Here's an interesting message from Seekyt, which mentions Hub Pages fondly.
Make sure you've read the news to the right before reading this paragraph. ---->
There is always a way to get around these things; however, do we really want to "get around it" and try to cheat our way in if we are affected? Now is the time for Seekyt to make an important decision, and I'm leaving it up to the community to do that. While I can easily change the entire dynamic of Seekyt in a few short minutes, Seekyt does not belong enough to me to do that - it belongs to all of us.
To try and beat the impending doom of low quality sites, Seekyt will need to become a high quality article platform, more like HubPages or Infobarrel. I understand that most people use Seekyt for bookmarks, which is why I haven't already made the change myself.
Do we remain the way we are and hope Seekyt stays useful for you, or do we get one step ahead of the competition and become a serious platform for article writing? Article marketing and social bookmarking are not as good for SEO today as they were a few years ago. It's all about content - good, unique contnet. Here's what social bookmarking is good for - sharing cool websites. Yes, it might make Google aware of a page and add it to the index, but it won't help it rank higher in the serps. You can get similar results with a site like pingomatic.com.
I know it sounds harsh, but it's reality and we need to face it. If Seekyt were to become, strictly, an article writing site, revenue share would increase slightly to make it more worth your time. With that being said, I want you to respond in any way you can, either to this email or using the site's contact form and let me know your opinion.
Potentially Bad News?
It was in the news today that Google is going to be changing the way they rank content, based on low quality and spammy content around the web that has affected the way search engine results are ranked.
Although Google did not officially name any of the sites that would be affected, it did mention content farms and similar sites, which produce tons of low quality articles and content on a daily basis, will soon be weeded out to make room for more appropriate sites with authority.
Sites that could be affected, which have been mentioned by top blogging and tech communities, include eHow, Answers, ezine articles, and the "plethora of lesser, smaller sites." In effect, Seekyt could be drastically affected by this algorithm change, since the posting rules are so relaxed."
The question is, how WILL the Google change effect our blogs, personal sites that we are trying to build and other sites in which we take part?
And, will Hub Pages need to change and strengthen its standards in the wake of these changes?
HubPages may need to become more strict, but I think that those of us who pay attention to how hubpages works and read things in the forums -- are knowledgeable enough to write hubs that make the cut.
I agree that HubPages may need to be more strict and honestly, I think this is good news. There are a lot of good folks here, but unfortunately we have a good pile of real junk spammers too.
Well, no, not ALL of us.
HP has some pretty low quality stuff kicking about. Not as bad as Demand Studios, perhaps, but certainly low quality.
Getting rid of it should be Priority One.
Ha! Then either you haven't been reading many Hubs or you don't know much about Demand Media and all of its sites. At least everything over there is in legible English and is vetted by a professional and experienced editor. I agree that their eHow site leaves something to be desired, but it's still better than some of the stuff I've seen on HP. And they own or supply content to many sites, including LiveStrong, USA Today and the San Francisco Chronicle's site -- companies that wouldn't publish pure cr*p.
HP can't do all work alone , we have also work .
If you see spammer flag them to review by HP.
I don't know. It's really not my decision.
Perhaps they need to approve new hubbers as other sites do. Perhaps they should tighten up on quality and let us know what they will and won't accept.
In another thread, someone pointed out the hubs of a particularly prolific hubber and questioned why they had very little positive feedback from visitors. I have no idea how old those hubs are, so it is possible that they predate the feedback buttons, but my impression of them was immediate and definite: very low quality. I could easily understand why they wouldn't get many "Usefuls" or whatever. They are short and consist mostly of pasted links or pasted ingredient lists.
Why is such stuff here? Well, apparently most hubHoppers and any admins who have looked at them don't think that they are low quality. I disagree, and I really think that kind of useless hub will hurt HubPages in the long run, but that is entirely MY opinion and it is worthless because it is Google who will decide what level of quality is needed.
I'm sure HP has strong and direct contacts with Google and I'm sure they will learn what, if anything, they need to do.
Maddie (HP) banned over 2500 spam accounts yesterday! I saw her tweet..
if you see spam, definitely flag it. amin will make the final decision.
