I'm officially now my first month into HubPages and loving it; however, I'd like to share with the community some of the observations I've made in the first 30 days.
Let me start by saying that I think there is plenty of opportunity for writers here, even post-panda, to become successful, profitable writers. We have hit a bump in the road, but I do believe good, quality writing will prevail.
Secondly, if you can establish yourself as an authority in a niche, the sky is the limit. Your commitment to advance and develop a body of knowledge will elevate your authority and provide you new opportunities beyond just writing on HubPages.
The issue I see with several Hubbers is that many worry more about SEO tactics, trickery, backlinks, and affiliates, and less about writing well; less about producing meaningful, and relevant content.
The traffic we're getting is disappointing--I get it and feel the same pain. I do keep SEO on my radar as I write, but I don't let it consume me or sacrifice the quality of the end product.
Based on what I've observed, Hubbers fit into one of two groups, Team Write or Team SEO:
1) Team Write: those who write meaningful, relevant content and and have a genuine desire to share their ideas, passions, interests, and subject matter expertise
2) Team SEO: those who write based on the latest keyword research and income potential, producing content that is poorly developed and over inflated with SEO trickery and affiliates, resulting in a sub-optimal reading experience
The reputation of this site and its best writers cannot be elevated, panda or not, as long as poor writing practices are tolerated.
Sadly, there are some writers with 90+ Hub scores who fit into Team SEO. I am also concerned by the number of member profile descriptions touting SEO expertise as the main reason for membership and content contribution.
Where We Go From Here
HubPages has reached a philosophical crossroad I think, and I support the recent moves by the HubPages team to ensure accountability with better publishing standards.
Is this a site for writers? Or is this just a platform for the disingenuous to produce meaningless content with SEO slight of hand?
My vote is for Team Write.
It's a pity that Team Doesn't Know How to SEO gets so much more publicity than Team Doesn't Know How to Write, even though the latter team has been making a name for itself since long before the web existed.
Although this is indeed a false dichotomy, since good writing is, in fact, one of many tools in the search engine optimization toolbox.
Thanks for inspiring me to come out of hubernation to write a new hub challenging your assertion.
I am a new team writer. I am here to learn from others and try to find my own style of writing. I have been trying to finish this book that I have been working on for three years now. It's about my personal experiences and it's a way for me to build my platform. I love to write. I love putting my thoughts down on paper. I find this to be helpful because I have an A social personality. I am a loner and I isolate myself in an attempt to gurad my heart. Writing is who I am and the thoughts are the expression of the things to come. This was a good subject, and I really did learn something. I like the team effort verses the team SEO. :-)
Why are you automatically associating SEO with bad content. Since Good writing is one of the major parts of SEO you will usually find the most eloquent writers are in the SEO field, and most editors have to be SEO knowledgable.
I think what you need to remember is that 'Team SEO' is the team that didn't get affected by Panda on their own personal sites, you might want to consider that at some point.
well, shoot. I apologize for my lack of intelligence about SEO's. I picked Team write because I think I can write fairly well. I will definitly research what seo practices are and have it down to a science. I will get back to you. It's weird, while reding your post, I felt you scolding me. :-( it's okay and thank you for being such an excellent teacher!~ have a great day! :-)
Everyone has to learn how to write online at some point. I was angry with the originla poster for his attack on SEO.
If you want to write online then learning basic SEO techniques is an essential step anyway, because without it very few people will ever actually read what you have written.
oli and Marisa, thats cool! I am glad I didn't upset anyone. I was a little worried that after all of a week being here, I had overstayed my welcome. I am still looking into the seo stuff. I a minterested in being a professional writer,it appears there is more to puting thoughts on paper. I have the determination so I think it will work out. :-)
The problem is that no one really wants to teach about SEO to the person who really does not know much about it.
This is what I have run into. The information is either outdated, has too little information to make it useful, or way too technical so the person has to learn the new technical language before even starting to grasp what is being said if possible. The technical terms are not defined. They either have to be guessed at, or defined many Google searches later.
I still believe many SEO professionals don't want to give away their knowledge paid or free, or their students may be placing above them in the search engine rankings.
Jo, what view are you using in the forums? Oli wasn't replying to you, so no need to feel insulted.
As Oli says, it's a sad fact that just good writing isn't enough. If you don't know how to play Google's game, no one will find your writing to read it.
HubPages used to give us a way around that problem - it was possible to "just write" on HubPages and get seen, because Google liked Hubs just because they were part of HP. Unfortunately the Panda update has changed that.
I wish I didn't have to worry about learning about SEO, but the reality is, if I want my writing to be read, it's something I need to take on board.
As others have said, there are plenty of us here who would consider ourselves "Team Balanced". We try to write meaningful, relevant content but we also realize the importance of using SEO practices to ensure that content gets noticed and read.
To try to separate HubPages writers into two extremes is divisive, not to say insulting.
Besides, the truth is that the experts in SEO are responsible for most of the revenue HubPages has made since its inception, and therefore have been responsible for HubPages' survival. The rest of us, especially the "writing as art" community, have effectively got a free ride on their coat-tails.
"Besides, the truth is that the experts in SEO are responsible for most of the revenue HubPages has made since its inception, and therefore have been responsible for HubPages' survival."
This cheered me up no end. I love kids who in believe in Santa. I love adolescents who believe in truth, justice and the triumph of virtue. So why shouldn't I love people who believe that there are experts in SEO?
How To Make Your Balls Smell Better -
What an absolutely fantastic effort made here by Team Wuckfit with this perfectly shaven sack of irrelevant, though slightly testicular cod's-wallop!
My Observation of the Effect of Your Pubic Advice:
I must report that I watched an elderly reader of your hub shudder at the very subject matter!
I observed that he then called out loudly, that he FELT and the way you so elegantly stroked the word:'Balls'
I was shocked by your writing prowess and your ability to reach out so effectively to your readers! Amazing!
The Elderly man reading your work declared, very loudly that he FELT your words reach out and make him rise up and stand erectly!
Others in the Limp Lily Retirement Home Library were also shocked as the Elderly Man stated that he also FELT a great compulsion to 'Internalize' all your words!
What shocked all his Elderly friends was, that the Elderly Man, in preparation to internalize your words, then proceeded to follow your advice from another of your hubs called: How To Shave Your Butt!
I must also report that in the absence of a suitable disclaimer on your obvious 'Tongue In The Cheeks' Hubs... Mr. William Shivelledbush LLB is commencing proceedings against you for penning Deceptive and Misleadingly Illegal Content that has resulted in Emotional Distress and Unwarranted Penile Arousal!
@Team Wuckfit... With Such an Articulate Entrance made to the community here, in which you clearly choose to bare your buttocks arrogantly... The writer wishes you Good Luck recruiting others to join your team!
