The chart showed a loss of about 55% of the traffic on Hubpages in the last 6 months.
I also looked at the traffic trends on some of the niche sites, and they don't seem to be making up for the loss.
In fact the bounce rate seemed higher than that of Hubpages.
What are the old timers thoughts about this?
I also noticed on the niche sites that the "follow" button really seemed to be in a strange place.
What chart? I see a picture of a clock above an archway. Where are you getting this data, and how does the clock fit in?
Certainly the traffic for HubPages will have plummeted, as thousands of the highest-quality articles have been moved to the niche sites.
Personally, my traffic has greatly improved since the niche sites.
Re: bounce rate: The way Hubs are interlinked makes this number hard to interpret on HP. Back when we had subdomains bounce was fairly high because any time a reader went from one Hub to another by a different Hubber it counted as a bounce. Then, when HP put all Hubs back on the main domain, bounce would have dropped a bit because all Hubs were on the same domain.
Now that we have the niche sites, any time a reader goes from one niche site to another, or from a niche site to HP, or from HP to a niche site, it counts as a bounce. If you are comparing the numbers from when all Hubs were on HP to the niche site numbers then bounce will look a little higher.
In my opinion, it's not really worth worrying about. It's just a metric. Reader experience is more important.
Isn't it obvious? The people sitting below the arch are former hubbers who have been reduced to selling street art since their traffic declined.
LOL - you funny guy, calc!
No, I was looking at this site here https://www.similarweb.com
I've just been doing some research and it caught my attention.
Wasn't saying it was bad or good, just wondering how it pertained to hubpages.
Picture was just one of mine put in to enjoy, Ignore it if you don't like it.
Had noting to do with the question.
Thanks for the responses. calc got a good chuckle out of yours!
I thought the clock with a mountain (possibly geologically active) was a ticking time bomb. Then I read the OP said it was just a pic and not related - sad
Anyway, similarweb is very inaccurate at least in regard to my own website. So I wouldn't trust it. It shows that my second largest user base is from Taiwan (0% in reality) and the bounce rate on my site is just 5% (according to similarweb), it's a more like 25% though.
Thx for your thoughts, lobo.
At least the pic got your attention! LOL
I've included the active volcano that's close to the one behind the clock.
I could sit on the terrace at night and watch the red lava burst out every 15 minutes or so.
It's Antigua, Guatemala.
The traffic stats for my blog are rubbish on that site, I wouldn't trust it. Frankly I would expect the traffic loss to HubPages.com to be more than 55%.
When the niche sites were announced, HubPages said they were going to skim the cream - i.e. move all the high-traffic Hubs first. A figure was quoted - I can't recall but I think they said those Hubs accounted for 70% of HubPages' traffic? Maybe someone else can remember. So they expected 70% of traffic to go from the main site - and it will take time for the niche sites to reach their potential.
Most sites that track traffic are just guessing - not one of them has access to real stats. Even a respected site like Alexa doesn't have accurate statistics.
Quantcast used to have 100% accurate data on HubPages because HubPages gave them access to their traffic stats. They cut off that access before the move to the niche sites.
Yeah that's what I remember too somewhere around the 70% mark.
I appreciate your input and your thoughts.
Not much dif to me, I'm trying to understand a lot of stuff. Was just looking around and saw that.
The net be one interesting place. Not easy for a 64 yr. to comprehend stuff I've never really paid attention too.
No worries, no hassles - just learning.
We're the same age, you're not too old yet! I started doing this stuff 8 years ago so I've got a head start on you but I still wasn't a spring chicken, so no excuses!
The question about stats raises a bigger question - i.e. what's going to happen to HubPages.com in the future. The move to niche sites has already slashed 70% off its traffic. As new Hubs are being published, all the best ones are being moved straight to the niche sites - tha'ts the new normal, so new Hubs are never going to add much new traffic to the main site. Meanwhile, moderators are still cherry-picking good existing Hubs for the niche sites, so that's more traffic being lost from the main site day by day.
If we assume the site had only 30% of its former traffic after the initial launch of the niche sites, what will it be like by the time they're done cherry-picking? How can a site with so little traffic be viable?
