If you have not yet read the article Paul Edmonson, founder of our platform, HubPages, has posted on techcrunch.com you should go there and read it RIGHT NOW.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/05/google … mpetition/
First of all - THANK YOU Paul for so eloquently expressing what more than a few of us had noticed and been agonizing over. To some of us the giant difference in treatment between YouTube - a Google owned open platform - and the way other legitimate open publishing platforms, like Hubpages are treated, Post Panda is sickening, disheartening and possible an illegal action. Stifling competition in the United States is clearly illegal.
Secondly - If the U.S. Congress feels anti trust regulations are broken in the college football championship formula (algorithm) because some college football conferences are treated differently in the participation formula than others, why should not the U.S. Congress look into Google's variation of treatment of open publishing platforms.
Panda is killing tens of thousands of small content producers that want and intend to produce top quality content for the internet. It's hard to follow Google's line of thought even and equally when some of us have to wear blindfolds while others, like YouTube contributors have the benefit of inside YouTube information on just what quality content is.
Thirdly - Again - Sincerely Mr. Edmonson - Thank you, Thank you, Thank you
I'm not happy with the effect of Panda on readership here and on other platforms where I've published, but I can't agree with the idea that Google's algorithm changes are illegal. Unfair? Yes. But I think we tend to over-legislate business any time a group of people is unhappy with the actions of a commercial entity. I'm not talking about pollution controls or fair labor acts, but about technology and competition.
I am happy and grateful that you posted this wonderful link. Thank you.
Um....just what is it you were "agonizing" over?
Frankly, I could care less how YouTube or any other site fared through all of this. It has nothing to do with me.
And whining in public about how unfair life is just isn't very attractive, IMHO.
Whining - sorry if you took it that way.
Google giving preference to it's own open publishing web property over any other open publishing platform, if indeed this is happening, is illegal in the United States. It's a matter of legality and not a matter of whining that life is not fair.
But thanks for your opinion and please note that whether or not I agree with you. Please do take note that the open platform of this forum gave you an equal opportunity to express your views - your content - so to speak.
I admire your loyalty, but I believe that HubPages don't really know what the hell they're doing with all of these "quality improving" changes.
And comparing hubpages with Youtube is meaningless.
It would be far more meaningful to compare hubpages with www.howstuffworks.com which also published articles.
Their traffic has INCREASED since the Panda changes.
Anyway, this topic is being discussed on
I wouldn't say the comparison between Youtube and Hubpages is meaningless, they both distribute informative, entertaining and useful content to people but in different formats..and Youtube also has its share of trash videos that appear in search results
There is a huge disparity between the two, Richie. For instance, HubPages has any number of competitors (other content farms, news sites, bloggers, etc.), while YouTube really doesn't have any to speak of. Big difference. Think about it -- if they took YouTube out of the results (and I'm not suggesting they consciously did this, btw), what then? There's nowhere else to go for what they offer.
Youtube doesn't have any competitors, now you are being absurd.. they have the same if not more competitors..they have BlipTV, Metacafe, Buzznet, Flickr hosts video as well, Ebaums world, Motion Box..not to mention BlogTV which does live video
That is only a few sites, there is a massive list on reelseo of 100
If Youtube went down one of these would be ready to take over..have you ever used one of these sites? Buzznet is my favourite
I am with our CEO Paul on this, I might even write a hub about it
How many sites that you mentioned are popular enough (household names) ? There is not a single site from your reply that can replace youtube. Just because you like buzznet doesn't mean it has enough PR to replace youtube. There are some commercial channels with revenue potential on youtube. Business/Artists/television shows are showing their premium content on youtube because of their popularity. Try fetching traffic like youtube to any other video site and you've winner to replace youtube. Comparing video site with content churning mill is a strawman at it's best.
Just because there are forex videos or weight loss videos doesn't mean it is spam(that's HP's line of thinking not marketers or users). No wonder they banned clickbank domain on this site and still failed to prove their point that it's spam. Besides that, youtube is not HP property to weed out anything that has clickbank tag or forex/health tag. They see traffic to these categories and will keep it as long as they make money from it.