Your writing quality appears to be in the same vane as the attitude, which certainly appears to be wanting in some respects.. all of which relate directly to the absence of Class!
my vote team write Glad someone else sees the possibility of team write I believe with team write we could change the way writing is done on internet pool the community according to specialties.
I can't speak for everyone, but I just write about whatever interests me. Most of the time it's reviewing films, but other times it's me just writing random stuff. As far the SEO stuff, I don't pay too much attention to it. Sure, I'm always trying to look into ways of drawing more traffic to my hubs, but I always found it better when you write straight from the heart than anything else. Of course, because most of my hubs are film reviews, there is a lot more thought process than simply writing my feelings on a movie, as I try to put in research into it as well. After all, you have to give your readers a reason to even CARE about your thoughts versus some other random jerk on the web reviewing a film. However, the point is you just have to write about whatever interests you and keep going from there. At least, that's how I looked at it so far. Sure, I would love to be as successful as some of the other hubbers here like Mark Knowles, Misha and etc., but it takes time like all things worth waiting for.
You have made some excellent points, however there is another group that belongs to Team Balance. While it is important to write about subjects you are passionate about you also need to follow good SEO practice.
Example...as a food write I create recipes.. I am passionate about introducing new and interesting foods to my readers but I can't just throw things together..I have to follow certain standards and techniques.
SEO has been overused and over emphasized but that does not mean that it does not have it's place in good writing.
Do you realise that you are already making use of all the hard work team SEO has done for you. The result is you can write, hubs like 'how to shave your butt' and share your ideas, passions, and interests with the world.
But am I really?
Whole sections of your Green Tea articles for example, are duplicated all over the web. Is that your SEO tactics at work? Very little content is original, and I can't believe that is helping anyone on HubPages. It's one thing to cite a source or pull a sentence out to neatly explain something technical, but these are whole paragraphs
Or are you a victim of content scraping?
I just run copyscape on http://hubpages.com/hub/Green-Tea-A-Cur … -Poisoning and it picked up no duplicates. However on http://hubpages.com/hub/I-Love-Green-Tea it did pick up some duplication. However, did you notice that I attributed and linked to those sources where appropriate?
Just because the entire article passed copyscape doesn't mean that uncited paragraphs within the article weren't plagiarized.
Several uncited paragraphs appear on other websites. Just copy and paste any of them into Google as I did.
Can you point to the paragraphs you mean, I checked on Google and found some stuff being scraped from my hubs and published over at articlebase.
I don’t mean copy the paragraph here, perhaps link to the Google results page.
Somehow, I think that you have missed what HubPages is all about.
As Sunforged said, this is a platform where all types of writers are welcome, and where people who need some help with their writing skills, language skills and SEO skills are supported and helped if they ask in the forums. Many experienced hubbers have been very generous with their time and expertise, and I know that I have learned a lot since I started writing here.
If you want to write for an exclusive, only certain people approved type of site, then HP is probably not for you.
As for you laying down the law as to who can write here and in what way, we have a little saying over here in the UK 'who died and made you god?'
Most writers here could use constructive feedback on their writing, myself included. Providing feedback should be encouraged and promoted. I am not saying everyone here needs to be a professional writer.
Plagiarizing the work of others and producing dubious hubs is a totally different issue; both have little to do with writing and more to do with deceitful opportuntity.
And, not god, just sharing my observation.
I'm pretty sure it's "Who died and made you King"
By reason of the fact that Kingship is inherited, whereas becoming a God is a little more complicated.
As is usual, a blend of both is what most people are happy doing.
How would you know? Im reading wishful thinking and "parroting" of traditional offline brand marketing concepts.
Marketing and Organization are not unique to online endeavors. Any belief that you will be "discovered" by pure chance is infantile. SEO "tricks" are for the most part nothing more than properly organizing your content to be read and categorized where you desire by bots and algorithms and additionally marketing content across a broad spectrum of markets and online locations.
Well said. But what success has your methods brought you...since you have decided to cut your blog apart and move it to a shared site instead?
Its a great team, Im on it.
Poor description on your part. You are confusing Team SEO with Team Spam and the Quick Bucks , just as you may be failing to recognize that Team Write on this site includes ESL writers and those who have passion that may not match their skills in communication, vocabulary, spelling, methodology, critical thinking and general writing ability. As an "Open Publishing Platform" its cruel to be overly critical of those who may be putting their best foot forward yet are not "Professional Writers" - this platform in the past was able to welcome people of many backgrounds and abilities, many who learned to be better writers or marketers through peer review and community (Not via an editorial slap) Im on this team, also and am active member of every writing platform you can name, including "open" and "application only" such as DS and Bright Hub.
Where we go from here
Again, I think your associations are invalid.
My vote is for Team Rightly Balanced(when someone can tell me what that means)
btw .. Field of Dreams is only a movie
SunForged, a few responses to your comments:
"How would you know? Im reading wishful thinking and "parroting" of traditional offline brand marketing concepts."
Jacob: Just because my comments were wishful for you, doesn't mean that they aren't reality for others. Recently, I was contacted by a brand to do an interview with The New York Times. It does happen.
"Any belief that you will be "discovered" by pure chance is infantile."
Jacob: Again, while this may be wishful for you, others are taking proactive steps to push their endeavors forward. I'm not waiting to be discovered--that was never the plan. I have and continue to introduce myself to relevant contacts in my industry. Opportunities will continue to develop as I develop those relationships.
"But what success has your methods brought you...since you have decided to cut your blog apart and move it to a shared site instead?"
Jacob: Well, my content is still being read. Readers are interacting with me and my work--that's always a plus. I am also interacting professionally with contacts in my industry, developing stories, relationships, new opportunities, interviews, etc. Business doesn't stop because traffic is down.
"Poor description on your part. You are confusing Team SEO with Team Spam and the Quick Bucks..."
Jacob: I'd say they all blur just a little bit. There's a lot of unoriginal, dubious content in that trifecta.
"you may be failing to recognize that Team Write on this site includes ESL writers and those who have passion that may not match their skills in communication, vocabulary, spelling, methodology, critical thinking and general writing ability. As an "Open Publishing Platform" its cruel to be overly critical of those who may be putting their best foot forward"
Jacob: So those weren't spun articles that I read and flagged as spam then?
Anyone who desires to write, regardless of proficiency, should be given the opportunity; however, HubPages may not always be the best platform for everyone.
Content that is unreadable hurts all parties involved: the brand, the writers, and the readers.
If a member cannot coherently write or communicate his/her thoughts, I'm not convinced that HubPages is the best publishing platform for that individual. The better solution would be for struggling ESL writers to take their content to an incubation platform where they can get proper coaching and development before publishing.
On a final note...
Sunforged, in the spirit of honesty (and it comes from a place of love), I think many of your hubs are excellent examples of the directionless and disingenuous content that exists on HubPages; the very thing this community continues to be penalized for as long as it exists.
