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 ranking system, will now be penalizing pages linked to from sites such as these (which Google may perceive as 'backlink farms')?
since Google never reveals their algorithms, no one knows for sure. one type of page they seem to be targeting are those from web spinners like Mass Article Control which i reviewed [unfavorably] earlier:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Mass-Article-Co … Duplicates
Thanks, Cascoly. I've come across a few of those articles on my Web travels -- absolute garbage and electronic clutter, of no use to anyone, like a spam email. I'm glad sites like that are getting lower rankings with the new system (they don't even deserve to be indexed as far as I am concerned.)
I'm worried about continuing to use these bookmark sites -- I definitely think they are in a much higher class of site than article-spinning sites, but I just don't know how Google will perceive them.
Google is not penalizing for backlinks at the moment especially when the content is unique. I personally had little luck with redgage and shetoldme backlinks getting indexed. Did you had any luck with it? I mean are you sure your links are getting indexed by Google?
I usually prefer social bookmarking sites than the sites you suggested
There will not be a penalization, however if the Google Trust has hubpages has dropped it will be perceived as a lower quality link, so migh tnot bring quite as much benefit.
Actually, there CAN be penalties. The insistence that no such thing exists by certain well known names here is incorrect: Google can and does apply penalties because of spammy link building.
HP may or may not do the same. I have asked them for clarification at http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/69647
They do, but it's unlikely.
What happens to most people is that a large number of lower quality links produce a low trust score for a site. In reality having a lot of low quality links can be viewed as a penalty, however to avoid missquotes I have often taken to using the speak that Google uses to describe what happens with link building.
People who build a thousand low quality backlinks often complain that they have been penalized because they have 1000 backlinks but still don't appear in search. The truth is that spammy sites like that generally have a low domain/page trust score.
This means that while the site have 1000 links, each link is practically worthless.
This is why sites like overstock, JC Penny, etc etc, never got hit until Google manually came in and slapped the hell out of them.
I am actually working on putting together a presentation on Backlinks for SEO Chemist, which will be loaded in to TiF. This will explain my views on backlinks a whole lot more than I can do in a single post, and go a little more in depth as to the known technicals of linking!
I seriously doubt Google is penalizing incoming links from any of those sites, even if it now considers them to be bad neighborhoods. The worst that has happened is that it's no longer giving you any points. Maybe they became worthless possibly?
If Google was to penalize a web page, website or hub because it had incoming links from a bad hood just think how easy it would be to sabotage your competition. I could find every web page that is beating me on Google and create links to it from such bad neighborhoods and kill their rankings. Nope this won't never happen.
Linking out to a bad neighborhood will get you penalized and you should never do this.
They are not penalising sites as such, it is the pages on those sites that a taking a big hitting. If your article or content on those sites are unique and of good quality, they should continue to do well.
Most of my articles are still ranking quite well, some have even moved you. So, keep producing good content.
If Google is penalising sites that are getting backlinks this way, then the best way to protect your self is to write an article pointing at your Hubpage. Now build links to the article that will subsequently flow the link juice through the article to your Hubpage.
That way you get the benefit of backlinking as well as protecting your Hubpage from any penalty as the article will be penalised not the Hub.
Do you know for a fact that Google isn't penalizing a website with links from link farms - or are you engaging in wishful thinking.
It seems to me that "penalizing" websites that are linked to from link farms would open the doors for all sorts of sabotage.
Perhaps they don't penalize sites automatically, put them up for deeper scrutiny to see if they really deserve their place, which could equate to a penalty in the end, if not directly from the initial spammy links that were noticed.
If you Google for "Google Bowling", you'll quickly learn thatMatt Cutts admits that you could be penalized by a competitors actions, but that he thinks they can detect and correct that. Whether that means manual review, I do not know.
Never heard the term google bowling before. It's definitely a worry but its the fact that they themselves insist it shouldn't be able to happen, or that it would be corrected, that makes me think there is some kind of two tier system where questionable links that get noticed lead to a more in depth review (either a more wide ranging algo or human review).
