate themselves and know more about that topic - both now and over time. My sites get quoted by a number of educators. I am discriminating and highlight the best.
HOWEVER my sites do sometimes involve linking to the same site more than once - which is the reason why my HubPages does not like my content.
Personally I really don't get it because Google absolutely LOVES curators/experts. We help them decide who is and is not OK.
May we get a list of Wikipedia articles that you've created/edited? We're curious. At-least I am.
That's a very odd interpretation of curated articles. Maybe you've not been to enough art exhibitions?
Curation became the name of the game when the growth in the internet took off. (2008? 2009?) Curators are people who make sense of a topic for others, show them what is available to see that is actually worth looking at AND add their own value.
Another word for Curator is Editor - it's what people do in magazines and newspapers day in day out, week in and week out. They review, select, summarise and represent what people need to know - but they don't create content from scratch (as a novelist might do).
The problem at the moment is that the internet is stuffed full of really rank content. Oodles and ooodles of total twaddle and/or important looking websites that say absolutely nothing.
Both are a total waste of time. Both are the reason why Google is trying to find a way through the morass by finding people who do know what they are talking about and who are verifiying which content is OK and then validating it by creating websites to share with others.
This is where semantic search comes in....
That seems to fit my definition. The thing is, a museum gets permission from the artist to show her art, or at least, they buy, rent, borrow, or otherwise legally acquire the art to show. A lot of times, online, the person "curating" is only doing it to get the ad money without doing the other things you mentioned. Especially when there is only one link to one article, and the only thing they added was a shocking or curious headline to make people want to click or share the link on social sites.
I think maybe you're looking at the wrong sort of sites!
There's a HUGE number of really informative websites on the internet put together by people who really know their stuff and wanting to share because they love their subject and know others do too.
They certainly don't do it for the money and any money they might make probably goes to offset the hosting costs. I don't think anybody is making lots of money off the sorts of sites I'm talking about.
Let's also be very clear. Nobody needs to seek permission to share a link and comment on what it has to offer. It is NOT the same as an exhibition in that sense. I'm showing people a route map and the reasons why a journey might be worthwhile - not showing them the destination when they get there.
If people are using images without permission then of course that is reprehensible - unless any such use can be justified within the context of lawful copyright exceptions re fair use. That of course is wholly dependent on the quality of the content which accompanies it. My policy has always been to use copyright exempt or images that I have permission to use.
I know that there are good sites that curate articles very well and show you the best ones. I also know sites that do it improperly, stealing someone's image and trying to just serve as a passthrough to the other article. I am thinking particularly of some pins that do that on Pinterest. The pin goes to a site that goes to another site. It probably is just to make money. I've learned to check out the site to make sure it doesn't just do that and report it.
I was just saying that it should be done ethically, but I don't have any problems with curated articles in general.
But Google ignores Pinterest links!
https://www.seroundtable.com/google-ign … 18385.html
If I were you I'd stop focusing on the sites that do things badly and start focusing on and learning from the ones that do things well! You'll be much happier as a result!
That article does not state that Google ignores Pinterest links, it uses the word "mostly". That means that sometimes they do not ignore the links. I have one hub that is linked on Pinterest several thousand times and it is now getting thousands of page views per day from Pinterest. It has also moved up on the Google search page for that topic.
Is this a coincidence? Is it because of other links? Perhaps, or maybe it is because of "mostly", but not always ignoring social media.
I've lost count of the number of articles I have read which suggest that Google ignores Pinterest. It's certainly not one article.
As to the traffic you are getting - does it convert to anything meaningful? How do you know it's not bots?
Are you serious? How do you know that this whole conversation is not just some flashback you´re having?
What I found funny was "I've lost count of the number of articles I have read which suggest that Google ignores Pinterest. It's certainly not one article." You cannot imagine how many clients I have that come in and tell me some stupid fact about their dogs health, and then tell me "I have lost count of the number of articles I have read that state that." If it is on the internet, and on several web sites, it must be true, right?
From this article's comments (https://www.seroundtable.com/google-ign … 18385.html) I gleaned this bit of information:
"Patti Paz • a year ago
I'm a bit confused here. In our niche market, personalized invitations, announcements, and stationery cards, there's usually at least one Pinterest results showing on the first page. So, if the links to / from Pinterest are all but ignored, how in the world does one or more pages of an entity's Pinterest page appear? Looks like we have different people smoking from different pipes . . . . .