You are writing not because you are genuinely interested in Tangled Toys, Anthropology Coupons, or Whipple Surgery. You are writing because these are opportunities for you to exploit search engines like Google for traffic and revenue; they are opportunities for you to make money online, like your profile states.
Any reader landing on these pages can see that they are not written with any authority and thus dubious.
Overall, this type of activity I believe is also why the large media and content networks want their content pushed to the top of search results, pushing this network farther down.
I just read this. Don't attack Sunforged, Jacob. He's one of the best Hubbers we have here on HP. The ability to write on any given subject, even something on which we hold little interest, and to produce content that is not only highly readable but which people search out and WANT to read, is a gift only writers can have - writers with a good sound knowledge of SEO.
The major difference between writing in print, and writing on the web is proficiency in SEO.
Print magazines or newspapers won't even take you on if you can't write.
Anyone can write on the web, but getting their stuff found by searchers requires the knowledge and implementation of SEO techniques.
Sunforged has both skills, writing and SEO. Mix the two with a sound ability to research and write in your own words information found elsewhere and you have the perfect combination for becoming successful online.
Some would argue that a (non-fiction) writer is someone who can write about subject other than his passion…Team Passion may be different than Team Write… a lot of different teams here other than your characterizations…
True, and a good writer is one who is at least passionate about satisfying his/her reader with information they value and seek, even if the topic is not of close personal interest.
The point I'm trying to make is that the spirit in which one writes often determines how the writing is received.
If I stumble on an article and see that it poorly pieced together with a mixture of keywords (and let's don't forget the keyword mispellings too), then it becomes obvious to the reader of the authors intent.
The intent to exploit traffic for the sake of revenue rather than delivering any content that is of value to the reader.
Sadly, my feedback didn't make the final cut; not always uncommon when working with journalists--they pick and choose soundbytes--and iterate and reshape the story a dozen times.
Nonetheless, I was glad to be recognized by the brand for the opportunity and will continue to develop and explore the relationship for new developments.
So let me get this right, have you have linked to an article on nytimes.com that has absolutely nothing to do with you in any way whatsoever?
Do you know Will Arse by any chance!
LOL! Yes, you asked for the link, and I gave it to you. Journalists may contact a number of people on a story, but not all of them get quoted or even referenced.
The point is that there are opportunities for you to do more than just online writing if you properly develop your subject matter expertise, contrary to what Subforged stated.
Things can and do develop in a number of channels. I will get my quote in NYT before it's all over with, it just won't be on Spanx!
I've been here a while and not heard of these teams. Are they like HubMobs?
I'd like to join the SEO one because that sounds more modern than a bunch of wizened old writers.
Mark, you are cordially invited to join Team SEO, whatever that is, unfortunately you will find we are mostly a bunch of wizened old writers.
I will send paypal insructions shortly.
If you can find the collection of poor, miserable and second rate writers I copy my stuff from - could you tell them their stuff is rubbish?
I mean, what's the point in scraping them when they haven't even put some basic effort in.
I'm tempted to call it a day.
I am going to give up on search engine optimization and write about shaving my butt and balls - when can I join team write?
When you are sufficently shaven would be my guess. Probably need a picture.
. . . .we found your photos for the Hub, "Shaving My Butt and Balls" to be pixelated, and of poor quality. . . . . ~team Hubpages~
I often wonder, but never search to see if what I say is copied anywhere. I usually think that there's not a lot of people either brave, stupid, or dumb enough to say some of the things that I do say.
What's my point? I dunno. Hey, I got some gas, do you have a light?
Anyone who can corner the market in butt hair removal can be my SEO Guru, any day.
Good points. Interesting to read! I consider myself more of a writer! But it is important to know about keywords etc.
Thanks Izzy, I saw this earlier, but I really couldnt bother to respond.
Before, you arrived, Jacob, this was a fun place to interact with other writers (and people) and to write about things that interested us, caught our attention, or even just presented us with a challenge to conquer. Im glad we have yet another knight on a white horse to tell use how useless our ideas and attempts are. I appreciate that.
I dont appreciate being called disingenuous though, perhaps sometimes I can be tongue in cheek, I imagine you are slightly familiar with that? considering that you are so obviously genuine about your love of bald male asses?
btw.. Whipple surgery was written in response to learning about the process as my grandmother was going through it.
This is clearly stated.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Wipple-Surgery- … Procedures
The resources I linked to are the top in the field.
I dont play with health topics without conscience. If you were surrounded by women and babies instead of hair removal wax you may have been exposed to those other topics also.
I think Im a decent communicator - sorry you feel otherwise. But, I bet you my points came across loud and clear in this forum thread
You can see the "genuine" side of the page you chose to witch hunt here http://hubpages.com/hub/Finding-Long-lo … sweet-tale
oh, typo, w=b
Have you got a follow-up hub to that one? I never noticed that one before - btw it's got a few typos but easily overlooked because the story within is powerful. It reads like a book, I want to know what happened next. Is your grandma still with you?
(((hugs))) sounds like you need some...don't we all?
Awww..did she die? Yes she did, sorry stupid question, pancreatic cancer isn't curable. But you know at least she died happy after you got in touch with her.
You know Confucius said that life is like a tapestry. All sorts of horrible things happen, seemingly unrelated, and certainly not understandable, just like the wrong side of a tapestry where you see threads going in all directions, criss-crossing and not making a picture.
Turn it over and suddenly everything slots into place. The picture is beautiful.
That is how life turns out.
Whether it's true or not, it is a nice thought to hang to.
Hi Glamor Jacob, I have learned a lot from Sunforged and most of what I know earning from the Internet, I owe it to him. Not only that, I also agree with Izzy, he writes also well and helped the community a lot here. The 30dc and 60dc (dc- day challenge) was headed by him and you can look through it if you want to learn search engine optimization (seo). Afterall, we write in the Internet so that people can read it and think what you also like
A real life writer/journalist could write what judges would consider the highest quality article in the world with depth, clarity and humour.
However if he posted that on a plain page on the web, chances are he'd never get a single view.
If he posted it on Hubpages, he'd probably get a few views because of all the work put into the site by Team SEO - in backlinks, internal links and other promotion.
If he did a little keyword research he might discover that just changing a few words could get thousands of views.
<*)))))>< No matter how good you are, you need to know how to market yourself. And online, SEO is another word for marketing. ><(((((*>
Interesting dialogue. I would have to disagree with Jacob that there is a black and white line between "Team Write" and "Team SEO." Just as there are crappy writers in Team Write, there are crappy writers in Team SEO. This is also true for quality writers. You can play for BOTH teams and still produce good writing.