What is your opinion on this?
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/65677?p … ost1442856
I think it's trying to game the system and should be flagged.
I know another account here which has the same kind of hubs, I can't recall the name, but it has thousands of hubs. the profile changes avatars all the time, and they're always celebrities. I think the current avatar is Britney.
it would be helpful to have more input as to what should be flagged, yes.
I honestly hesitate to HubHop now because of things like this. I know Relache is probably going to pop in and say "just let the admins decide", but if I flag dozens of hubs that are NOT low quality according to Maddie et al., I am just wasting their time and they will no doubt look at my next effort and say "Oh, ignore hin: he flags too many hubs!"
We NEED better feedback!
really ? algorithm change from google ? or more like announcement of inability to detect spam blogs and content thieves ?
check - "birdcagesforsale. net" site, which is a highly optimized autoblog and is ranking number 1 and there are many pages of it which are on page 1. People think google is too powerful, but in reality it's just another algorithm that failed to kill autoblogs.
They haven't rolled in the changes yet, he is making reference to one of the announcements from the new Chief Executive Larry Page... the first step changes to the algorithm will be in effect within a few weeks, you can't judge the changes before they happen.
"Has failed so far" would be more accurate.
As to whether the changes planned will turn the world upside down, no, probably not. However, they ARE making changes, and targeting low quality article sites is apparently part of that.
Does that affect people here? It could, even if HP itself is not judged so harshly. For example, say that you have been in the habit of building links to here from sites that WILL get thrown into the "this is a spammy site" box under the new rules. Your links might even be from decent articles, but if the other site itself gets blackballed, that is yet another brownie point that Google will take away from you. Take away enough points and your traffic will suffer - even if you did nothing wrong yourself!
I agree that this is a difficult challenge for Google. However, it's a challenge they will work very hard to meet because the value of their search results ultimately determines the value of the whole company. They simply cannot afford to be grossly manipulated by gray and black hat SEO and they will spare no effort in trying to avoid that manipulation.
So, yes, like you I am somewhat skeptical, but I also realize how important this is to them and that they are NOT going to just lie down and stop fighting. These changes are unlikely to create drastic changes, but we have not seen the end of Google fighting for high quality content.
I dont think the article really mentions anything new to us.
Linking with articles is a little mundane but always beats bookmarking and blog comments in the long run.
If you own the ste and rely on the posts, then you have problems. If you build quality from the start then you need not worry.
Just my opinion.
yea i have read somewhere in google analytics and adsense forum they will be changing the algorithm, and PR would nit play an important role as it uses to.
PR has been insignificant for half a decade at least, google dropped it as soon as sites started selling PR links.
It's much more complicated than that. PR came from linking. If PR was truly unimportant, then it would follow that linking is unimportant.
Ask Misha if he thinks his back linking has been unimportant
Since you mentioned my name, I am stating here for the record I am in agreement with Oli on this one. PR does not matter for a long time already. Links do matter a lot though.
Yes, we all understand that.
But how do you reconcile the two? PR was calculated from links and authority. If Google says PR is unimportant, plainly they are NOT saying links are unimportant.
My point is that the activities people would do for PR are often the same as they do now. So what really has changed from the content providers view?
What would you say is the most important factor to determine SERP? Links, certainly. What else?
We know that Google has learned a lot from Adsense - it tells them what sites people visit and could even tell them Analytics like info. They could also learn from Analytics, though they seem to be adverse to talking about that.
Another way to determine relevance is semantic analysis, though I think that is still rather primitive.
What else matters? Goigle may not CALL it PR, but really it is. No, not last week's PR, but it has always been changing. People like you have always had to adjust your actions to keep ahead of Google; nothing really has changed.
PR is based only on links, and the PR authority of that link. Nowadays Google uses a whole host of factors to judge the quality of the page. in many ways it is just a new page rank, however it really should not be called so, since many people would assume you were simmply refering to the current PR value assigned in the toolbar.
The new measurement of a page is Google Trust, this is not really given a value as such, but a page with 'High Google Trust' will generally be high quality, a page with low Google trust will probably be spam filled.
Since your focus is on white hat your pages will more than likely be high google trust, no spam, no article spinning, high quality natural backlinks and so on.
