Was looking for new sources of backlinks (as you do), and decided to explore Excerptz this evening. Only to find a sad blog post from Ryan saying that his site took a hit:
http://excerptz.com/2011/06/18/excerptz … sandboxed/
He thinks he's been sandboxed - but look at the date of his post - June 18th, just a day after G rolled out Panda 2.2.
Ryan, if you are reading - I think the problem is that you've modelled part of your site structure on Hubpages (which as we know is a failed model).
Remove the topics widget from the side - this is just duplication of the topics in the bar at the top. Remove popular posts and random posts, and only have articles linking to related posts (by topic). And remove the widget linking to forum posts on every article.
Hope you come back out of the Pandalized zone.
Ryan doesn't visit the forums anymore. You would be best to email him directly through his site.
I think calling hubpages a "failed model" is really stupid, short sighted, and fails to take into account what exactly has happened, and that the "game" is not over.
I'm with you on this Wesman! Hubpages is far from dead, and certainly not a failed model.
I am frankly disappointed at the number of experienced hubbers, who I looked to for guidance as a newbie, who have been very quick to turn their backs on HP.
After all, if they really knew what they were doing, they would have already made a fortune online, not scrabbling about now trying to find other revenue streams.
I'm one of those scrabbling about, because I need an income, but I am forever grateful to HP for showing me the road, and giving me the confidence to go forward into other areas.
Thanks! I agree, of course - and it seems to me that some of those who've been "bigtime" here that we no longer see have a massive lack of gratitude for Hubpages, and the money that they made here on a platform that they did not create, profited from, then cursed, ditched, and ran from.
OF COURSE it's wise to look for other websites to create content on! Who the hell ever thought that everything that they do should be done right here?
This IS my numero uno website for creating content - and even if I decide to switch this one to a backburner spot, I'm not going to forget how much I've learned here, or how much I've enjoyed spending time here.
It's amazing how people sometimes feel so "entitled" to various and sundry things.
No-body feels "entitled" to anything. I for one only experimented with Hubpages back in 2009 (if you look at my account, pretty much all my hubs were created then), and then I moved on to my own sites.
Any observations made are purely as a by-stander - a bystander who has survived Panda with flying colours on my own sites- but part of the problem is that hubpages does not respond to advice.
Practically all personal websites, especially keyword in url websites, did well out of Google Panda.
My own sites included, even thought they are crap!
They are crap, I'll get round to fixing them one day.
But on HP, with so much peer pressure, I've only ever posted stuff I have sweated over.
I have blogs as well as sites, and on none of them have I put much effort into.
Sadly, they are doing better than my hubs. How does that equate with quality and the quality Google Panda promised?
For that reason alone, I know that HP will return. High scoring HP hubs are amazing!
Google is evaluating the WHOLE DOMAIN. So you may feel that your own personal hubs are better than the posts that you write on your blogs - but when Google evaluates THE DOMAINS, they find your blog to have better overall quality than hubpages.
Which is what I was trying to say in my previous post.
Not sure why people are having such a hard time understanding that Panda was about domains not individual pages. Criticism of Hubpages is of Hubpages the domain - not of you the writer (especially as your stuff is a fraction of a hundreth of a percentage point of stuff on this site!)
Well, you know you have to look on the bright side, since Panda, duplicate content is no longer permitted, and all the spammy, spun crap is being unpublished as soon as it is found.
Would be nicer of course if they weren't allowed to publish in the first place, but can't have everything.
I just revised my (few) articles on Infobarrel because I've dumped a couple of domains and created some new ones, so I wanted to update the links.
Because I have so few articles, the articles had to be human reviewed before they went live. On Infobarrel, you have to publish a minimum number of articles before you're allowed to publish freely.
I used to think HubPages had a point when they said it would be too much work for them to review the first 5-10 Hubs of each new Hubber. I now think it was a mistake.
I (and others) have previously suggested that they should put one or two moderators full-time on checking new Hubbers' Hubs as they sign up. As long as spammers think they have a good chance of getting a Hub published for a few weeks or months, they're going to keep doing it.
I thought everyone had understood that about four months ago. Didn't you?