SEO is just a part of writing online, but it does not mean someone who is smart about SEO doesn't have passion for writing or creates what you described as "spam." Learning proper SEO takes time. Backlinking, proper keywords, niche marketing, social media are a part of getting recognized by the search engines. It does NOT mean you are on the "bad team." It means you are on the effective and productive team.
Remember, HP is a place where most people write to also earn an income. It is not a place designed for creative writers who only write as a hobby. The articles are supposed to be informative. YES, of course you can absolutely write here and not care about money. It is open to all writers.
I do agree that quality is first and foremost, but you CAN write quality articles that are SEO optimized. The other important thing to mention is non-fiction writers are different than fictions writers. I get clients that want me to write about things I don't have a passion for. It comes with the job as a freelance writer.
I suggest a compromise.
=> By default all articles published on Hubpages are 'internal only'
=> If you want your article published on the WWW you need to meet a set of strict rules and have the article scrutinised by an editor.
This allows people to write what they want and to join the team of writers and contribute at two levels (internal and external).
It avoids having to check every article published.
Hopefully it will enable the quality standards of what is indexed to rise to the level demanded by Google and other search engines.
If the Hub team is serious about lifting the standard and willing to cop the flack it could run a filter and change the status of 'doubtful articles' to internal only and request the author to revise the article and re-submit for review by an editor or accept its 'internal-only' status.
Something like this is the only hope of breaking the 'we are all tainted by the same brush' penalty.
that's how I see it too - it's not black & white; it's a continuum of how much the focus is on SEO or just writing (but neither are 'bad'). There's excellence & crap all along the continuum.
The whole 'open publishing' platform seems to be a point of honour for Hubpages but like a lot of people, I reckon they need some kind of vetting procedure for every page published.
If they allow huge numbers of very poor quality pages to go out, it is a kind of SEO 'cheat' of the kind Google hates. By that, I mean a site's size gives it SEO advantages and a site gaining advantage by deliberately allowing masses of poor content to be published can only expect to suffer.
In fact, I can't see any way for Hubpages to regain its former position without stringent quality control.
They need to do as Info Barrel does, and make people earn the ability to publish at will. I know for sure that my first ten hubs sucked; hell, probably most of those ten are still there. They might suck a bit less, but they still aren't nearly so good as what I've done when I felt challenged to do better.
Something also could be done to get the folks back that ran off. I'm nobody around here, but even lil' ol' me decided to not publish anything new until they'd got done with the slaughter of the innocents accused of non compliance with new standards.
I don't know a huge amount about Squidoo's system of quality control but pages don't go live immediately- they must be vetted in some way. Also Squidoo will stop pages that don't succeed in a month or two (i.e. get some visitors) from being crawled by Google- unless the pages are amended.
In the past, this must have been bad SEO since it meant that its number of searchable pages was smaller than than would otherwise have been the case.
Now, of course it has the huge advantage of not having a mass of really poor content on its site. It is probably a major reason it did not get hit by Panda.
The ten pages thing Infobarrel insists on is a lot less stringent as far as quality control goes but seems like the bare minimum you need to do.
It is interesting that Mark Cutts talking about article directories said that one criteria Google used to judge the quality of article sites was how many pages the site rejected. A site taking everything was viewed as suspect. He was talking about paid for article directories but it is illustrative of Google's thinking.
Stop misquoting people and mangling things to fit your own warped theories. You're talking about a post Matt Cutts made back in 2007 where he specifically stated that how many URLs a site accepts and rejects should be something a user should take into consideration before submitting to an article directory. That is a far cry from Google using that as criteria in the rankings. Google has no way of knowing what a site rejects. Sheesh...
Here's the blurb from the blog post for those who are interested:
Q: Hey, as long as we’re talking about directories, can you talk about the role of directories, some of whom charge for a reviewer to evaluate them?
A: I’ll try to give a few rules of thumb to think about when looking at a directory. When considering submitting to a directory, I’d ask questions like:
- Does the directory reject urls? If every url passes a review, the directory gets closer to just a list of links or a free-for-all link site....
Those are a few factors I’d consider. If you put on your user hat and ask “Does this seem like a high-quality directory to me?” you can usually get a pretty good sense as well, or ask a few friends for their take on a particular directory.
I've no idea who Mark Cutts is, but what you just said that he said is HUGE!
I've never bothered to follow up and see if anything happened to the hubs that I've flagged - maybe I should. I don't mean to sound like I'm some kind of censorship person, but I did flag a few poor ones last week or so. Of course I care a lot about what happens to this site - and will gladly flag anything and everything that I see that looks like spam.
Every time I get into forums like this one it makes me want to hop, and find something to flag, but I never actually WANT to flag anything. I started leaving comments on hubs that I don't think are that "spammy" but could be copy/pasted in bits from here and there, and are about such overly common topics that my spam radar goes off. . . .I guess I should do more.
I joined Squido months ago, looked around, couldn't figure out how to create anything, and quickly got impatient, and came back home to Hubpages. I'll eventually work on Squido more. I definitely think that there idea of getting rid of stuff with no net presence is another great idea for this site.
So far as Info Barrel goes - I've wrote maybe three "barrels" that should have been hubs, as I think that they are pretty good; but my IB stuff that is good, and would get traffic here doesn't get hardly any traffic there. So their ten articles to freedom idea. . .I don't know if it's working for them or not, but I know it would help Hubpages out some if it were done here.
Not only what Peter and Irohner are saying above, but you also have no clue about what Squidoo does and doesn't do. What you have said in the quote above is patently false.
I don't like Squidoo much and only have ten lenses but I can tell you my pages have never gone live immediately. I can also tell you pages that fall below a certain lens rank get dumped into what they call work in progress status (not crawled by Google).
Unless you have something to offer in terms of your experience on Squidoo, I have to wonder why you posted.
Because you are wrong. Lenses do not get dumped into WIP if they are below a certain number unless they were never published. Once you hit the publish button, your lens will usually publish within one to two days unless you are a Giant Squid, and then they publish immediately.
They can go into WIP status, and that's not unpublished, just not findable on Squidoo through their on-site search if it drops below a certain threshold.
You were probably unaware of this because none of your lenses ever dropped that far
How they do drop that far is by having zero traffic for a long time.
As for pages not going 'live immediately'. I'm not sure what Will means. If you can visit it on the web without being in edit mode, that's live. Whether it's on a publishing platform, a CMS or if you've made them the old fashioned way and used an FTP to get them uploaded.
Okay, I do have some pretty slow lenses that have never been unpublished or dropped into a WIP mode that get 0 traffic, but I guess you are right, not low enough. Thanks.
I don't think they are ever unpublished.
This lens squidoo.com/parmenides has an overall Lensrank of 556,402. It's in WIP status. But it is published.
A published lens in WIP status causes the following effects:
* You can't Lensroll them.
* You won't find them in search. If your lens is new, it takes a few days to show up. If it's gone BACK into WIP, it will disappear from search. (that's the Squidoo search)
* You can't add links using the Firefox extension.
