I've taken down as many backlinks as I could quickly do myself. Some places like shetoldme make you ask for help - I've done it. I've deleted all RSS feeds from my own sites and I'll start going over individual posts and replacing HP links with affiliate links. I have so many sites, I may have missed a few, but over the next few weeks I'll find them, I promise
There'll be no self-promotion whatsoever anymore of my hubs. That way I know I'm in compliance with the HP guidelines.
You'll have to read their guidelines and make up your own mind.
Apparently if you hang out on Facebook already and you want to mention one or two of your hubs, but not all your hubs all the time then its okay. I don't belong to FB or Digg, which seem to be okay places. So for me to sign up now....
No, I've been reading the HP guidelines for a few days now. And I actually have a great deal of respect for HP staff and their instincts. And they are leaning toward less is more.
I've also been reading about LSI and everything seems to be pushing me (very reluctantly) in that direction.
And my non-promoted hubs do as well as my promoted hubs I think.
So we'll see if I've just screwed my 4th quarter income.
And I love your phrase, I'm going to remember that!
Maybe Misha but on Jason's comments after your article he was rather cryptic about new hubs and scrutiny. And the link he pointed to was not clear at all. They don't really define excessive. And I'm not taking any chances.
There's also a side of me that thinks this is really the right strategy. And in keeping with my LSI strategy. We'll see....
I just put this at http://blog.hubpages.com/2010/09/the-pa … r-day-hub/
I agree with Bob. Why make a hero of someone who is openly flaunting both Google and HP policies?
Surely do this if you feel this way so strongly. Would be interesting to see what the outcome will be, please keep us informed.
Well their gone. Maybe I won't fuss about the remaining 15% as quickly as I was going to.
I don't know if you overreacted because I don't know what mess of spaghetti you had.
But really, it's simple and both Google and HP have told you that all you need to think about is whether your action benefits real readers.
If you think about readers rather than search engines, you will almost always make the right decision.
Pcunix - Deep down I know that this is the right thing to do. It was a very logical self-promotion scheme, not spaghtetti. If we are honest with ourselves, just about all links we place ourselves to our own content is not what google wants. And I honestly believe I'm good enough not to have to play these games.
I have been doing this since before Google indexed their first page. Before SEO existed.
When I created links then, it was for the benefit of readers and that is what I still do today.
There was a brief period where I flirted with the dark side. I felt dirty and quit.
I don't need it, and I doubt you need it either.
What is LSI? What happened to make you remove your backlinks?
Maybe there is method to the perceived madness....you never know when things could change, but still seems a bit extreme at this point.
You have many sites though and maybe that's what counts for you more in this strategy, your own internal backlinks connecting all of your little niches....
Hope it works out for you and you can see some measurable results!
Pcunix, didn't you see Jason's loophole "all newly published hubs". In some ways that's fair because it's hard to get backlinks to disappear in a hurry - as I'm finding out.
But I think it should've said "newly published backlinks" to any hub.
And he did urge a conservative approach. So this is my conservative approach.
I also remember life before Google. I remember life before Microsoft and working from the C prompt. And I remember the Florida Update. And it's actually that memory that made me delete the artificial backlinks.
This took some faffing about but anyway - from the learning centre:
Your First Hub Pt. 4 – Quick Promotion of your New Hub
March 5th, 2010
Once you’ve published your hub you can promote it. Utilizing social bookmarking and networking sites, your own blogs, and a variety of other sites can expose your hub to a human audience, also these backlinks can also help search engines find and index your page quicker and count towards having your page rank higher in the search results.
There's more of the same on the off-site page: social networking, forum sigs, ezines, self-hosted or free blogs (that are your own), social bookmarking - it's a fair old list. I too went off and read through, after the confusion about back links last week.
Whilst I don't disagree with your decision to remove all your links, or as many as you can, I'm not sure anything that I've read in the Learning Centre makes me think that you've actually done anything wrong in the way that you've promoted your own hubs.
It will be interesting to see the results, should you choose to disclose them. I for one won't be anything other than happy for you should you find your income is the same or has improved.
I have left a message on that blog post asking for some clarification from the Hubpages staff, this is clearly causing some confusion.
My understand was that this had already been clarified by Maddie on another thread, the conclusion was that it was the NATURE of the backlinks and not neccessarily the QUANTITY.
That is still a riddle to me, time for a set of guidelines. I am putting my backlinking on hold until clarified, I hope to resume soon.
As it happens, many of my hubs succeed without any backlinks (and 150+ have yet to be backlinked at all by me). But I am convinced that a few backlinks per hubpage really does push hubpages up the SERPS.
I am working on removing 100% of my backlinks*
*this disclaimer may just be a disclaimer*
What's going on here? I'm going to head to the learning centre to see if I can find it.
I've been backlinking my hubs, legitimately, but backlinking, nonetheless. Are we not supposed to be doign this anymore?
just pointing out the true nature of disclaimers - but a good look at the learning center is a great idea
Marketing psychology ... People know Google & HP are reading this, so deny bad internet behaviour or cover our backs - the idea of disclaimers.
Some psychologists might suggest that when people project the motive of others, that motive may be inherant of ourselves.
Yes, indeed, we all need to refresh from the learning center - we just might not know if things have changed!
It's a decision that everyone will make for themselves. The guidelines here are as clear as mud and you can make them what you want.
I'm going with what I've decided is a sustainable long-term strategy way beyond HP. Eventually I'll get as close to 100% no backlinks as possible. But I've got a lot of content to go through and some of the secondary sites own the content, so I'm stuck there.
It all comes down to moderation and common sense. Putting out a few good backlinks that are not spam will always help.
Buying 2,000 backlinks from some automated script site will actually hurt your site, or hubs.