Aficionada - my reply was to IzzyM who couldn't understand why her blog posts on her pretty good blog were outranking her hubs on the spam-infested hubpages. HTH
Hey don't bring my blogs into this! I said I have sites and blogs that are crap, I didn't say they all were!
I have a couple of what I consider to be really good blogs, but what do you know? They are only a month old!
Even having said that, my blogs that are doing OK
are thanks to on page optimization and backlinking.
So no I still don't understand why they outrank my hubs, that I took time and care over.
Like Silver Rose says, it's because Panda looks at the whole domain, not individual Hubs.
I had one website which got hit by Panda. I was mystified why, until I read that having even a few "low quality" posts or pages can result in your whole site being Pandalised.
I had several posts which probably tripped their filters - some were just a video clip and a sentence or two comment. Others were in a series, with the same title followed by #1, #2, #3 etc - apparently Google takes that as a sign they're spun.
I amalgamated some posts, wrote more commentary on the videos - and lo and behold, my site has come roaring back in the last Panda update.
I have some really useful content on that website, but the way Panda worked, it ignored the good stuff and just hit me for the few pages it didn't like. It seems to me that HP has a similar problem - which is why so many people are annoyed they don't put more barriers in the way of new spammers.
Seriously, I don't think there is anything that IzzyM doesn't understand!
She asked a great rhetorical question; you responded with a sweeping generalization about "people"; I responded to your generalization.
It interests me that on another thread, lrohner was stating that the HP staff has not been patient enough to see what works and what doesn't; and that any rebound will take months or even years to show results.
Lots of experience, lots of observers, different perspectives.
But Izzy, isn't that the point? Google keeps saying their Panda updates are designed to reward quality, but any fool can see it's not working. So unless they come up with some massive new inspiration, I have no confidence that "quality will win".
It is possible HP could still recover. I don't believe the continuing drop in traffic is a sign that Google has further penalized the site - just think of the hundreds of high-performing Hubs deleted by the sales Hubbers, that alone would account for a huge drop in traffic numbers. The fact that some remaining Hubbers are seeing traffic improvements, even though numbers as a whole are down, suggests that's the case.
For the record - my "entitled" comment didn't include you at all.
The main problem is that people will (rightly) view this in very different ways. People who write primarily at HubPages as a hobby, are grateful because they're making money here, or getting readers, that they (believe) they wouldn't get elsewhere.
Whereas others might look at it a little more like this: I have around 300 hubs published here across accounts (many who have left, etc, had/have many more). If I wanted to self-host this amount of content on my own, it would cost me maybe $2 a month. Whereas hosting it on HP costs me 40% of my total earnings. Meaning that I'm paying way, way, way more than $2 a month, to host my content here. Of course, if I self-host, I'll most likely have to work harder to bring in visitors, but since Panda, probably not much harder anymore. Meaning that for many it's not what we feel entitled to, or what we feel we should be given, but what WE are still willing to give, or essentially pay. For the privilege of hosting at HP.
Most have left their older established content up, but for newer content that might rank just as well on a self-hosted site/blog, etc. is it still worth paying 40%. When you could have 100% of your earnings?
Loyalty is a beautiful thing, but it doesn't pay the bills. And many of those who have moved on to new pastures, do this for their living.
"Very Quick to turn their backs on HP"
So, the months of activity here in the forums where hubbers with well placed hubs and good traffic constantly pointing out staff errors in policy and enforcement have already been forgotten?
Everyone does realize that the move to subdomains invalidates every previous "effort/mistake/policy change"? Links to products are overly promotional at their arbitrary 1:50 ratio, but full screen Bing Ads fit every topic?
"I am forever grateful to HP for showing me the road"
Im confused. I would put money on the fact that you learned from the experienced hubbers that left. The ones that wrote tutorials and shared information in the forums. Did you learn from "The Learning Center" or get some helpful emails from staff?
I learned from other hubbers, but I never learned anything from HubPages, where did I miss out?
I hope a more realistic outlook is shared somewhere by the experienced hubbers that remain.This candyland thing isnt cutting it. Online writers shouldn't forget how administrations like eHow and Hubpages have reacted in times of crisis. I feel a healthy level of caution and mistrust should temper any reference to sites like these now.