I also once had a site where the homepage seemed to have been dropped from google completely, and wasn't in the first 10 pages even for the name of the site. Then a few days later it was back to where it had been before. I don't think it had been 'google bowled', but perhaps they picked up something they thought looked dodgy, looked into it, and then decided that site was OK after all.
Misha and Nelle, I'm not engaging in either wishful thinking nor in fear mongering. I just want to know the truth, either way. How could we go about finding out, without incurring the Wrath of G?
The truth is: the World, including Google, is ever changing and ever stable at the same time. The trick is to sort ever changing from ever stable
LOL I guess I have to talk mysteries, right?
But seriously, the killer argument is that if Nelle's fears were true, we would have thousands of IMers trying to sink their competition by backlinking. So far I did not see any.
While everything else is constantly changing, a few things, including backlinks, seem to be constant, at least when you are talking Google.
But maybe the kind of backlinks that are in favor is shifting. It used to be social media was inferior to bookmarking. Now it's the other way...
Were HP internal links devalued? Is it possible some links carry a negative value?
Maybe the IMers don't know about it yet...
Try to put yourself in Google shoes. Imagine you introduce a negative value to some links. How can you be sure eventually IMers won't figure it out and won't start using it to kill the competition? Seriously, it is so obvious I can't understand why people are still discussing it.
As I said on the other thread a couple of days ago - improper backlinking can hurt the add-on value of your other backlinks, but it never can hurt the core value of your page. Any major search engine that tries to introduce such measures is dead as soon as IMers figure it out. And they figure such things out pretty soon.
By that reasoning reverse click fraud could also never happen.
Clicking on someone else's ads to get him in trouble with Google.
OK, the easy answer is - in case of this click fraud the only affected person is the adsense publisher, and google has those in abundance both active and eager to become active. In case of "backlink fraud" all people searching for a particular set of keywords are affected, and those are google customers that can easily turn to another search engine. See the difference?
If your an Adsense account holder and you click on an Adsense ad, then that is recorded. Many have lost their accounts simply trying to do what you have described.
Even Matt Cutts has admitted that bad linking can cause penalties. Real SEO people are well aware of this, and so is Misha, but he always says this same false story... Gee, I wonder why?
Misha is not telling the truth.
Search for "Google Bowling". He knows this, but still sings the same tired song. Competitors CAN damage you, but more important is that you can damage yourself. Google might fix you if a competitor did it, but not when you do it.
Misha I'm not fear mongering. Links from bad neighborhoods can hurt you, and in the past few weeks link farms - like snipsly, shetoldme - have become bad neighborhoods as far as I'm concerned. I've been concerned about this for several months. In fact because of the hit HubPages has taken, I took down the links to my personal sites in my profile. I'm not convinced these are great links anymore.
Each to his own.
Sorry Nelle, they can't. You will have to provide clear cut examples for me to believe what you say, and I seriously doubt you can find any. And no, someone's blog post claiming they were put down because of bad links does not count as a proof, unless it is backed by a serious testing.
Those shetoldme and such links ceratinly got devalued - means their value is less than before. It does not mean their value became negative.
I have provided those links. Anyone can find hundreds, probably thousands by searching for "Google Bowling". You can find it discussed at well known SEO forums, you can find Matt Cutts confirming it, you can find articles in major on-line newsmagazines..
But that's not enough for Misha..
As I said each to his own Misha. Folks are welcome to follow you in your strategy if they want. I would urge them to do their own research.
And most of the real SEO experts are advising people NOT to follow Misha's style.
In fact, HP themselves says that kind of activity is no longer tolerated - they said so in the HP blog interview where Misha bragged about creating thousands of links to a Hub.
Misha says I'm a fool for saying this is bad SEO, but he refuses to comment on what he thinks of HP's policy on that.
Actually, they are not free to follow Misha's bad advice. That was made very clear in his HP blog interview where, after Misha bragged about using automated back linking software, HP warned:
http://blog.hubpages.com/2010/09/the-pa … r-day-hub/
We strongly suggest everyone read our Learning Center post on backlinking:
http://learningcenter.hubpages.com/a-gu … cklinking/ We will be detecting and banning accounts that use spammy techniques to get backlinks to newly-published Hubs, so Hubbers should opt for a conservative approach to any backlinking effort.