Robert Gaines Patti Paz • a year ago
The links that go to Pinterest count, it is the links from Pinterest that are debatable. I for one maintain that they still have some value even though they are NoFollow. It is the spammy DoFollow links that either have no value or actually hurt your ranking. At the very least, NoFollow links are probably used by Google to determine trending content."
This explains to me how Pinterest pages can appear on page 1 SERPS.
Actually, some of them get permission. Some of the sites that have curated my content have contacted me for permission to use my images. The last one was Buzzfeed about a month ago. They asked if they could use images from my money rose hub and link back to it. I got a nice big burst of views right away and some views continue to trickle in from Buzzfeed.
Curation is the practice of directing people to the things the curator finds of value and interest on the topic they've chosen to curate. Excellent curators can be trusted to serve up the best on the topic they specialize in and the creators get the benefit of having people directed to their sites. It's like getting a juicy free advertisement when a popular curator chooses to feature your work.
Listotic, AllCrafts, WonderHowTo, Kids Activities Blog, My List of Lists, Unlock Your Wealth Radio, FaithTap, and My Honey's Place are just a few of the curation sites that bring views to my content daily. None of them asked for permission to send readers to my hubs, stories, and articles and I am not upset in the least if they make money while sending readers to my work.
Yep, I have heard that quite a bit. More and more folks are editing and updating less and less because of the filters catching some little thing and un-featuring their page without giving a SPECIFIC reason or pointing to the error.
I will likely join their ranks as I have seen this first-hand
BTW content superheroes are also really good news. You might want to ask why a lot of experts are moving their content off HubPages....
https://www.stonetemple.com/why-do-cont … mark-eric/
First let me explain what we mean by content glut. The message that content is necessary to find, attract, and grow audience has been heard loud and clear. So with each passing day, more and more content is being produced.
All that content is competing for the same audience. The truth is that these days, only content super heroes will stand out amongst the noise. Those content super heroes are going to be subject matter experts whose expertise and value are respected by their audience. They produce the kind of content that people want to comment on, share with friends, and link to.
How about these 2 quotes from an expert?
1. "Your forum entries are usually negative and recommend that others move their hubs to other sites. If you are following your advice, which I assume you are, then you have less hubs. If you have less hubs you are going to be earning less money.
My payout each month is not increasing much but then again I have not been posting new material here. It is still enough."
2. Yes, I realize that the top hubs earn a lot more. I am not keeping track of what you are moving to other sites.
You obviously did not read the response and you have an interesting interpretation of expert.
Did that bother you? The number "2" was DrMark's counter-reply against your counter-reply against his initial overview of your attitude on HubPages.
I've simply quoted him.
You don't provide the context or a permalink.
Neither the response nor your comment make any sense to me
Why on earth would I be bothered by either of you? People misunderstand and get confused all the time.
The hyperlinks are included within the comments themselves. The texts are hyperlinked.
Like I said you obviously did not read the response.
Your point has been dragged in here from another thread. It's all very tedious and wholly unrelated to the topic of the post hence this is my last response to you.
Maybe you could go and write another war story?
The context of DrMark's comment is fairly comprehensible: your attitude on HubPages, in the last few months, have attracted the eye of a number of people on the site. Anyone can 'tell' when someone's chief mantra is to attempt to defame the website and its people. Your current approach, on this very thread, is a good example of that noble initiative.
Your attitude tells that you do not like being here, and you're going to move elsewhere (Blogger, probably), and yet, you are, seemingly, nitpicking and hairsplitting every trifle issue that is affecting you on HubPages. What's that? We're on the internet; but before that we're human beings, and we get what's inside someone, even on the internet.
Anyway, I can see that you would like to discontinue. Bye.
Yet again you are wrong.
I'm very grateful for the home that was offered by HubPages.
Plus I've no objection to HubPages per se - just to one or two aspects where I think they're shooting themselves in the foot - which ultimately doesn't benefit anybody.
I've also got no particular wish to move my sites - it takes a lot of time and effort.
I just wish HubPages would wake up to two factors:
1) there's more than one way to make an ethical, interesting hub which is attractive to traffic and satisfies Google in very many ways. I've got a very long track record of making sites which Google likes and which offer value to others.
2) It has been extremely disappointing to find that sites that have generated huge traffic and lots of external (i.e. genuine) fans over the years were deemed to be "overly promotional" because they had more than two links to the same domain - as can happen when you are building comprehensive compendiums and dealing with very niche topics.