* Links will be nofollow
(information from squidoo.com/wip)
You can still link to them from outside sites. Everyone can still see the page and visit it.
As for one of the other things Will is saying, lenses not being published immediately, it's been a while since I've published a lens, but I don't think that is correct.
I'm pretty sure they use 'go live' as an expression there- but perhaps only in the forums.
Anyway, the important thing is they control the content. A page is not published immediately, so it is probably vetted in some way.
If a page is very poor it is dumped into WIP and is no longer crawled by search engines as part of Squidoo's content.
For the record, Squidoo hold your lens if they think it is borderline low quality/low quality. Most articles get published immediately (From my limited squidoo experience).
As far as I am aware (From looking at Squidoo help) lenses moved to Work in Progress are not harmed in any way other than that they are no longer promoted in the Squidoo network.
3) TEAM BALLS ? Anyone care to join him in team 3?
I think that most of us have opted for TEAM 4 - a balanced approach!
Writing is much more important in my book, there is no doubt about it. It is also clear that SEO is very important and can only increase traffic/earnings/PR.
Jacob's contribution to the forums have been threefold, as far as I am aware.
1. First started a forum thread about how his niche website had failed and now he was bringing all his articles to HP. On HP he already had hundreds of views for hubs within a couple of weeks. Seemed to lap up the congrats for having lots of views and ignore the people who were warning him that most of the views were probably from self when editing and hubbers who were interested in new hubs, but these would likely fade quickly.
2. Not long later started a forum thread about how Google didn't like him and his hubs were getting hardly any views.
3. Writes this thread making out that all hubbers are either great writers or SEO users. Implies that he belongs to the first category and equates SEO with cheating.
My conclusions (guess-timations). He should maybe have stuck with the niche website as Hubpages is probably best for magazine style variety and market research of niches and it is also going through a rough patch. Having your own website is good for a single niche, plus more versatile. Although I lack knowledge of Jacob's subject area, his writing seems good enough and I am guessing that he researched the market in advance(?), so niche site likely failed through lack of effective promotion and basic understanding of SEO techniques. Hubs may also fail for same reasons. I also suspect not enough time was given for his search engine results to grow.
@Paul Goodman, it makes you wonder if he considered he was doing something wrong when his own website failed and now things are not working out on Hubpages either.
As for me, the real experts have left. The pseudo crowd remains, 'cause they dont have anywhere to go. (including me! )
If there were 'experts in SEO', I think Hubpages might have hired one. And avoided the present problems.
The truth is, you get with the Google program (which is perfectly reasonable) or you get scr*wed.
There are a few hubber "experts" left methinks, but majority have gone, like you say, Sunseven. I am no expert but I am not dumb either! ;-)
I think I might ease off on forums because I find the pseuds tiresome. I pity any newbie who gets taken in by some of the crap that I've seen posted in forums recently.
I also need to figure out my 2 new word press blogs which I am sure won't seem so complex when I'm up and running with the hosting etc!
Will, Will, Will, Will, Will.
They're in this situation precisely because they DIDN'T listen to the advice offered freely by many people who were skilled in SEO, and are no longer here.
And much of their current purge on hubs and hubbers has nothing to do with Panda or SEO.
I really hope that the newbies here are careful about taking the advice that is given in these forums by clueless but well meaning drongos.
Hubpages are in this position because they didn't keep a good enough control of the quality of their content. They are doing their best to rectify that and we should all be grateful and wish them success.
This site has done very well by me (it still does) and I alternate between gratitude for that and irritation that they let the SEO get ahead of the quality issues. On the other hand, none of us know what financial and technical constraints they were working under so it is unfair to be too harsh.
One thing Hubpages does not need is more SEO. SEO can propel content to a high ranking in the SERPs but if that ranking is not deserved, Google bites back and any success you have will be short lived.
What's your point, Will? SEO is marketing, pure and simple. It's no different than a branded product televising a commercial, taking out an ad in a magazine or creating sparkly new packaging. It's all designed to attract the attention of consumers. If the product doesn't meet up to the marketing hype, consumers won't buy more and the product will fail. But if minimal or no marketing efforts are undertaken for a new product entering the market, it is doomed to fail because consumers won't know about it.
So again, what's your point?
From what you said you seem to understand the point. I would recommend reading your own post again.
Your assertion that HP doesn't need more SEO is ludicrous at best and ignorant at worst. HP's rankings are in the toilet right now, and correcting a few pixelated images isn't going to help. Ignoring targeted SEO strategies at this point is suicide.
As to individual hubbers, SEO is more important than it ever was before. The days where a hubber could post a hub and be enjoying the #1 spot in Google in a few days with little effort are long gone. For hubs that don't have significant age on them, getting the #1 spot in Google will be difficult if not impossible without SEO tactics like strategic backlinking.
And I, too, would appreciate an answer to the question I asked in my first post.
Will, I think you're conflating two things.
All websites need to use SEO. It stands for Search Engine Optimisation and Google encourages it. Why do you think they have things like Webmaster tools and the keyword tool?
As Lisa says, SEO is just marketing your work effectively, so the search engines (and your readers) can find it.
I think you're talking about the people who use SEO to gain unfair advantage using dubious tactics. That's not "SEO".
Quality of content is an important part of SEO. Or at least what I regard as SEO.
And expert people have been making suggestions for years to HP about what to do about the quality of their content, which they have ignored.
I think it's sad how they are fluttering about with a teaspoon trying to fix up existing content, while a torrent of new sewage continues to pour in the front door every day. It appears that they haven't got a clue about what to do about that.
Eric, as I've posted on other threads - we know why that's happening.
The moderating queue is set up so the moderators ONLY react to flagged Hubs, in strict chronological order of their flagging.
I think that's the fundamental mistake, and they should be changing their moderating system so there's some kind of priority given. Even if it's something like skipping over any Hub with a score higher than (say) 75, and only coming back to them when they have time.
That would go a long way to solving the problem.
Many people have provided solutions that would greatly increase the effectiveness of their moderation.
But they keep faffing around with teaspoons while the bilge pumps lie rusting in the corner.
Will the bad content is not the SEO content, you are confusing the two, badly.
Your comments on SEO simply highlight your ignorance on what search engine optimization IS.
Oli, trying to educate some people about SEO is like trying to teach a pig to sing.
It's a waste of your time, and just annoys the pig.
I can only keep stating the obvious- Google is very good at finding quality content.
Google is not your evil step mother who needs to be deceived, manipulated and cheated so you can get a few crumbs from the table.
Produce a quality site and Google will find it. It knows what characteristics a good site has. It knows how people react to good sites and can measure many of those reactions.
The best an SEO expert can do is tell you what characteristics a good site has so you can include them in you own. Why not cut to the chase and simply focus on quality? If you want to improve your site's ranking forget the SEO expert. Go look at the top sites and see what they are offering visitors that you are not.