Google has been using a whole host for some time (as you noted originally).
The point is that honest people never had to change anything, only the spammers and cheaters need care how Google decides SERP.
I don't agree. In the past, google algorithm changes have affected both good and bad sites. Google is not god, and until someone invents a machine as intelligent as a human (after which, we will all be out of a job anyway) algorithm changes are almost bound to take out some innocent victims as well as the 'good guys'.
No, no, of course we've had to change and this adjustment will require more changes.
What I'm (very poorly) trying to get at is that our goals are always the same - it doesn't matter what Google calls it, we are still trying to obtain "rank".
Black and grey hat folks "fool" Google. They have to adjust. The rest of us just keep doing what we do.
Misha , i notice you have more 491 backlinks to your profile ! how you get all that links ( i mean source of backlinks)
Here is the link that talks about this:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/ … -spam.html
Just as a reminder, webspam is junk you see in search results when websites try to cheat their way into higher positions in search results or otherwise violate search engine quality guidelines.
And we’re evaluating multiple changes that should help drive spam levels even lower, including one change that primarily affects sites that copy others’ content and sites with low levels of original content
We hear the feedback from the web loud and clear: people are asking for even stronger action on content farms and sites that consist primarily of spammy or low-quality content
These changes are aimed directly at gray and black hat SEO - the very kinds of thing that sometimes get discussed and recommended right here in these forums.
I've said it before: you may think that fooling Google is "just part of the game", but Google is looking to kick you right out of the game if that's your attitude.
I hope it affects sites like Answer,etc, they never have a good answer and their pages are covered with ads. so annoying.
we help ourselves and HP by hub hopping and flagging spam, poor quality hubs.
i joined webanswers a while back and i found it ridiculous. The questions are stupid and don't talk about the answers, it just crazy, can't believe google ads running on that site.
When I use Seekyt I use the 200 minimum words so I if everyone does this I cant see how it would be trashy. Might be good if they make it articles.
Will the new changes deal with sites like this?
Currently ranking number 3 on google and good for a laugh but nothing more...
Just to calrify, these changes are not going to affect High Quality article sites, Hubpages included. The sites most affected by this will be the sites that run on large amounts of spun or duplicated content.
This is going to have a large effect on spammers, since most of them skim RSS feeds, article directories, use article spinners, and other techniques which don't really contribute anything to the internet.
Sites with unique content will remain just as viable as before, if anything they will become MORE viable.
I am actually presing forward ont eh release of my site the Latest How To Guide because I think both eHow and YA are going to get hit hard by this. It might create enough of a gap for a small fish to fit in to a big space
Perhaps Hubpages will now tighten up on allowing folk to publish duplicate content. I never understood why they allowed it anyway.
I agree PCUnix but i have my doubts with google's action against autoblogs due to competitor advantage loophole. By the way i forgot about one important point that google adsense team made in previous update that they're going to crack on adsense account that violates DMCA/Plagiarism rules. So we can expect some good things from google now.
I can't comment on seekyt's development because i removed my account due to sneaky ad-rotation algorithm. (Oh and to clarify that i made post on how i found that out few weeks ago, so not going to argue with owner or anyone about it, i just wish good luck to owner in whatever changes he implements to his site).
For hubpages my suggestions are :
1. Flush out uncle, aunty and celeb content or else say hi to PR 2/3/4 (Sorry to those who are into this type of content but if hubpages requires some boosting or wants to retain reputation then this double-meaning adult stuff needs to be taken down )
2. Nofollow links to affiliate links in links capsule
3. Limit on excessive quoting from external stuff
This has nothing to do with PR, PR is simply a number based on links.
Googles Algorythm is far more indepth than PR, PR is a very small part of many other factors. The quality of links is now far more important than the number/PR of links. Remember that PR is calculated by the number of links leading to a site with a degeneration factor dividing it. Links with higher PR are worth more, but it is all down to the number of links they have.
Nowadays it is more about Google Trust, how google views the site, and the sites linking to you based on a wide number of factors. This is nothing new.