The main site will have to continue in the long term, as an administrative Hub for us to manage our accounts and submit new articles to the niches. But I can't see how it has any future as a profit centre. Maybe it will become a playground for Hubbers, a place to write stuff for each other rather than for a wider audience.
Oh, I didn't say I was "too" old. If I was that, I'd be 6 ft. under!
Didn't say I couldn't learn it, just saying my grasp is lacking. I've got a few fingers around it, but it's tenuous at best. LOL
Great that you learned what you did. I enjoy your responses and insight into a lot of the questions and forums here.
Not my worries about hubpages. They want a business, they'll figure out or go broke - the market is fair about that.
What you learn here on hubpages, you can take anywhere on the internet. The beauty of the site Only thing consistent about change is the change.
Have a great week!
You are right, HubPages is a business and they will figure it out. The point is, though, that the niche sites ARE the result of their figuring.
We know they've been trying to make the main site profitable since the Great Panda Disaster of 2011, when we lost 75% of our traffic. Although they've had some successes over the years, the site has never got close to where it was before Panda. I'm not surprised they've finally decided, after 5 years, that there's nothing more they can do to make HubPages.com a profitable business as a single site - in fact, one could say they've been surprisingly pig-headed in persevering for so long. Especially when you consider their top Hubbers (most of whom are online professionals and no longer here) were telling them to go niche years ago.
That's why I'm struggling to understand why they'd keep the main site going, because they could easily use HubPages.com as a "back office" only, with only our profile pages, forums and Q&A here. Their slowness in going niche leads me to suspect there's a sentimental attachment there. After all, it's Paul Edmondson's baby and he still owns the company. Although I could be cynical and say they don't want to tell us until they've mined the existing Hubs for all the material they want . . .
Even if pageviews are down 55%, there is still money being made here. And they may create new niches (to mine from the motherload) once they have these under control.
That's true, but bear in mind that all the profitable Hubs have already been moved to niches. What's left is a huge mass of Hubs that weren't getting enough traffic to be worth creating a niche for the first time round. I'm know there are plenty of Hubs in that mass that they haven't created a niche for yet - but creating a niche site takes time and staff effort, and ongoing maintenance. Can those costs be justified in terms of the future potential income of the niche? If those Hubs are a small fraction of what's already only 30% of the site's original traffic, and even the original traffic wasn't enough to make the main site viable on its own, it's hard to see how the numbers would stack up for new niches.
Also, maintaining the "rump" of HubPages takes up the time of moderators and technical people. Assuming there are staff at HubPages who have a business brain, they should be looking at the ratio of cost to profit for both the main site and each of the niche sites. If they cut back the main site to just an admin centre with forums and Q&A, they wouldn't need staff or technicians to manage the Hubs - they should be calculating what saving that would make and whether it's more than the income being generated. Maybe it stacks up and if it does, the main site will continue. If it doesn't, it would be a poor business brain that didn't take action.
I see your point but....Something I have gathered from the forums is that many good articles earning well have been left behind. Those are the ones people are petitioning for review. I don't know why they were left behind. Maybe there was such a rush or certain parameters that editors were looking for where those hubs slightly missed the mark. But I have the idea that a good chunk of earning hubs are still on the HP site.
If I look at profiles of some of those with 10M+ views I see only a small percentage (25%) of their hubs on niche sites. One of those authors in particular was careful to tend her garden and remove non-performers.
Also, some may have been beaten out on the move because it was a duplicate topic, the hubs that remained behind have gotten a boost from the lack of competition. Just some of the comments people have made here.
Just to be clear, we have not finished going through the backlog and our Curators are still working through old Hubs as well as new. Many of these simply haven't been looked at yet.
Just to be clear, the Hubs you're still going through - are you still going through the original "top" Hubs representing 70% of the traffic, that were mentioned in the original discussions? Or have they already been moved and you're mining the rest for gems?
As far as I know we haven't mentioned moving only the top 70% of traffic and it was always the plan to all content on the site; we just intended to look at the backlog with traffic as one of the important factors in the order of our queue.