That's kind of like saying that I'm a competitor to McDonalds simply because I make hamburgers every now and then.
What so these other video sites only churn out videos now and again? and are not major video sites?
Sites like BlipTV and Buzznet have millions of users, and in regards to Skyfires's comment about them not being household names, Youtube only became a household name because they were the first to do it and then had large commercial backing which gave them the 'household' status
If Youtube was not around another of these sites would gain popularity within the internet crowd first and then they too would gain commercial backing and the cycle continues, supply and demand.
If Youtube was not around...'
But it is. Those other sites are sites that most net users stumble across occasionally. Where as YouTube is where you head to, when you intentionally want to seek out videos. A million or so users is peanuts.
There are plenty of wannabe competitors, but there's no competition.
Hi Mr Voodoo, I was saying that Google looking out for Youtube because they own them prevents these sites from gaining more popularity, in referral to the original question..
I wasn't saying they are anywhere near as popular as Youtube, I'm just saying that they have large fan bases and do everything and more as what Youtube does.
and I'd also like to add in regards to skyfire's comment again that they all have high PR's 7,8 and 9's
1. You tube is a video sharing site. hub pages is a text based site.
2. YouTube has 120 million visitors per day. HP has 1.5 million
3. You tube is a household name around the world. Hubpages is not.
4. Most people will get to you tube through people sharing links around, or by searching within you tube. This is not the case for Hubpages.
Yes, you can argue that Hubpages is like You tube because both distribute content.
I can equally argue that a skateboard is as good as a car to travel across the country. After all, they both have 4 wheels.
I think a better comparison would have been between Google's Knol and HubPages.
HOWEVER, Knol was largely unsuccessful and is not a recognized name to the majority of people. Then again, maybe this is how Google will raise that awareness, now that it has pushed down the competition.
The comparison is a complete straw man as there are dozens of other reasons why they would respond differently, and the graph was basically made up anyway--with no axis you could check.
Panda slapped content farms. Love it or hate it, that was what it was all about.
I think it's a good article. I previously wrote a hub in favour of the algo changes and one against to explore the arguments. I personally think that Paul E's Youtube comparison is pertinent in this case.
I think Google are pressurizing websites to improve the content across the entire site, as Paul E says. Whilst the aim is noble, this effects the HP business model. Previously they relied heavily on software and self-policing, now they need many more staff to monitor hubs, which costs a lot more.
The big problem is, as Paul E says, in most industries you would have clear guidelines for behaviour, Google don't give you anything, however. If it was a restaurant, there would be strict health and safety rules, but at least you can read exactly what the rules are and you might be given definitive lists of areas where you need to improve.
Google, however, can effectively close a website down and give no reasons. It behaves more like a god than a government. That's the frightening thing.
I hope posting on TechCrunch raises awareness of open platforms and how Google appears to be targeting certain sites, while favoring their own.
I look forward to reading a response from Google and to Paul Edmondson's followup with us on it.
It's a great post, but that's all it is.
Google set out to target content farms (maybe), HP got hammered as a result of the algorithm changes.
Google don't tell people what the rules are because they don't want the searches gamed.
Google don't care about the negative posts, complaints and so on - because for each of these there will be customers, people, businesses whose traffic has improved.
There is no sign of Google panicking and undoing the Panda change - so they must be happy with it.
Let's hope the 'fix' for HP is just around the corner. Fingers crossed.
Well, I think that HP are doing their best to "fix" the probs, given what they know, which isn't a great deal, apparently!
Hopefully all the tidying up of the HP site and the new ad layout will eventually be acknowledged by Google (asap I hope!).
I agree that Google have done what they intended. If sites clean up their act and then Google give back search visibility as a reward, everyone will be happy
Wow- talk about biting the hand that feeds you....I personally think that HP is doing everything they can to try and make things better not only for us Hubbers but for themselves. Is what they are doing always the best solution, no. But by golly, give them the credit they deserve for at least trying!
Not sure if you are talking to me or some other moaner - but I have some time free...
HP don't feed me. Leastways I can't live off 20c a day. I don't feed them either.
My view, and it is only a view of course are simply some facts as I see them. No point in pussying around, mixing messages.