The worst an SEO expert can do is come up with little cheats and tricks that give you a short term advantage but leave you open to a serious Google slap at some point in the future.
Take a look at the wreckage caused by Panda- the whole thing is a quality issue. It is not a failure to ramp up the SEO.
Will, do you know how huge the SEO Field actually is. There is so much out there, so much testing you need to do. There are plenty of SEO Experts out there (And unfortuantely plenty of SEO 'Guru's' too).
You seem to have a Vendetta against SEO Will, but trying to figure out a formula with hundreds of variables, and that takes time and testing to understand.
Google does give you plenty of advice, unfortunately a lot of it is also conflicting. Unravelling what Google actually likes and what it says it likes is a huge task, and the good news is that there are plenty of ways to stay within Googles guidelines and improve your sites SERPs.
When you start getting traffic with zero SEO methods I think you can start to criticize the profession. Until then, continue to hide your low traffic badge on your profile.
When it comes to Hubpages continuing decline, it seems to be happening in stark tandem to the people taking SEO optimized hubs and placing them elsewhere on the internet.
Will, you have continually knocked SEO and stated that everything there is to know about the subject could be written on a sheet of A4 paper. So tell me, in your own words, based on your experience as someone who claims to make a living online, what is the best way to market articles or any other type of content, product or service on the web that does not involve anything that could be deemed SEO?
I know you don't believe it is possible but Google is genuinely good at finding quality content. That is how it got rich. A lot of obstacles are put in its way, from link farms to auto-blogs and scraped content but it still does the job well enough. Trust it and you might be rewarded.
Will, if you can, could you please answer the question that was asked?
I like your optimism! I'm not sure that I am the best judge of my own work, or not. I think I know what is better or worse so far as my hubs go - but one thing I know is that before "panda" my hub titled "Mother's Little Helper, How Big Pharma Created The Methamphetamine epidemic". . . .that hub was something that I thought was fairly well thought out, and presented well enough - but it didn't get much traffic. Post "panda" that particular hub has probably had more Google traffic than the next fifty of my good hubs combined. I don't have any explanation for that except that the panda did it.
I really do want to trust Google. I like to believe that if I quit Hubpages, and started writing really good blogs on Myspace - that Google would rank those blogs as fairly as they do Hubpages, or about.com, or whatever. I don't think a domain should be punished so long as it's not doing anything hinky.
Sorry, people. I just can't hold your hand in this. You need to make your own connections.
Bollocks, given the opportunity to give substance and credibility to your arguments you come up with a hollow response that is so typical of everything you have said on the subject so far.
Your lack of a meaningful response says it all. Good night Will and pleasant dreams in cuckoo land.
As usual. . .I agree with everything Sunforged has to say. I swear, someday he's going to say something that I think is stupid, it's bound to happen, chance and probability predict it. It would be impossible for that guy to just continue saying things that make me say, "DAMN THAT DUDE IS GOOD!"
It's very good to know who to ask about the things that someone else has thought out while you were busy doing something else though.
Google had a vid on youtube where some department head stated that the goal of Google was to provide the results that have proven to be the most liked by those who've entered the search terms that said results produced; so if that's true, then the ability to write well will surpass any sort of backlinking strategy, or article layout gimmickry as Google's search engine evolves. I truly hope that that is what happens.
I personally think that new hubs talking about SEO ought to be held to the strictest editorial standards ever devised by man. I'm absolutely sick to death of seeing new hubs about what I need to know, and all of the tricks of SEO that I can't enjoy the internet without knowing about. In fact, I think I'll make a point of flagging every "SEO Hub" that I see unless it' got at least a thousand words of good English in it.
Thanks lrohner, I was about to respond but I think you caught the deception quite nicely.
Will, its quite sad that you seem to have resorted to twisting the facts to support your distorted view of things. Are your actions devious and dishonest? Perhaps you are being falsely accused, although I doubt it. In order to clear up what looks like an attempt to give credibility to your theories through distortion of the facts, perhaps you could link to the source that you are quoting from. Or would that also fall under the auspices of hand holding?
Joke of the decade.
P:S- Google became rich because advertisers/aff marketers are using their adwords platform. They can slap ads on any relevant or irrelevant content pages and can get money out of merchants account.
BS. *ting tong*
Wesman, here are some cold hard facts for you, Google has lost 10% of its market share since August 2010. Only 65% of searches on Google result in a visit to a website in comparison to 81% on both Bing and Yahoo.
Source: http://www.hitwise.com/us/press-center/ … -increase/
In my opinion the reason for Google’s poor click through is the chud they currently dredge up. The big winners out of this are Bing and Yahoo. I very rarely use Google to search these days, Bing is far superior.
Then none of this matters at all. If visitors come from keyword searches, why should anyone care that they come from Google, or yahoo, or Bing?
Personally I don’t care whether visitors come via Google, Bing or Yahoo. What is important is that they come. But if you believe that the maxim 'build it and they will come' works online you are clearly as delusional as Will Apse.
I know that Google factors in such things as how much time a viewer spends on a page - and this is a very good thing, as good writing and presentation should lead an interested searcher to spend time on a quality search result. Do we know that Yahoo, Bing, Ask, Dogpile, and whoever else use that factor to determine search result page rank?
Wesman, while bounce rate, etc, is used to an extent on SERPs it is limited by the fact that Google only have limited data sources that they can draw from.
Google Search does not access Google Analytics data, so it relies on poeople who have allowed google to gather data through chrome or the toolbar, and of course the same IP jumping to a page and then instantly pressing 'back'.
(and for the conspiracy theorists, Google has publicly announced across a range of forums that they do not use Google analytics data. If they DID use this data without prior warning they would be leaving themseleves open to litigation from companies which believed their statistics were private data.)
I see. I doubt that many folks allow such things, I know that I don't, but maybe I should.
First Dogpile isn’t a search engine. I do well on Bing and Yahoo using the same techniques as I do on Google. Bing has also published a short guide to SEO which can be found here:
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blog … m-101.aspx
They also have a useful SEM forum here:
But if you really want to get to know how search engines work, read the patents they lodge with the patents office.
All the basic information is freely available if you care to look.
A drongo is Aussie slang for a bloody Idiot, but I didn't want to use that phrase in case some precious drongo in here used it to get me banned.
Oops. That sentence was silly of me.
I just should have replied with something like this:
It is just one of the many terms of abuse people suffer who tell others things they don't want to hear. Since is it is an Aussie expression we can safely ignore it.
But why are people so upset by what I say?
I am essentially telling people that if they are not succeeding online it is because they don't have the skills to produce good content.
These skills are learnable, like most skills but it takes time.
I am doing my best to shatter peoples illusion that there is way to get rich quick if only you can cast a magic SEO spell on the evil stepmother called Google.
