jump to last post 1-38 of 38 discussions (173 posts)

How to Avoid a Panda Mauling

  1. Will Apse profile image91
    Will Apseposted 4 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 High Priest of search.


    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?

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

    The obvious drive is find content that is comprehensive and insightful. In-depth articles on professionally edited sites with big brand names are going to be favored.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Doesn't work. Google propaganda. I create some of the most authoritative articles around, and some of them got "panda-ized," despite being the most authoritative piece on the Internet. What you fail to understand is that Google is a business and as such, their primary concern is making money for their shareholders and mostly this money comes from selling google adwords advertising.

      Why would a company use adwords? Because they have trouble getting organic traffic, because wikipedia rules the search results, because google wants adwords buyers, because that is what makes them the money, and  SEO companies are competitors of Google.

      You need to understand that the Internet is going through a consolidation phase that involves the big boys eating the little boys. The best way of combating this is to emulate the big boys - which is hard to do for some and particular given the fact that Google is deliberately targeting certain niches and markets for their own profits.

      Or - to find the gaps in the wall where there can be no "authority." There is still room in many niches, but don't expect that to include Computer reviews. wink

      Remember there have been a couple of other Google changes recently as well.

      1. Removal of specific search results from logged-in google users in analytics (all analytics). In some cases, this has resulted in a drop of over 50% of search terms being available.

      2. Refusal to be specific with adwords buyers as to search terms used by incoming traffic.

      Combine this with the recent algo changes and you are looking at massive data loss for many SEO firms.

      Unless you want to invest $250,000 pa on a premium analytics account?

      http://www.google.com/analytics/premium/



      But thanks for the regurgitated advice.

      You are great at regurgitating stuff.

      1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
        EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, this.

        Given the facts that you've stated above, it totally amazes me that people still carry on taking those Google propaganda articles as gospel.

        1. David 470 profile image86
          David 470posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Listening to the above may help, however, in the end Google is in control.

      2. heleineoman profile image61
        heleineomanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Google is really cool! they turned the Internet up side down. It's survival of the fittest

      3. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
        PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, there's a lot of corporate politics going on in the background.  Google has become so big that only major legal action from corporate competitiors, or action by the US gov/EU can have any effect on its future direction (and makeup).

        Google is happy to work with corporations like Amazon, because they don't really encroach on Google's business territory, but there is a ruthlessness towards companies that Google sees as rivals. 

        Sometimes you feel like a pawn in someone else's war.

      4. Eric Graudins profile image60
        Eric Graudinsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hey Mark:
        re your conversation with Will Ar se:
        "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of your time, and it only annoys the pig."

      5. brakel2 profile image88
        brakel2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you Will for giving us this information. I have never seen it written out in that form. I will take any information that I get and that anyone on the site takes the time to provide. I understand the frustration of those who have lost a great deal of money. Hopefully, things will get better. I do believe that the money from asking questions has helped to some extent.

    2. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

      Isn't this what Hub Pages has always emphasized?

      1. Will Apse profile image91
        Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A lot of people who complain about traffic loss have failed to heed these guidelines. So posting them at regular intervals is no bad thing.

        1. Marisa Wright profile image92
          Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So you're saying I, Sally's Trove, AndyOz, Paul Goodman etc etc all write cr@p.

          Gee thanks.

          1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
            EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, we're all "HubPages haters" for even daring to suggest that factors outside our control might be at least partially responsible for a loss in traffic, as opposed to just the "wooden" quality of our writing roll

          2. Will Apse profile image91
            Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            This is why so many people here will never get past the obstacle of Panda. Emotionalism is always so much easier than honest self appraisal.

            If you want to do well, play the odds.

            The odds are that Google will get its way.

            So you fall in line with the quality demands and hope Google really does get its algo right. Or you throw your lot in with the floundering SEO Google gamers.

            Which do you think is more rational?

            1. Marisa Wright profile image92
              Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Will, that is a disgraceful statement.  Many of the Hubbers hit by the recent Panda/Penguin updates produce terrific quality work. Look at Marye Audet - are you seriously saying she can't write? She could blow you out of the water.

              Google likes to claim Panda is all about quality, but at the end of the day,a dumb algorithm cannot judge the quality of anyone's writing accurately.  Google can penalize things like spelling, keyword stuffing, excessive advertising, questionable linking etc - not quality.

              1. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
                PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I think the Google list is "aspirational" (or maybe "PR"?) rather than practically achievable for them.  They test pages/sites out with humans, then try to identify patterns in the pages/websites that people liked/disliked, but they are still limited by technology - the algo is a complex and a beautiful piece of work, but still a blunt instrument compared with a human brain.

                Some of my "crap" articles do better than my better quality ones to be honest.  I've given up worrying about it and just go with the flow.  (I'm a great believer in empiricism).

    3. Mark Ewbie profile image82
      Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago

      Thanks Will - it does no harm to re-read that occasionally. 

      For my stuff I could be slammed or not slammed by an algo or person. Luck of the draw, for me, I think.

      I try to give the searcher what they were expecting from their visit, but it's a challenge when spoofing things.

    4. Will Apse profile image91
      Will Apseposted 4 years ago

      I reckon people don't realize how specific some of these guidelines are.

      Someone recently took a big tumble traffic-wise after including the keyword phrase 'houseplant care' in something like a dozen article titles. Taking note of this could have saved him some pain: 'Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?'

      This is one I am trying to fix in my own account: 'Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?' When I am careless I am very careless. Someone is doing a very good job of proof reading all my articles right now. Some of the mistakes are truly horrible, lol.

      I reckon the most common reason for traffic loss is this one: Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results? Too many people are writing in saturated topics. You can't produce a page titled 'removing red wine stains' and expect a good result anymore.

    5. incomeguru profile image85
      incomeguruposted 4 years ago

      Getting someone from oDesk or other similar sites to write content for you, and get it published, is not going to bring any good when it comes to search engine traffic.

      Reason is this, those guys at odesk are mass producing those content to different clients, all they'll do is just adjusting the same content to make it looks original. And which google will quickly penalized.

    6. janderson99 profile image85
      janderson99posted 4 years ago

      Hey you forgot one!

      How does the copy sound when you read it out loud?

      http://www.a1niches.com/panda9.jpg

      How could the dumb googlebot possibly assess all that stuff.
      Sorry I don't believe it.
      None of its assessed. Its just general advice.

    7. Dame Scribe profile image61
      Dame Scribeposted 4 years ago

      I don't think it isn't just about quality writing that should be the focus. Step into the shoes of the advertiser, that 'G' has attracted. Now, what does 'G' have to offer for delivering advertisements ? If our writing lands in a good category, and there's amazing traffic, then a deal is successful. It's that area where we fall in and HP itself provides the platform, therefore a good partner. We, the writers, just got to deliver. Least, that's how I'm imagining how it works but I could be wrong lol

      1. Rusticliving profile image89
        Rusticlivingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I would have to agree with you Dame Scribe. I admit whole-heartedly that I am not an accomplished writer by far compared to you and others who have written amazing work. But I do think of how I would feel as the consumer who would look at an article and ask the important question, does this article deliver what I am looking for? Can I trust it? How does it apply to me? "G" has to offer the advertiser and consumer a quality AND a needed subject. HP has offered us a great way to perfect our writing skills, use our imaginations, and make money as well. We need to exercise our talents and keep writing! Afterall, we are doing what we love, right?

