jump to last post 1-50 of 68 discussions (198 posts)

New Hub layout live in Fashion, Food & Tech

  1. Jason Menayan profile image61
    Jason Menayanposted 4 years ago

    Hi all,

    We've just rolled out a new Hub design in 3 categories - Fashion & Beauty, Food, and Technology - that builds upon the previous design that Simone announced a few weeks ago. Here are the changes:

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6729997.jpg

    1. The breadcrumb now displays the total number of published Hubs in each of the categories, to demonstrate the wealth of coverage in each of those areas.
    2. The author attribution has been moved to the right, has added a profile picture, and number of followers.
    3. Below that, we inform readers how many times a Hub has been viewed since the date it was published, which is also displayed.
    4. In the floating share box to the right, we mention that over 50 million visits that the site as a whole enjoys monthly. The popularity of HubPages is one that tends to impress readers and conveys authority.
    5. Near the bottom before the comments, we repeat the number of views since publication, and the date the Hub has been updated.
    6. We've reintroduced the "previous" and "next" Hubs in a Group, along with a thumbnail of the first picture, to encourage readers to read more in a series.
    7. Related Hubs have a similar graphical treatment, with photo thumbnails.
    8. Comments reintroduce commenter levels and a photo of the commenter if s/he's a Hubber.
    9. We've introduced a second ad in the footer, raising the number of ads from 4 to 5 in this design.

    This current design will run for a week or two in these categories, as we find and fix any bugs, and gather data on their performance relative to other layouts.

    Check it out! smile

    1. Patty Inglish, MS profile image88
      Patty Inglish, MSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Looks good to me at first look. Thanks!

    2. moonlake profile image88
      moonlakeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Very nice looking I like it.

    3. paradigmsearch profile image91
      paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It do look nice. smile

      Not sure what I think about the inclusion of the dates and traffic stats. I checked 2 competitor sites at random. One had the update date on their articles; one did not. BTW, I have a hub with 610,843 views. Can anyone top that? big_smile

      Well, since I just talked about one of my hub stats, I guess I don't mind the traffic numbers either.

      I kinda want my subliminal door avatar full-size and clickable. But I'm not losing any sleep over it.

      Looks good. Looks good. smile

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

        Strangely enough, Google started blocking my search queries for pages with 500,000 views or over.

        It is perfectly happy to give me anything over 50,000 views by year published or just all time.

        I ran through a hundred results or so and saw plenty of pages with 100,000 views and some with 200,000 or 300,000 but nothing above 500,000. Your 600,000 is pretty impressive.

        I won't be the only person doing this, of course.

        It used to be a minor industry to bring up successful ezinearticle pages (they gave page views). Someone could then rewrite the page (ten minutes work) and publish somewhere else. Or they could take the keywords and write a decent page of their own.

        Spammers could simply copy and paste without the links.

        Ezinearticles is no good for this purpose since Panda but Hubpages seems to want to bare its throat and offer up our blood in similar fashion.

        Don't imagine that your 600,000 view page will be exempt.

        1. paradigmsearch profile image91
          paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It's popularity has come and gone and is now but a distant memory. big_smile

          1. lobobrandon profile image80
            lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Haha smile Was it a time based topic?

            1. paradigmsearch profile image91
              paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'll never tell. You'll have to wait for the site-wide update. big_smile

              1. lobobrandon profile image80
                lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Haha tongue Stupid forums I'm not going to copy it tongue Anyway its cool that you got that many views on a single hub.

                1. paradigmsearch profile image91
                  paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If only I could figure out how to duplicate that success... God knows I've tried...

                  1. lobobrandon profile image80
                    lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Haha it would be amazing if u could.

        2. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't understand why you guys who hate hubpages so much stay here whining and complaining.

          My 500+k hubs have already been copied to death. Have you found the hubs you plan on copying yet? Will they be more "five best amazon wotsits I have never touched," hubs, because I just checked your stats and I am not impressed? wink

          You hubpages haters need your own forum or something.

          Oh - and Google is out to get you, because I only get my search query stats for hubs with over 800k page views blocked. Or is it from logged in google users regardless of the page views. Hard to tell.......................... lol

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

            This is a serious issue and not a place for a silly vendetta.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It is no more serious than the issues that other people have had. I do find it funny that when you were fine with those issues you called people who were not "hub-haters," and I do believe your advice to them was that if they don't like it - instead of complaining - they should leave the site.

              lol lol Now you are a hub hater yourself and instead of leaving the site - you are here whining.. lol lol

              There is a word for this....................

    4. robie2 profile image92
      robie2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I like this-- just went through and tweaked a couple of my old food hubs to make them more friendly to the new layout and cleaned them up a bit as well-- now they really pop and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for more traffic.

      I like the author and profile pic over to the right, very nice..... and I'm also pleased with the re-introduction of the " previous" and " next" hubs which gives us a chance to keep readers on our stuff rather than sending them off to other hubbers.