That being said, big companies pay full time link-masters to do nothing but buy links on sites, post on forums and generate hundreds of thousands on links.
Hell Holiday Inn bought 3 links on my own sites, just a fraction of what they did that day I'm sure.
But yeah, for most don't overdo it and just do a few, quality back links. Common sense, just use common sense!
How do you guys create your backlinks? I read into it that if you are using spamming programs or other heavy loading backlink programs, THEN you will be identified as a spammer...
If you link to your blog and vice versa, thats ok, and if you get links organically, then that's fine as well...
I guess maybe using sites like shetoldme, etc isn't legit?
considering that the purpose of shetoldme is to share your content - then of course it is legit. I see the HP disclaimer as a way to combat any complaints they may receive and the rising trends of automated services.
a share site is neither. If you are proud of your efforts then I imagine you would share your content when you find it to be relevant.
Word to that. I dont actually even use Shetoldme. I've heard mixed reviews...
I def agree on that second statement.
On a few of my keywords I have found that bookmarks on SheToldMe rank not far behind my Hub and as it is no different than posting a link on FaceBook ,as it is a social share type site, I for one see no problem with it at all and would recommend using it and several other similar sites to anyone new to boost up their hubs until they take off organically.
Everything I have learned on Hub Pages makes me think that the whole SEO world is just set up to discourage the little guy and like in real world business apply a separate set of rules of what is deemed ethical between the two levels.
My opinion is as long as it's your material you should have every right to promote it the way you see fit,simple as that!
You have a legal right yes.
But both Google and HP have rights too and if they think your promotion is excessive, they can cancel your account or (for HP) take down your page.
Certainly. But HP and Google have their rights as well, and if you want to work with them it's best to follow their guidelines.
It is impossible to 'spam' a site which effectively invites you to spam the heck out of it.
In the same way that raping somebody who specifically and expressely asked to be 'raped' is not actually rape, but instead 'rough sex'.
Ryan, you consider Shetoldme a spammy site? That's what I have read, and I've even signed up, but it just looks like trash so I refrain from linking to it because at some point i feel that Google (if they haven't already) will consider those links garbage.
It is garbage, and I won't be surprised if their links already don't count. Either way they are not worth the effort.
Well they got some pretty swift PageRank promotions and currently site at PR5 I have seen other revenue share sites get knocked on the head, but there page rank has gone with it. InfoPirate being one very good example.
It will enevitably happen someday, but not just yet.
misha, I read your interview. you have a line in there that makes a lot of sense, but I would love for you to explain what kind of sites you mean. here's your quote:
you want to have a multiltude of sites linking to a few carefully crafted hubs, not a few sites linking to hundreds of hubs.
when you say multitude of sites, what kind of sites? are these quality backlinks? I do very little specific backlinking but have some hubs which have gained on their own.
so, anyone, are the RSS feeds from the HubMob still permissable?
For me to say whether they are quality or not in your understanding you have to define quality first.
I am doing a lot of different types of backlinks, but main part is old and tested article marketing both with article directories and blog networks. And those articles and blog posts that link to my pages I later social bookmark on a few dozen sites. All those processes could readily be automated. This hub has references to some services I use.
I seldom use it, but I generally find that every DoFollow link has at least a little effect. I have hubs which are backlinked at just Snipsly and SheToldme which have shown improved SERPS placement, although in admittedly uncompetitive niches.
Snipsly has much more control over content quality, particularly duplication, so I would consider heading over to there
I think nelle you're overreacting.
This reply from maddie is clear.
Some hubbers are creating panic in minds of newbie hubbers for topics like bakclinking and SEO and when those who know about this stuff jump into these type of discussions it goes tangent with wild generalization claims from those who create panic. Those who want to oppose SEO seriously need to read SEO Book blog and SEO Moz before making wild wet claims.
Organic links are fine with google and even manual links at moderate amount never pose any threat from google. At HP, story is similar, ban is likely to be there on people who automate backlinks. People should understand competitor analysis and penalty before talking about negative value of links.
Anyway, if backlinks are so hated from HP team then i see no reason to keep my niche hubs here. Sales hubs here i come. Cha-ching.
Of course organic links are fine, but you don't create your own organic links!
I agree that Maddies reply is clear. I think you are under reacting to the reality of a changing world. The SEO back lining excesses have created an artificial world that Google wants to shut down.
No, that does not mean that you should never create relevant links. But it does not mean that only automated linking is at risk. All spammy linking - linking done only to affect SEO - is potentially at risk.
You mention "moderate". For any content of value, you should be able to find legitimate linking opportunities. Of course those will be limited, so their number will be "moderate". Why not just do that?
As to you removing hubs, if the only way you can promote them is by spam, then what value are they to anyone? Is that truly the case? You seriously cannot imagine genuine organic links to that content?
Sky, that's basically how I understood it. I'm somewhat new to SEO and such, about a year of serious SEO research. If you do it legitimately then you are good.
This has been a very useful and interesting discussion. I even learned a few things by going into the learning center and reading and got caught up reading and reading. I so forget about all the useful resources that HP puts out there for us to use.
I'm a minimalist, I think when it comes to the backlinking. I do have the RSS feed on my website and my blogger site. I also share a link on my FB page when I write a new hub. I actually don't think it gets me much traffic but I do have friends there that aren't here that catch a hub now and again and are thankful that I posted the link.
For me, I really just like to write and if the traffic grows then that is awesome. If someone shares that link or links back to me double awesome. The fun is in the writing and I don't stress over the backlinking overly much.
Basically, all of the above is to say thanks for directing me to the learning center and jogging my memory about the resources on this wonderful site.