Uh, I'm really not very good at replying to individual points in posts, but I'll do my best.
Yes, it looks like HP ignored the advice of those experienced hubbers. This is not our site to query them, but an appreciation of the suggestions wouldn't have gone amiss.
I, too, am annoyed (but I'm over it now) of the way they handled us, or it (Panda). All those changes without a by your leave. No wonder so many hubbers finally had enough.
I am still thinking about the sub-domain thingie. To me, it looks like a last desperate attempt to keep us afloat, but one that might well work. I am still listening on that front. It is something I know nothing about.
Yes I learned from experienced hubbers, not from HP.
But without the platform, would we ever have met? I think not. For whatever reason, I thank HP for bringing such a great bunch of people together.
In the event that they have not listened to us, the users, we now have to go forth and hope that whatever they implement will work.
Meanwhile, I am diversifying, as is everyone else who has an idea of what they should be doing.
But my heart still belongs to Hubpages.
@Izzym - I'm not sure "abandoned" is the right word for many of the experienced hubbers that aren't as active in the forums anymore. (ps Camping with Kids is a new niche ID, I've been here 2 yrs.)
For myself it's a time issue. Panda was a wake-up call that made me realize I had too many eggs in one Hubpages basket, and now I am also scrambling to develop content on my own sites.
Hubpages is still a tool for me, but with all their internal changes, it no longer functions as a major income source. ( I was heavy into product hubs)
I still have faith that hubpages will recover it's authority, but until that happens I have to direct my time to developing other sites of my own for income.
but... whenever I need a break, it's usually a visit to these forums to catch up with things
I feel the same way. Well said.
I don't want Hubpages to be my only revenue stream by any means, but right now it is perfect for me. Not to mention I should be producing a lot more hubs than I have been. Not like I haven't been learning though.
Looks like I've ruffled a lot of feathers. The site structure of Hubpages is part of their problem, and anyone copying it is copying a failed model.
I sincerely hope Ryan accepts feedback and re-bounds, unlike the HP team.
P.S. You only have to look at the Quantcast figures to see that hubpages IS failing. With every single Panda update, it sinks lower. It can't be long before unique hits goes lower than 200k a day for teh first time since 2008.
I, for one, am very aware of HP's fall. What annoys me is that I'd only a month or two of frantic hub-writing after realising how high they had climbed, before they fell.
No writing is wasted. In actual fact, those final hastily written hubs are more successful than my earlier efforts. It's all part of a learning curve that wouldn't have been possible without the HP platform.
IzzyM - fair enough.
I feel a little frustrated with Hubpages mainly because like others I took time out to make constructive suggestions that fell on deaf years.
One big problem (apart from site structure) is that it allows a lot of auto-submitted spam onto the site. I saw the following remark the other day on webmasterworld:
That's shocking. Even worse it could have been nipped in the bud with a simple non-captcha spam trap that I suggested a few months back which would have taken them about 30 minutes to program.
It's that kind of thing that makes people negative.
But I hope Ryan takes the opposite approach, deals with issues and comes out ahead.
Ryan will do OK
He's got the gumption needed to survive in an online world, and the intelligence to know when things go wrong, and how to sort them.
Site structure on a site as big as HP, who went thousands of dollars into debt just to launch, is better left to the experts.
I trust them. Do you?
My Google traffic has been INCREASING for the past couple weeks. It's not to pre panda levels yet, but it's getting closer and closer to that daily.
Interesting. Since the middle of May I've seen a very slow increase in traffic. That increase has been slow enough, and the inevitable spiky days (both high and low) often enough that it has been hard to spot. And, of course, memorial day was there in the middle with a low week.
It is increasing. I need another 50% or so to see pre-panda levels, but it IS climbing very slowly.
I was interested to know exactly what keywords Ry was trying to rank for, I'm sure he would of aimed for a particular niche.
LOL that is funny. His site is no better than hubpages and his explanation of why he got sandboxed is totally ridiculous. Domain registration time is not gonna sandbox your content farm. Having a content farm is gonna sandbox your site.