      Of course I like having the extra ad and I like the info about when the hub was originally published and when updated and how many times it has been read. I know some people want to keep that info private, but I think it is really helpful to the reader to know when the hub was written and how recently it has been updated.  I think this is a great feature.

      So far, so good.  Onwards and upwards for one and all :-)


      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6739743_f248.jpg

      1. WriteAngled profile image92
        WriteAngledposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I have a hub that was updated today.

        Well, I haven't actually changed anything in it since I wrote it in 2009. However, I've just spent 10 seconds opening it, hitting "edit", hitting "edit" on a capsule, making and deleting one space, closing the capsule, hitting "done editing".

        Surely the reader has enough brain to see that for evergreen topics it really does not matter when a document is produced?

        I actually find that in very many cases documents written decades ago tend to contain far more relevant and valuable information. People were not concerned with appeasing Google and a semi-literate audience with the attention span of a gnat in those days and this shows in the higher quality of their writings compared to the average pap that is being churned out today.

        1. lobobrandon profile image80
          lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Totally agree

        2. robie2 profile image92
          robie2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, I'm not talking about SEO parlor tricks like the one you perfomed in under a minute on your hub.   I spent about an hour updating a hub that I originally wrote in 2009 as well, and just because time has passed and things change,  the tweek was necessary--the new layout being rolled out was a good opportunity to go over the hub and make sure the information was right and the capsules appropriate to the new layout..... kind of like pruning a rosebush.

          Actually, for evergreen topics I think it often does make a difference when a document was produced. Even evergreen topics change and evolve over time. I think that when a hub was updated is useful information for readers.  I like to know it-- As for the number of views a hub has had, perhaps that should not be public. People, like sheep, tend to go with the one that has had more views and this, as you rightly point out, is not always wise.

          Actually, I was writing web content fifteen years ago and while things were in some ways different, there was plenty of crappy spam and horrible design on websites back then too.  The stuff that has survived online from that time is the best of the best I imagine-- especially if it shows up on page one of a google search:-)

          I will say this, back in the day it was easier to stand out with good,well researched content and intelligent opinion as the sheer volume of material was lower-- but every era has its own challenges

          sooooo like I said in my post-- onwards and upwards.

          1. WriteAngled profile image92
            WriteAngledposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The reader you mentioned in your original post will not know the difference! The magic display will state "updated on 11 June 2012" regardless of whether 10 seconds or 10 hours have been spent on the hub in question. The point I am making is that this data is meaningless, because anyone can "update" several hubs a day as and when they wish.   

            Internet readers possessing at least a single brain cell will know how to check for true currency when this is important to the subject matter. They will not need to see a date, which can be manipulated so easily.

            The hub that I "updated" is one I do not consider to require updating. It deals with traditions and folklore, thus it refers back to past centuries. The information it contains is not going to change. I performed the "update" to satisfy my curiosity as to whether such a simple manoeuvre would force a data change.

            A site I consider to be the very best source of information on one of my topics of interest was created in 2001 and had its last real update in December 2008. Lack of updates have done nothing to decrease the value of this superb resource.

            As for SEO parlour tricks, I do not happen to have a repertoire of them because I do not have sufficient time to study search engine vagaries. I note, however, that it is precisely the people, who do study these matters and are able to adapt fast to change, who are the ones with most success in garnering and retaining views in a consistent manner.

    5. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Jason,

      I just deleted about two dozen of my hubs as you are going to be publishing the number of times the hub has been read. I really don't want anyone to read a hub that isn't performing well so I just went ahead and either deleted them or put a hold on them (by doing a delete, then undelete) until I can move them elsewhere.

      I have a question.

      I've used the time the hub has been on, the number of hits during that time, and whether the hits were the result of google traffic or hub traffic.

      There are some instances where this isn't a good measure... poetry, for instance.

      I would assume that most traffic to poetry is from hub traffic, and as I don't count hub traffic, it's a pretty dead loss.

      Would Hub Pages consider having a poetry section separately so that it doesn't affect our average scores?

      1. lrohner profile image84
        lrohnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I find that very sad. You've got very good writing skills, and to delete some of your work just because it hasn't found its way up the search engines or because a number was going to be published on the page is a loss.

        1. Daughter Of Maat profile image98
          Daughter Of Maatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It is sad, but I also understand it. If your work isn't appreciated, why publish it? It's hard to justify leaving a non-performing hub published when no one is looking at it anyway. I have the same problem. I just unpublished one of my hubs and put it elsewhere.

        2. 0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ironher. We live in a very sad world. I've come to realize that it really doesn't matter if I have good writing skills or not. Wanting to do the best one can, and wanting to provide other people with quality information, doesn't pay financially. And in the end, I have to start thinking like someone who needs to earn money... smile

    6. shampa sadhya profile image88
      shampa sadhyaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Suppose I want to take a print out of my published article then what should I do as the print button is missing. Kindly reply.