I appreciate HP are doing their best - of course they are.
And finally - believe it or not - I love HP. Great site, software, people and opportunity to get on and write stuff. I love it to bits.
Certainly the people who left are never ever fed by HP. And for those who stay, its mutual, they are fed by you.
Is she a new moderator in disguise, I see often in the forums, the main staff expressing their inability to recruit the right ones and blaming 'it' on the new recruits! for all the mischief and grief caused to the hubbers.
"She" who? I'm confused. We all have different opinions here. It's okay.
I noticed a prominent Google Chrome commercial last night highlighting Google's services online, including YouTube, as a form of communication. It's the Dear Sophie commercial which has gone viral.
Their advertising dollars make a huge difference!
HP's recovery will take time. I see a lot of discontent from writers here, but hey, I'm sure they're (CEO, Staff) experiencing some sleepless nights as well. I don't see that continual complaining is going to bring desirable results.
Why dont HP ditch Google? And start optimizing the site for the rest of the search engines? I read somewhere that search traffic from Bing tend to click on ads more than visitors from G traffic does.
appease G with videos. I read from a data somewhere that ehow is the number one supplier of videos to youtube. Plus Gs income from youtube is one third of its total income by which it is projected to increase more in 2012, they don't want that to be compromised.
I don't know if you can't compare HP and youtube just bec. the other is so popular, the fact is they both provide information and same algo should apply to both. Ideally, G should treat all sites equally - that is wishful thinking. G said that they are currently in the process of converting youtube videos to WebM format.
Ok, this was on another thread but no one is reading. This is the deal, Google has no consistency anymore because it is a pure money grab. They lift youtube with crap content.
They allow syndication everywhere. My BI articles are now being syndicated at www.sovereignindependent.com and our funny friend Borowitz openly pandas, er, I mean, panders for syndication: http://www.borowitzreport.com/syndicate/
I am flattered my articles are syndicated, which is why Google should allow syndication from here to favored sites. Otherwise we are OUT of the game.
The Panda update was an algorithmic update. No sites were given special treatment, despite what the consipracy theorists say.
Why would youtube fare better than Hubpages? let me give you three out of many reasons,
Social media interaction
They have not massively reduced their available content
That cannot be right if Youtube has many crap videos. You just aren't getting it. In fact, some 2.0 websites are being punished, as HP is social media.
HP is not social media, social media would be the publicly available facebook data, the twitter feed, Google Buzz, and Google +1.
The reason newspaper sites outrank other sites has nothing to do with web 2.0 or 1.0. It comes down to QDF or query deserves freshness. QDF gives fresh, current content a chance to rank along with established well linked content.
A newspaper site has just as much interactivity as Hubpages.
Well, in that case they have become more like 2.0. And Yahoo answers has killed a lot of other sites.
And youtube having rubbish videos has nothing to do with
Mass removal of content
I would suggest that you are not getting it since my day job is an SEO and IM consultant, so I am fully aware of defined boundaries on Internet terms.
Getting videos highly placed on Youtube is irrelevant to Hubpages/Youtube. The fact of the matter is that they are two entirely different platforms.
Youtube video optimization is a pertinant way to increase website traffic, simply because with effective use of video sitemaps and onpage optimization on your embed page.youtube page you can get a video hosted on youtube to get to the top of the video results which appear on the main Google results, but clicking on them will take you back to the page where you embedded the video.
Then explain why my original content on Hubpages is now listed below the syndicated versions on BI? If you know so much I assume you must think the algorithm terminated originality claim. What do you think about that?
That doesn't sound algorithmic to me, buddy.
Because BI has a much larger social media presence and Hubpages doesn't, because Hubpages too a huge domain trust hit?
I will buy that Oli, but why does Google trust Youtube? Trust is fickle apparently and not based upon anything but who google wants to trust. That doesn't sound like an algorithm btw.
No, it is part of the algorithm, Google, and other SE's tell us that they are rapidly increasing the data they glean from FB and Twitter, Google has told us they will be using +1 data, and we have also seen tests which show slight impacts with Google buzz.