And that statement, Tilecleaninghub, tells us why you are better sticking to tile cleaning, and leave the SEO and wherewithalls who know what they are talking about to discuss this matter.
Content farms, if you wish to label them all that, are where most people get genuine information, written by ordinary people looking for info that the so-called experts don't want us to know.
If my baby is up screaming at 3am every morning, I want to read about it from another mother who has experienced it, and perhaps found something to help, not the professional article that I could buy in a magazine written by someone who has a university degree and no children!
NO your really are clueless issym. I am just going to leave it at that and move on.
I know someone else who got banned for calling someone clueless. Are you calling me clueless?
Actually, coming from you I'm not even offended. I'm laughing.
Izzy, content farms have content that people want to read. It is just down to whether Google likes your content farm or not.
Look at this thread and I would appreciate a comment because that is the biggest flaw in Google reasoning. It is cheating and stealing, IMO:
I wonder if Exerptz was using Build My Rank or Postrunner to get backlinks!
If so that could be a problem. Google is hip to these tactics to boost rankings.
I am not suggesting that this is true because it could be a number of reasons.
I think there is wisdom in not making assumptions.
I'm sure there are going to be people jumping from site to site hoping the grass is greener..
Don't know about the rest of you, but I have not seen any other site working as diligently to combat the effects of "Pandamonium" as the staff at HubPages. I am quite confident that HubPages will rise above this and be even better than before!
No one has any real idea as to why others chose to spend their time strengthening their income elsewhere. Here's my opinion:
Those alluded to in this thread are working elsewhere as a means of recouping their losses. That's what any sensible individual would do. You make $7000 per month, you lose half almost overnight - do you sit there hoping and praying or get off your arse and make good the damage?
I've gone from earning hundreds of dollars a month on HP to not even coming close to payout. I had no other source of income other than freelancing. My income was slashed by 50% and has continued to decline in relation to HP. Therefore I've employed my time working on alternative income streams as a means of replacing the loss.
As SRose just pointed out, when you take off the pollyanna glasses, the facts speak for themselves. Despite the efforts of the admin team/group, traffic remains in decline. That doesn't detract from the effort, rather it shows the reality of what's happening externally.
No! Compared to some of the other sites out there that got Pandalized and who also have big budgets, like Ezine, they've made pitiful progress.
If that person on Webmasterworld is right, Hubpages is accruing new pages at the rate of about 650 a day (most of it spam). Are the mods really capable of finding, reading and unpublishing that amount a day?
They've lost control, and need to shut the gates before they do anything else. Even preventing the opening of new accounts for a month would help as it would buy them breathing space.
I've got to agree with you there. They can't possibly, with a staff of 30 (or whatever it is), keep up with thousands of new hubs, not when you consider they have have to deal with the crappy hubs that slipped though over the years.
Even if we all hub hop, there will still be more that are missed. I hub hop every day, yet still find new authors with a newly published flaggable hub, and 10 previous over the last week or so, that I somehow missed.
Hey Izzy, I don't bother with hub hopping, I wade through the mountains of old c**p flagging it.
If you go through hubbers with a hubscore of under 25 (and there are hundreds of them!)that are not new hubbers obviously, you will find that you have to flag practically every single hub for being copied, low quality, spun or all variations of bad possible.
So why doesn't HP just do a mass delete of these of these accounts? Most of them have no avatars, have under ten bad hubs, no followers and no site activity?
If they did it would improve the overall quality of HP immeasurably and make it a better place for readers and writer alike
That is certainly another good idea, and as Marisa said, HP would stand a better chance of recovery if they got rid of the dead wood.
i think that is something to do with why they are changing the technical stuff around so you would stand on your own rather than HP- which will be good for the likes of us who work hard and try to produce top quality hubs. I think a lot has been cleared out as I have always skimmed the depths and honestly they are not half as murky now as they were six months ago
As I have mentioned many times now, this would be easy and quick to do, as would stopping new rubbish by introducing pre moderation for at least the first hub.
Easy wins for no effort, and no disruption to existing writers.
Silver Rose was just stating the obvious. The site model is failing, that's why Paul E is experimenting with a radical restructure.