      1. MickiS profile image94
        MickiSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Your browser can print for you. Go to the File Menu and select print.

  2. Cardisa profile image92
    Cardisaposted 4 years ago

    I have one problem with the new layout and that is the display of the amount of readers I get for my hubs. I think it's more of a privacy issue. There are some things in my account that I think should be private.

    1. mary615 profile image94
      mary615posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I like the looks of the new layout on my recipe.  I have to agree with Cardisa, I'd rather not share the info of # of readers.  No big deal, though.  I do like seeing the profile photo.

    2. Jason Menayan profile image61
      Jason Menayanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The thinking is that popularity of a Hub helps convey authority. YouTube videos show the number of times a video has been viewed.

      1. WriteAngled profile image92
        WriteAngledposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So by that same logic, a newspaper in the gutter press category, such as The Sun here in the UK, has more authority than The Times, since it is certainly read by more people   lol

        1. Danette Watt profile image88
          Danette Wattposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          big_smile

      2. 0
        DigbyAdamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thieving pirates aside. I'm not sure who the HubPages staff is trying to impress with posting traffic figures. If hubs mature after 1 or 2 years, telling the world that things are slow for new hubs, might not be much help in giving them authority status.

      3. relache profile image88
        relacheposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Highly-viewed YouTube videos are copied/plagiarized with great regularity.  Aren't HubScores supposed to convey authority?

      4. Anurag2008 profile image88
        Anurag2008posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Rebbeca Black's "Friday" YouTube video has been viewed more than George Micheal's Faith. tongue

  3. IzzyM profile image87
    IzzyMposted 4 years ago

    I think sharing the number of viewers IS a big deal.

    Now the spammers know what hubs to steal, and the copiers know what hubs to rip-off.

    1. mary615 profile image94
      mary615posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Good point, IzzyM.

    2. Glenn Stok profile image96
      Glenn Stokposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with Izzy.  This is just giving spammers info that should remain private.

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

        Glen, you are good at this site architecture stuff. If I shift all my tech into home appliances or something similar will it really screw up their places in Google search?

        I can't have my pages out there like this.

        HP might come to their senses in a few days but by then a lot of damage will have been done.

        1. lrohner profile image84
          lrohnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Too late. Oh well....

          Oh, and I see that USB DAC headphone amps (whatever they are) are somewhat interesting. Good to know.

          Will, I hate to say this (and I'm sure there is a flurry of pigs flying out there somewhere), but I couldn't agree with you more.

          1. IzzyM profile image87
            IzzyMposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That won't work, Will.

            I have checked a few hubs out, and this new format is showing the page views under  "What other people are reading" even on hubs not yet subject to the new layout.

    3. rebekahELLE profile image91
      rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

      It looks great! Love the change you've made with the 'related' hubs, much more sleek and attractive than the previous pin look. I also like the author link and Like this hub feature.
      I look forward to seeing the changes site wide. It's a much cleaner, user friendly layout.  I like the less cluttered look. The ads on the bottom look good.

      EDIT: I found an error on my French Girl Look hub. Where it features the next hub underneath the ads, it shows a link to the same hub instead of the other hub in this category, The Parisian Women are (almost) Effortlessly Chic. It shows the right link on the Parisian Women hub.

      1. Jason Menayan profile image61
        Jason Menayanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you - that is indeed a bug. Will report this to engineering!

        1. Jason Menayan profile image61
          Jason Menayanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This has been fixed. smile

          1. rebekahELLE profile image91
            rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for the prompt fix! Appreciated. smile

    4. 0
      DigbyAdamsposted 4 years ago

      I love the look of the hub. But I think displaying the number of times a hub has been viewed, makes our best hubs ripe for being copied. As with Cardisa I also think that this is a privacy issue. I would ask you to seriously reconsider this bit of information - or at least tell us why it's important to have it there.

      (Sorry, I see lots of others in addition to Cardisa have commented while I was thinking didn't mean to dis any of you.)

    5. WriteAngled profile image92
      WriteAngledposted 4 years ago

      There is a site called The World's Worst Website Ever - Site Mistakes
      It states its mission as follows: "TWWWE is a project to highlight errors in web design by breaking every single design rule imaginable"

      Of the 60 mistakes listed, number 38 is:
      "There is a page counter at the bottom. 99% of the time it is a bad idea to have a public counter on your page"

      See the list here: http://www.theworldsworstwebsiteever.com/new_page_1.htm

      and the site in all its "glory" here: http://www.theworldsworstwebsiteever.com/index.htm

      1. Anurag2008 profile image88
        Anurag2008posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Totally agree with you. The site I used to write for got rid of displaying the number of visitors I get for my articles. And this was way back in 2010.