By using the data of how people socially interact with a web address Google can extract a number to throw in to their formula.
Take a look at the social interation on You Tube. Look at how many people like each page, I generally see a mention of youtube on Twitter whenever I log on, and Youtube videos are placed on millions, if not billions of websites.
The extent of social interation on hubpages is basically self promotion and a little interaction from direct friends.
Actually, before the algorithm there was a lot of interaction between friends. I used to have numerous posts about my hubs. Now I have fewer. I have had hundreds of posts about my hubs.
Hundred of posts where?
Have you been mentioned on dozens of public facebook fan pages?
What kind of interaction, where your hubs being retweeded hundreds or thousands of times?
Having a small amount of social interaction from one small group is not really goignto do much, but having social interaction from hundreds or thousands of unconnected people shows Google that a lot of people found it interesting.
Let me clarify this for you
BI has significantly more backlinks than hubpages, around 3 million more infact.
Social Media - Guess how many mentions I gets on public facebook data, guess how many times each story gets retweeted across twitter.
Now look at the social media traffic of Hubpages. And before you pull some inane wikipedia reference also try and remember that this is an SEO conversation, so when we talk about social media we are talking about social media companents that have a tangable effect on the rankings of a website.
Using social media as a marketing technique is a completely different matter, but right now we are talking about search engine rankings, we want to now how social media affects the results, and I have already answered that.
When I am doing SM SEO strategy I couldn't give a flying about using some cloned article sharing website.
And now lets look at overall content. Hubpages is rapidly deleting content and losing backlinks, that simply doesnt look good. It means less search engine visibility. It means we are dropping even further away from competitve sites.
Many of these sites have backlinks because they have an army of people willing to tweet articles to the top. So the only way that Hubpages could regain or gain this is to pay to be on high traffic sites, right? How else will that happen?
Most sitees don't need to pay, there are plenty of sites out there that generate organic social interaction, and there are plenty of ways to grow that by inducing interaction with your visitors.
Either that or stop deleting content that attracts high volumes of traffic for arbritrary reasons such as affiliate links and pixelated images.
indeed. Panda did what it said it did--downgrade content farms. No more and no less.
Why specifically HP, when other content farms are not effected/affected?
BTW, Can we call youtube a content farm, albeit video?
It is certainly a content farm. This is manipulated and I don't believe for a minute that it was an algorithm.
This brings up an important question...how is content evaluated by Google? Through algos run against text? Probably. How do you create a program to validate image data? Has anyone done that?
For example, a YouTube vid might have nothing to do with its keywords or description. I could title a vid "A Skunk in the House", write a description about something stinky in the house, add key words such as skunk, house, animal, but the film is about lying and cheating going on in a relationship. Please tell me Google knows how to analyze digital imaging against text.
In this sense, scents, YouTube is not subject to any kind of evaluation against content standards. If Google is singling out content farms, then it has a perfect loophole with YouTube, since YouTube's content can't be analyzed. Therefore, YouTube is not a content farm.
Suddenly, I have a headache.
How do I find out what is Google Videos site's PR. Is it true that Google owns it too?
of course Google owns Google Videos.
But Google Videos is set to be disbanded and all content is being migrated to youtube.
Hey thanks for posting this thread. I got over there and started reading the comments after reading Paul's very nice, tasteful, and to the point article - and I couldn't get over some of the shitty comments that he was faced with. I had to jump in just a little bit.
Comparing Hubpages to youtube is ridiculous. People log into, or go to youtube for the sole purpose of watching, sharing, or uploading a video. They are already on site, and can easily find anything that they are looking for - this isn't the case at all with most of the views that Hubpages gets. Hubpages relies on search engines and keyword searches for traffic and income. Nobody just goes to Hubpages and then looks around to see if they can find the kind of information that they are looking for.
The only relevance that the youtube to Hubpages comparison has in it is the fact that youtube is owned by Google, is a content farm of a different variety, but a content farm just the same - and also has to deal with high levels of content that people have a right to make, enjoy making, enjoy looking at; but is still what we might consider "crap."