Already doing that and that is the reason my relevant links are limited and hubs are not officially taken down.
I see that content as contribution towards my Niche site than these as hubs scattered at the corner of HP with no incoming links. I don't know why it is always your interest to put people into spam case. I don't know why i bother to reply YOU when it comes to these SEO topics.
I was not putting you in any spam case. Your post implied that if you could not backlink, you had no use for this site. I was simply asking for clarification.
But then you talk out of the other side of your mouth and say that all you do is relevant and moderate linking.
So where is the problem? This is why newbies get confused- you seem to now be saying exactly what I advise, but you are angry about it.
I'm not at all angry about it. My point was that some hubs do require SERP boost with ping and backlinks and if HP is so negative about it then the niche hubs are better to be shine at my site than hubpages. I have yieldbuild running over there as well so i have nothing to lose.
Yes. My links are moderate and relevant. So ?
Newbies are confused because of people posting less facts and more of personal opinion.
Hp is not at at negative about legitimate promotion and linking.
Nor is Google.
If you are doing nothing but relevant linking that would benefit real readers, you aren't doing anything wrong.
You want facts? People have been banned by Google for spam backlinking. HP has taken down pages here for the same bad behavior. Those are facts.
The days of spam linking such as Misha brags about in that interview are fast coming to an bed and good riddance. You don't seem to disagree with that, so where is the problem ?
Pcunix, I see you in many forums as well as many other people referring to the term "Real Reader" all of the time. There is no such thing,anyone who reads something is a "Real Reader". In this world there are billions of people and many different opinions of what they consider relevant reading. Are you to say that the millions who read the "People's News" entertainment type coverage articles are not "Real Readers" or the same for many other genres of writing that many elitist writer would consider spammy and cheap writing.
You could write in any style and market it in any way and the readers that do choose to read your material presented to them in that manner chose to read it and as such are "Real Readers".
A real reader is a human being. You have plainly misunderstood that.
You have also misunderstood your "right" to promote. I strongly suggest you read http://learningcenter.hubpages.com/cate … g-traffic/
If it's a human being then why the need for the term at all. I am not aware of the need for or the existence of a Reading Bot Program unles you would consider blog auto posters or programs of that nature to be the opposite of what you speak of as a real reader. I f so in that case I do not use those or see the need for them at all.
What the heck do you think Google is??????
When we say you should create links for real readers, that's people. What Misha and others do is create hundreds or even thousands of links for search engines.
Again I recommend you to read these links:
http://learningcenter.hubpages.com/cate … g-traffic/
http://www.google.com/support/webmaster … swer=66356
If anyone at all even 1 person follows a link coming from anywhere then that declassifies it by your definition as a link meant purely for Google or any other search engine.
You state this as a fact. Can you provide a concrete example of a site/page banned by Google due solely to backlinks?
Hopefully HP will respond to Ryan's request for more standards for people who want to continue the practice. Those of us who don't want to, won't. I really think that hubbers have to make up their own mind on this. I've gone back and forth on the subject, read all of the stuff google has published, tried backlinking strategies suggested by hubbers here, and have decided to take a hard line not to do any.
I'm off to the mall for some research and shopping. Then I'm going to write some really persuasive and competitive hubs.
Yes, I hope HP does respond. And I doubt that Ryan has anything he need worry about. Misha, well, that's a different story.
And I do think the various "challenges" need to drastically tone down their enthusiasm for churning the Google sea. They are dealing with newbies and need to be far more careful not to leAd them into doing things that can harm themselves or this site. The instructions should be made very specific and should warn of the real dangers of excessive false backlinking.
"Newbies are confused because of people posting less facts and more of personal opinion."
Quite. I am still not sure what facts are involved at all. They aren't in the first post and don't really appear thereafter.
I think you're headed in the right direction. If not now, then later it will help you, because yes, of course that's the direction that Google's going. The analogy I use in my head is this:
Google's like a blind man who's learning to see. He says "Hey you guys, I want to buy a car. Help me see. Take my hand and point me in the direction I should be going."
"Okay," everybody says. Some point the old man in the direction of legit car dealerships. Many more point him toward their own small lot because they need the business. Others point him toward boat yards, and still others toward tractor shops, just because he's blind and they can.
The old man stops trusting their guidance, because it's not reliable, but he still needs it and uses it as he must. But he focuses on other signals to tell him whether he's chosen the right way - smell, time of day, whose hand he thinks he's holding, whatever. And meanwhile he's working furiously to learn to see for himself.
The whole point of search engines' use of backlinks in PageRank is so they can figure out the relevance of a web page to a user query - it isn't so people can game the system, and of course the more that they do, the less that practice is worth.
So whether your hubs suffer, and for how long, and whether they eventually do even better is probably going to be more a product of how well your hubs answer people's desires plus Google's (rapidly changing) ability to see.
Google doesn't go on ban spree just like that. It has to be un-natural linking and behavior from site to earn that ban. That is why moderate word is used earlier. This is fact.
HP is taking these actions because HP is banned from many bookmarking networks because of automation tool spam. (Mixx and some other networks banned HP last year) Still they persist with facebook, witter and other social media buttons. This is fact.
Thing is that people make their mind after reading the posts of people who understand stuff more than they do. So it is responsibility of those people not to confuse newbies. I prefer not to create panic in mind of newbies by telling them about google ban or HP policies when they've no idea of what is going on.
Newbies first need to learn about backlinks before getting any idea about spam-spree ban. I don't want to create panic in those minds who have little or no idea about search engine, backlinks and HP policies. Some facts people need to find on their own by reading from SEM/SEO industry and have to separate it from google hypocrisy. Nobody gets banned from google on their first day without any automation tool. So why create fear in newbie minds by making our discussion as threat to something of which they are not aware of? I hope you get my point.