      2. Barbara Kay profile image85
        Barbara Kayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Has anyone tried the free $100 worth of advertising that Google offers? I tried it for my website and got so little traffic for that amount that if it was cash out of my pocket, it would have made me feel a sick.

        Facebook has become a huge competitor to Google for both ads and traffic. Google is grabbing at straws to get back to where they were. They'll try many things before it is all finished. Hopefully that means a return to Hubpage traffic.

        1. Marisa Wright profile image92
          Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And here was I thinking I was the only lucky one!  Actually for me, it was $75.  I think there's a real learning curve to using Adwords effectively, so I'm not sure if the lack of result was really lack of effectiveness or my inexperience.   I'm just on my last $7 so will be turning it all off tomorrow.

    8. MyWebs profile image84
      MyWebsposted 4 years ago

      A listing of changes to the Google Algorithm in April from Matt Cutts. (Google Engineer)
      Search Quality Highlights 53 Changes

      1. janderson99 profile image85
        janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There's some good stuff there

        No freshness boost for low-quality content. [launch codename “NoRot”, project codename “Freshness”] We have modified a classifier we use to promote fresh content to exclude fresh content identified as particularly low-quality. ===> sounds like they are targeting generic brands.

    9. Will Apse profile image91
      Will Apseposted 4 years ago

      Just another little point from Amit Sighal:

      "Writing an algorithm to assess page or site quality... (rather than writing the wish list, quoted)... 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."

      For those who want to keep their accounts safe, this list is worth taking on-board.

      1. Marisa Wright profile image92
        Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        TRY is the operative word here - notice they admit assessing page quality is a "much harder task".

        1. Will Apse profile image91
          Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, Marisa. Try. Harder. These are all important words.

          The fact is though, the criteria in Singhals wish list is the criteria that they are writing the algorithms to. If you want to game the algo, take note of the list. Or just write good stuff.

          And before we go back to what is good and bad... My view is you let the reader decide and many other people now believe that Google makes some use of user metrics. So keep an eye on view duration.

          If readers spend plenty of time on a page it is probably good enough and Google will decide the same thing.

          1. Marisa Wright profile image92
            Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Who said anything about gaming the algo?  You seem to think I'm some kind of black hatter.  Do you really think I'd be writing about dance if I was out to make money at all costs?

            Of course we should all be trying to write quality, that's a given.  I'm objecting to your clear implication - that if you've been hit by Panda, you must be writing poor quality rubbish.  And if people like Marye Audet and Sally's Trove are not deeply insulted by that, then they should be, because they do NOT write rubbish.   I don't think I write rubbish either.

    10. Mark Ewbie profile image82
      Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago

      My guess would be that they can make a stab at guessing 'bad' content more easily than 'good'.  Keyword stuffing, dodgy linking - that kind of thing.

      I'm not saying anyone does that, etc., blah blah.

      They also may be taking notice of the neighborhood.  So those links that HP put on our pages to others people's content... I don't really like that.  No control.

    11. EmpressFelicity profile image84
      EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago

      I notice with amusement but not much surprise that many people on this thread have ignored Mark's post about Google propaganda, and are taking said propaganda literally, as if it actually means something real. (This is strikingly similar to what goes on in the political forums.)

      I have a nice drink that you all might be interested in... would you like to join my cult?

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j5j-k9ieZDQ/T1OyIseNdsI/AAAAAAAABlA/Z2EWYn2a_ZI/s1600/Kool-aid.gif

      1. Will Apse profile image91
        Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There is a grain of truth in what Mark says. We are only going to pick up the crumbs here. This site will never have the authority of the big specialized blogs.

        But if you can spot the gaps left by the big boys, you can still make money. As long as you don't blow it by coming across as a spammer. Or being a spammer.

        That list gives you most of the clues you need to avoid that fate.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Regurgitating what Mark said now huh? lol lol

          That list you posted is a list of reasons not to write here.

          That is the problem with simply regurgitating things you don't understand and have not tested. Bit like writing product reviews of products you have never touched. wink

          1. Will Apse profile image91
            Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I am concerned with Hubpages and how to do well here. You are not, apparently. According to your own reports, you are a heavy hitter who is here to chat to your friends. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

            Frankly, what I see is someone who spins all his thoughts through a self pitying 'its the big guy beating on the little guy' distortion machine.

            So Google becomes evil for preferring a well established blog or site with
            editorial staff, solid writers who can be fired for messing up and codes of practice that ensure their stuff is reliable.

            And we go-it-aloners are the sad victims of Google's discrimination.

            Not really.

            As I have said dozens of times, if you can learn to use Hubpages for what is it good at, you can still make money. Just avoid the grandiose delusions and focus on the realities.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry you didn't understand. Give out some more regurgitated advice. Please. lol

              What makes you think I don't still make money here?

              Producing webspam such as you produce is not likely to make you any real money, and I would prefer it of you stopped lying about me. I never said anything about being a heavy hitter. I am here to chat though. Sorry it bothers you that I understand more than you do because regurgitating wot google sed and producing nothing but webspam is not convincing me you have the best interests of this site our your fellow hubbers in mind. You just seem to want to be another guruwanker.

              Clearly your articles go against the list you just posted, and - honestly - I think spammers such as yourself are part of the problem this site is currently facing.

              Now - don't go getting all emotional. It is not your fault you cannot afford to buy the products you lie about testing. Neither is your poor command of English. But - I am sure now you are paying $3 an article to have your "work," edited, your fortunes will turn around.

              But - hub hating and giving a list of reasons not to write here and then claiming to be concerned with hubpages don't gel together.

              Self pitying? Yes - that about sums you up. Write a few more "5 best amazon wotsits" and then tell us how little traffic you are getting. And then regurgitate some more advice you have not understood.

              Frankly all I see is a little man incapable of understanding the new reality and having trouble adapting. But thanks for regurgitating what I said.

              At least that is useful advice. Honestly - I know what I am talking about, and attacking what I say because you don't understand it is not doing yourself or your fellow hubbers any good at all.

        2. Kangaroo_Jase profile image81
          Kangaroo_Jaseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Will,

          Apart from blogger.com, wordpress.com and blogspot.com there is no 'big specialized blogs' ranked higher than HubPages at the moment.

          Even if one loosely looks at Quantcast.

          And forums unless it is is a forum on a site I have a lot of faith and trust in regards to SEO. I will never look at forums on HubPages for SEO information. Too many so called 'experts'.

          On a final note, search engines help , but they are not the ONLY source of traffic.

          1. Will Apse profile image91
            Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If you think you can outrank CNET, Mashable, Gizmodo or ZDNet in tech with a Hubpage, please go ahead and try.

            The same story with the big fashion blogs etc.

            Hubpages is a Web 2.0 content farm and ranks as well as any other Web 2.0 content farm but that is all.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Weird. I outrank Mashable and ZDNet and am 3rd after CNET and Gizmodo for a tech hubpage. And you are saying this is impossible? Odd. You obviouslyknow some stuff I don't know. What is your secret?

              Other than the self pity thing? Probably getting persecuted as well huh?