So youtube not being punished by it's owners the way that hubpages has been punished by youtube's owner. . .is, in fact, a very legitimate point, IMNSHO
Wrong. Youtube is on search all the time. Here is a search for fashion shows. Youtube is number 4 listing!!! http://www.google.com/search?hl=en& … l=&oq=
I don't doubt that youtube is in search engine results - and high up in them either. What I'm saying is that I believe that by this time in internet history - most folks just go straight to youtube, and then look for a video.
I can only speak for me and my habits, of course - but I doubt that I'm so different. I have a youtube channel with tons of favorites on more than a dozen playlists. I don't upload videos, but I'm like anyone with eyes and ears - I like what I like, and want it where I can find it again.
So I go to my youtube account often, and then I think to myself, "Hmmm.....what was that I wanted to find? Oh, I know! Let's search"
. . . .and so I search from youtube's search bar.
You know, I'm agreeing with you here - I only doubt that anywhere near as many people search for videos from Google search engine as do people searching for the types of information that can be found on hubpages - which is almost entirely information that someone would hope to find from a search engine. The only folks that just go to Hubpages.com, and then search for information are people like you and I, who already have accounts here, and are active members of the community; and people who are looking for something from someone that they'd heard of, or heard about, or to just be nosy about someone who publishes here's business, etc.
Sort of like how I imagine (paranoid miscreant that I am) folks do me.
You bring up an interesting point. If google is only interested in bringing up search results from sites that are already popular, and people don't search for them, what good is that? That is downright stupid.
I agree. I'm told that blogger has actually benefited from Panda, so that's one thing.
Bgamall - I know enough about you to know that you know to follow the money, and from there the answer is clear.
So I don't get it either - it could be that I think of Adsense as being more important to Google than it actually is.
What do you think? I'd think that demoting places like Hubpages just has to hurt their own income from Adsense - so is Adsense really even that big a part of Google's revenues?
What bothered me about Paul's piece is that he'd said that Google just isn't telling him anything about what exactly constitutes "quality." So other than the hubber community starting to "hop and flag" more often and more vigorously - it could be that a lot of these new publishing standards are of no accord to Google in the Panda age, or could even be, heaven forbid, disadvantageous.
Maddie has said that most of the changes were planned prior to Panda.
I think they have doubleclick and so adsense is not crucial. And I think that syndication is alive and well everywhere but here.
There are 2 Threads on these issues and factually I think this one was intentionally set to allow the other to sink. The link below is a post that I have made that is, I believe, very relevant to these issues.
I don't think I will waste my time making other posts on HP as I don't think many left here Understand the situation in it's greater form.. I don't want to speak to people who refuse to listen in, understand or acknowledge good faith. I think that 'Good Faith' has been totally compromised here and I am, as an ethical person, most disturbed by that.
So please enjoy and understand my words on this post:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/74724?p … ost1621041
Paul's article was good. Hopefully it will get some kind of a response from Google. We (at least most of us) are willing to do what we can to make our hubs appear more professional if only we are given the guidelines with which to work.
Peggy, HP has been trying to get a response from Google that means something about getting HP's rank back after Panda. So far, it's not working.
It's got nothing to do with making "our hubs appear more professional".
I like HP a lot and want to continue to contribute here, but HP is going through a bad time, and my making my Hubs "appear" more professional has nothing to do with their success in the future.
My Hubs, as many others' Hubs are, are informative and worthwhile. If I now publish my articles on a site other than HP, they will get more readership via Google searches. I know this, because I've done it.
HP is in a precarious place, and I hope it comes out of it. I choose to remain here because I like the community...in the past, I liked the opportunity for some cash, too. But HP's not delivering on earnings as they did in the past.
I'm in "wait and see" mode.
Youtube became a household name only because it was and still is more open in comparison to other platforms. Vimeo is closed to professionals and doesn't accept useless videos like YT and spam/garbage gets flushed over there. BlipTV and Buzznet have their own specific target audience. These other platforms are alive because they're targeting specific users and are not competing directly with generic sites like youtube. Clone sites which are attempting to compete with YT are not close to YT's traffic.
Youtube is open to any type of video and that's why it was picked up by paul for comparison with hubpages (because as per him hubpages is open like YT, which is again false because you can see the new restrictions/changes).