It it also admirable in some ways to show loyalty to HP and I have some loyalty too, but you can bet your bottom dollar that HP won't bang their heads against a brick wall forever, and if an open source writing website still doesn't work in a few months from now, they may look seriously at changing direction themselves, methinks.
Traffic comes from keyword searches. If content that has been moved had those keywords they should be taken to the place those hubs are now. The traffic coming now is for the keywords of each hub currently here. Anyone who is left who is an expert at SEO could do whatever they can to teach the rest of us to do it better.
I haven't done too badly just using terms I would search for myself in my hubs. For others, I am sure there are a few who have no idea what SEO is or how to optimize a hub for them. Backlinking helps also, I don't understand why or how but have been told time and time again that it does. I try to avoid social programs and I know this is costing me readers but there just isn't enough time. I have started using my business advertising platforms as backlinks and it seems to be helping. My search engine hits are rising.
Summary, your hub is found by a search engine based on your keywords and backlinking. This should mean if we each improve ours it can help hubpages rank overall no matter what spun material ends up here. We will just have to keep on taking out the trash until something else can be done.
If I am wrong please correct me.
If the bad outweighs the good - making the good better won't improve hit rates.
Panda has identified HP as a low quality site overall and has downgraded the rating for ALL pages/ articles on the site - no matter what their individual merits.
To use an example lets say your article rated as 90% before Panda.
Further, lets say Panda imposed a relative penalty to halve all the ratings for HP articles. This means that your article now ranks as 45% and if you really work hard you may be able to get it to 50% but that's it.
This is a silly example and does not relate to reality but it illustrates the problem of all pages being 'tarred with the same brush'.
What the sub-domain idea for authors will do is to allow each author to have their own independent rating just for their collection of articles.
Maybe this will mean that an individual author may have a rating threshold of 80%, another may have 70%, another 60%. The sub-domains will probably still be affected by the Panda penalty, but the effect will be less and good quality authors will have a better chance of their articles appearing in the search results.
If HP got rid of all the bad stuff it could potentially reduce the penalty from 50% to say 60% or 70% and all authors would benefit.
That's my understanding of it => My two bobs worth
I agree, janderson. HP have decided, more or less, that they cannot get rid of enough weak hubs to lift them out of the doldrums without changing from an open platform system (effectively letting anyone join and write stuff, no matter what the standard). They are therefore trying to put each of us into our own little box (subdomain) so that the better writers aren't dragged down by the weaker ones. If the good writers continue to leave, HP will only get worse and worse, unfortunately.
My suggestion is that articles submitted to HP become an 'internal only' by default [using a nofollow tag or similar].
If an author wants their article out there on the www for Google to index they would need to request a review to get it approved.
Google will only see the approved articles and so this will reduce the penalty.
HP can remain a 'writers' community with a policy of allowing everyone to submit articles.
Users of the site will still be able to see all the articles, search for them etc.
This cuts down the work load for approvals - much could be done electronically with two tools - one for basic submission and one for wider www index submission. A system of approved authors could also cut down the work load.
This would lift the rating for the entire site.
It could be done relatively quickly by making every article 'internal only' except for 'approved authors' and requesting authors to seek approvals for the articles they wanted indexed on the www.
I would suggest that many HP authors may be quite happy to have their articles as 'internal only'.
Question - how does HubPages make a profit under your scenario?
Hubbers do not click on ads, so there would be no way of making money on a private writers' network. HubPages is a business, I can't see them doing anything which would cut off their income stream!
I know that there's a lot I still don't know, but to me that sounds like an absolutely brilliant idea. It sounds like it would be one of the more simple ideas to implement, with a bigger and more significant impact than a lot of other possibilities.
This, I believe, has been suggested to HP before all the great hubbers left.
They won't listen. For some reason, being an 'open platform' is more important.
I'm guessing that when it was suggested before, I didn't understand that was what was being said. I remember some other similar ideas that sounded somewhat more complicated to me than this is, but - whatever. Whenever it was/is suggested, I think it's a good idea.
I could explain how to reply to individual points, if you wish; it's actually fairly simple. I had thought about making a hub about it, but I don't think it needs that many words!