              And you say you are not religious.... lol lol

            2. Kangaroo_Jase profile image81
              Kangaroo_Jaseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Will,

              I don't understand your continued undervaluing of this site. You seem convinced that HubPages is a content farm and thats it, no other function outside of that.

              You also seem to believe that people are operating instead a specified box of operation (writing content, particular SEO) and are unable to expand, deviate or thrive outside of that box.

              You also seem to persist with a difference of opinion and argument when its been made clear you are often incorrect yet choose not to indulge otherwise.

              Even if I am wrong about this Will, I still do not understand your basis for these understandings.

          2. Marisa Wright profile image92
            Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Jase, Will is talking about large blogs, not large blogging platforms.  So is Mark.  And Will is right in this case - it's becoming increasingly difficult to outrank the big, established websites and blogs on most subjects.

            Google has been favouring "authority sites" for some time (an authority site is a substantial website or blog which offers expertise in a particular field).  Although HubPages is a substantial website, it can never be an authority site because it doesn't specialize in any one topic. That's why some people were saying the sub-domains should've been topic-based, not author-based, after Panda - so each sub-domain stood a chance of being seen as an authority site.

            However, up till now HubPages seems to have bucked the trend, and some Hubbers are still getting good traffic in spite of writing on a variety of subjects.  I think that may be changing now,though, as Google continues to "refine" Panda.   I notice, for instance, that when I Google a health topic, the top results are always from the big medical sites, even though they may be less relevant than some of the results from smaller sites which appear further down the SERPS.

            1. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
              PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Playing Devil's Advocate.  From Google's point of view, a big medical or health organization has more to lose by providing incorrect information than an anonymous writer on a free writing platform.  Let's give the independent writer the nickname of "Flopsy Bunny".  "Flopsy Bunny" might actually be providing more relevant and accurate info in his/her article than the big medical organization, but the safer bet for Google is always to put the big medical organization top of the search results.

    12. Mark Ewbie profile image82
      Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago

      The thing is, Mark Knowles is an internet expert.  He is on a different level to people like me.

      All I can do is take notice of what Google says, and try to produce content that people search for, and use when they get there.

      I have no other game plan or skill set.

      So for me, the list of what Google claims it is interested in - while it may not be the truth - is at least some sort of guide.

      1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
        EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Mark, thank you for at least replying and giving a credible answer.

        I am in the same position as you, really. It just annoys me when people seem to really buy into this "Google wants quality" stuff, and spend *hours* examining their own and other people's navel fluff. Hours that could have been spent doing something productive.

        Which reminds me, I need to put my tomatoes outside so they can harden off.

        1. Mark Ewbie profile image82
          Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Lol @ tomatoes - that makes a fair point.

          I am still learning, and I have a lot to learn.  For me, revising what I have done, who is visiting, how long they stay, what the competition is, keywords (why didn't I do any research FIRST - doh!) - and, and, and.

          I do take the Google pronouncements with a pinch of salt, as I do ANY pronouncements on the web on how to play the game.

          It just all slowly forms a big picture... which may still not work.

          Oh, and as a relative newbie, I don't really have much history or axes to grind. Plus I don't care too much who agrees with who - it's all part of that larger picture.

          1. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
            PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think your approach is a good one, Mark.  I find the forums debates on here interesting (well, maybe not always, but certainly sometimes).  The ego battles can get a little wearisome, however, and I am always impressed by your ability to stay aloof from them - I can feel myself getting sucked into them sometimes... must resist! wink

            1. Mark Ewbie profile image82
              Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks Paul.  Before I came here I was a forum junkie, always keen to have some fun and banter.  I'm here for a reason, and that is to learn to write and make some money - if possible.

              Selfishly, there is no benefit to me of getting involved, so I try not to.  As you say though, it is hard to just stay quiet sometimes.

          2. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image94
            TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I have been here for 4 months and have had dismal numbers.  I also have had great responses from readers, some so good that they have blown me away.  I don't understand much of the tech stuff, but I have tried to write original, well structured and informative articles.  I have revised plenty, and yet my numbers 3 days ago dropped basically to zero.  While I know not all of my articles are great, I've produced 92 of them...can they ALL be THAT bad? So bad that the money has totally stopped, the reading has totally stopped and I'm frozen in time?  This is getting tiresome and is very discouraging.

        2. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It seems to me that making quality content is exactly how we should be spending our time.

          1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
            EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No argument with that at all - I suppose I should have been a bit clearer.

            What gets to me is (a) the way that people trustingly believe that what Google's spokespropagandists *say* Google wants is exactly equivalent to what Google *does* want, and (b) the hours they spend talking about it.

            Google wants profits. That's their main aim. You might be able to help them make a profit by writing quality content, but quality content is not Google's prime raison d'etre, otherwise you wouldn't have complete crap getting to the top of the SERPs as it does at present.

    13. IzzyM profile image86
      IzzyMposted 4 years ago

      You know, I am tired of the same voices coming out with the same old rubbish here - that when we lose traffic it must be because either out writing is poor or because we use suspect SEO techniques.

      I am so glad I have different subdomains of my own, to make some comparisons.

      Up until now, we may have thought our poorer hubs were the 'fluff' ones that we may have written, the ones we sat down and wrote in under half an hour, and that our 'good' hubs are the ones we labored over, put the effort into, and ended up with a highly readable article that we can be more or less proud of.

      But, I am seeing a pattern emerge where fluff hubs are holding up, even on slapped subdomains, where the 'good' hubs are falling.

      I am seeing 500 word articles take off (on unslapped s.domains) while 2,000 word ones, complete with videos, photos, polls etc, flounder.

      Maybe too early to tell, but all of this is weird.

      I think Google's *new improved* algorithm is far worse than the previous version, the one they had before Panda.

      I don't think it has anything to do with 'quality'. They have been feeding us propaganda.

      We cannot dance to their tune, unless we want to be constantly editing hubs.

      I cannot see the 'pattern' in what they want, and I strongly suspect no-one else can, either.

      I think we should carry on as we are, and eventually everything will settle down as Google shuffle and re-shuffle its own results.

      And I think we, as in ALL OF US, should be less derogatory towards other hubbers, and show a little less of the "I'm all right, Jack" mentality.

      As Marisa says, when people like Marye Audet, herself and Sally's Trove get hit, we KNOW writing standards are not being judged.

      It's something else entirely, and probably to do with the commercial aspect of Google.

      1. janderson99 profile image85
        janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        My mini-subs always do worse that my mother-sub and so its very hard to tell  - follow ABBA's advice:
        On and On and On, Keep in Write'n Baby till the Night is Gone!
        All that re-writing stuff has no basis in fact, it just wastes time (no body knows) - just write more and more and more - some will succeed, some won't, but enjoy it!
        Cheers,

    14. 0
      Arlene V. Pomaposted 4 years ago

      Y-A-W-N.  Where have I heard all this advice before?  Oh!  It's been already written and published!  Excuse me while I return to my writing . . .

    15. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

      My personal fave:
      "Does the article describe both sides of a story?"

      And here I've been bemoaning the demise of objective journalism.
      Thank you, almighty Google, for bringing it back.
      (Ha ha ha ha ha)!

    16. 0
      Arlene V. Pomaposted 4 years ago

      "Would you trust the information presented in this article?"

      Gimme a break.

