From a new post on Google's Webmaster blog:
Would you trust the information presented in this article?
Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
How much quality control is done on content?
Does the article describe both sides of a story?
Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites donâ��t get as much attention or care?
Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
Is this the sort of page youâ��d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
Would users complain when they see pages from this site?
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot. … ality.html
Seems to be a fair bit in there that HubPages are going to struggle to meet.
Yeah. Google wants us to be pros. Or to care about the subject deeply.
It is a daunting but not unreasonable list.
One thing on this site that really looks bad in light of this list are the hub challenges. Encouraging people to sacrifice quality for quantity in such a remorseless and very public way seems suicidal to me.
Even if many of the pages produced in Hub challenges are pretty good it will still seem more like an exercise in inflating the site for SEO purposes than offering something worthwhile.
I suppose we should be grateful that we don't get the 100 hubs in thirty days challenges anymore.
I think it was the members who created these challenges, not the moderators or Admin of Hubpages
Well that's not entirely true.
The hubpage challenge came about when an internet marketer by the name of courtneytuttle.com wrote an experiment on a thirty day challenge to hubpages and how he could make money.
One of the then staff of Hubpages thought it a good idea and made it a feature.
It was not members at all but HP.
Why aren't the Hubchallenge threads highlighted in blue at the top of the forum list then? I always assume that if its an official HP venture it is posted there
We support Hubbers who can enter challenges and still publish high-quality Hubs. Not everyone can (I can't, personally, but Simone does, and her Hubs are consistently fantastic).
Participating in a challenge does not give someone a get-out-of-jail-free card with respect to quality. But for those who can maintain quality and publish more Hubs - and there are some that can - good for them!
But Challenges isn't a program we manage. Hubbers voluntarily start and participate in them, and some still enjoy semi-participation even if they can't manage to publish every day.
I agree about Simone - top quality. And the Writing Competition - no set numbers - great idea.
But I don't like the 30 day thing. The idea of writing to a timescale, or a number of pages just doesn't feel quite right to me. tbh it feels like content farming - churning stuff out.
Just a view.
Yeah, I'd struggle to get more than a couple of those er Google accolades.
I note they don't have humorous, engaging, witty, thought provoking, challenging and so on as part of their drab list of boring questions.
Is the whole internet designed to either sell stuff or cure warts?
It's OK - I DO understand. It's just that primary school level questionnaires from idiots don't put me in a good mood for the rest of the day.
How many 'Pro' sites have I found, supposedly created by doctors, with absolutely no information? Mile long sales pages? By self proclaimed guru's? I don't trust the 'pro's' any more then I trust the amateurs, and self proclaimed amatures I trust even more since they ain't shinin sunshine up me arse, like every supposed pro does daily
Bing, here I come!
F Google, their results are shite anyway
People will never be pros if they never get to practice and make their own sites. Those "pros" were not "pros" at one time. And as far as I'm concerned their is nothing stopping me, and it should be the same way as you. Most of those questions are pretty obvious and not bad. Too bad they forgot to mention how making more money outweighs everything else though.
I've read too many articles and Hubs that do nothing more than sell. Those I click out of in a hurry!
Reviews? Yeah, those are ok, if you're looking to buy something and want to know more about it before purchase. We have too many people on this site who haven't even tried the product! They go to other sites read those reviews and re-word it just a touch. I've only written a couple of 'sales' Hubs myself. I'm not real comfortable with that.
I'd much rather write about what I tried and if it failed. Usually it fails miserably and in the process a little comedy ensues. But it is my understanding those Hubs are too personal, so therefore forbidden.
I agree with Kristen - too many sites with pages and pages of junk that with each one you go to leaving you looking for the door out!! At the very least trying to find some sort of answer to the question you were looking for!
Google needs to ask the people what they want to read, not what they think we should read, unless of course they are trying to get us to turn off the computer and go outside to enjoy the 'every other' day of sunshine we've been getting!!
I have written several review type hubs (with Amazon links) that come directly from personal experience and I make that very clear. Some I recommend, some I have pretty plainly said I would never buy again from the manufacturer, let alone that particular item.
I have not (knock on wood) gotten any indication that HP considers them to be too personal.
Just read the post on their blog through the link you posted, and now I know why HP has lost its rankings as a whole.