People have been banned, albeit temporarily, without using automation tools. It takes more work than most would do.
You say I am panicking newbiess by saying exactly what HP and Google say, so I guess they must be panicking them too.
Better that they panic than that they follow the bad advice of the linkmeisters here.
Read your own posts from all these SEO threads and then tell me what you're claiming is based on official source or not. When you post link to google and learning center of HP then that is perfectly fine and is all i want. But when you say something like -google bans even without automation tool or some other claims then that is YOUR opinion and is without proof.
Now this is the reason why i want newbies to read about SEO/SEM from reputed source than following advice here.
Proof: http://hubpages.com/hub/How-To-SEO-Blog … Disable-Me
Based on an official source? Yes, Google and Matt Cutts. Over and over again they say the same thing. Is that "official" enough for you? are they "reputed" enough?
I am so tired of this nonsense and I am very annoyed that HP is not standing up and speaking up. They send very mixed signals and are confusing the heck out of people. They front page an interview with Misha where he openly brags about buying links and using automated tools. He has hubs here on the same subjects and newbies get sent to them all the time. HP says they won't stand for that, so why do they showcase him and advise people to go there?
The "challenges" are another case. The link I gave above about getting in trouble with Google came from that person following the advice in one of those challenges. Why does HP promote that kind of activity?
There's white hat, there's black hat and there is everything in between. I understand that the newbies are all confused and HP's wishy-washy vacillation isn't helping them. Nor are these forum threads, because nobody reads, they just scan and unless you constantly repeat ourself, you'll get the same misunderstandings over and over again.
And look how far apart they are: one person is worried that they'll get banned because they tweeted about their hub and another thinks they have the right to do whatever the heck they want!
I'd like to see HP state their position. If Misha's black hat activities are fine with them, say so. If they think that the excessive link building that got Shazwellyn in trouble is fine, then say so but at least warn people that they can get in trouble.
Now, it appears that Jason Menayan is giving warning at http://blog.hubpages.com/2010/09/the-pa … r-day-hub/ but plainly it isn't clear enough and as people have requested examples, not detailed enough.
LMAO. Since when sharon's hub became proof for your google's backlink ban ? It was spam triggered by blogger for her continuous blog posting that triggered this flag. She was even blocked by HP for similar reasons. It has nothing to do with backlinking.
Lie. Give me official source from matt cuts and google that proves your this statement -"People have been banned, albeit temporarily, without using automation tools." .Bring the proof from official google page and matt cutts instead of making your own assumption of what they say. Don't make stuff out of someone's opinion.
HP is in gray area when it comes to SEO. This is the same HP which arranged 30DC with cort of TKA. You can guess how many links cort made during this challenge. HP even promoted itself with ryan's video on hubpages. HP still promotes site with PPC and the backlinking stuff is done by members and you expect HP to stand up and speak from your side ? Atleast HP will not stand and make personal attack on Misha and sunforged like you do, that i can assure you. They are clear with their message and it is YOU who interpret it the way you want for your purpose by taking help of people who are either tired of backlinking or don't want to do it or secretly doing it. You can continue to build army of those people to back you up. Your personal attack and talks without proof & attack on people in every SEO threads are enough that stands for so-called white hat credibility.
This is the reason atleast I don't confuse newbies by creating fear in their mind.
Maddie and Norah cleared HP's position for which i have given you link from one thread. HP stated that links from automation tools and spammy links will be penalized. Why you are making it sound like YOUR way of NO-backlinking is right from this ? You're marketer yourself and that is the reason YOU are here(HP- SEO optimized place) otherwise as per your assumption -cream should rise right ? You can continue to attack people in SEO threads with your futuristic dream of non-promotional world of SE and Web. I'm not gonna join your army for attacking Misha or dropping genuine links like Nelle did. Those who want to do this with YOU are free to do that. I'm done.
How many times are you going to falsely say that I recommend no linking?
I have corrected you several times but you keep doing that.
I came here to post things that don't fit with my site. I have since created things that I could have put there because I am curious about the performance.
If you want to worship Misha, go ahead. I won't.
I dont really want to go over old ground. HP never banned me.
I was niave and stupid enough to have spammed (I didnt even know what I was doing - it is only now that I have learned that my methods were black hat).
Unfortunately, despite people who are more experienced than I, I was banned through certain automated methods adopted - I dont want to go into detail - but whether I blindly went into this, it resulted in my fingers getting burned. I guess the lesson to learn is dont play with fire! However, I didnt realise the match that I had struck burned as hard as it did.
People need to know that it was good that things didnt go as planned - I learned an SEO lesson (well a series actually) and through the experience, I think everyone else learned something from it too. It was a successful project.
Things have definately changed as regards to the way Google operates and, although I was the pawn, a lot came out of the whole situation.
I know one thing, Im not as clever as a team of Google webmasters (as proved) so have no chance in gaming the system!
I regret what I did, and if I could change time - I would. I will never do it again. More importantly, I am devistated that I might have upset and let other people down.
One thing I discovered, however, the links that were created from that period of time, were null and voided. So I did ask myself what good did all that hard work do? It just caused stress, heartache and upset the people I admired.
Automation, or even if you do something manually in quick concession, doesnt work. It makes you stick out as a spammer. And, hey, why spam anyway?
Please guys, dont argue... life is too short and all we need to do is write, enjoy what we do and value each other for the individuals that we are x
I'll read HP's guidelines. I've been thinking this about writing and promotion of my Hubs: writing Hubs on a particular topic and then writing a capstone Hub (I guess that's the term) that contains how-to info and links to the other Hubs -- and then promoting this one Hub effectively. I would think that's in line with HPs policies.