    17. Will Apse profile image91
      Will Apseposted 4 years ago

      Sigh...

      Maybe a few people looked at that list and realized how useful it is if you want to avoid Panda. But maybe the whole thing is just a lost cause. A lot of people just want to believe there is nothing more than randomness at work.

      Should I care? Frankly, I wish I didn't. But there you are.

      1. Marisa Wright profile image92
        Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really? I doubt anyone thinks the effects of Panda or Penguin are down to randomness.   

        Some people think the effects are down to a far-from-perfect algorithm.  Others subscribe to theories about Google favouring its corporate mates.  Neither theory has anything to do with randomness.

      2. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        *Even bigger sigh*

        Have you tested it? No - you have not. I have tested it and the list you gave does not work. I have spent the last year testing. You on the other hand - as you do with your "work" here - are simply regurgitating other people's words.

        Should I care that you are handing out advice that you have not tested and do not understand? Frankly - I wish I didn't, but - there you are.

        Simple fact is - you don't know how to avoid a Panda mauling - you just seem to want to have your ego stroked.

        Hubpages don't know how to avoid a Panda mauling. Just look at the quantcast figures.

        Your constant need to hand out regurgitated information is rather annoying, because if some one did follow your advice - how many hours would they have wasted to discover it does not work?

        Still - you don't care about that do you?

        If you had actually tested this list and had some results to share, I could respect you. But - by your own admission - you are only now starting to have your own pages edited. So - you have no results. You are guessing. That list you posted is over a year old. Have you spent the last year testing? No - you have spent the last year pontificating.

        There is nothing random about the recent changes. I have explained why but you choose to ignore it.

        *really big sigh*

        1. Will Apse profile image91
          Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps you should tell us how someone who has been hit by Panda should react.

          Should they just give up?

          Is there a way forward?

          If so what is it?

          Also, are there any factors that predispose a site or sub-domain to a Panda mauling?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this


            I already posted a list of suggestions that were ignored and buried under your deluge of regurgitated Google propaganda.


            No, but they may well have to write off a bunch of previously published work - as I have done.

            Yes. Find gaps the the wall that are not being crushed by the Google machine.

            Follow the advice I gave on the last thread you started, but editing and bringing "up to quality," stuff that has dropped for no apparent reason is not going to help.

            Certain niches are now what I consider to be impossible to rank in. As far as HP goes - I would monitor closely the competitions run and take a look at niches they are encouraging people to write about.

            Look at the pages you have that have not been adversely affected and do more like that. If all your pages have been adversely affected and you consider the quality to be good - try a different approach.


            I am not certain I have enough data to answer that accurately, but a broad range of niches does not seem to be a good thing unless you bury a money making page within a large amount of non-money makers. Neither does a large amount of product review pages with affiliate links in do very well.

            1. Will Apse profile image91
              Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If we are staying on topic and talking about Panda...

              I have been through this whole thread and the only specific points that I can pull out are that you think affiliate links and shallow micro-niche sites are problematic.

              Hard to disagree there.

              I don't recall starting a thread in months, apart from this one, so I can't refer back any further.

              What I was hoping was that you would have some more specific advice for people on Hubpages.

              Many people get hit here. Do you ever look at their accounts to see if you can see the problem?

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Last time I gave specific advice, the site immediately filled up with "5 best amazon wotsits" hubs from people such as your self.

                Not sure I can be more specific, but I will try. Sorry you did not understand the specific instructions I just gave you, so I will repeat some of them and add a few more without spelling it out for you.

                1. Don't write product reviews about products you have clearly never touched.
                2. Follow HP's advice as to what niches to write in - i.e. - competitions etc.
                3. Get into video. I see you already took my advice on that one, so you must remember the thread I told you to do that. It may not have been your own thread, you were just telling us wot google sed on it.
                4. Look at what is still working for you and repeat that format/niche/approach.
                5. Write off the hubs that have been hard hit that you cannot see a problem with, and do not try and fix them.
                6. Avoid certain over-saturated niches which require authority such as medicine, finance, loans etc.
                7. Spread yourself out and write in many different places.
                8. If you are setting up your own sites, keep the quality high, the niche tight and emulate the bigger sites or appear to be a seller not an affiliate.
                9. Look for niches that have no authority that you can still thrive in.

                I have looked at a lot of accounts. The problem is mostly external - as I already explained and - you then accused me of self pity, so I won't bother trying to explain it to you again.

                1. Kangaroo_Jase profile image81
                  Kangaroo_Jaseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It surprises me Mark that you have just outlined some excellent points worth their weight in gold.

                  I'm surprised as most people should be invoiced for this advice.

                  1. viryabo profile image86
                    viryaboposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    +1

                2. Marisa Wright profile image92
                  Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Mainly posting to bump this post to the end where people will see it - but also, could you expand on why you say (no. 5) there's no point "fixing" Hubs that have been hard hit? 

                  My (former) biggest earners are now at the bottom of the pile, so I'm guessing they would fall into that category - it seems like a big step to kiss them bye-bye after they've earned me hundreds of dollars over the past few years!

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What I actually said was "5. Write off the hubs that have been hard hit that you cannot see a problem with, and do not try and fix them. wink

                    So - if you cannot see a problem, chances are the issue is external. In that case - go find some high quality incoming links, get a few social bookmarks going, and see if that helps. If you don't know what the problem is - how can you fix it? That is why the list Mr Apse posted is a waste of time. It is too vague, and doesn't go to the core of the problem. The people who are most frustrated are people who produce high quality work and don't see why they have been penalized. In which case - it must be external.

                    You also have to remember that the Internet is not a vacuum. You may have written a piece that hits all the "quality" markers, but - there could be 30 other pieces out there that are "better," than yours. (According to the algo).

                    1. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
                      PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      The list seems like a useful reminder of what hubbers need to focus on.  I was maybe hoping for more new ideas that you or others have not covered previously, but that is quite possibly an unrealistic expectation on my behalf.  Maybe it's more of a question of diligently employing what we already know, rather looking for a magic wand.

                    2. Marisa Wright profile image92
                      Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      That makes absolute sense, thanks Mark.  As Paul says, we're all looking for magic solutions but what you've said is more realistic.

                      I think I'm seeing that in my own work.  The Hubs (and other stuff elsewhere) which have been hit are on popular subjects like fashion, beauty, fitness etc.  They were ranking highly and getting lots of natural backlinks and now they're in the toilet.  But let's face it, those fields are heavily targeted by online writers, and there's so much new stuff constantly being churned out, they probably had to fall off their perch sooner or later.

                      Whereas my stuff on dance - which ranks pretty well but makes very little money (because there's no point being #1 if only 3 people are searching for it) hasn't been affected, because it doesn't offer high value keywords or much in the way of affiliate companies, so there's not as much competition.

    18. Bill Yovino profile image92
      Bill Yovinoposted 4 years ago

      "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?"

      This, I believe, is the crux of the problem. "Mass-Produced", "Large number of Creators". I think this is an indictment of Hubpages as a whole, and not of individual hubbers.

      The majority of hubbers who are commenting on these forums, produce unique, high-quality, informative articles, and don't fall into the categories of abuse shown on that laundry list. However, a large number of poor quality hubs are published every day by people who are not as serious about offering up good content. I think that this is what's bringing down the overall site ratings.