Backlinking is not unimportant, however PR is much more unimportant than it used to be. PR can give a little indication as to teh backlinks a site has, but it has no bearing on quality (Other than extrememly low quality sites have tehir PR reduced to 0-N/A.
The celeb hubs only need to be taken down if they are poor quality.
What do you mean by competitor advatage loophole?
Take internal trustrank drop if you want to apply for that example and if you're following fake page rank then you can see ehow is dropped because of low content pages. Also ehow results are less appearing on results if you checked. If we want hubpages to maintain this current trust with G then there needs to be some strict code.
Poor quality ? 'Halley berry posing in X Y Z position' OR ' Aunty in Bangalore with sweet smile' hubs with 400 words are going to have any quality ? If hubpages is family friendly site then celeb and aunty hubs needs to get tripped or atleast should get less exposure. Remember we're messing with 'adsense + Google algorithm' on our pages. If they're creating such content with adbrite, blacklableads then nobody is going to object on it but here it's adsense. (I'm sure i'll get a lot of heat for saying against celeb hubs).
Syndicated content is accessible to almost every person and that way competitors are likely to build autoblogs using adsense ID of site owner with some random objectionable content on some other domain to get them banned.
Google could simply require us to tell them every page we intend to run Adsense on. That would be somewhat annoying, but simple enough.
Sites alone doesn't protect you. Specific pages would.
But how can we do the specific page thingy with site other than HP ?
Only problem with eHow site is LOW content (not low quality content). For example, how to disable comments in wordpress post- question can be answered in just 3 steps of 50-100 words and they're doing it exactly like that. So when search engine query goes say 'disable comment in wordpress' then result should be ehow page instead of hubpage that explains the same stuff in un-necessary 400 or so words. That's the quality of search engine we expect from google but they didn't made any algorithm updates last 9 months and see the spam that is going on lately. It's not fair with ehow in my opinion.
As I said, it would be annoying, but not impossible. I create an XML site Map for Google every time I update my site; Adsense publishers could be required to submit each page in a similar format.
It wouldn't be all that hard if poisoning became a concern.
(for example, I already give them an XML file every time I update my site. HP could do that for posts here, too).
Just mentioning... HubPages does produce a sitemap, but only ever 24 hours.
Sitemaps for a website as large as HubPages can take hours to generate, and during that time, parts of the sitemap are inaccessible (due to file writes; the file is locked and unreadable at that time).
You can find their sitemap for hubs here:
http://hubpages.com/sitemaps/hub/curren … _index.xml
Of course, the sitemap is broken into many smaller bites.
Sitemaps are not a new thing, and due to their ease of automation, wouldn't really solve anything. In addition, due to the sheer size of websites like HubPages, generating the sitemap every time a new hub is published is, currently, technically impossible.
In addition, AdSense allows you to setup a domain whitelist for your advertisements to prevent people from abusing your advertisements or account. If a domain not on this whitelist requests an ad from your account, it will NOT be attributed to your account (even if they suspiciously click ads, it will not affect your account).
Yes, I understand all that. My point is that a domain whitelist isn't complete protection.
By the way, we both know we aren't arguing about anything real, at least not yet. As far as I know, the idea of Google banning you because of a competitor posting junk with your Adsense ID is still in the realm of fiction, right?
But IF it ever came to that, domain whitelisting isn't enough. I post here at HP, so I'd whitelist that domain. My evil arch enemy can post here also and if HP is careless (as many sites might well be), they could use my Adsense ID.
That would not be possible, as HubPages requires you to login in order to link your AdSense account via the API. In order for another HubPages account to add your AdSense ID, they'd have to login using your Gmail account when prompted by HubPages.
I used HupPages as a hypothetical example. This is not the only site that carries second party ads.
But I do not remember having to login.. I think I just pasted my key.
This is the screen that initiates the link:
After you submit the correct info there, you must login to AdSense to grant permission to HubPages to use your account.
Other websites should handle it similarly for security reasons. Obviously, your concerns are valid, which is why, I assume, why HubPages moved away from just letting users copy and paste their AdSense ID.
By the way, do you happen to know if Google properly parses these? I have been afraid to do it because in other contexts they insist upon seeing both my domain and the www and even (frustratingly) the ftp site.