I went to the Hubpages learning center as I was looking for their guidelines. They have this to say about promoting Hubs:
"Don’t rely just on becoming popular in the community or the (now) old fallback of social bookmarking and then leaving it as that. Be creative, be adventurous, and don’t be predictable. Change it up, don’t use the same methods for every single hub. Throw some curve balls and experiment a little (or a lot)."
They're calling social bookmarking an "old fallback" which I can understand.
All this talk about self-promoting being wrong is nonsense. It's marketing. It's how you succeed. Don't delete your backlinks based on the assumption that you are doing something wrong.
Why is it ok for a business to put out commercials and ads whenever they come out with something new to offer, but it's not okay to promote your own hard work and get it seen?
Marketing is announcing your post on Twitter or facebook. Marketing is sending press releases to people who might be interested.
Manipulating search engines is not marketing. It's spamming.
So these are nonsense in your mind?
http://learningcenter.hubpages.com/cate … g-traffic/
http://www.google.com/support/webmaster … swer=66356
It's not that it's morally wrong or that anybody would deny anyone the ability to self-promote.
It's that it just so happens that Google uses backlinks in a special way - as a marker of how important a web page is. And because it does, then "false" backlinks are a kind of gaming of the system.
Gaming the system is not necessarily morally wrong, either. The problem, though, is this: Google's not looking for signs that I love my own pages - it's looking for signs that other people love them, and if I have my self-created backlinks peppered all around, my backlinks become noise as Google realizes that zillions of marketers are gaming the system.
So what does Google do? Try to devalue backlinks as a measure of website importance, since it's no longer a factor that can be trusted.
Does that make sense? The whole point of advising against self-created backlinks is not to harm SEO - it's to HELP SEO.
Though you are defining SEO as helping search engines do their job. The linkmeisters here define SEO as helping them manipulate the search engines to their own selfish benefit.
This explanation makes sense. Sites that have little content and may only collect backlinks I would imagine could lose their authority. So link to sites (websites or blogs) that are in similar markets/areas of interest and have people participating.
thanks, yes, I think I understand what you mean. for people that use those directories, they certainly could be useful. I get that. I've never used them. I only use Snipsly if I remember.. twitter, fb, emails, some blog sites or websites where relevant comments can include a link or an rss feed and my own site.
thanks for responding. I like your new avatar.
I actually think of SEO from our perspective, not the search engine's perspective. To use my analogy above, if I lead the "blind man" the wrong way, then I won't be trusted to lead the blind man at all; as soon as he can see what I'm doing, he'll drop my hand.
So the best way, as I see it, to lead the blind man toward my lot is to give him what he asks for.
I don't really think I manipulate things less than the people who use backlinking for SEO. I just suspect that they are looking at the short term, and I am looking at the long term. It's worked for them so far - it's only if it stops working so well that they'd be inclined to change. Same with me. We're pretty much all doing what's working for us. This world of internet marketing is awfully new, and we're all lab mice.
I happen to think the Guidelines are pretty easy to understand. You are allowed to promote your hubs outside of Hub Pages, since Hub Pages cannot thrive without people coming into the community here and joining up and becoming Hubbers themselves. Hub Pages thrives on fresh writing and Hubbing talent.
However I also understand (according to my friend Cheeky Girl) that hubs should not be unduly or unfairly "over-promoted". Buying ads would be a no-no, as people could be hit with a "no-follow" flag. Hubbers don't want that. I would be careful about "removing" backlinks, as that might reduce your overall page ratings, unless some Hubber was told to remove some Backlinks.
I'm not a spammer or prolific backlinker, but I still agree with what Never_Forget said--this is marketing. Pure and simple. And PCUnix, if you think marketing is just advertising, you are very, very, very misinformed.
The only thing that's different is that in the retail/grocery/consumer products world, there is no "Google." Marketers manipulate the consumers directly instead, and most of them do a very good job of it. I was in corporate America marketing for around 20 years, and if we needed to sell an additional 500,000 cases of a product, you can bet your bippy we knew EXACTLY what ploys to use to get you dummies--I mean, the consumers--to buy it.
We knew exactly what strategies to use to shift our core demographic from, say, blue hairs to the 25-35 yo male population, or what to say to you guys to build our brand equity so it would stay healthy in the long-term.
What is very similar to the online world is that if someone came out with a cr*ppy product and used the same strategies, it would only benefit them in the short-term. Eventually people would realize that the product was cr*ppy and would stop buying it. I do believe that the same holds true online. As long as we put out quality content, we're going to be just fine in the long-term, and the SEO techniques are simply there to help ensure that we get noticed and possibly speed up the process.
If I am misinformed, then the warnings Jonathan added to
http://blog.hubpages.com/2010/09/the-pa … r-day-hub/
are misinformed also.
If I am misinformed, then so is
http://learningcenter.hubpages.com/cate … g-traffic/
And of course Google themselves are just spouting nonsense.
http://www.google.com/support/webmaster … swer=66356
I read all of that before. Nowhere in any of those does it say "don't promote" or "don't backlink." They talk about being responsible in the use of SEO. I get that. I really do. And I have always been "responsible" about it. But again--I don't put out cr*p or spun content or anything like that.
I'm sorry, but if Google is going to continue making trillions of dollars off of selling "legitimate" links via AdWords, and follow my every waking move via cookies, then I hardly think they're going to mind if I give them a slight nudge every now and then to let them know I have some new content that's pretty darn good.
We aren't talking about nudges.
You could not possibly have read this thread and think we are talking about nudges.
That's what I hate about the forums. People jump in after hours of discussion and read only the last page.
Then they make comments that do nothing but muddy the waters and confuse the next person who again only reads the last few posts.