      What's the solution? I don't know...Maybe there should be a probation period for new hubbers, where everything they produce is reviewed before being published. Not all hubbers or hubs should make the cut.

      Maybe Hubpages should have separate sites for informative articles and creative writing.


      Just my 2 cents.

    19. David 470 profile image86
      David 470posted 4 years ago

      I think I am going to try writing on my other account. It's been along time since I used my other account for writing hubs(in fact I barely use it).

      These Google Algorithms are extremely frustrating to me. Last year in the later months, I was quite happy how I was doing here. However, since that dreadful panda that occurred in feb. 2011, I knew another one would inevitably hit me once again.

      We can all blame the stupid spammers who end up affecting legit writers!! sad

      Too many people sign up to HubPages just to post 1,000,000 articles that are either copied content, spam, or are extremely "self-promoting." Or they are hubs that just focus on keywords and do not have any real information.

      It's good to have keywords when writing hubs, however, if the article is solely based on getting traffic from the search engines, then it's probably useless to the readers. You need a balance between keywords and information etc..

    20. mistyhorizon2003 profile image89
      mistyhorizon2003posted 4 years ago

      To anyone still quite new to this site who doesn't know who they should ever listen to for advice here, I highly recommend three hubbers whose information is in a league of its own. These people make their full time living online and are too modest to say it, but they are the 'creme de la creme' and would normally charge for their services elsewhere. Those three members are Mark Knowles, Sunforged (Josh) and Eric Graudins. If they hand out any gems of advice on forums here it is wise to listen and follow it smile

      1. Rochelle Frank profile image89
        Rochelle Frankposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree, and would add relache.

      2. Marisa Wright profile image92
        Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        +1

    21. Les Trois Chenes profile image90
      Les Trois Chenesposted 4 years ago

      Assuming my content is good, should I simply give up and republish my articles elsewhere? How long should we wait?

      1. David 470 profile image86
        David 470posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I would not republish every single article elsewhere.

    22. Will Apse profile image91
      Will Apseposted 4 years ago

      Mark has certainly caught the mood on Hubpages. Which is sad for Hubpages.

      He has moved from a person who was happy to game Google and pretty pleased with Google and himself. To someone who realizes it is now so risky to game Google you might as well not try.

      Unfortunately, that has added Google to the long list of things that Mark hates (Mark is moved to this emotion easily).

      The consequence is a not especially rational commentator given to conspiracy theories and lashing out at anybody who offers even mild disagreement.

      He was wrong last year, repeatedly, saying Google will never punish spammy backlinks etc or get on top of the gamers. And he will continue to be wrong because he cannot think outside his own narrow interests. Google isn't rewarding him anymore, so Google is broken.

      Anyway. I can honestly say I have only seen 2 accounts hit by Panda here that obviously had not violated the guidelines in that list. Those accounts bounced back, fortunately.

      Bear in mind, it is not the number of good pages you have it is the number of bad pages. Plenty of people hit by Panda have a lot of great pages but persist in keeping pages that press all the spam buttons. So they get hit.

      As a further note, Mark's style is so unpleasant I will not be getting involved in any further attempt to have a civil discourse.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This sort of emotional outburst is typical of the mood Mr Apse brings to hubpages. People with no real knowledge or understanding pushing advice they do not understand and have not tested.

        I don't hate Google so I wish he would stop lying about me. I know he doesn't understand what I said, and do not understand the reasons I said them, but - I suspect he will go away and follow my suggestions and has already started to incorporate them into his "advice."

        He was happy to game google with faux product reviews, now that has stopped working he fails to understand how to adapt. Rather than see the wisdom in my advice, he prefers to rant and rave about other people's quality and does not understand that these condescending, passive-aggressive attacks on others are the reason I adopt a certain tone with him.

        I will not bother responding any further to these types of threads unless I see Mr Apse giving out more poor advice which he has not tested.

        I never said Google will never punish spammy backlinks, but Mr Aspe prefers to lie in order to look like he knows what he is talking about when he doesn't.

        Sadly, these sort of backhanded personal attacks are typical. Peopel tend to be far, far braver when there is no likelihood of meeting the other person. See religion and politics forums. lol

        As usual - all these sort of diatribes from Mr Aspe do, is detract from the actual good advice given out, and suggest trolling rather than a genuine interest.

      2. Marisa Wright profile image92
        Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In that case, please do post a couple of examples of which of my Hubs violate the guidelines, I'm always interested to learn.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          He is making it up. Go take a look at the success stories page and click the "keep reading" buttons.

          Then you will see the traffic graphs of some writers I consider to not be breaking his mythical guidelines. Seriously - on top of those, I have access to about a dozen other accounts analytics, plus I can extrapolate all my referrals and the referrals of those dozen accounts. He is full of it.

          http://hubpages.com/success/

          I think he got religion. lol

        2. Will Apse profile image91
          Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Have you been hit by Panda? Or are you seeing a steady slide in views which is probably something else?

          1. Marisa Wright profile image92
            Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I was hit by Panda.  Overnight loss of 75% of traffic.

            1. Will Apse profile image91
              Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, I am sorry to hear that. You know all the usual advice. Try deleting all the poorly performing pages of any age. Make sure you have no amazon ads that are not absolutely relevant to the content. Check that all links are relevant to visitors(including within your own sub domain). I would especially check that one

              Most of the points in the list that I pointed out will be represented in your data:

              Is the page detailed, insightful offering something more than other pages? etc etc is something you don't need to make any judgement on yourself. The views you get and the time spent on the page are the judgements that have already been made. By readers and search engines alike.

              So you know where the weak pages are.

              Best of luck. Assuming it is Panda, a lot of people bounce back.

              1. Marisa Wright profile image92
                Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Actually, from what I read, an awful lot of people never bounce back from Panda.  In fact it's so hard to do, the standard advice (if you have your own blog) is just to transfer all your content to a new domain and start again.

                My experience has been weird, but almost exactly parallel with Paul Goodman.  I lost nearly all my traffic late last year in a Panda slap. I made a few changes - not what you suggest, though.  I changed the layout on all my Hubs to prevent an ad appearing in the top right-hand corner (because Google doesn't like too many ads 'above the fold' now) and unpublished a few Hubs.

                Then I celebrated, as the recent Panda update brought all my traffic roaring back overnight. 

                Then in early May, it disappeared overnight again.   That date in May has never been announced as any kind of update, and I can only assume Google made some kind of minor tweak which undid the benefit I got from the Panda update.

                My only consolation is that my blogs were not affected. Their traffic is down slightly, but that's because they're not getting referral traffic from HubPages now - plus links from places like HubPages, Wizzley etc have probably been devalued.  That's why I don't take your concerns about Amazon ads seriously - every single post on my belly dance site has two Amazon links and three eBay ads in it, and its traffic has actually gone up.

                1. Will Apse profile image91
                  Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I wouldn't give up too quickly. People like Hope Alexander and Max Dalton came back. And you do have a lot of pages that you could try getting rid of that you probably wouldn't miss.

                  1. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
                    PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Paul Edmonton is advising that experienced hubbers with older hubs that have been hit should hold on and wait, as HubPages may well have identified the problem now.  The problem is more likely to relate to a Google glitch, rather than anything to do with the quality of individual hubs or subdomains.  Waiting for HubPages and Google to resolve a technical issue would appear to be Melisa's (and my) best course of action IMHO - but I am sure that she is capable of making her own mind up.