So it isn't 'to each his own" at all.
I take that warning to mean going forward people better not do what they did in the past. I think that is a reasonable approach, as it says for "new hubs".
Actually - It is "to each his own" Mr. Unix.
According to Matt Cutts on the google blog - the latest change is "designed to reduce rankings for low-quality sites—sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites or sites that are just not very useful. At the same time, it will provide better rankings for high-quality sites—sites with original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on."
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/ … es-in.html
I took a look at your hubs and I have to say - you are a big part of the actual problem:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Reilly-and-me-F … -holograms
Personal, fictional ramblings are not exactly what anyone could consider "useful," are they? Unless you think Matt Cutts is a liar?
This is the real problem and goes directly against the Hubpages TOS which is pretty clear that "personal" topics are banned here:
No doubt the hubpages team is working busily to clear this sort of content from the system - but I personally am blaming people like you for filling hubpages with non-useful, un-researched, shallow, fictional or fun content.
I am also looking at you shadesbreath, Pearldiver and Mark and all the other writers writing non-useful content.
You know who you are.
Fiction obviously has been allowed here - it has its own category.
Should it be? I don't know, but if not, I'll cheerfully find some other place for any of my hubs that don't meet new requirements.
By the way, Mark, if you so desperately wanted to find a hub of mine to criticize, I could have saved you some time. I do have some very personal writings about my wife's chronic pain that would have been better choices to attack. I have already said several times that if those have to go, I quite understand.
I also understand that your real agenda here is to change the subject, because you don't want people to know that spammy linking is a problem and (according to what I posted above), very much against HP policy now. You and Misha keep insisting that it is a perfectly fine thing to do, right?
Why would I attack something so personal as your wife's pain?
I was making a joke and pointing out that witch hunts such as this are unproductive.
I also pointed out what the algo change actually targeted - according to Matt Cutts. Bad quality content - not links from wherever.
And still your tirade continues.
I was not asserting that the algo change has anything to do with links, Mark.
Go back and READ what I said.
1: Spammy linking CAN cause a Google penalty. That does NOT say Google has penalized HP for that reason.
2. HP may or may not be penalizing hubbers - even up to the point of banning - for spammy link building. I've asked for clarification of that in another post, but that "We will be detecting and banning accounts that use spammy techniques to get backlinks to newly-published Hubs, so Hubbers should opt for a conservative approach to any backlinking effort." does seem to say that rather plainly.
Please stop trying to hijack the thread. Which is about the new google algorithm. What does spammy linking have to do with that?
Clearly the change targeted poor content. Why are you on your hobby horse yet again? And if you think hubpages wants to start policing what their members do off site - well - good luck with that. The operative words are "newly published hubs."
But - at the same time - they were encouraging people who wrote for the flagship hub program to build links immediately - and paid extra if you could get 10 visits from 10 different traffic sources within 30 days of publication - so they are confused as well.
I'm not hijacking the thread. None of us has any idea at his moment whether or not spammy link building is one of the problems Google sees with HP specifically, but we DO know that Google can apply penalties for that, so it could be.
As to HP, I agree, they present confusing attitudes. I've asked i another thread - http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/69647 - that they make their stance clear. I've done that before and been ignored, so they may not answer, but I have asked.
Am I the Mark? Or did you have another Mark in mind? Maybe it's a trap which I have fallen into. Very cunning.
IF it was me, and IF it was not a joke then I don't actually have much of an argument. Except generally, apart from one or two of course (I mean we're allowed a few aren't we?) I don't set out to mislead the general public and sell them subscriptions to MLM.
tbh Mark - if I was the problem - based on the number of hits and traffic and income I have received - I'd have to say Google has drilled down pretty deep to find me.
Oh Jesus, I clearly have no sense of humour.
I am a fraud.
Which takes us back to the first point.
Worry not - clearly Mr. Unix's sense of humor is considerably less developed than either of ours. He already started 2 other threads and is accusing me of attacking him. He is worse than the religious people.