PR means nothing if you don't get any traffic like YT which in turn reflects in advertiser bids. PR also mean zilch if you're competing with brand which is a household name or first product in the market. PR and Alexa looks good only during Flippa sales.
*edit* Ignore mis-spellings - having to get some client work pushed out at the same time so can't spend much time in the forums!
(I get the feeling the horrible feeling the current Hubpages campaign against Affilaite links is because they did not distinguish between Affiliate Sites and Affilaite Links in a quote from Google)
That's not the reason. We're well aware of the difference.
We don't allow affiliate links in certain areas, and we don't allow certain affiliate links, because they tend to come with lots of poor quality content and spammy promotional techniques.
As Maddie has said, we were planning to make these changes before the Panda rollout, and we are very much aware of what we're losing (and gaining) by restricting the use of affiliate links.
Doesn't that mean you should be going after the low quality content providers though, rather than anyone who uses a certain affiliate?
We do allow affiliate links.
We don't allow certain ones that have a history of bringing in poor-quality, spun content, or the use of affiliate links in certain topic areas that similarly attract poor-quality, spun content.
Jason, on a warning email I received yesterday, they listed two hubs that may face future unpublication because they were on spammy subjects that contained affiliate links.
Those affiliate links were to amazon.co.uk which I believe is on your allowed links.
What I did, was I hit the button on 'Do not Display this Capsule' and the warnings within the hub went away.
Are affiliate links as such allowed or not? I don't like this guessing game. If they are allowed, why was the warning on the hub?
If they are allowed, why were they mentioned in the email.
Can I have those links or not?
IzzyM: Amazon.co.uk are considered affiliate links, but not prohibited affiliate links. The latter are not allowed at all, but the former are only allowed in topic areas that are not restricted. I don't know what that Hub is about, but I suppose it is one of those restricted areas, so I'm afraid Amazon.co.uk links are not allowed.
Doesn't really make sense then. The topic is about a certain weight loss supplement, around which I have built and series of hubs and interlinked them. As the purpose of the hubs are to sell that product, they have Amazon capsules with the permitted number of product listings.
People in my side of the world do not buy from Amazon.com - the postage alone would be prohibitive. That is why the co.uk link is there.
So under the new ruling, I have to close off a good section of the world as a potential market?
Just seems a bit odd.
Hubpages does not receive a cut from Amazon.co.uk, so these are “spammy” affiliate links like any of the other affiliate links being posted in weight loss, forex, etc…
According to Hubpages, weight loss is a “spammy” topic area like forex and the others. This is actually one of the things that many of the forum posters here demanded(!) in the witch-hunt – to crack down on these “spammy” topic areas. Hubpages is doing this by removing the incentive (affiliate links) to post in these topic areas.
All the witch-hunters should be cheering this…
Hmm...but they already said Amazon.co.uk was OK? Well if its a cut they want, I am happy to give it. There is software now that can make the viewer see their local Amazon whether that be Europe or Australia or whatever, instead of just Amazon.com ads in the capsules.
Time for HP to embrace the world?
I think it's a pretty good chunk of their revenue coming from their own sites and their network member's websites.
http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html (I'm not sure why it says millions, the financial reports state revenues in billions)
Google Network Revenues – Google’s partner sites generated revenues, through AdSense programs, of $2.43 billion, or 28% of total revenues, in the first quarter of 2011. This represents a 19% increase from first quarter 2010 network revenues of $2.04 billion
http://investor.google.com/earnings/201 … nings.html
This is Interesting.
I ran a search to investigate the example Paul uses concerning a Knol duplicate article ranking more highly than the original hubpages article.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/05/google … mpetition/
For the exact title of the 'barbecue tools article' the knol article appears as # 1
The hubpage article appears as #6
Notice the summary description for the hub is very poor (not user friendly)
All notice the "Block all Huppage Results" !!!!!!
Its a worry!
I just did a search on Google for "barbecue tools" and didn't find Hubpages.com or any Hub in the results on the first three pages.
Much less...Block All Hubpages Results .