                    1. Will Apse profile image91
                      Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      That might bring some traffic back (we are all praying) but it won't cure the underlying problems so many people have in their content.

                      A lot of the pages I see in Panda hit accounts are the next best thing to suicidal.

                      Then people fall into some kind of fatalistic trance and don't even think about dealing with the issues.

                      Izzy, for example, still has 2 pages trying to sell UGG boots! And things like 'buy a cuckoo clock online'. 'Buy a greenhouse online' etc etc

                      This is just crazy. Single product review pages were one of the most notable casualties of Panda. The 'buy online' tag is considered deceptive for affiliate pages. And of course, the products Izzy has tried to sell are in some of the most saturated and spammy areas that you could imagine.

                      It is especially sad to see Izzy do this to herself because she is a nice person and has produced a lot of interesting pages.

                      How many other people are determined to take the same route?

            2. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
              PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Oh crap.  Sorry to hear about that, Marisa!  This latest panda attack seems to be gradually working its way through hubbers like a flu virus!

      3. EmpressFelicity profile image84
        EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If I came along and said "Will Apse is an amateur psychologist and wind-up merchant, who likes pushing people's buttons just to get a reaction", you'd probably object, wouldn't you?

        Here's a suggestion: why not stick to the subject of the thread instead of making these ad hominem attacks.

        1. Will Apse profile image91
          Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The first post from Mark in this thread (about Panda) bemoans the fact that Google is limiting the search data that SEO companies need to game Google. Is that relevant?

          I try really hard to actually get him on-topic and address Panda and what triggers a hit. I get a list of tips for getting traffic. Plus the usual jibe about product comparison pages which Mark seems to think do badly now (they don't).

          I have to wonder if he even understands what Panda is.

          On top of sneers about regurgitated lists and being an idiot for putting more faith in Amit Singhal (head designer of Google's most important algorithms) and Mark Masters (self described heavy hitter who 'tests things')I have to look at all those idiotic smilies.

          lol.

          Enough is enough. I have better things to do.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Instead of lying about me to others - please quote me self describing myself as a heavy hitter.

            lol lol Is the only answer to your passive aggressive attacks.

            I have given some genuine advice here - which you choose to ignore in favor of appearing as though you know what you are talking about.

            Whether you and I like it or not - hubpages had the lowest number of visitors since last August on the 12th of this month.

            http://www.quantcast.com/hubpages.com

            And that has nothing to do with anything you have posted - or the regurgitated advice that you have not followed. wink

            lol

            1. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
              PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The site as a whole is being hit, for sure.  The statistical evidence is overwhelming.  Hubbers who write well, who succeed on other sites, and who couldn't be described as being  excessively commerical are being hit, as well as the crasser and more commerically-minded ones.  The stats aren't the "falling off the edge of a cliff" variety like with the Feb 2011 hit, they generally show a more of a subtle picture of the blood being drained from HP slowly over a period of months.   There is a limit to what individual hubbers can do in this scenario, methinks.

    23. Les Trois Chenes profile image90
      Les Trois Chenesposted 4 years ago

      OK, so what is wrong with this article? (I hope it's ok to post link, have read rules and doesn't say not to - for info and not spamming etc) http://les-trois-chenes.hubpages.com/hu … horpe-York

      Was on page 2 of a Google search "Bishopthorpe York", now only appears if you add "HubPages".

      Not a subject flooded out on internet, not a selling or affiliate lens. Only one little Amazon, only one link (re my painting courses) not about York or Bishopthorpe, think spelling etc ok, reasonable amount of text, own pictures. Too many links?

      1. Will Apse profile image91
        Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How many pages do you have that mention Les Trois Chenes, link to Les Trois Chenes pages (without any apparent relevance), or to your Les Trois Chenes website? Could Google consider these gateway pages? I don't know without looking at your entire account but the first batch of pages roused a few suspicions.

        1. Les Trois Chenes profile image90
          Les Trois Chenesposted 4 years ago in reply to this
          1. Will Apse profile image91
            Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think it might be a problem. You should try to keep your links relevant or Google's semantic analysis might decide that you are only writing the pages for the sake of the links and that you are a spammer.

            In fact with 170 pages, it seems inevitable.

            1. Les Trois Chenes profile image90
              Les Trois Chenesposted 4 years ago in reply to this
          2. lrohner profile image85
            lrohnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I looked at just a few of your hubs, and the content is great and the links I saw were perfectly relevant. You blended them in very, very well. Whether there are too many of them from one domain, well, that would be the question, and I don't know the answer. Perhaps you should reach out to someone who knows what he's talking about, like Mark Knowles.

            1. Les Trois Chenes profile image90
              Les Trois Chenesposted 4 years ago in reply to this
            2. Will Apse profile image91
              Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              He has a page on plumbing. Then an invitation to his Painting Class at Les Trois Chenes. He has a page on fruit. Then an invitation to his Painting Class at Les Trois Chenes. He has a page on the historic city of York. Then an invitation to his Painting Class at Les Trois Chenes. He has a page on stone. Then an invitation to his Painting Class at Les Trois Chenes.

              I could write this 170 times, apparently. And you don't think this might be a problem?

              I mean, yes, they are nice pages but that is not the thing the Googlebot will notice.

              1. lrohner profile image85
                lrohnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Did you read my response? The part where I started out with: "I looked at just a few of your hubs...." You may have the time to look at 170 of his hubs. I don't.

                There are two issues here. The first is whether that many links to his site will actually help, and the answer is probably no. Google tends to discard repetitious incoming links from the same domain after a certain number. That could be one or it could be 10 -- I don't know.

                The second question is whether these links are hurting his HP subdomain. I don't know whether it will from a Google standpoint and neither do you. But HP could call it overly promotional, I suppose, and unpublish the whole lot.

                1. Marisa Wright profile image92
                  Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No, they won't, because they changed the overly promotional rule to remove that bit.

                  The only limit now is two links per Hub.  You can have a link to the same domain on every single Hub if you want, now (provided it's relevant to the Hub of course).

    24. Kangaroo_Jase profile image81
      Kangaroo_Jaseposted 4 years ago

      I think the this thread has reached its conclusion now? No?

      1. viryabo profile image86
        viryaboposted 4 years ago

        This indeed is a very insightful thread from which i must say i am learning a lot, believe it or not.

      2. Dame Scribe profile image61
        Dame Scribeposted 4 years ago

        Wow, that's a fall indeed, Marisa sad sorry to hear that. I don't really have any offers of good advice though maybe try a new social site, one that's related but not competing? just a thought.

      3. Marye Audet profile image91
        Marye Audetposted 4 years ago

        Marisa, thank you for the compliment to my writing abilities. I think I have a long way to go. I have unpublished the hubs that didn't get traffic or I felt would do better on a blog.. I seem to have stabilized at around 2200 per day on weekdays and 1900 per day on the weekends. Quite a drop from 14000 per day last fall and 9000 per day this past winter. sad The hubs I have left up have low bounce rates and page view times of 5 minutes or more. Nothing seems to have made a difference so, while it is always a good idea to analyze your work and try to do better of course(!) I wouldn't kick yourself too much about it. Seems to be out of our hands. Good news is that eventually we will have created other sources of income, the hub traffic will come back and we will all have more money that before. Or I like to think so. smile Have a great day everyone.
        Also, you know, if you have a lot of hubs on one subject you might want to create short e-books for Lulu or kindle and sell them for 99cents to 2.99 each. Just a thought.