It is pretty unforgivable.
Here's to you being right! I never liked the idea that if I created the most backlinks, I'd win. I'm a more likely winner when an the most interesting article takes all.
Because Will, you are wrong. I make plenty of money each month from content that is average, its English, its unique, I wrote it or i had it written for me at a cheap rate. But the reason it makes me money is based on 2 things:
a) the search term its optimized for has searchers, and searchers who have commercial intent (ie they aren't just googling to fulfill a school assignment for example)
b) they have backlinks to them.
Google isn't an evil stepmother - Google's search algorithm is a computer program - it can't tell whether you correctly used it's or its, whether your sentences run on or whether you end your sentences with a preposition. It won't be any time soon either.
So if you want to retain your delusion that quality is king - go ahead - but that's all it is.
If anything the latest Panda update has made the quality of content on the web worse not better - way too many inane eHow articles - or general pieces that don't answer the specific question.
Maybe instead of repeating stuff you'd like to believe (or have read somewhere) you might like to actually do some experimenting and looking at results - that's what most of us who make money doing this do.
I have seen your site Liz- if you are talking about the learn SEO for beginners type thing.
The content is a good fit for the audience.
Certainly, if you didn't have pages that people wanted to read you would not be making any money over the long haul, backlinks or no backlinks.
Also people seem to think that keyword research is SEO. It's not.
Finding out what people are searching for and supplying the need is something any writer needs to do.
The pros on big blogs might not bother with Google Adwords or paid for keyword software but they understand the Zeitgeist in their field and they know what will draw the visits. Their keyword research and their journalistic instincts are one and the same thing. They also optimise their pages with headers, pics and links without reference to formulas but through experience of what works and an understanding of what meets a visitors needs.
In other words produce quality content and you have great SEO.
Perhaps you have better writing skills, people skills and editorial skills than you are giving yourself credit for. Perhaps thats why you do OK.
Who mentioned get rich quick, SEO is anything but get rich quick. No one is disagreeing with you that good content is essential. The problem lies in that you are completely missing the point that marketing is essential if you want your content to be read and acted upon.
I believe that keyword research revolves around finding keywords that people use when querying a search engine. Presumably these would be the terms that you want to rank and be found for on search engines. Keywords are incorporate into your copy to make it as relevant as possible to both users and search engines alike. That’s basic SEO in my book.
Keyword Research is a practice used by search engine optimization professionals to find and research actual search terms people enter into the search engines when conducting a search. Search engine optimization professionals research keywords in order to achieve better rankings in their desired keywords.
Okay, let's cut the crap and talk about business.
How much you're making online from your so-called quality content, Will ? 10,000$ /month ? 20,000$ 30,000$ or more ?
Consider the fact that before he removed his accolades from view he had failed to reach the 100,000 marker I think you can draw a swift conclusion as to his earning ability. If he reached a 5 figure income there must have been a huge amount of luck involved, an inadvertant stumble on what otherwise takes good keyword research.
Keyword research is when you invest several hours combing through and narrowing down a niche to find keywords that are low competition and high traffic. You then find related keywords to this and build articles (High quality articles, remember that article quality is part of SEO) around those keywords.
Will, you haven’t the foggiest idea about marketing, SEO, or what quality content looks like. You refuse to give any credence to anything you say apart from misquoting others to fit your bizarre take on the subject.
I guess this is a public place and therefor open to the ill-informed and the disingenuous. Thankfully, all but the very naïve are going to be taken in by your preposterous posing as a knowledgeable person. That said, it doesn’t make you anything more than a misguided individual who is prepared to post nonsensical information that, if taken literally, could damage livelihoods.
You continue to knock SEO and preach that all you need is great content. Will, the web is crammed with great content that will never see the light of day, never make its point heard or make one cent for the author. If there is one takeaway from this thread I hope that it is great content is where you start not where you finish.
IMO you are strengthening the case for SEO, which strives for openness, transparency and credibility which is the exact opposite to the way you communicate and how you are perceived here.
The online world is the same as the real world.
If you opened up a store selling the BEST burgers in town on an out of the way street and just sat there waiting, you'd never earn a dime.
However if you had a local food critic review the place, put out some fliers, made a facebook page and purchased a listing in the local business directory, you'd be much more likely to get customers.
I don't have dog in this hunt concerning the best way to write for best results. I write what I enjoy and know with some success on certain topics. Since I don't depend on this income I don't spend much time promoting my hubs after publishing.
I have no problem with those who wish to backlink their hubs for better exposure, but how much is too much? Is there such a thing as getting a bad article ranked really high over those which have better information using this technique? It seems some don't really care as long as they are making money. If so, how does this help the searchers in their quest for the most relevant and useful source?
Or is is just about the money? No, not for everyone here, in my humble opinion. I often agonize about whether my research is complete enough or properly written so the searcher finds what they are looking for when they find my article. I also have a hard time keeping my hubs from being too long.
Sure, I write some for my own enjoyment but I'm not too concerned about these hubs. To each his/her own I suppose. I'm okay with my Adsense earnings-Amazon has disappeared strangely enough even though my views are up. Strange!
I should always point out that keyword optimization is most definitely part of SEO because you are finding Keywords which are optimized for maximum benefit in the search engines.
Will, Google themselves don’t seem to be anti SEO, Matt Cutts and others regularly speak at SEO conferences. They have also published a guide to SEO.
"Search engine optimization is often about making small modifications to parts of your website. When viewed individually, these changes might seem like incremental improvements, but when combined with other optimizations, they could have a noticeable impact on your site's user experience and performance in organic search results. You're likely already familiar with many of the topics in this guide, because they're essential ingredients for any web page, but you may not be making the most out of them."
Source: Google's SEO Starter Guide
http://www.google.com/webmasters/docs/s … -guide.pdf
So Will, if Google recognize that SEO could have a noticeable impact on your site's user experience and performance in organic search results, how come you are against it?
Incidentally, the guide is a good place for authors who want to learn the basics of SEO in order to promote their articles or sites more effectively.
Please can I ask on this SEO expert thread what the impact of a site called clickbankdotlv using my Hubs as an RSS feed and outranking my HP hubs. If you google Panic Google HQ clickbank is 2 and HP is 3.
It doesn't seem good to me. Basically there's a page with most of my hubs for the last months or so. All linked to me, gee thanks, but also offwering other options.
That would appear to be the case. My HP article is result 4, the clickbank thing is result 2. The clickbank thing is a scrape of the first couple of lines of my hub, plus the title of course.
On Bing and Yahoo I'm top, with no sign of the clickbank site.
There isn’t a problem with this. However, because every link seems to point back to HP I doubt if any individual link carries much weight. I was surprised when I opened the index page to see one of my hubs 'My Take On Panda' listed first. The article talks about how google frequently ranks scraped content higher than the original.