    6. relache profile image88
      relacheposted 4 years ago

      I think the idea to reveal page views is one of the worst decisions ever made by the administration of this site.  I have enough trouble defending my quality content as it is, but having the site go "hey, thieves, here's the stuff you really want to steal!" is going to make an irritating situation into a full-on disaster.

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

        "disaster!" big_smile love that word.

    7. Len Cannon profile image88
      Len Cannonposted 4 years ago

      Showing page views is odd, I wonder what SEO benefit it actually has.  Let's give it a try, I guess.

    8. jacharless profile image82
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago

      Ps, Jason & Hub Developers: Nice!
      The page looks very clean.
      The bottom is just brilliant!
      Really like the Prev : Next and Other Reads Set Up, very inviting!!

      The counter is actually very small/noninvasive {had to look twice for it}, and it looks like there is a Hub Counter for the main category and sub-cats {in the breadcrumbs area}? nice too.


      EDIT: error? I notice when you go to Prev : Next, it shows the Hub you are presently on, versus moving to the next hub -small glitch.

      James.

      1. 0
        DigbyAdamsposted 4 years ago

        It would not surprise me to see high traffic hubs be the "inspiration" for other peoples' Squidoo lenses and Wizzley Wizzles. That's an easy slam dunk and that certainly won't be good for our traffic stats.

        My new strategy would have to be to write on all three platforms and write  similar but different pieces for each platform. I really don't want to do that, but I'd rather compete with myself in the SERPs than other people.

      2. mistyhorizon2003 profile image90
        mistyhorizon2003posted 4 years ago

        I totally agree with others here who have said posting the amount of times a hub has been viewed is a bad move and an obvious advert to plagiarizers looking for successful content to copy. Apart from this it also gives other writers ideas for good topics to write on, and therefore potentially dilutes the future success of our own most viewed hubs.

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

          Looks attractive but those page views will scare good writers away from the site.

          1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image90
            mistyhorizon2003posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Existing 'good writers' would leave, and potential new arrivals who would also have been 'good writers' will equally be put off by having this information made public and will go elsewhere to write instead.

            Everyone who had a Hubscore in the 90's plus would become prime targets. All the copiers or wannabe successful writers would have to do is check out those people's hubs one by one and target the articles with the highest views, either to copy the article, or to write one of their own on the same subject and in a similar way.

            1. SandyMcCollum profile image86
              SandyMcCollumposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I absolutely agree! This is giving away TMI, who cares how many times an informative article has been read before I read it - that thought has never crossed my mind, actually. But it is a thermometer for popular works that spinners or copiers can use to find out which work to steal. This is a bad, bad idea. I like it that only I can see how many times something's been read.

              Just sayin.

      3. sunforged profile image65
        sunforgedposted 4 years ago

        I think it looks pretty good. The scrolling action is really clean. Floating the shares on the right is a nice effect.

        The two ad spots on the bottom look clean and are kind of tricky. Might actually convert.

        Its a nice layout.

        Two suggestions.

        The first one is nitpicking ...

        Give just a bit more space up to the "author box" area - make the postage stamp an half dollar.

        the second one ...

        The Page Views thing is foolish - Hubpages is already a free vending machine for the spammers and scrapers - there was already to many things giving away what topics were successful. There is no gain from that display- only loss.

      4. Michael Willis profile image77
        Michael Willisposted 4 years ago

        Looks great, except...the page views listed. Needs to be gone! This should be private or at least only available to us when we are signed in.

        Dislike the date published at the top!!! I think the date first published should be private as well. I can see a benefit for update on hubs, but nothing more than that.
        Some hubs are updated for seasonal purposes and a showing of published, say...2009, might make a reader leave thinking they foiund an old-outdated article before even reading the hub.

        1. relache profile image88
          relacheposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This info is REALLY important when it comes to defending copyrights and as with page views, should NOT be public info.

          1. Michael Willis profile image77
            Michael Willisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I completely agree with your point Relache. We should have some sort of privacy with our work here.

      5. ktrapp profile image92
        ktrappposted 4 years ago

        I really appreciate how you guys continue to improve the layout for the test categories. If you asked me (which you really didn't smile) I would give this round of features a 7/8; -1 for displaying "number of times a hub has been read."

        These are the things I like:
        - Author avatar
        - Commenter avatars
        - First hub image for "previous" and "next" hubs
        - First hub image for "related" hubs
        - The blurb about 50 million HubPages discoveries a day

        In my opinion, the commenter avatars, and using images for other hubs helps break up the text links and plain comments that previously created a sea of text. All these images seem to breathe life into the hub, giving it a more polished, professional and finished look. Additionally, I think the author's avatar, number of followers and the 50 million discoveries line, give each hub and HubPages plenty of credibility. Bravo!