I'm not prepared to butcher my content to satisfy a requirement which is pure invention on the part of HubPages - and that's the sole reason I need to move it.
The one benefit is I'm slowly putting together even better mega niche sites (on Weebly as it happens) which are better structured and organised and more accessible and which, to date, have quadrupled traffic - mainly from Google search from all over the world.
I'm not alone. Lots have gone before me and many others are doing the same thing. You're new here - you wouldn't know what's gone before and how many people are not now here.
You're obviously interested in Blogger. What a pity you should choose to take pot shots at somebody who has used it for 10 years , knows a few things about how to make it work effectively for you and your readers and counts her readers in millions.
...and that really is it.
Your comment on that thread, that you've just hyperlinked, was posted 33 hours ago. While DrMark's 2nd comment (that I had quoted on this thread) against that, was posted 23 hours ago.
I get what you're basically trying to say. Write a hub about that, and we all shall get benefited.
I did - it's been unpublished for more than two links to the same domain.
Get it now?
If you skim read you don't get it.
Get it now?
First off, it's not your website. And if you want to improve anything here, then request. Do not force. If you do (which you are), you're picking up the football in your hand during a match.
Secondly, and it's a more important factor: The '2 links issue', seemingly, is an alibi. If you wanted to stay here, meaningfully, you would. You wouldn't make up funny excuses that everyone know that they are excuses.
There may be some curated content that is not simply someone stealing other people's work and ideas.
There may be some Wiki articles which are not copies of other people's work from books and their own sites.
There may be some museums that have created original content rather than stealing it from other countries.
There may be some editors who have their own ideas and ability.
There may be some teachers who can actually do what they preach about.
I don't have time or interest to go looking for them.
And please don't mention Content Heroes any more. I may turn quite nasty.
Your interests are your interests. My interests are mine. C'est la vie!
I'm writing for people like me - with my interests. It's a notion that has worked pretty well for the last 10 years. I guess the same principle applies to a lot of people who write for HubPages.
"Content Heroes" is NOT my phrase - it comes from the article I quoted in http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/133302#post2768322 by one of the chaps who is cited in the third paragraph of the article that Paul Edmondson highlighted in the original post.
The concept struck me as somewhat pertinent to the perennial problem of how to improve both content and traffic on this site.
I read or scanned the article. Sure it is a great example of what the Google algorithm considers to be good - lots of words and infographics. Some quotes, italics and all that stuff.
It left a bad taste in my mouth. The content, no matter how well spun and presented, was just the same old rehashed "Wanna make money" garbage that fills the internet.
On top of that it includes self-proclaimed experts claiming some sort of super knowledge. And all for the purpose of selling themselves, or a site, or a book.
Benefit to humanity? Zero.
But as an example to those who can still be bothered with the game - it is the supposed way to achieve a high score on this weeks Google search engine,
Well I only took a look at what they had to say because they were cited as experts in the article Paul Edmundson recommended.
See - that's how the Internet works. One person recommends a link which in turns recommends people who know what they're talking about.
You don't have to agree with what their business is about to understand the mechanics and the wisdom of what they are saying. I've carried around a filter re. experts and what they were selling for the last 10 years - works fine for me!
You're coming across as very disallusioned (jaundiced?) re the internet at the moment - the humour has gone - maybe it's not the place for you? Or maybe you're just having a bad day? If you are I hope things look brighter tomorrow.
I am glad I came across as disillusioned (note correct spelling) because that is how I felt. I managed to express myself clearly and accurately. I haven't lost it then. Hooray!
The article pressed a wrong button for me. It is that repetition of the same old story, revamped and preached by someone who pretends to have answers.
IF they had answers and success they would NOT be writing crappy blog posts.
I tried not to post on this thread because it is pointless but the words Content Superhero and Curation pushed me over the edge.
As for humour. I considered putting a fart joke in towards the end of my first post but felt that would lessen the power of my argument somewhat. If you think I can still make a point AND joke around at the same time we can give it a go.
Q. What do you call up themselves self-appointed gurus on the internet?
A. Call them what you like. They have no more answers than my cat.
Not very funny but I think on this occasion it adds to the eloquence of my reply. Maybe I could write a blog post on it and include a diagram, photo and poll so Google likes it.
That is what I am talking about. Writing by numbers.