For any non-HubPages website, you should always force users to access the website via www. or without www. I also highly doubt that you display ads via FTP, so that shouldn't be an issue. HubPages, for example, forces all users with no www. If you access http://www.hubpages.com/ they will simply redirect you to the proper address.
However, if you're concerned about that, why not test it? Create a subdomain test.yourdomain.com and only add HubPages and other important domains to your whitelist. Then add a few ads to the test, and refresh the page a few times. If you don't see the impressions in AdSense for it, then you know it didn't work.
Though, I imagine that it's a regex-based thing. If you enter .com, it would probably whitelist any .com domain. But it wouldn't hurt to add www, and non-www, as it's just a simple text field
I do redirect to my unadorned domain, but I have had problems with Google using www and ftp in search results. I think I finally have that under control, but that's why I asked: they aren't real good at canonical names!
I would hope it is regex. I'll try it..
You can tell Google to use WWW or non-WWW from Google Webmaster Tools, as well as remove the stray results.
As for FTP, I think there's a place to remove that as well. However, you shouldn't be using the default port (21) for FTP anyway. In fact, it's not really save to even use FTP. SCP and SFTP are the secure, encrypted alternatives that you should be using to protect your login credentials. If your host doesn't support these standards, seriously consider asking them to upgrade to the year 2011
Where are you guys getting this stuff? eHow's traffic, well over 40m uniques per month, is climbing. In fact, Compete shows that its traffic has increased 50% over last year.
You should always keep your Adsense ID protected by linking it to specific domains.
Answers.com has copied content or syndicated content. They do keyword and tag stuffing and are at risk.
Webanswers.com runs on user content, it's in no way ridiculous.
To clarify on this, I personally use MOZRank quite a lot since that also judges quality factors rather than simple backlinks to assign a score.
I think this is great. Why ehow and similar sites rank so high is crazy. They just put out loads of gargage and try to monotize it. Why people think hubpages is above the fray is a mystery too. There is no real content police on here and there is just as much garbage here as on other sites. The solution imo is hubpages needs a content appproval department. Bad content is deleted and good content is approved. For instance if I write a significantly better article about "how to fix a toaster" and there is already an article here about "how to fix a toaster" it is up to staff to delete old article and use new article. Harsh realities are upon us and we need to be proactive.
"it is up to staff to delete old article and use new article" How you want to delete work of some one tired in making it? this unfair.
It's nut "unfair" if it is junk.
But I do disagree about replacing: junk should never be published to start with, but there is nothing wrong with multiple takes on the same subject.
I enjoyed everyone's feedback on this topic.
In the end we all know that Google can't have a perfect algorithm, however; cracking down on low quality bookmarks will provide users a better experience when browsing the web. I don't believe that this means you can't bookmark your hubs. Rather, if you do so, then you'll need to create a significant amount of unique content on the same topic rather than just 200 words. Right now this is all just speculation, but I've already taken to writing around 400-800 words on my most recent bookmarks. Whether it's more efficient or not to skip this process entirely at this point remains to be seen.
by Steve Andrews4 years ago
When it was first introduced I was annoyed by it but made an effort to tweak my hubs to get them out of Idle status. Now, a whole load have got zzs against them again and many of them are hubs that at one point were...
by Will Apse4 years ago
There is a lot of SEO related stuff about Panda in these forums, so here is something about quality and the kinds of content Google is trying to find and offer to searchers:It comes from Amit Singhal, Google Fellow and...
by ShailaSheshadri3 weeks ago
I am writing articles for this website since past 3 months. At present, I have 38 featured and published hubs. I have joined for Amazon and google Adsense program. Past two months I earned like very less amount, less...
by Scott Bateman5 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 johnfl3 years ago
I have been on Hub Pages about a year and I have written about 27 Hubs and they have received close to 5000 views, which I felt was not bad and my status hovers between 82-88. Last week I had about 8 of my Hubs...
by Shauna L Bowling13 months ago
I recently had a hub un-featured for engagement, as the half-circle indicates. I think this is an unfair practice and should be eliminated entirely. Here's why I feel this way:Our hub traffic is often affected by the...
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.