I give up.
I did read the entire thread from the first post to the last. I'm sure you know what happens when you assume, right?
This thread was started when Nelle decided to give up all of her backlinking and promoting of her hubs. And then I read a whole lot of back-and-forth in this thread, intertwined with some newbies who are desperately trying to make sense of it all. As a matter of fact, here's one hubber's comment on the blog post: "Is that the conservative approach, backlinking in moderation? or is any type of backlinking going to be considered spam?"
So yes. I do think that it needs to be made crystal clear that it does NOT need to be an all or nothing scenario when it comes to promoting hubs.
no way man.
Lrohners post is one of the few comprehensive self contained explanations in this thread.
The OP has not pointed out what she has dissolved in a specific manner, Actually, if the OP's removals were anything but "nudges" she would have very little ability to remove them.
as in anything, we do what works best for us as long as we comply with guidelines, TOS, on and on. the articles keyword stuffed or written for search engines primarily get the back button from me.
I want to read something clearly written for a human who is interested in the topics or products I search. I would imagine most people feel this way. Quality writing brings the right traffic, I think.
I agree rebekahELLE, articles that inform on how to do something (intstruct, guide, inspire) are most important. I saw some Hubs I wrote a year ago really spike in traffic . . . some of my Hubs have taken eight months to generate traffic and I've been kicking myself for not doing more promotion. On the other hand, if Google is crawling this site and it's quality, it should get noticed. I do think relevant backlinks are important.
It seems to me that their is a difference between self-promotion and spam. That is, only promote as and when it is apparopriate and permitted by the host.
After reading two long threads on the topic and still being relatively new to the site; I think I understand that self promotion is okay if it's done manually through your Facebook, MySpace, SheToldMe, Redgage etc. You can put your widget on your blogs(if it takes the code)and link to a relative forum post or two which could potentially give you 7-10 backlinks that are related to your work. That seems like natural promotion of your work; making it available to all of your followers and friends on sires where you are registered. Sounding right so far?
They don't want automated services or anything that would give a new hub 100's of backlinks in 24-48 hours. Essentially, you don't know where your links are being posted by using these services. HubPages could be negatively impacted if the link is not relevant and Google doesn't like 100's of backlinks popping up for one post at the same time. Even though the links are to different sites; it's considered spamming. Still good?
Please let me know is this is sounding right? Since ignorance of the law is no excuse, I don't want to be kicked off site wearing a dunce cap.
Personally spun content and over advertising are my pet peeves. Spun content reads like a computer wrote it in a keyword challenge and I saw one hub with 59 amazon items listed for sale yesterday. Too choppy for me to read.
Happy Monday Everyone
I think we've been very clear that it is the type of backlinks that we look at when determining abuse: how they are obtained. If you have legitimate backlinks from your own sites and/or sites whose rules you have read and follow, you will not have a problem. If you leave spam comments on other people's blogs, or links in forums in which you do not actively participate, use automated backlinking software, etc, that is the type of thing that will get your hub unpublished.
Both Norah and I have explained this multiple times, but people seem to skip over our posts and continue spouting the same misinformation and asking the same questions over and over again.
I can tell you why it is not clear.
Why does HP make a hero of someone who openly admits using automated backlinking?
Why do you actively promote the "challenges" when people have gotten into trouble for carrying the linking advice too far?
These two things send a mixed message.
Thank you Maddie, seems perfectly clear to me.
This form of linking is of course the reason why Hubpages links are now banned from Wikipedia, despite the fact that it could have been a worthy reference point.
That second sentence is the ONLY reason there is a warning on Misha's interview - because his backlinking Hub recommends using software and outsourced services to automate backlinking, and that's what HubPages says it won't accept.
There's a world of difference between that kind of backlinking and what the rest of us do, both in quantity and quality. Automation allows you to create hundreds if not thousands of artificial backlinks. I'm sure that's what HubPages is trying to discourage.
I respectfully disagree. Read http://learningcenter.hubpages.com/cate … ng-traffic
It's more than just automation.
I'm not sure it's helpful to keep linking to the Learning Centre clip that caused all the confusion in the first place.
The Learning Centre clip could be interpreted to say that you mustn't create backlinks for the sake of backlinks anywhere. Maddie and Nora have clearly indicated that's not the case at all. What matters is what Maddie has to say about it:
"I think we've been very clear that it is the type of backlinks that we look at when determining abuse: how they are obtained. If you have legitimate backlinks from your own sites and/or sites whose rules you have read and follow, you will not have a problem."
So, for those of us who participate in forums or leave meaningful posts on related blogs in order to obtain backlinks, I don't think we have anything to worry about.
I definitely think it would be worthwhile for HP to reword their own policy so that it's as clear and unambiguous as possible. Plus give examples of what is and what isn't acceptable.
If you are leaving meaningful posts designed to help people, I agree, you have nothing to worry about. If you are leaving links designed to gane search engines, you may get away with it if you are not excessive, but you definitely are not behaving as you should.
How do you distinguish the difference?
If leaving comments on blogs and forums was only going to attract the one or two actual readers, I probably wouldn't bother doing it. My motivation for leaving the comments is to get the backlink - I make it meaningful because otherwise, the blog/forum owner is likely to delete it as spam. But the effect is that the comment is meaningful - so what's the diff?
So if I submit a page to a paid, automated backlinking site, following their rules, then all is fine and I'm not spamming or upsetting Google even though I just paid 20 bucks to have my page backlinked 100 times??
That's one interpretation of what Maddie said.
I read Maddie's explanation.
What??!! How can misunderstandings exist in the world of online writing?? Heck, there are misunderstandings when you talk to someone face to face, explain the same things over again and still get blank looks. I should know -- I'm a soccer referee!!!