It was Matt Cutts that attacked him in any case.
Well I never said they should exclude HP resources. Although I'm constantly dismayed by the Hubbers who haven't bothered to read the HP, Amazon, Adsense, and Ebay TOS, so I guess I should be more careful with my words. ...Sorry, you're right.
Surely people can wait a few weeks for the dust to settle from the Google algo change? We don't even know if we are really going to lose much yet.
For once I agree with you. Obviously hubpages are busy making some changes, the search results I am seeing through google are horrible at the moment and no one knows where they are.
Pretty sure we are going to make a major loss in some areas/niches, because I am seeing distinct differences in how bad the traffic loss has been between subjects.
1. Snipsly/Shetoldme earnings are linearly rising for many hubbers after this update. So you can figure out on your own if they're linkfarms.
2. Always follow 0 and 1 valuation format for link building. Either link helps you to build reputation or it is simply ignored.
How many times do I need to tell you to search for "Google Bowling" before you will understand that this is NOT correct?
Bad link building CAN cause a Google penalty.
I know much more about "google bowling" than you do.Trust me, i don't need to take SEO lessons from you on what's ethical and unethical.
My reply was with reference to snipsly/shetoldme sites. You need to prove me wrong by giving all the references about those sites being associated as link farm. Define bad linking wrt shetoldme/snipsly then define bad neighborhood. I doubt you'll do that. Random matt cutts quoting and some URL throwing is not going to prove your point.
Your post did NOT say that it was only in reference to specific sites and that is why I responded.
When you make broad statements, you may mislead people.
It was related to snipsly/shetoldme link farming point and you can check that reply. You're in a mood to ignore replies, attack and mislead people. I'm not elite member on hubpages to look down on anyone if they're wrong with something, so don't expect me to start bickering/mudslinging here. You disagree with me, fair enough. Nothing Personal from my side.
I don't disagree with you, and yes, you did reference those sites in your first paragraph, but your second could be interpreted as a broad assertion of the sort that Misha and Mark Knowles make (Google Bowling is a lie, you can never be hurt by linking, etc.).
Where am I "misleading" anyone?
I don't think he understands what you are saying Mark. Like a bad vinyl, he always plays a single track
I understand far better than you, Misha. Unlike you, I am aware that spammy link building can cause a Google penalty.
I think the two of you are cross talking. Pcunix is probably correct in that spammy link building can cause a Google penalty, but we really don't know, and I suspect that the penalty is quite small.
I spend a lot of time (probably too much time) analyzing some of the more successful players and a lot of Misha's backlinks really aren't that spammy.
At least I learn a lot by watching the two of you debating/arguing with each other.
Well... if the Google algorithm is penalizing for backlinks, why is it that when (as I do) I check out a competitor site, it often has backlinks that any human being can tell are spammy?
Often, many of the backlink strategies are right out of the 90's... there is no subtlety about it... just send 20,000 forum profiles at a page... and it ranks.
I agree that these things can be detected manually... and that it can hurt a site if a competitor reports it. I'm not advocating it. But I do think in the short term it works.
LOL..Xomba sent me a email that I cannot link to anything commercial, even a health treatment. They are dictators much like infobarrel.
Seriously pcunix you need to take a break. All you do, post after post is denigrate Mark Knowles and Misha at every opportunity you can take. Are your related to Ryan Kett?
I don't know you but here in my garage in Australia, I cannot stop the feeling of not liking you. Google Bombing, what a load of crap. Do you remember all the other terms we had about this type of thing? We all got around it and still do well from it, so give it a break.
I agree with Mark and Misha. Your thoughts are based in the dinosaur ages. If your such the SEO expert you portray yourself to be, then you need to start talking about what works now. A lot of people read this and look for direction, which you do not give.
Good content does not cut it, back linking does as does the methods Mark and Misha talk about. Carving up a competitive site is a myth you promote wrongly. If you carved up any of my sites then my logs can prove so, you know that, stop your scare mongering crap by thinking it can be done.
I remember about five weeks ago your rant about how this was all too much for you and you were going to leave hubpages. The puppets came on here telling you how valuable you were and not to leave.