        The things I don't like are:
        - The breadcrumb font size
        - Displaying the number of times a hub has been read
        - Placement of number of times hub read beneath the hub's title


        The larger font for breadcrumbs, combined with the addition of number of hubs in each topic causes many breadcrumbs to take up two lines. Oftentimes, titles take two lines. With the further addition of the new line about the number of times a hub is read, all beneath a banner ad for signed-out readers, I feel that the hub's content starts way too far down the page.

      6. rebekahELLE profile image91
        rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

        It's a bit small. Maybe make it the same size as the images for the 'next' and 'previous' hubs.


        I like everything, but agree that the date published and page views aren't necessary. When I first looked at it, I wondered about it, but saw the reasoning since hub scores are no longer shown.
        But won't having the published date posted possibly hurt with ranking if it's an older hub?

        Highly viewed hubs are already an issue with being copied, etc. It doesn't take much for someone to figure out high traffic hubs, especially since we know it happens even with hubbers copying hubs/hub topics. No reason to make it easier.

        But otherwise, thumbs up. smile It gives the site a needed polish. I love the update to the comments section. It gives a nice social feel.

      7. PenHitsTheFan profile image83
        PenHitsTheFanposted 4 years ago

        The pages are clean which, I like, but I wish we had more options in colors or could arrange features where we want them. Basically, I wish we could customize them more.

        1. janderson99 profile image84
          janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The avatar images are far too large and prominent.

      8. Danette Watt profile image88
        Danette Wattposted 4 years ago

        I too like the cleaner look. I agree with several of the others here - I don't like the number of views and date published to show.

      9. skear profile image93
        skearposted 4 years ago

        I like the newest revision of the layout, it's starting to come together.

        I agree with the others complaining about displaying the number of views on a hub publicly.  I think this is a bad idea and no good will come of it.

      10. Daughter Of Maat profile image98
        Daughter Of Maatposted 4 years ago

        Displaying the number of times a hub has been read is the most stupid idea I've ever heard of. That's information that should only be available to the author. It's a bad idea if you're trying to prevent scraping, but it's also a bad idea because if a hub's just been published and only has 5 views, how much of an authority is it going to be?

        The date the hub was published should not be shown either, that is a copyright issue, like Relache said.

      11. Will Apse profile image91
        Will Apseposted 4 years ago

        Launching it on a Friday too...

        Someone needs to skip the barbecue tomorrow and turn the new format off. Fix the page later.

        1. lrohner profile image84
          lrohnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But it's so easy and FUN now!

          Next time you join a community site, split your stuff up between several different accounts. Consider that my olive branch...

          1. Daughter Of Maat profile image98
            Daughter Of Maatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That's actually a brilliant idea.

      12. Will Apse profile image91
        Will Apseposted 4 years ago

        The data this change throws up is a little depressing. For Hubpages published in 2012 (now in the new format):

        Only 33 have been viewed more than a thousand times.

        Only 4 have been viewed more than 5000 times.

        The top performer has been viewed over 22000 times since March 2012. Which is pretty good. (Must get over to Squidoo with that one).

        From 2011, the best performer has had more than 85000 views since July. Probably too late to exploit this one.

        Only 22 pages published in 2011 have had more than 10,000 views.

        Only 68 have have had more than 5000.

        Anyone get different results? Is it really this dismal?

      13. Mark Ewbie profile image83
        Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago

        I like the clean layout, been used to it on the tech pages for a while.

        Don't like view numbers.
        Don't like links to other peoples stuff.
        Don't like the number of hubs in this category.

        My visitor, my page, my views.  No benefit to me in sending them off on a trip round HubPages.

        The tech stuff has five simple links to 'related' pages of which the top three are mine.  I like that.  Apart from the two on the end but if that is needed for some kind of extra linking SEO thing then OK, although they could be grayed out and the word crap put next to them.

        1. lobobrandon profile image80
          lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I hope none of my hubs are the other two that come below yours tongue Mr Stick calling my hubs crap!

          1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
            Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It's an affectionate term I use to describe the linked articles that accompany my pages.  Initially I use to reverse market my own stuff by calling it crap but that wasn't very successful.

            1. lobobrandon profile image80
              lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Haha I have to agree with you at least in most cases smile I was just kidding anyway. Never had a chance to say anything on the forums in days smile Nothing interesting

              1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
                Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, it can drag a bit sometimes.

        2. MickiS profile image94
          MickiSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The links to the Related Hubs have always been on the page. That's not new.

      14. wordscribe43 profile image93
        wordscribe43posted 4 years ago

        OMG!  Please don't share our number of page views...  I can't even begin to imagine the negative repercussions such a public statistic will have. There's no doubt in my mind it will be used for evil purposes.  Don't you think we are already targeted by plagiarists enough? 

        To be honest, I feel sick about it.  I think it's a very dangerous move on HP's part.  Will is right, it will scare off both new and well-established writers.  I really hope you will reconsider... and fast.  I feel like my hubs are hanging out, in the buff without my permission.  And it doesn't feel good.