I'm not into marketing on the Internet or using HP to promote my stuff. So I'm not looking for backlink strategies as part of my plan for bulding a business, or to SEO (which I barely understand).
But I hear something...that HP would be used as a tool to further a commercial adventure. And so be it. HP is a tool for that, if you know how to use it. (I'm guessing hubbers Misha and Hal, not to mention some Hub Team writers, have the optimal info and experience about this.)
There's temperance in everything, and if you know how to exercise that, then you will be ahead of everyone else. HP is a good opportunity for marketers, but it has its limits. Maybe those limits put HP on the cutting edge...parlaying the google gods against liberties wanting to be taken to get an edge on Internet dollars.
If google knows that I've been looking at the market price of gold for a few days, and therefore puts up all kinds of ads about gold that I can see no matter where I am on the Net, then google is looking at backlinking patterns, too. I don't know the scope of this thinking, but I know it affects aggressive promotion one way or another.
The Internet may be a free space in the world of communication, but when there's google involvement, the freedom is truncated.
I have limited knowledge, and bow to Misha and Hal, albeit briefly Misha and Hal, so don't get excited...LOL
My understanding is that you can't be a prophet in your own land, basically. You can point to one of your blogs from "someplace else" but you can't (shouldn't) write a blog on your ow blog site, and link it to other blogs of your own located at sites you have, continuing that horizontal reference from one of your blogs to another. Not good.
You are only important in the eyes of SEO if you refer to yourself from some other highly rated site and then minimally.
That and fifty cents, won't buy a cuppa joe, but it makes cents - Google wants others to think of you as important, they could care less and will punish you for pushing readers to your other sites. They want to do it all.
or did I goof about this, Misha/Hal?
Even brief bowing is still quite shocking - but pleasing
Though I think you have some more learning to do on google and such - and please don't listen to liars and demagogues, no matter how vocal they are. In fact better not listen to anybody and stage your own tests, only then could you get conclusive results, as there always be people telling opposite answers to every question. Hal doesn't show up on the forums, so to get his opinion you need to get to one of his hubs.
No, that's not quite right.
Say you have a page about dogs somewhere and mention dog collars. Here you happen to have a detailed post on that very subject. You SHOULD link to that.
What you shouldn't be doing is buying links or using automated linking services such as Misha brags about in his interview.
http://blog.hubpages.com/2010/09/the-pa … r-day-hub/
Alright, big discussion, which I will read after work. However I did see the mention of LSI, which some people seem confused about.
They can read here:
I *think* it's about using as many synonyms as possible, that's all I can make of it. Am I right? As in, on a hub about babies you might also use words such as infants and children. Or am I completely confused?
Ah well will study it in depth when I get home.
Thanks for the heads up Nelle.
From the looks of it, backlinking and promotion are personal decisions, but hopefully everyone makes the right decision for them.
No, it's the opposite. If LSI were perfect, you wouldn't need to concern yourself at all with synonyms.
Hey, I'm making progress, I understood Maddie!! Ok, Misha, so I am pushed to study more...sigh.
Ok, Pcunix, I get ya. and Google doesn't mind the self linking to another blog of your own? I've always been confused about that. I completely get what Maddie is saying about the automation of artificial links, etc...
So much to learn.
It's really simple - is the link for the benefit of readers? If yes, then Google wants you to make it.
Are you trying to fool Google as Misha is so proud of doing? That's what Google (and HP) recommend NOT doing.
By the way,the "liar" Misha is warning you about is me. But i am not lying.
I mention every hub I write on FB, is that against the TOS? I just share it with my friends.
I also have rss feeds on all my blogs.
Please read http://learningcenter.hubpages.com/cate … g-traffic/
No, dropping a link in fb and Twitter is expected and very much ok.
Pcunix, what is your take on including an RSS feed in a hub, pointing to your other hubs? The options from HP (latest, hot, or best) certainly don't give relevant material to the reader...
Personally, I give 2 such feeds, one by way of tags to what I hope is relevant material, and one from usually the "latest" hubs, just to give a link to them.
Why would HP include the RSS capsule if it were a problem?
RSS Feeds certainly meet the criteria of being for the benefit of readers.
How is it for their benefit? I mean, if they searched for ding bat bolts , found your hub and you give them a link to SEO stuff, how does that help them? It's just not relevant to their quest for knowledge about ding bat bolts!
I understand (at least I hope I do - I use them) that it's not a problem, but how is it helpful to the reader? I've always kind of questioned that, even though I always include one, and that's one of the reasons I try and make the feed appropriate to the hub.
Wilderness, I never put a RSS feed in a Hub to link to my latest Hubs. Like you say, what's the benefit to the reader if they're irrelevant? Instead, I use tags to create a "related Hub" RSS feed.
Some people have suggested it's a bad idea to just use a "latest Hubs" feed anyway, because it could dilute your keywords. Things like Hubtrails and HubMob are fine, because they're generally all on related topics. The only exception I've ever made was for the 60 Day Challenge.
My thought has been to use tags, like you say, to give maybe 4 links to related hubs, and a latest feed to give a boost to new hubs. I realize that the latest feed isn't relevant but do it anyway to get that (maybe) boost. With a 1000+ word hub I wouldn't think that the words in 3 links would give much dilution.
Two things: first, links within the same site are never an issue.
The presumption is that someone who enjoyed your writing may want to read more of it.
We could argue about whether that's true, but Analytics shows that it is for my hubs anyway and the more important point is that it is not an issue for the link building discussion here.
As a side note, though, I have been thinking about taking those down and replacing them with something like
"More like this" with a link to a related feed
"My Newest hubs" with a link to that feed
"My most popular" with a link to the "hot" feed.