I remember reading a post from one of the staff about 70% or so of the traffic coming form a handful of hubs when you compare it to the complete pool of pages here. It wasn't said that just those 70% are being moved or going to be moved, from what I recall.
I'm sure you guys haven't gone through all yet, since there are a few of mine with low traffic that haven't been touched yet I am hoping it takes you guys a little more time lol. Just so I can update and make them good enough for the niches.
Maybe I drew the inference from what they said. Personally I think they're crazy if they invest as much time and energy in the bottom 30% as they did in the top 70%: there has to be a point where the cost of snipping and editing outweighs the future potential of the Hub. But it's there business, I guess if they want to waste money on the process, then it's our gain.
Also I thought the whole point of using traffic as a guide was that they wanted to focus on Hubs that "pleased Google". If they start moving low traffic Hubs, they risk transplanting the problems of the old site to the new.
I agree, but "pleasing Google" is one thing and being a slave is another. You want to give your readers a good experience and this is only possible if you first of all have a complete page, and secondly have related pages.
As long as the team makes sure that the pages are unique, well written, stick to a topic and are helpful in a way, I do not see any downside. Here's some numbers for you:
The fist hub that I chose to enter as my 1 in 60 days entry was getting maybe 10 visits a month. But after going to the niche site it gets anywhere between 20 - 30 a day, some days more.. 50 - 60% from the niche site itself and the rest from various Google extensions.
Let's say I choose to leave this hub online for a year (Just an example). That's 365 days and at 30 a day = 10,950 views. What about the few that go to other articles after viewing this one of mine? Let's be conservative and make it 11,100. Probably it's really good and I get a link (Just one link in the year) - The site now has a link benefiting the entire domain.
11k views at say USD 3 per 1000 (the lower end on HP I believe). 33 USD or 13.2 USD to Hub Pages. I bet they do multiple hubs an hour. Let's just say 3. That leaves us at $39.6 an hour? Not that bad if it's ultimately boosting the value of the top performers on the site - just by being there and being seen as an authority because of it.
It does seem like a lost cause going for the hubs with 0 views a month, but those could be the real gems. The really good articles lost due the competition. Maybe now they have a better chance of shining and getting a few clicks and links.
We believe there is value (both for readers and authors) in moving great content, regardless of its current traffic, in the interest of having a more complete site with lots of good things to read and also because some of those articles may have more of a chance to break out and gain readership on niche sites than they did on HubPages. We simply started with traffic as a major factor in the selection process because it was the most sensible financial choice.
Marisa, I think there's a very important reason for keeping HubPages alive as a site. It should be what we call in baseball a "farm team." In other words, where do new writers practice their craft as they work to improve? I would be surprised if most new hubbers start out writing well enough to get to a niche site. HubPages should be an incubator site that provides a welcoming home for neophytes and produces graduates who develop to the point where they write well enough to make the big leagues (the niche sites).
I've thought of that. If they go down that road, though, then they would probably have to make all the Hubs on the main site unFeatured, the same way Weebly makes its free sites unFeatured, so that staff don't have to expend time and energy on monitoring quality on Hubs that don't pay.
Agreed, Marissa. That said, my traffic has picked up as a result of the niche sites.
I'm noticing a big spike in traffic for about two or three months after a hub is moved to a niche site, and then it seems to level out. I did well money wise this time, but can already see I have made less for the coming month (since we get paid from the last month).
I'm fixing up old hubs, and am sort of surprised which ones are getting traffic. They are moving some hubs with little traffic, and they get more, so that's nice. And the hubs that were popular still are.
I have written three new hubs, two made niches and one did not. It's hard to decide whether to keep writing. Plus my orders for my charts and readings have really picked up and it seems wiser to work on that.
Thanks for sharing Jean.
So, it's a little less money right now after, what, 6 months?
Do you think it will pick up as hubpages works on the niche sites?
Glad to hear overall that you're doing well on hupages.
To your continued success!
They began moving my hubs in June, so that's about 5 months now. They seem to drop a little in views after about three months, so I'm not sure what to expect. My hubs that always did well still are.