      15. EmpressFelicity profile image85
        EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago

        Like other people here, I think the new layout "improvement" is a big improvement on the first "improvement".

        And like other people here, I can only join in the chorus of "Showing our page views to the world's plagiarists and their dogs? What were you thinking?!?!"

      16. Haunty profile image84
        Hauntyposted 4 years ago

        I really like the new design overall, but...

        publication dates should not be displayed, only update dates
        the vote up/down buttons look like scroll up/down arrows (especially with the box next to them)

      17. frogdropping profile image85
        frogdroppingposted 4 years ago

        Why does anyone think that HP are going to listen to good advice/concerns?

        Stop kvetching, move your hubs.

        1. WriteAngled profile image92
          WriteAngledposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am happy to say that, some time ago, I unpublished the hub which used to bring in 75% of my total hub views. The article is now safely on another web site, where no one can tamper with it.

          Instinct or prescience, who knows? However, I had a very, very strong gut feeling that it was no longer safe to keep material on Hubpages once it reaches any level of success. Recent events here increasingly confirm my feelings.

          1. frogdropping profile image85
            frogdroppingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Good for you WA, nice move. IMO it's an incredibly ill-thought out change but having watched what's gone on the last 16 months or so, it's hardly the first.

      18. DabbleYou profile image74
        DabbleYouposted 4 years ago

        I also have a lot of problem with the new hub layout. Firstly, there are a lot of hubs in this layout with no ads. Second, I also don't like the idea of displaying the number of page views to others. It makes us more vulnerable to content thieves. The publishing date is okay, I guess.

      19. Peggy W profile image92
        Peggy Wposted 4 years ago

        Overall I love the new design look.  So glad that the avatar photos are back.  I join all the others in hoping the page views disappear for all the many good reasons already stated.  Newly published hubs will have only a few views and make people think that they are probably not worth reading.  Older ones will be prime targets for theft.  Glad that you listen to our feedback.  Thanks!

      20. lrohner profile image84
        lrohnerposted 4 years ago

        And yet HP rushed to remove stats for our individual subdomains from Quantcast a while back. Go figure...

        Is it that they no longer see a problem with publicizing personal information like views or they just don't give a rat's arse anymore? (Hypothetical question, btw.)

      21. rebekahELLE profile image91
        rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

        Yes, it needs to be more obvious what these are for or there may be accidental votes up or down. I almost clicked on the down arrow before I realized what it was for.

      22. Daughter Of Maat profile image98
        Daughter Of Maatposted 4 years ago

        You know the other thing about the page views being visible, and I can't believe I'm pointing this out because I'm one of the ones suffering, but if the hub has only had a few views, it's embarrasing for the author!!! Any other hubs the author writes will obviously lose credibility!! You don't see knoji, or triond posting page views...

      23. TheMagician profile image91
        TheMagicianposted 4 years ago

        Yeah, I'm not for the page views being displayed. The bottom of the Hub seems to be a little congested to me as well, but maybe I just need to get used to it... I didn't see anything really wrong with the older layout. I do like the thumbnails on the related articles though, very nice touch.

      24. Alternative Prime profile image84
        Alternative Primeposted 4 years ago

        Actually, if you whisk the current "Experimental Layout" into the HP laboratory for immediate emergency cosmetic surgery and ---> Simply perform an avatar size augmentation procedure ---> "Scalpulize" unnecessary, useless, meaningless data like "Number of Hub Views" with a swift slicing action ---> Then, Reduce Size & Move the bloated "Related Links" apendage to a more inconspicuous zone, one that does not detract from the primary article, such as the middle right quadrant ---> Insert a "Kickass Bitchen' Slammin' to the Cieling" Yankee style pinstripe that gently yet efficiently partitions author and hub name from text body as it precipitously descends vertically to greet page bottom stretching the entire length of the Hub on the right side --->

        Then, add a splash of contrasting non-color such as deep rich midnight black for sophistication joined harmonesouly with, and augmented by, a select shade of customized green in an effort to mitigate the "Washed Out" look --->

        What do we have?

        Essentially, the end result would be an almost exact duplication of the "Classic" version in circulation today - A design which garnered zero member complaints and helped to raise the level of visual graphics professionalism for the entire site - Bottom line? A few minor tweaks to the current, unaltered classic layout and you have achieved successful tampering -

      25. 2uesday profile image90
        2uesdayposted 4 years ago

        Each change and trial here seems to take my account in the wrong direction.
        I agree with the other people who have voiced concern with the publishing of views and date first published.

        It looks like handing the best bits/pages to copy - to the article thieves 'on a plate'.

        Can this not be an opt out/ opt in feature?