It's cleaner and I think I like it better.
Pcunix, if it's any comfort, I, the underdog and layman here understood you were separating humans from robots...who (or how else do you refer to a robot) scan our pages constantly and many people write for them. tada....I know a tiny bit. LOL
and, I get your point, if what I write and link the reader to is beneficial than Google allows it. Now, that means my old info of Google wanting to be the only "refer-er" in the Search Engine, is wrong.. so I get that now. I can link, if it's not excessive and benefits the reader about the topic I'm publicizing... got it. and thanks, I'm learning from all of you...this is really kinda complicated. So, I appreciate all who simplify.
whattttt? So much happens when I'm busy and away! Bookmarking this to review later. Glad I never backlink anymore. I really don't think it's necessary (my earnings still increase every month) and I agree with the fact that Google is going to start figuring out what people are doing (I'm sure they have already!) It doesn't seem like a logical process, which is why I've always hated it. Google likes logical results for logical searches, so backlinks are probably going to become less and less of an issue.
In all honesty, I don't think the vast majority of link building does any good - at least none that is visible.
Unless you get links on a huge, massive scale with a high page rank, you are just putting drops of water in an enormous bucket.
I don't promote my Hubs. They do about as well as I thought they would and probably would perform exactly as they are now even if I went on a link building spree.
Way, way, way too many folks stating opinion or hearsay as "fact" in this thread.
My advice to a newbie reading this thread:
Do your own testing. I am 100% certain that even some of the more well-known posters in these forums (and I'm not calling anyone out individually) sometimes inadvertently provide bad info based on opinion, rather than fact supported with actual data.
I've been involved in both black-hat and white-hat for many years. I've done zero backlinking to sites of mine and I've used the blackest of black-hat tools to create literally thousands of backlinks to other sites of mine in the span of a week.
At no time did I ever have a site banned (temporarily or permanently) by Google or any other search engine. My sample is across hundreds of sites so the data is valid.
You need to use some logic when considering whether or not backlinks can get a site banned. Think about it - how easy would it be to trash a competitor's site if it was as simple as bombarding it with backlinks?
As for the notion that excessive backlinking is simply spam. Sorry, gotta disagree there. Whether I create one or 1000 backlinks to my site via blog comments, forum posts, or simply via my own network of blogs, if the backlinks are relevant to the content of the page from which I am linking, the links are helpful to the reader and good for off-page SEO.
However, I'll say it again - do your own testing.
I've decided just to live with what I think the true spirit of linking is. Which is when I see something I really like, I will go to DIGG and post about it. Or post about it on my own blogs. This won't be something I wrote, nor will it be with the hope of getting a link back. No more artificial backlinks for me.
Before I got carried away with stuff like shetoldme or snipsly, this is how I conducted myself - and it always stood me well. I am returning to my core internet values established in over 30 years of successful marketing strategies. (yes I have used punch cards and bought my first notebook computer 17 years ago from Dell.)
I do believe that Google and others are becoming more sophisticatd than we can imagine, in their knowledge of what we actually are doing - and there will be a price to pay for playing games. Just as there was for thin affiliate sites and link farms. When who knows. But this is my responsibility to look to the future and decide what a prudent strategy is for my company and financial future.
Everyone will have to make their own decision about their level of comfort.
Shazwellyn that's really interesting. That would be a really interesting hub if you want to share your testing.
Im still in the process. I have a people problem in publishing. But it seems that Google puts a negative value on links that they believe are not genuine.
Certain tags are being tracked too. When I took these tags down, the tracking stopped. Dont ask me why they track tags because I dont know, but tracking they are!
I'm glad to be seeing more and more signs that, as the Internet is maturing a little more, things are being done to make more and more attempts at cleaning up a lot of the "baloney" and antics that go on (and just from the perspective of an Internet user, make it look less like such a dumping ground). I have a few guesses about some of the next things are that will be prohibited too. I think these kinds of changes will definitely benefit solid writers and/or people who come up with solid Hubs (of whatever variety they happen to be). Big-picture-wise, I find this newest thing about backlinking encouraging.
Not to be negative (because I really do like HubPages a lot), but I've actually found it kind of difficult (sometimes) to take what I write on sites like this all that seriously, just because of all the talk about how "you have to take the time to do a bunch of backlinking if you want to earn". I've seen, with some of my own Hubs, that's not necessarily true; but at the same time I've pretty much felt like a lazy prima donna who only wants to write and doesn't want to work. I don't mind working at all. It's just that I haven't wanted to spend my writing time backlinking (and all along I've had reason to think it wasn't all that worth it when the right kind of Hub, with the right title and keywords, was involved).
So, anyway, I'm kind of glad to see things going in this direction. I know nothing about the doings between Google and HubPages, but it stands to reason that more overall respect for HubPages and Hubbers will, in the long run, get more traffic.
(I knew nothing about these changes until I saw this thread, so thanks Nelle. As always, your experience and keeping-in-tune with goings-on has been informative and valuable.)
by Cardia4 years ago
I read in someone's hub last night that they used Social Monkee to get backlinks for their Hubs. Social Monkee says that it gives you 25 backlinks every day for your page. Has anyone else used this? Is it reliable, and...
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 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 Rahul Parashar23 months ago
I am thinking about building some backlinks to my Hub[ages subdomain, but am not sure where and how should I start. What do you suggest? What's your backlining strategy? Is it really impossible to get so organic traffic...
by Mike's Corner5 years ago
I started about 7 weeks ago and have been publicizing/backlinking most of my hubs through the bookmarking sites SheToldMe, Snipsley, Xomba and Redgage.Does anyone think (or know) whether Google, as part of its new...
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 © 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.