Once in a while they still edit a hub and move it to a niche, but at a much slower rate than they did. I think they are looking more for new material now. At least we know what the niches are, and so if we write something to fit one, our chances of having a new hub moved immediately is better.
I guess we are all waiting to see what happens to our hubs that are staying on the main Hubpages site. As I said, they are still going thru them, and we can ask if they will take one every 60 days, but they are very strict with the rules when it goes that way. I felt that it was almost not worth it to do a whole rewrite on something, or just couldn't find pictures, though it seems they only require one and like it at the top.
I've noticed a significant and steady increase in traffic (and revenue) from the hubs migrated to the niche sites. I haven't written anything new for a long while, but I have to say the positive results of the niche sites is nudging me toward writing again. In the meantime, I am tweaking and making edits to things.
As for other hubs that are just languishing (I am sure we all have a few) - perhaps the staff will spot other topics that can become niche sites. I am sure the initial group of themes was determined due to potential traffic. However, HP has a wealth of undiscovered gems (along with the slash), and once the staff has gone through the inventory, new topics may surface.
It's seems, those that have had hubs moved to the niche sites are quite happy with the results.
But, I few things seem odd to me.
1) Even for us hubbers, the niche sites, at least for me, never appear in a search engine inquiry. Seem difficult to find.
2) Even on hubpages, when you hit "search hubs" most of what comes up are Q&A's or forums. Very few hubs.
And some of the "best" or "hot" are sometimes as old as 5 years.
Anyone focused on zeroing in on a particular goal of visibility?
Not complaining, just wondering.
Thanks to you all for sharing on this question. I've found it informative.
Yes, people who've had Hubs moved to the more focussed niche sites are doing very well and I think those sites have great potential.
I've had the same experience with search: even in HubPages' heyday, it always perplexed me how I could have so much traffic to my Hubs from Google, and yet I never saw a HubPages result when I was searching for stuff myself!
No one except other Hubbers is using the HubPages' search so that's not a concern. The general public do not come to HubPages to browse. If they're going to navigate around the site at all, they do so by following the related Hubs links on our Hubs.
It really is like watching a religion develop. What are the sky dwellers really about? What do they want from us? Will we ever be good enough to go to the mountain top?
Of course, if Donald Trump ever bought out HP, it would all be 'Leda and the Swan'.
Ok, so you get a message that your hub was chosen but didn't make the cut.
You've been told that you need to edit it.
So you do that - you do the editing and follow the advice of the moderator.
Does that go to the bottom, or is someone keeping an eye on that particular hub to see if the author can make the grade?
Or does the email itself put you back to the bottom of the heap?
No, it doesn't go to the bottom - the moderator is looking out for you to resubmit it, so it gets priority.
As I explained on another thread, the important thing is to look at the specific issues the moderator mentions at the end of the email. The whole first section of the email is just generic and may not apply to your Hub at all, but that last paragraph is what they're really worried about.
by Scott Bateman7 months ago
I'm very happy with the results of the niche sites. It's a win-win for HubPages and writers like myself. But I'm a bit curious about the process for choosing Hubs that go on those sites.One of my most successful Hubs on...
by David Hinerman3 days ago
I've written almost 20 hubs in the last few weeks since I've returned to HubPages. I've had no problems getting featured & my hubs get moved to niche sites pretty fast. But I wrote a hub 5 days ago and it still has...
by Gable Rhoads13 months ago
What are my fellow Hubbers doing with hubs that aren't selected for a niche site? Do you plan on leaving them on HubPages or moving them. I'm not sure if it would be better to move them to my blog and risk losing...
by Scott Bateman8 months ago
I have been pleased with the audience and revenue for my articles on HubPages since joining the site some years ago.I commend the company for creating the successful niche sites at a time when similar sites were...
by Glenn Stok3 months ago
I noticed that hubs in niche sites no longer include the "More by this author" section below the hub. Is this just an oversight or was it a decision to drop it on niche sites?
by Michael Kismet3 months ago
I already have a number of hubs moved to the Hubpages network sites, but haven't really seen a drastic traffic change in said hubs. So, is it worth the risk to submit one of my hubs that already receives a decent amount...
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.