That would indicate to me you change your tack and be the person everyone expects you to be rather then a bitter ponce with a different agenda.
I quite understand that you are one who agrees that spamming Google is just part of the game.
I agree with Ryan: you are part of the problem and (in my opinion) it is you and Misha who are the dinosaurs here.
But that's my opinion. HP has not made their policy clear (see http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/69647 ) so right now, at least here at HP, every piece of black hat advice you post may be perfectly fine.
Google bowling is real, however, and Google can penalize spammy linking.
Load of crap. You read somewhere " Google Bowling" and so you now take it on as your word of the day. You pronounce yourself to be a self employed computer consultant. Have you ever Googled your own name to see the amount of derogatory comments pointing at you?
Listen.. its simple. Stop your self imposed bickering of Misha and Mark .. start to give us, fellow hubbers good advice and where to go.
I personally don't need you and the likes of our pommy friend, but others here on hubpages look for direction and you can provide that.
If you cannot see what I am saying then take the good old Australian two finger salute and enjoy it.
I take "Google Bowling" as the word of the day because it is any easy way for people to learn the truth. It's not "crap" at all - it's fact. Telling people to use spammy link building techniques is NOT good advice.
Oh, I googled my name. I find my website and a lot of people who share my name. Your point?
Your making yourself out to be this greater then thou Google expert and when the likes of Misha and Mark question you, you run off and start a thread about how good and right you are.
Need anymore or can't you see that?
Your not Matt or any other guru, your just a guy with a rainbow wig.
No, I'm a guy who has been on the Internet since 1991 and has seen how gaming Google has hurt SERP and polluted the Web.
I'm not asking people to take my advice: I'm just telling them where they can go to learn the truth. Spammy link building CAN bring grief from Google.
It's getting ugly in these forums. . .
Interesting, why did you quote Terry for this observation, and not the guy who started the ugliness and and makes every effort to keep it going?
Well, I guess to be honest the reason would be because I actually talk to you and Pcunix. . . . :-)
I totally disagree. And I can prove it. It just takes a bit longer when you don't actively backlink.
I'm not anti-backlinking, mind you. I'm just generally too lazy to actually do it.
Then you make a living online, congratulations, join the club.
LOL Lisa, Mark thought that, too. We had serious battles over this three years ago on these forums.
Several of my blogs/sites (still) rank #1 or #2 for their keyword without any backlinks besides me linking the relevant ones to each other. I never even tweeted or FBd them. I think a few of my older sites may be linked in my profile here, but that's really about it. They do have lots of backlinks -- all completely organic. My favorite was a UK newspaper that included one of my sites in a story they wrote. They tried to guess at what I looked like in the article, and came up with a "sweet-faced, rosy-cheeked granny" or something like that.
Anyhoo, there's no need to battle over it -- it's fact.
Do I do promotion? Sure. But not advertising, backlinking or article marketing. Too much work.
Ah Lisa, you have a golden pen then, writing a content that goes viral all by itself. I bow to you
I have pages that have enjoyed top serp for years in spite of never being artificially promoted at all. Some of these predate Facebook and Twitter, so they were not even announced.
On a second thought - those sites are likely not your money making sites, at least not the major ones. And your product review hubs unlikely to get organic backlinks no matter how genius your texts are. How do you approach those?
Still bowing to you
You're right in that the product hubs will probably never see an organic backlink. Still, most (not all) of mine ranked really well until Ms. Google got all hormonal.
With the product hubs, I just decided to work on better conversion rates. Instead of massive traffic with a 5% or so conversion rate, I had decent (but less) traffic with anywhere from 14% to 20% conversions -- sometimes higher, but never lower.
Actually, I just checked two of my product hubs. They were ranked #1 and #2 respectively before the smackdown, and are now both at #5. And again -- I didn't do any backlinking except maybe possibly (I don't remember) from my own sites or other hubs of mine. Again, I know absolutely why my sites rank highly despite the lack of outright backlinking, but I'll be dipped if I know why my product hubs rank so highly.
BTW, I like the bowing thing.
"Telling people to use spammy link building techniques is NOT good advice." - Fact.