Maybe its because I'm on OZ
Search for 'Barbecue Tools that Make a Great Gift Set'
I did the search and I got the same results without the Block All Hubpage Results.
I'm not seeing that on my localised version of Google.com. what I did find is one result if I put my search into quotes.
http://www.webanswers.com/misc/has-any- … nol-a25787
I get knol at 2 and hubs at 5 - with a cookie free browser.
The "block all __________ "will appear on any listing if you quickly hit back after entering a site, its not specific to Hubpages.
Ive seen that sort of application at work, it works pretty well, who knew Germans liked Jeans so much!
Exactly, SF, a whole world awaits the affiliate marketer through Amazon and its multi-language/multi-culture support.
Getting back to an original topic on this thread about search results, I lost a column in my Excel sheet. Don't know where it went but column AC was missing. Obviously this knocked a lot of things out, through the columns round about still referenced it, so it wasn't deleted, just not there.
So I Googled 'missing column Excel 2007'.
The first result provided an answer for Excel 2003, so no use.
The second was an Ehow article that was just totally wrong. Couldn't be done - whoever wrote it copied it from somewhere but got it wrong.
Third was a site that wanted to to click yet more links, and the 4th result from techspot.com was spot on!
Why on Earth is it 4th? It should be first.
With all their millions of servers, G don't know what is spot on. They are just machines with numeric quantitative codes, but quality can never be quantified. They can't afford gazzillion of moderators to look at million of pages (and that is not possible).
G is shifting the burden to us up to some extent by letting us evaluate content by us looking at the sites which are useful and of quality (user interaction - like bounce rate) and us blocking some sites.
Let's face it, whether we agree with Google or not there are very few things that we can do. But we must admit that there are tons of great hubs and equally tons of bad ones. By the efforts of some, including Hubbers, we are helping to make HP a better platform. I don't particularly like flagging hubs, but find it a necessity for the benefit of the site and its members.
As HP becomes ever more popular the market should influence Google to change their system or adjust it towards a more friendlier atmosphere to sites like HP.
If they wanted to do that they could just pull the plug, given that most are monetized with adsense.
I think in many ways the Google Panda changes are good! Quality needs to start rising about all the junk on content sites. As a writer I appreciate the reason this is happening. I think many if the sites are just scrambling and may not be going about it in the best way. In the end, I think it will work itself out.
I have the highest respect for Paul and Robin Edmonson. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they will do everything in their power to make HP work again.
However, as Paul so eloquently expresses in his article, right now, the playing fields are not equal. As I expressed over the last few months, blogger gained 25$ in the rankings, and was the only blogging site to gain that much. As Paul has expressed, youtube (another google website) did not lose, despite lots of bad stuff.
It's a really difficult situation. For the time being, I'm focusing on the other things. However, I'm leaving my hubs here and I'm complying with HP in everything. I still think this is a fantastic site, but unhappily, when something is as good as HP, it will always attract those that will take unfair advantage.
by Ben Aidoo20 months ago
Is it true that Google is inundated by billions of articles that it's suffering from a system overload, and unable to give quality attention to new and better written articles? Just imagine, the poor Google crawler had...
by x3xsolxdierx3x5 years ago
Hello,My name is Howie.I have done a tremendous amount of research regarding various offerings and elements of functionality/business models of the leading Web 2.0 revenue sharing websites. I've watched growth trends...
by Mutiny925 years ago
http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/05/google … mpetition/In case you have not seen it...I think the article is well put together and very pointed.
by Anne19 months ago
Where else do the amazing author's on Hubpages display their work? Considering Hubpages is very fragile at the moment, I am researching a split of my hubs to another site as an insurance against hub pages going down....
by Dr. John Anderson17 months ago
PanQualGuin - Google's New Secret Traffic Quota ManagerThere has been a lot of fuss about the recent so-called Quality update to the core Google algorithm. see: http://searchengineland.com/the-quality …...
by paradigmsearch4 years ago
For those who neglect their emails:* Start *Stop SOPA and Protect IPContact your congressman and save HubPages!While we prefer to leave political discussions to Hubbers in the Politics and Social Issues forum, a rather...
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.