It seems like right now we are fighting an uphill battle against crappy content. Not that my content is all high and mighty, but I am not making hubs nor are many other people. I don't think the backlinkers and beginners stopped though.
Trust me, after reading this post by Google, I have lost the last hope of HP recovering from the panda update(if there was any left).
Maybe if we all banded together and twittered, shared, facebooked and sent out via e-mail out Hubs, the ones we considered GREAT to the world, google will take another look at us? Maybe we have to do some heavy promoting of our work and get noticed... It's a thought!! I'm going to at least try!! It can't hurt!!
It is not so much the garbage that concerns me. That can be cleaned up, and I think that it is.
Rather it is the many references to the site as a whole; that it must be on subject, that the site must be an authority, that the site may not have overlapping articles and so on.
By its very nature, HP cannot meet these requirements. It is composed of 10's of 1000's of writers with 10's of 1000's of different interests. Very few are actually authoritative, and the site certainly isn't. With millions of articles, there is no chance that there is not (a great deal of) overlapping content.
The article would seem to be very plain that the changes are a very direct slap at content farms (of which HP is a good one and getting better). If G can remove these from the web via financial pressure, perhaps the only thing left will be G's blog sites. That have NONE of the needed attributes, but DOES have support from G.
It might be nice to see an HP official answer to each of these points - whether they think they apply, what they think can be done.
One conclusion might be that we all need to start writing a Wiki - and I cannot think of a single subject that I could contribute to.
But wait. One of the questions is would the page be OK in a magazines? The ONLY stuff I read is diverting, engaging, amusing or challenging stuff - not some straightforward medical advice for Crissake.
And one minor point about YouTube. It is as far as I can see a wasteland of the most low level utter tripe imaginable. With a few good bits.
Get your own house in order Google. Stop plagiarising the worlds content (oh yes), start protecting copyright and try to remember when the internet used to be a place to have some fun.
"Get your own house in order Google." I totally agree, but it will not happen until google begins to feel a hit in the pocketbook.
On the bright side, I continue to see a slow increase in Bing and Yahoo hits. Eventually it may help, but I fear that to actually make a difference to G will take many months if not years.
This is validation for a lot of the changes we've made:
- reducing the number of ads displayed on the page
- cracking down on article spinners
- reducing the incentive for affiliate marketers to publish low-quality content
- enforcing higher quality standards (much to the chagrin of a few, but, well!)
- removing all duplicate content, and disallowing it
- running contests that emphasize the quality of content
- featuring high-quality Hubs on our home page
Jason, I understand you're not obligated to answer this question directly, but do you think HP can restore Google's favor without setting a new admission policy for writers? It appears that the number of new hubs from new hubbers that break many of these rules is staggering.
Hubpages still does pretty well by me so I don't want people to think I am being overly critical of the site.
I just think second rate pages are a liability these days. I don't just mean the absolutely spammy stuff, I mean anything thrown together in half an hour for a hub challenge.
In the past these pages might have been useful internal link fodder now they are a kind of pollution- especially if that stuff about overlapping content is the way Google is hitting content farms
by KiaKitori5 years ago
I jus finished rading this article and thought to share it with you : http://www.seo-theory.com/2011/05/06/ch … algorithm/It say that this Panda technology is the foundation of the new internet search, and it is...
by Will Apse4 years ago
There is a lot of SEO related stuff about Panda in these forums, so here is something about quality and the kinds of content Google is trying to find and offer to searchers:It comes from Amit Singhal, Google Fellow and...
by Steve Andrews4 years ago
When it was first introduced I was annoyed by it but made an effort to tweak my hubs to get them out of Idle status. Now, a whole load have got zzs against them again and many of them are hubs that at one point were...
by Katherine Tyrrell4 hours ago
This is worth a read Updated Google Quality Rater Guidelines target fake news, low quality and clickbait"It includes a link to Google's REVISED (March 2017) Search Quality - General GuidelinesIn terms...
by Kylyssa Shay12 months ago
Only the best Hubs on HubPages are being moved to niches, so everything on the niche sites is spam free and trash free. There are no pieces written in broken English or written in ways that appear to be spun. Everything...
by Will Apse3 years ago
In his hub 'What We Don't Know About Google Panda?', Paul Edmondson points out that Google seems to expect sites to leap high above any bar that might reasonably be set for quality purposes.Paul seems less than happy...
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.