jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (27 posts)

Google is not done with panda yet

  1. KiaKitori profile image77
    KiaKitoriposted 5 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 still upgadind and it was aimed to separate information on the web..
    And is not over!

    1. Barbara Kay profile image84
      Barbara Kayposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't like to hear they are still going to get harder on what they call "content farms". They've hit hubpages hard enough already and what about eHow. I'm sick of finding their poor articles when I do a search. Some of these appear not to know anything about the subject and didn't do any research either.

      1. Ultimate Hubber profile image81
        Ultimate Hubberposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If its content farms, then why eHow is doing so well in the search engines?

        1. KiaKitori profile image77
          KiaKitoriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          PBS had a series of articles about content farms...last summer. Here is one of them 
          http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/07/d … ms207.html

          1. prettydarkhorse profile image66
            prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Good read, although in journalistic style of writing it is easily spun, reworded and scraped. You just need to answer the basic qs like who what, when and where then you have a news. Bad or good news still a news.

            I like opinion columns and editorials, they can't spun or scrape it, only if they like to, LOL

          2. Ultimate Hubber profile image81
            Ultimate Hubberposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Good one Kai!

        2. Marisa Wright profile image95
          Marisa Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          eHow escaped the first round - but it also got hit in the second round of Panda.

          1. Ultimate Hubber profile image81
            Ultimate Hubberposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Are you sure? Can you provide a source to this information? As I still see a lot of eHow articles ranking high for a lot of keywords.

    2. janderson99 profile image85
      janderson99posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks KiaKitori,

      The Postscipt in this article from Webcentral Blog (6th May) is very informative

      http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot. … ality.html

      It includes a list of Google 'quality'  crieria. [its long but worth quoting here]

      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Below are some questions that one could use to assess the "quality" of a page or an article. These are the kinds of questions we ask ourselves as we write algorithms that attempt to assess site quality. Think of it as our take at encoding what we think our users want.

      Of course, we aren't disclosing the actual ranking signals used in our algorithms because we don't want folks to game our search results; but if you want to step into Google's mindset, the questions below provide some guidance on how we've been looking at the issue:

      # 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 don’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 you’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?

      Writing an algorithm to assess page or site quality is a much harder task, but we hope the questions above give some insight into how we try to write algorithms that distinguish higher-quality sites from lower-quality sites.
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      and also..........
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      One other specific piece of guidance we've offered is that low-quality content on some parts of a website can impact the whole site’s rankings, and thus removing low quality pages, merging or improving the content of individual shallow pages into more useful pages, or moving low quality pages to a different domain could eventually help the rankings of your higher-quality content.
      -------------------------------------------------------------------

      1. KiaKitori profile image77
        KiaKitoriposted 5 years ago in reply to this


        We all should print this page and stick it to our computer screens big_smile

      2. bgamall profile image84
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?"

        I think Hubpages made a mistake when they had one subject where everyone wrote a hub. I tried not to get involved in that. It seemed like overkill and the time, and apparently it is killing Hubpages. Yet they are still doing hub topics and getting a gazillion hubs published at the same time on one topic. I don't get it.

      3. bgamall profile image84
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Does the article describe both sides of a story?"

        This is ridiculous.

      4. prettydarkhorse profile image66
        prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        those qualitative indicators mentioned are difficult to measure, even with well designed algorithm, it needs human checking it. Imagine that even HP can't cope or catch up with moderation of so much hubs being flagged, how much more Google with gazzillion of pages in the Internet.

    3. prettydarkhorse profile image66
      prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      these are all qualitative/subjective measures. Some qs can be answered by yes or no, it means it is us who will evaluate the pages through user interface. This will be forever tweaking.

  2. Rosie2010 profile image83
    Rosie2010posted 5 years ago

    @KiaKitori, thanks for posting this.  Very informative.

    @janderson99, thanks for the helpful quote of Google 'quality'  crieria.  Good to know.

  3. Ritsos profile image65
    Ritsosposted 5 years ago

    In that case, reading those, I'd say hubpages is dead as a money earner though still has value as a community of writers.

    There are one or two things in there especially worrying .. for eg .. would you give your credit card info to a site.

    Well .. I'd give mine to a major company but not to joe bloggs blog however good his articles .... It looks very much to me that they really have gone the corporate route.

    Time to Bing I think

    1. KiaKitori profile image77
      KiaKitoriposted 5 years ago in reply to this


      I think they are in for a very long run unless something else happens in the mean time. The article states that it will be hard to recover after a panda hit.

    2. janderson99 profile image85
      janderson99posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      See  http://hubpages.com/hub/Possible-Busine … r-Hubpages

      Perhaps the way to go is to have Hubpages as a community of writers with internal articles as the default, and to set rules and editorial scrutiny for those who want their articles out there in the www

      1. Mark Ewbie profile image84
        Mark Ewbieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's an interesting idea.  And all those spammers have their own section where they are forced to read each others hubs.

        1. KiaKitori profile image77
          KiaKitoriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol, i like it!

  4. Richieb799 profile image62
    Richieb799posted 5 years ago

    My earnings were just picking up, they doubled over the weekend..I wouldn't say Hubpages is done and I think everyone is being a bit hasty

    1. KiaKitori profile image77
      KiaKitoriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Richie, I'm very glad for you. I don't think HP is done either. But i can't stop reading articles about this Panda thing. I'm very curious to see where it goes.
      martinez's article that I first linked is the first one I read that says the Panda is the fundation of a new techology or something similar.

  5. Marisa Wright profile image95
    Marisa Wrightposted 5 years ago
    1. Ultimate Hubber profile image81
      Ultimate Hubberposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I hope its true. Thanks for the link though.

      1. Ultimate Hubber profile image81
        Ultimate Hubberposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The site you quoted is not an authority...

        Here are a couple of comments from the article:

        "eShite still ranks on millions of long tail queries, often with multiple listings."

        "No, they’re not tracking traffic but the whole world is watching for some sign of eHow’s impending doom.

        I don’t see it. In fact, I suspect now may be a good time to buy some eHow stock."

        1. janderson99 profile image85
          janderson99posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I read various articles - they have gone down 40% in the last few weeks according to some reports.

          Demand media admit to a 20% decline

          http://www.googlelivesearch.com/web-new … -to-panda/

  6. Cheeky Girl profile image87
    Cheeky Girlposted 5 years ago

    There is a giant leap in the pecking order between "Authority sites" and "Communities". Authority sites like Encyclopedias and Wikis are revered for total fact and no third rate spammy spun gossip styled information. Now compare that with most communities, even like Facebook, or take Hub Pages. Primarily they are both communities. They are not schools of quite the same "wisdom". So there will be a "perceived" lesser value on the information provided. That is just how it is...so Panda hits Article sites more, sorry to say.

    Unless 100% of all participants of Hub Pages are University educated experts in their chosen field, and write accordingly, we are a "Community", although we are a very popular one and with plenty of readers and views. There is no avoiding that. But we can all only do our best. Unless somebody has a grand idea to "upskill" Hubbers everywhere, it is up to us to write entertaining, informative and topical content. Otherwise, what would it take to raise our game?

 
working