I guess its the loss of advertising revenue when pages aren't indexed. But HP has lost most of its traffic anyway and the loss of pages may be offset by higher returns for the pages that are indexed. I'm not sure whether the HP ads return payment when displayed internally.
The other issue is the cost of the conducting the reviews and approvals.
I am going to apply this technique to my own site. The internal pages simply become the equivalent of 'waiting to be reviewed' It means that all the indexed pages have high quality.
Sorry - The tag to be used is the - noindex - HTML meta tag that advises automated Internet bots to avoid indexing a Web page. [I'm not an expert on this stuff]
Another point is that if all the good articles are put into sub-domains the ranking of the main URL could get dragged down even further after the next pandemonium
It does seem like a good idea, but I'm picturing a whole bunch of people who would be submitting stuff that Google "wouldn't like anyway", because a whole lot of people would still be thinking their stuff stood a chance of making money/being approved. So I'm picturing the need to hire a ton of people to review all that stuff, if I understand (the otherwise good) idea correctly. A lot of people will say they "don't care about earning", but I think almost all of those people also have some hopes that their stuff might earn. (Otherwise, they'd just post their stuff somewhere else with no hopes of earning, I'd think.)
Question: 'Do the HP ads earn money for pages displayed internally' when a user is not logged in. If so non-indexed pages could still earn money.
I have lots of pages on my own sites that Google won't index like sitemaps links etc that have insufficient unique text. I have adsense ads on them. People visiting the site can still view them. Being non-indexed simply means they don't appear in search results. They can still earn money - I think.
So a link could still be posted on FB or Twitter or sent to friends; the page could sitll be viewed by anyone who knew how to get to it with the URL; ads (if any are there) could still be clicked on; but the page wouldn't show up in search results - That's what you are saying?
That's my understanding. Of course, if you are an author you should not click on any of the adsense ads as Google may ban you.
But non-authors who browse through the site can click on any page. Any of the non-indexed still have the same status as any other page - they are simply not indexed by Google and other browsers and so will not appear in the search results. You can link to them and users who click on the links will be taken to them. The links will not influence page rank however, because the page is not indexed and will not have a rank.
External users who find article A via a Google search will enter the site to view that page. While they are there they may browse and look at other non-indexed pages B, C, and D and click on their ads.
If you have a non-indexed page your earnings will be very small because you will miss out on hits from the search pages, but may still earn money if its a popular page on a popular topic via this method - non-authors browsing the site, viewing pages and clicking on ads.
The other aspect that HP may see as a disadvantage is a potential decline in page rank. If HP has 1000 pages say and it de-indexes 500, the page rank will decease as number of pages is a ranking factor.
Exactly. So HubPages loses virtually all the income it would otherwise get if those pages were indexed. Could you explain why they would think that was worth all the extra staff they'd need to employ, to respond individually to all the thousands of emails they'd receive from Hubbers, requesting their Hubs be indexed?
Most of it would be done via software. I don't know the figures, but I would guess that the poor quality articles don't earn very much. HP has been working to remove some of the junk. If the junk earns income why have filters and checks for articles when they are submitted?
Something has to be done to stop the decline - remember that thousands of new articles are being added to HP weekly, but the trend is down, down.
Many of the 'good' authors have left or are not writing as much on HP.
Google has said that if the poor articles are removed (or not indexed) the Panda penalty could be reduced next time there is an update.
There is no evidence that, what HP has done so far, has worked.
Sorry, I love HP, but its got to improve its standing, otherwise .........
HP's current idea of subdomains is more appealing to me, if it works, and there has been complete silence since Weds so I am little worried.
Anyway, the subdomains would help the good hubbers because they don't get dragged down, but also appease the big G, as the trashy hubs wouldn't get artificially boosted and turn up near the top of the Google searches.
That is what Google wants, they don't care about punishing hubbers who write informative articles, they want good stuff at the top and rubbish on page 20 of the search results.
As I say though, the silence from HP about the ongoing subdomains experiment is beginning to make me a little nervous...
But as you say, there are already filters and checks which unpublish the junk, as far as they can identify it. The problem is that automated filters aren't that good at identifying it.