There is nothing to worry about but there is no real benefit either.
I would prefer that Google got rid of all the crap so that only the original HP documents ranked. Unfortunately, that seems to be beyond Google at this time. And while HP is devalued by Panda, content from HP stands a greater chance of playing second fiddle to the scrappers.
I have completed a spam report to Google. I suggest that anyone who is being scraped by this site does the same.
https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools … &pli=1
You need to be logged into webmasters tools to complete the report.
Thanks Peter. I have done the same. It's a slight shame I am reporting a keyphrase "Panic at Google HQ" referring to a fairly slanderous article I wrote about them - but perhaps they'll see the funny side.
Sorry all, work to do. Fortunately it looks like I didn't miss anything- though the magic bean sellers seem a little upset about something.
What could it be?
It could be we have somebody who doesn't even understand what SEO is telling us that SEO is a load of rubbish.
And will, for my magic beans I have companies which keep me on retainer, pay me to do nothing, so they can guarantee my services at a later date. I get a lot of repeat business because SEO works, it increases businesses exposure on the internet.
I recently tripled the profits of a gym equipment shop in Austin with my SEO techniques, thats a huge amount of money.
So I think I can say in all honesty that rather than being magic beans, SEO is a real profession.
To have my profession belittled be someone who cannot even come up with an answer (and also someone who talks about the importance of KW Research in one thread but proclaims the falacy of SEO in another) IS infuriating, especially when you talk on these forums about the so-called profits you 'can make'.
The way you behave is just as bad as the SEO 'Gurus' you are just on the flip side of the coin.
You obviously care about your profession, Thisisoli. You can also express yourself without slipping into infantile tirades and petty personal abuse, so I wish you well.
I would recommend trying to get a few more perspectives, though. At the very least you will get upset less.
Oh irony,a guy who is preaching magical google traffic to hubbers is calling -SEO a magical bean, i wonder how much he earns every month with his venomous quality content?
I think the original poster nailed the dichotomy right on the head.
Internet-users want well written, unique, and informative content. Sometimes they don't even know that this is what they want, but they look for it anyway. Google is in the business of trying to supply users with that good content. I applaud google for setting back Hubpages and others in search results and I hope that they will continue to modify their algorithms to keep honest, unique content at the top and all the adsense farming content to the bottom. It creates an environment where honest people can get ahead and those who are manipulative and shady in their online practices (in other words, people who spend more than a small percentage of time doing SEO research) can either adjust or give up.
Until this website decides that it really wants out of the content-farm business, but wants to keep the content-only business, it deserves to continue to receive low rankings. I doubt that I'm the only person that when searching for something on google skips right past any "hubpages" material knowing full well that a large amount of it is worthless.
Even the clique of hyper-active forum posters who think they represent this website largely produce rehashed material that screams just a little too loudly: click my ads. There is no easy solution given that this is what it takes to be competitive in the marketplace of online content. It's why I haven't devoted much time to it: I build a website and I've got dozens of people leeching material from it in order to rank higher to get more clicks. They get rewarded for my work, just like a lot of people on this site are rewarded for just rehashing other articles on the internet and "playing the SEO game". It's not right, and I'm eager to see google continue to improve its search so that the hyper-SEO crowd can stop defrauding the rest of us. And for the normal retort that I'd expect from a hyper-SEO individual, no I'm not jealous. I just don't like the sleazy-ness of it. I don't like the economic inefficiency of it.
I'm not sure what the solution is for hubpages. There is still way, way, way too much crappy content here. Unfortunately, it just doesn't get thrown out because it still makes money for HP. Hopefully google will eventually force the hand of all sites like HP to really go after the manipulative content in order that their honest content receive the proper recognition in search.
The problem is that SEO is being thrown in with 'Bad content' by a lot of people. The truth is that good writing is part of SEO, and factual content is a great way to increase conversions as part of Internet marketing.
The masses of duplicate/spun content being placed on here is not part of any ethical SEO campaign, they are spam campaigns simple enough.
When it comes to what Google likes, well most of the people who follow SEO techniques on Hubpages are still doing perfectly well on their own sites, and even our own article directories. Yes, it turns out that Google actually does like our content, and what we do.
Hubpages has taken a domain wide hit, not because of SEO driven articles, but because of the spam that permeates the site. To get rid of that Hubpages may need to be more proactive than asking Hubbers to do some hopping.
I fully agree that the quality of content needs to be improved (Basic SEO technique right there) But I do disagree with osme of the things that Hubpages is clamping down on in the name of 'quality' including some rather tame affiliate links, pixelated images, etc. Things that have little if no ranking on SEO.
This is driving away authors whos content is still attracting content post panda, and still maintains to the rules Google has set in place.
SEO is not all about manipulating or subverting Google's rules. All it is is understanding what Google wants and supplying it. Yes things like backlinking can be classed as manipulation, but even Matt Cutts, PR voice of Google, says that you should build backlinks throughout a community (He is against spam backlinking). And lets face it, writing an article on keywords that have high traffic low competition is manipulation if they were not the original keywords you were going to write about.
SEO Has a good name in the business world, it has been smeared a little in the media, and I see no reason in perpetuation a myth that there is an SEO vs Google battle going on.
This is at the harsher end of the judgement scale though I have to agree in general with many of the sentiments.
In defense of content farms, one thing to remember, is that even simple folk, kids and crazy people search for stuff online and they have a right to be catered to.
If a page meets the need of its audience, it is a good page. Even if it is reading age 7 English.
Plenty of Hubpages are well beyond that level, of course.
by Andrew Day11 months ago
Hi,I've signed up and am ready to start making hubs in my specialised subject, but I was wondering what the earning potential of hubbig (if that's a word) actually is. I realise it all depends on how attractive your...
by Manthram4 years ago
Back-links are the main aspect of off-page SEO. There are several ways to get back-links. Social media, like posting your hubs to Facebook and Twitter, forum posting, and blog commenting are the most common. Just stay...
by Loraine Brummer6 months ago
Which is the most important for search engine searches: the Hub summary or the first paragraph of the Hub? I thought the summary was most important, but I notice that sometimes searches show the first sentences in...
by Nathan Bernardo10 days ago
Keyword research is still important, of course, but this article points out the importance of user intent and how to optimize your content/site for it. https://moz.com/blog/single-best-seo-ti … op_content
by ptosis3 years ago
I found this graph huge in original size @ http://crunchydata.com/content-sites.htmHubpages is #5 and is recommended to write for when published in Feb 2010 almost four years ago. Does anybody have any newer comparisons...
by ryankett7 years ago
Is the growth sustainable? When I arrived 4 months ago, we had 400,000 hubs. What is it now, 500,000? Does this site really benefit from people writing almost identical hubs on the same topics?When somebody arrives they...
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.