        1. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
          PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Good news is that eventually we will have created other sources of income, the hub traffic will come back and we will all have more money that before."

          I certainly hope so, Marye!  big_smile

      4. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
        PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago

        Something like this is far more likely to be the culprit for many of the traffic losses, rather than what Will is suggesting.

        http://pauledmondson.hubpages.com/hub/G … ch-Results

        (Janderson found it and posted it in another thread)

      5. Mark Ewbie profile image82
        Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago

        The site as a whole is NOT being hit. My traffic is improving.  Each time Panda or Penguin knocks another load backwards, my traffic gets better.

        So I think you can discount a site wide penalty.

        To be honest, I hope Google doesn't 'fix it'  because then I'm back to being outranked by spam copies of crap again.

        As for the Mark and Will show.  Underneath their opposing angles the same message.

        GAME OVER.

        The game, which it took me a while to realise, is that SEO rehashed Wiki and Amazon thing, repeated over and over and over again.  The same, or very similar content, on a million pages.

        So I think they are both right.

        And Panda and Penguin get my vote.

        Sorry about that.

        1. janderson99 profile image85
          janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Look out! The clock is ticking...............

          1. Mark Ewbie profile image82
            Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yep, I tempted fate.  So be it.  Worrying about the algorithm has occupied far too much of my time.  Worrying about my content offering would be a better idea.

            1. janderson99 profile image85
              janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Here Here! Keeping on Writing Baby, till the night is Gone!
              Its all a dance really.

              By the way have you seen this

              Put Your Rage Into a Cartoon and Exit Laughing (we could all do with some of this)

              http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/techn … wanted=all

              "The best way to understand rage comics is to read a couple of dozen of them. The best place to do that is a section of Reddit, known as “f7u12.” (just Google it).

              1. Mark Ewbie profile image82
                Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Lol.  I'm wincing slightly...

                1. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
                  PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Mark.  Both Marisa and I had a period of raised traffic levels, before we suffered a sudden and inexplicable crash.  Just sayin'.  wink

        2. WriteAngled profile image93
          WriteAngledposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The only thing is, Mark, you cannot predict how long the high ride will last...

      6. 0
        Arlene V. Pomaposted 4 years ago

        Yesterday, as soon as my HubPages account showed me the money, I have been growing red Christmas trees since.  My page views have more than doubled, but my page views are nothing to write home about--compared to the authors who have the years in.  But, I did make payout. 

        All this time, I was not slapped by the black and white bear or the bird.  I'll be a year on HubPages next month.  My only theory is that ignorance is bliss.  I don't feel the need to analyze Google or the decisions of HubPages administration because most of it I don't understand in the first place.  After my earlier pissing and moaning at the beginning of all this, I decided that I'm not wasting time on what I can't control. 

        Business as usual.  I took a break, but now I continue to plan and write my Hubs.

        Thank you, Mark Knowles, for sharing your excellent tips.  I found them very valuable, and have posted them as a daily reminder.  Oddly enough, I've been following them all along without knowing it, but I really need to concentrate on #7.  Many, many thanks!

      7. sunforged profile image63
        sunforgedposted 4 years ago

        SOmeone has to rank for "Buy a ______ online"

        https://www.google.com/search?q=buy+a+c … annel=fflb

        Looking at the results (my personalized) can show you how things are changing - there is a Hub in the top 20 for my results, sadly not Izzy's though.

        Ad       ad  ad ad
        AD       ad  ad ad
        AD
        YAHOO SHOPPING
        AMAZON
        Shopping Results
        pic pic pic pic pic
        ____FOLD________


        exact match domain
        exact match domain
        partial EMD
        EMD
        Crap Article Directory with Massive ABove The Fold Ads
        Fodors Forum
        EMD



        Kind of makes a good argument for the "crap listings equal more adwords purchase" argument


        200 words or so it looks like!

        1. Will Apse profile image91
          Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't see a single affiliate site there. Am I wrong?

          I see places where you can actually buy a clock. That is the point. If you say 'buy online' you need to be selling the item.

          Or at the very least you need to process the order on site.

          People don't like being shunted around.

          1. sunforged profile image63
            sunforgedposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            We must see differently.

            I see brands, saturation of paid ad and EMD's

            Two poor results "quality" wise but on aged, popular locations and this gem.

            It really is a gem: http://www.cuckoo-palace.com/coo-coo-cl … 10950.html

            (really! A must read ..)

            Total keyword madlibbing.

            1. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That's ridiculous. roll

            2. Will Apse profile image91
              Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am not saying that the issues you raise are not important but I don't think they are entirely relevant to Panda and Hubpages.

              The cuckoo palace site looks like a classic example of spun content that has somehow slipped through the full array of Google's spam filters but it is a high risk strategy these days.

      8. rebekahELLE profile image90
        rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

        This was one of the criterions addressed in the Google rater's document that was posted online last fall.

        1. Will Apse profile image91
          Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks, for that. I remember when Panda first hit there were a lot of reliable reports here on that issue. I also vaguely remember the official Google announcements but I forgot about that leaked raters report.

      9. waynet profile image47
        waynetposted 4 years ago

        Oh....I was trying to find out how to avoid a Panda mauling? no matter, they are nearly extinct anyways!

      10. jacharless profile image82
        jacharlessposted 4 years ago

        Panda (the collective numbers), Penguin, etc only effect you if your using Google.
        Nearly 150 base algorithm changes in 5.5 months. By the time "ordinary" folks figure out how-to follow their "guidelines" it will be too late. The Panda-monium is not over, not by a long shot. They have plans for even more changes in the next three months.

        So, how to avoid a Panda Mauling? Try this:

        Yahoo, Bing, Blekko, Ask, Amazon/Alexa, Lycos (still one of my favorites)... and many more. In truth, there are over 100 search engines out there to utilize for traffic. For those interested, check the search engine "powers" for google & bing, you would be surprised the options available.

        James

      11. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
        PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago

        Watched Paul E's vid on the impact of Panda.  An interesting overview.

        http://pauledmondson.hubpages.com/video … April-2012

        I hope he does more.  (It looks like opening a new account might be in order if the problems with older hubs being hit can't be resolved soon.)

        1. Will Apse profile image91
          Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The sites like Wisegeek and Suite 101 coming back from the dead might go some way to explaining the gradual decline in views I have seen recently.

          One of those graphs (looking at the fate of older content)looks remarkably like mine. The time scale means that it isn't mine but the profile is almost identical.

          Google's freshness updates look like the prime suspect and regular content updates look like the only possible cure.

          1. janderson99 profile image85
            janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm experimenting with external RSS for a fresh touch!

          2. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
            PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            After that video, Paul E wrote a hub in which he says that he now believes that the problem lies with a Google bug, at least with some older accounts.  If that's the case, then whatever you do, it won't achieve much.  It's not always easy accepting that you might be powerless, but I personally am not going to do anything much for the timebeing on here until they've had an opportunity to get an answer from Google regarding the reported bug.