Are you saying there is better software which they could be using? Or are you suggesting that if Hubs were going to be de-indexed rather than unpublished, they could apply filters and checks more harshly?
Why not just require new authors to have their first two or three articles human-reviewed, like Infobarrel? Wouldn't that be simpler?
I would suggest that non-indexed articles can still make money and so it is not a matter of having to be indexed to make money.
There are lots of software tools for spell checking, grammar, article length, duplication, layout etc. That could be applied. HP could issue the list of rules and its requirements, that authors would read before requesting indexing. The tests and filters would be based on that. Having approved authors would reduce the work load, and as you suggest after 2-3 checks authors could be approved for indexing straight away. I think it is probably a matter of having more stringent versions of the existing rules and software test for copied material etc. This is all hypothetical but maybe the 'Title Improver' tool could be used to optimize the keyword choices. More stringent rules about topics could also be applied. As you say human editors are the best if they can be paid for???
But as you yourself have said, they will make a LOT less money because they will only be found when browsing or through author's self-promotion.
I know myself, 90% of my traffic comes from search engines. That has been the case for over 2 years. I didn't make much money until my search engine traffic hit 80% of my readers. So I stick by my assessment that the de-indexed pages won't earn. If they're junk, that's fine - but if they're junk, why not unpublish them?
So are you suggesting these software tools would run automatically, or that they would have to be applied by moderators? If there are such software tools which can run automatically on new Hubs, don't you think HP would be using them now? If they have to be applied by moderators, that still requires a fair amount of human intervention.
I'm still struggling with the idea that ANY author would even contemplate writing without requesting indexing, so why not remove all the complications and institute a review for every new author for their first few articles?
Oh, I don't know, Marissa. I would not have requested indexing for my very first hub....of course I didn't know what indexing was or that the hub even could be read by anyone not of HP! I hope I've learned a little since then.
I'm with you here. Simply (or not so simply, I don't truly know) require all new hubbers to submit hubs for review before publishing.
" so why not remove all the complications and institute a review for every new author for their first few articles?"
1. Because people would be 'good' for a while and then start to cheat
2. Because its too expensive and time consuming
3. Because authors will get pi**ed off very quickly after three or four rejects when their articles don't appear anywhere on the site. (like Ezine)
3a. Because the authors would argue endlessly and never give up.
4. Because I think HP wants an 'open to everyone' policy for authors
5. I still maintain that some authors would be happy to have their short articles published on HP but not indexed (I would do this for short articles that are relevant for the HP internal community). This could apply for articles that were rejected for indexing, but would be OK as internal only articles. They would have a 'waiting to be approved status', but would need to pass the basic tests for publishing on the site (Junk test). Authors could upgrade them at a later date, and retest them several times until they 'passed'. Again too expensive for humans to do.
Anyway here 'endth the lesson'
I'm not HP nor the 'STIG'
I am developing my own article site with 'approval before indexing' requirements. It is small enough for me to check all the articles manually using software such as copyscape.com. Interestingly article submission is turned off for now because despite having logins etc., I have been receiving over 300 well crafted spam articles a day from some auto-spinner somewhere. I am working on a fix.
Ah - don't mind me. I wasn't really thinking when I posted too hastily before.
by FaisalKhan21215 years ago
I say thank you Panda for helping to restore quality content to search engine results. Hubpages definitely has gotten better-- the spam is gone and the cream is rising to the top. Also, I'm making more money...
by Ben Aidoo2 years 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 TTGReviews2 years ago
Yes, there was a Panda update yesterday, but this topic will be focused on things we could see far in advance of this update.As someone who has written extensively on both HubPages and Squidoo perhaps I can offer a...
by KiaKitori6 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 Maffew James2 years ago
It's no secret that many Hubbers have been hit by the recent Google 'Panda 4.1' update. Panda is one of Google's key quality algorithms that assesses your content for certain signals that indicate that your readers are...
by Rob Welsh5 years ago
How many more times are we expected to have to put up with Article Thieves who use HP solely as a place to easily Steal from and to enable those thieves to fill their own sites with our Original and Copyrighted...
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.