As for your concern. Thank you for that. I have occasional bright spots such as improving traffic on my site yesterday (organic search). There is still hope despite my obvious inability to grasp the importance of twats.
Not that Mark can't or hasn't already spoken for himself, but I think you are missing his point, and what his role is on the Internet. Mark is neither an editor nor a curator; he is a creative. As such, any good creative will be disgusted by formula creation.
I read the post that Paul referenced, and found it unilluminating for my purposes. I personally don't care for the rigors of formula either.
"Making A Mark" is the writers screen name, not "Mark," and said writer is a woman. It pays to visit a profile page now and then, and find out such things.
I no longer update my hubs. Why? Because doing so opens them to the risk of being unpublished.
As for curated content, that makes me laugh. My postgraduate diploma in library and information studies was, in effect, all about curation. The role of the information specialist in those days (mid 1980s) was seen as someone able to act as gatekeeper and apply a critical evaluation to information searches in order to sift and present the most useful results to one's clients/audience. This implied a certain level of specialist knowledge, which could, however, in many cases also be mastered by someone with the required level of intelligence to pick up the essentials of a subject rapidly. Alas, that aspect of the information specialist died in the last century. Nowadays, the "specialist" by Google's definition is either someone with an academic position in the field (fair enough) or a semi-literate moron purveying (often grossly incorrect) information from "personal experience" in text speak or otherwise grammatically painful content.
Luckily, I saw the oncoming doom for information specialists soon enough and sidelined into medical translation where I can happily earn without worrying about competition from incompetents.
I'd agree Google places a lot of weight on certain institutions/individuals - and they do love the academics and museums
However one of their main aims, with what they were doing at present with algorithm changes, is "can" your second category i.e. those purveying inaccurate information based on less than expert knowledge (i.e. those who do not add authentic knowledge and real value to the person doing a search).
I very much suspect this might be one of the reasons why they don't like "content farms" / article sites.
That doesn't mean such 2nd category sites won't exist - just that they won't rank highly in the search results.
It was certainly the case not that long ago - and I assume the same still applies - that they study the profile of the person posting and look at what they are talking about on other platforms and in other places (semantic search - not just words but rather whole phrases and what you are actually saying) .
If you have a cluster of sites, blogs, posts about a topic - AND other people are linking to you - then you earn your 'expert' status. That's the point at which they start featuring your site in their results. It does NOT happen overnight - and I guess one of the things they factor in is how long you have been writing about a subject - which they can tell because they know how long your site has been around.
On Squidoo and HubPages if I was reading a lens or hub for information I'd first take a look at the profile of the individual and see what else they wrote about. If they had lots and lots of hubs on one topic area (e.g. three which immediately spring to mind are birthday parties; colouring pages (before it was fasionable) and Greek mythology!) then I knew they were an expert on that topic within the context of Squidoo or HubPages. Look at their websites away from the articles and the theme was reinforced.
However if a profile indicates that an individual does not have one specialist area and instead writes about this or that and the other, then I often find it's not an incentive to continue reading.
One article (or even two or three) does not make you an expert on a topic.
by Earl Noah Bernsby2 years ago
Hey gang! *'Leave it to Beaver' music playing in background*As per melbel's advice on this Hub:http://melbel.hubpages.com/hub/Backlinks-HubsI decided to implement some of my new-fangled SEO learnin' by writing for...
by DasEngel12 months ago
No one takes the Internet seriously. Neither do I. I'm doing a quick poll. Just give me a rough numerical idea how often, in a normal day, do you open up a Wikipedia article to read. Either for pleasure or for...
by BennyTheWriter5 years ago
Is there any value in linking to your own hubs within OTHER hubs and your profile page, in terms of search engine page ranking? Any advantage at all? I've seen a lot of people do this.If this is a silly...
by Henry24 months ago
Hey folks. I'm a long time member here and an SEO guy by trade. I love this platform and want to support it. I've been digging into Panda data, and I have a few suggestions. Let's work together and 'right the ship!' 1)...
by Sopwith6 years ago
Hi Everyone,So I'm over here from Triond, checking out the competition and seeing if there's anywhere better.In general I like Triond. Yes, it's an anarchic wasteland with editors who screw up more than they fix, little...
by Brian Leekley2 years ago
In their teachings on writing stellar hubs, the HubPages staff has sometimes said that an ideal hub is 1,500 words long and has sometimes said that an ideal hub is 1,150 words long. Numerous hubs by hubbers on hubbing...
Copyright © 2016 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.