      26. Horatio Plot profile image84
        Horatio Plotposted 4 years ago

        I love the new design. It’s slick, clean and very professional.
        I’m OK with the number of views being shown. If it means that less rubbish is published because writers are embarrassed about low page views then so be it. If it means that less spammy advertising rubbish is published because it will lack authority long term because low page views are shown, then so be it. Thieves already target HOTDs and HubNuggets, but we don’t ask for those accolades to be removed from Hubs.

        1. Daughter Of Maat profile image98
          Daughter Of Maatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This is true, but there is only one HOTD, per day, and only a few hubnuggets. Listing page views on EVERY hub published allows for more hubs to be plagiarized, in my opinion.

        2. lrohner profile image84
          lrohnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You're making a lot of assumptions, not the least of which is that a hub with low page views is rubbish.

          There is no possible way that publishing individual hub pageviews is going to have any impact an anything except content theft, plagiarism and so on.

          There's an assumption being made that high traffic = authority, and that Google buys into that. IMHO, trying to calculate "authority" or anything else based on pageviews alone is flawed.

          In addition, Google already has all of that information via Analytics for (I would think) the vast majority of hubs here, so I really don't understand what anyone hopes to accomplish by publishing these numbers.

          1. EmpressFelicity profile image85
            EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Lots of forum views on a weekend and hence an improvement in on-site SEO?

            Yes, I really am that cynical.

          2. Daughter Of Maat profile image98
            Daughter Of Maatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "There's an assumption being made that high traffic = authority, and that Google buys into that. IMHO, trying to calculate "authority" or anything else based on pageviews alone is flawed."

            Hey, we're just going on what Jason Menayan told us and I quote:

            "Jason Menayanposted 29 hours ago in reply to this

            The thinking is that popularity of a Hub helps convey authority. YouTube videos show the number of times a video has been viewed."

            1. lrohner profile image84
              lrohnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              *face palm*

        3. Alternative Prime profile image84
          Alternative Primeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Factually speaking, the number of page views has very little if any direct connection to "Authority" "Quality" or "Legitimacy" of any given writer - Similar to "Hubscore" -

          A sub-par or possibly even atrociously poor writer who gets a little lucky by publishing popular search friendly titles, thereby attracting an avalanche of visitors will be automatically deemed "Expert" by HubPages Staff  verses a highly knowledgeable, delightfully articulate publisher receiving far fewer views? - Seriously? -

          There is virtually zero confirmable evidence to measure and subsequently connect "Page Views" with "Quality" or "Expertise" - The same is true for another irrelevant feature called "Followers" -

          As we all know, there are numerous superbly talented and knowledgeable individuals who publish top notch articles via various venues on the world wide web yet do not garner sizable audiences for various reasons but certainly not due to lack of "Authority" or "Expertise" -

          "Number of Views" is not always indicative of  "Quality" and is essentially a very misleading number to say the least -

          P.S. - "Accolades" are a Distraction, & Major Detriment to the entire site and should be removed -

        4. AliciaC profile image98
          AliciaCposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A hub with a low number of page views is not necessarily rubbish. There are several reasons why a hub may not get many views. For example, it might be an excellent hub but may be written about a topic that isn’t very popular, the writer may have poor online socialization or article promotion skills or the article may be  good and contain great information but may be written in a style that doesn’t attract readers.

          I love the overall appearance of the new layout. It looks attractive and I think it will be interesting to visitors. However, like others have said I really dislike the number of page views being shown. A high number will attract copiers, and a low number could imply to visitors that the article isn’t worth reading.

      27. 2uesday profile image90
        2uesdayposted 4 years ago

        The first few days a page is published it will be starting with a very low view count. That is obvious, but if we are to believe that people will notice and be impressed by a high number for view count then the opposite must be true.

      28. Paul Edmondson profile image
        91
        Paul Edmondsonposted 4 years ago

        We are always reading the feedback from authors as well as doing extensive testing on the design. I'll let you know what we plan to do with the Hub views and Date Monday.

        Reporting bugs is also very helpful. 

        There are also several permutations of revenue tests running.  Thanks again for all the feedback.

        1. Cardisa profile image92
          Cardisaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks Paul. I was worried that I was the only one disagreeing with the page views...lol

        2. Beth100 profile image85
          Beth100posted 4 years ago

          The layout is more viewer friendly than before.  The images are great for the next/prev hubs but the postage stamp size of the author is a bit small.  smile 

          I agree that the number of views should not be made public.  I find that it is useful for the numbers as a reference -- perhaps limit the information only to the hub author?

          The date and last update are good.  I agree that these should be here -- how else would the reader know if the info is current or not.  I have left pages when uncertain of the currency of the info, and know that readers of my article will do the same.

          So far, no bugs that I have experienced. smile

          1. WriteAngled profile image92
            WriteAngledposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Given that it is simply a matter of opening a hub, hitting "edit" and then closing it again, the "last edited" date is meaningless and will simply force people into performing an "open, edit and close hub" time-wasting ritual every couple of months.