However there is a difference between a good backlink building campaign (Guest blog posts, article submission, with unique, 300 word minimum content articles) and spamming sites across forums, unmoderated blog comments, etc etc.
Of course there is, though there are shades of grey when it is carried too far (e.g. link wheels).
I advocate against using link wheels with external sites to my clients, in my opion 'grey area' = something that doesn't work well enough to become established white hat, or something that Google hasn't got around to clamping down on just yet.
Link wheels rarely work in my experience.
I'm curious as to why you don't create backlinks to your hubs. You write a lot about creating them but your hubs have very few.
Most of your Hubs have one or two. One had 7.
Nice one Will. I would like to know the answer myself. They just don't seem to be recorded. They should, I have a few articles that have been blastered with links, so I suppose I have to wait for the records to show up.
Last count I had 17k of backlnks pointed at thirty two articles.
I do not backlink my hubpages at all. I write an article and backlink to it. Time will tell though.
I just got done shoveling out my driveway. I have a very long driveway and I dont even have any use for the car this week. I had to rush as it is tax season and my fiance has a heavier workload right now. After, the rather painful activity of shoveling each and every foot by hand ...powered only by coffee, two of my neighbors came out and started their driveways, one flagged down a plow almost immediately, lit a cigarette, and in under 10 minutes the two houses had both their driveways done.
One older lady didn't even have to get out her "housecoat".
It would be an understatement to say that I was jealous. I would have gladly paid to get the unnecessary work done and just went in the house to eat my breakfast and watch forum battles.
next time Ill consider calling a plow
Google bombing is old, I have not seen an occurence of this in a lonnggg time. It took a lot of time, resources, and cash to knock someone out of Google. The Google formula has moved on a lot since 2003, when the practice (Although not the name) of Google bowling started to appear.
As a reference, JCPenny had a huge number of backlinks, it got them to the top of google, and it took a manual action to remove them. A Company would have to invest an insane amount of money in to backlinks to get Google to notice it.
Or be reported by a competitor...
But that doesn't mean that Google doesn't care and it doesn't mean they aren't working on detecting more of this automatically and it doesn't mean it has played no part in Big Panda.
Time will tell..
For now, all I care about is this:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/69647?p … ost1518272
"We have been and will continue to ban accounts that use spammy techniques to build links. "
I have a question as I have been trying to follow it. Are you saying that some people create a link from a hubpage and then spin or automate that link?
That would seem to be against TOS but that is my opinion as it seems they are going to be more strict going forward. Having someone manually promote your link of a hubpage would be ok, right? But not the automated promotion.
Just wondering about this whole conversation.
people automate linkbuilding
there is software that will:
automatically create social bookmarks
forum posts with links in them
comments on websites
spun (the text) articles with links
most incorporate some sort of "spinning" of the text to make the comment/post unique and often reads as garble
It's pretty simple.
HP is afraid to be specific about what they consider spammy because they don't want the black hat guys knowing how to get close to the line without crossing it. I understand that, but I still think saying nothing about it is a bad idea because it just leaves people like Misha and Mark free to say that there is never any harm from aggressive link building.
This http://www.ksl-consulting.co.uk/google_ … _Checklist gives a good overview of the kinds of things reputable folks will tell you to watch out for.
Of course if you just adopt the attitude that you'll write good content, use interlinking where it makes sense for the reader and in general concern yourself with readers rather than fooling search engines, you will never have to worry about Google algorithm changes hurting you.
Expect an immediate response claiming you'll go broke doing that. It's not true, as many who follow that model can attest.
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 Raye4 years ago
If trying to get as many backlinks as humanly possible, no matter where you get them, is part of your web traffic strategy you might want to watch your email inbox for a letter from...
by wytegarillaz6 years ago
Has anyone paid for these backlinks at all and had benefits from them ?I keep seeing the advert so thought I would ask.Thanks
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 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...
by J Sunhawk6 years ago
A Google wizard came down from the mountaintop recently and gave a reading on proper backlinking. He blasted backlinking farms and paid-for linking. Instead, he suggested going to social sites and sundry other venues...
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.