      12. jacharless profile image82
        jacharlessposted 4 years ago

        I do not agree about the sub.domain theory.
        For one thing, nearly 75% of registered Hubbers have 2 - up to 10 - or more accounts. This means of 50,000 authors, only 15,000 are "organic". Of those accounts, a small few then are responsible for trafficking.

        Second, what is the difference between cdn.hubpages.com and mcsilflicks.hubpages.com? Both are still effected by the parent directory itself.

        Blogger™ and Wordpress™ do the same thing, essentially using pseudo-classes based on data driven content, hackneyed keywords and synthetic descriptions -like a Yoast™ plugin, versus unique pages.

        So, either way, the overall crawl and indexing done as hubpages.com is the root. The collective data being retrieved, coupled with "search engines" objective is reason for such fluctuation.

        James

        1. Marisa Wright profile image92
          Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I've never seen that figure - can you clarify where it comes from?



          So you think that a Blogger blog isn't completely standalone, and Google judges each individual blog by the quality of the entire site?  First time I've heard that theory. 

          My understanding is that if you author both the domain and the sub-domains, they are treated as one big sites and links between them are internal.   If the domain and the sub-domains are authored by different people, they are treated as separate sites and links between them are external.  Would love to have that clarified.

          1. jacharless profile image82
            jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            From the many, many people I know here and their many, many sock-puppets. If fact, two individuals I have been acquainted with, for almost two years on HP {from my old deleted account and this one} have nearly 30 accounts between them.
            And further, for the CEO to suggest a Hubber open an additional account, leans my logic further toward that assessment.


            Blogger™, WordPress™ and HP operate on pseudo-class calls from data driven systems -either by php or ajax. There are no real "pages". Instead includes are used at runtime to pull the data; while permalinks (slugs) and the like are used via sitemap, rss, etc to index. Take special note of the Title Tuner and other tools here and how they resemble Yoast™ plugin, etc. Not necessarily Black Hat, but definitely not White Hat.

            And again the LARGEST issue is the exclusivity of just one Major Search Engine, when there are considerably equal -if not better- engines out there. but that means the "relationship" between Big G and HP would be strained greatly. and HP being the original test modal for AdSense would make things even more strenuous.

            As for judging individual sites: No sub.domain on HP, Blogger or WP has a Unique IP {is independent} so long as it is the same server. That would cost them 6 figures -or more- if even permitted. Any dedicated Server is allowed 3 IP per container. Anymore than that, and you have to give very good reason to DNS recording as to why. What you have is a shared IP being used which can be split up @ will by adding folders/sub directories. Like Parked Domains, which point to a specific namespace, yet is still under the same protocol. This makes it "appear" to be unique, but is not, which is why most of these sub.domains are/were effected by the many Panda, Penguin -and will continue to be effected. No one can convince me HP privatized 100,000 user names as sub.domain names or that Big G is indexing each user based on their .hubpages address, unless that user is submitting rss or verification themselves. The domain is indexed together.

            For WP, the difference is the CMS wrapping/configuration, which often causes issues with indexing, even on a private domain.

            James

            1. Marisa Wright profile image92
              Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you James.  Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge to understand much of what you said.

              I think what you're saying is that sub-domains on Blogger, HP etc are all on the same server (no surprise there), but I'm not seeing the point of that.

              Google can tell the difference between domains/sub-domains authored by the same person, and domains/sub-domains authored by different people, because they distinguish between them in the way links are handled in Webmaster Tools. 

              So why wouldn't their search engine algorithm make the same differentiation, regardless of the physical connection?  After all, it's not in Google interests to say, "We're not going to judge each Blogger blog on its own merits, we're going to allow all the spam bloggers to ruin it for the good bloggers".

            2. Bill Yovino profile image92
              Bill Yovinoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              @James - You've made excellent points and clearly have expert-level knowledge of the nuances of search engines, CMS, and TCP-IP. We also need to consider that this sudden tempest may be the result of a Google bug. Other CMS sites are constrained by the same issues as Hubpages, yet in many cases those other sites are showing up ahead of Hubs that are more relevant to the searched topic. I know that Hubpages is looking into this, so I am content to wait it out. I don't suggest making any drastic changes to hubs in the meantime.

              1. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
                PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                +1  I agree, sometimes it's best to do nothing major and let others work on a solution.  Individual tinkering can sometimes do more harm than good  in this sort of situation methinks.  I am glad that we've got so many great "techies" on here!  smile

                1. janderson99 profile image85
                  janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  My My,  how the advice in this forum has gone full circle.

                  1. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
                    PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Full circle?  I think the opposite is true.  Everyone's just stuck to their original positions!  :-)

                    The only things that have changed is that Marisa's traffic crashed and Mark K got bored of arguing with Will.

      13. jacharless profile image82
        jacharlessposted 4 years ago

        @Bill @Paul,

        Oh gosh, hope I did not come off as an Elitist or anything. Sometimes by technical tongue overlaps my normal self. lol.

        But given the nature of my business -Web Development- understanding system infrastructure/architecture, engineering, brick-on-brick, is essential to making sites stable, appealing, realistic and beneficial to the many.

        SEO/M are -for the moment- critical elements that keep these cyber spaces "leased" or "time shared". It has long been projected that SEO/M will fade out -as the masses shift from "Ad" Words {keynote} to "Fore" Words. Interim, everyone waits for the market to bounce back. But if it doesn't, it is not a bad idea to have an exit strategy {alternative measures in place}.

        James.

        1. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
          PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          One thing I like about HubPages is that they handle most of the technical stuff and I can just focus pretty much on writing here (even playing around with basic html can frustrate the hell out of me!).  Having said that, HP do seem to be cursed by much more by erratic traffic patterns than most places when Google makes a change to the algo (which is frequently nowadays).

        2. Bill Yovino profile image92
          Bill Yovinoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          @James - I was sincere in my comment that you show expert level knowledge in this area, which is kind of a black-box to most. I am quite impressed by how many hubbers have a firm grasp on the intricacies SEO, and appreciate the sharing of that information.

          1. Bill Yovino profile image92
            Bill Yovinoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I am happy to report that my hubs are back to normal! Google searches now show my hubs in results again. The test I did that illustrated the problem and later proved the fix is this:

            View one of your popular hubs. Click on the "Stats" page, then the "Keywords" page. This will show a list of recent searches that led people to your hub. Click on one of the search strings, preferably one with the most hits. This will execute a search. Your hub should be found in the results and hopefully it will be high up on the page. Before the fix, this test failed to find my hubs, now they succeed.

            I don't know the scope of the problem or the scope of the fix, but I do know that it's working for me.

            1. janderson99 profile image85
              janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              @Bill It could be related to the fix applied
              see
              http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/97840

              nice little bounce in my traffic

              1. PaulGoodman67 profile image91
                PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No bounces for me, as yet.  I hope HP and Google can resolve all their technical and political differences.

      14. Dame Scribe profile image61
        Dame Scribeposted 4 years ago

        Well, there will be other algo's coming and  I sit in dread unless traffic shows otherwise before happy sets in tongue but awesome discussion Hubbers smile I'm learning things too.

       
      working