            Even were this to change to recognising true edits, all that would be required would be to "edit" a hub by changing the wording of one sentence. Yawn...

            1. Cardisa profile image92
              Cardisaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The last time I suggested a date published for the hubs, the vote was unanimous to leave it off as people may not want to read hubs that were published two years or even five years ago. A hub takes a while to mature so by this time that hub getting good traffic may be a year old, people might want to move on to something more recent so I have to agree that the date published is also a bad idea.

            2. relache profile image88
              relacheposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Ditto.

        3. Howard S. profile image86
          Howard S.posted 4 years ago

          The new layout is aesthetically pleasing. Minor tweaks could be made, as others have mentioned. Furthermore:

          Publishing pageviews and numbers per category are major errors.

          There is way too much space given to so-called related hubs. What will be displayed there is determined by the way other authors (mis)labeled their hubs. But it looks like the recommendation came from me!

          Date published does not sound good, but date revised could help some kinds of hubs. I would like to see that feature under user control, similar to approving comments: show all, none, or hub-by-hub.

        4. Cheeky Girl profile image87
          Cheeky Girlposted 4 years ago

          This is a very cool layout design for these particular hubs. I love that the writer and commenter avatars are back again, as the other layout that does not have them tends to get very "texty" and blends into the comments somewhat.

          As a hubber with some hubs well in excess of 1,000 words and sometimes even longer - I welcome the extra advert. I inderstand small hubs that can wind up having too many ads on them, and it can cause upsets with Google, etc.

          The breadcrumbs text... I wonder could something be done to jazz it up a little. It seems to disappear in the top somewhat.

          As to the number of Hub views that appears, I have no problem with it whatsoever. It does give the pages authority. And maybe Hub Pages could introduce a way in the editing area of the hub to simply disable or enable that views feature if and as writers wish it so.

          Hubbers might not like the date of publication appearing in their hub. But it would be possible for hubbers to update and "tweak" older hubs, and mention the word "Updated" in the top of a hub, if need be. All in all, I welcome these new changes, and well done for constantly developing more ways to better present our hubs to the world. Voted up by me!

          1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image90
            mistyhorizon2003posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            But it doesn't, as some topics don't get many views, but the article may be excellent in quality! Just one example might be for instance a hub I have on offshore investments in the Channel Island of Guernsey. Clearly not likely to be a highly searched topic, but I know this is high quality because my Husband has worked for the Guernsey Financial Services Commission and advised me accordingly on the content of the article.

            Apart from this are you therefore saying you are happy to risk copiers stealing your most successful articles based on your high views (clearly being visible) or that you want to give other writers great ideas for articles they can write based on your obvious success? (again as a result of them being able to see how many views your article has generated).

            All in all the idea of publishing individual hubs views is crazy, and quickly going to act as a magnet for plagiarizers and spinners, not to mention anyone here or elsewhere who is suffering from 'writers block'.

            1. Marisa Wright profile image93
              Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              +1

        5. Eric Graudins profile image62
          Eric Graudinsposted 4 years ago

          Someone told me that hub pages were intending to disclose the number of page views on each hub.
          Out of all the lame ass decisions made by hub pages over the last two years, thats got to be about the stupidest.
          If you still wanted proof that hub pages don't give a rats anus about their writers, this is it.

          1. relache profile image88
            relacheposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If you'd actually read this thread, you'd realize it's not so much an intent as something that has actually happened.

            1. Eric Graudins profile image62
              Eric Graudinsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, from what I understood when I read the thread was that the changes are confined to 3 categories.
              And have not been rolled out to the entire hubpages site.
              So, I agree with the view of the person that brought it to my attention that at this stage, it is an "intended" change.
              My sincere apologies for offending your semantic sensibilities.

        6. Mark Ewbie profile image83
          Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago

          This page view thing is a two edged sword.

          I had two views yesterday on my excellent pages.

          Both are similar as they are sort of spun, but using a Thesaurus... you know the game.  Garbage about whatever, but that's not the point.

          One has 35 views, the other has 78.

          On the one with 35 views a comment was left which said "I would have read your article but with only those views it must be a bit rubbish"

          On the other, more successful one the comment said "What a great article with all those views.  I'm going to copy it".

          1. lobobrandon profile image80
            lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Are you serious? You got a comment saying that...

            1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
              Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I have represented the facts as best I can, using a form of writing known as expanding the truth.

              It is the same method I use on all my pages especially the medical ones where I offer almost genuine advice under my other ID - Dr.M.Isdiagnosis.

              1. lobobrandon profile image80
                lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                oh

                1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
                  Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry Lobo.  I'll give you a bit more on my reasoning.  It might make some sort of twisted sense.

                  No one takes any notice of what I post.  So if I say showing views is dodgy it will be ignored or flamed.

                  Therefore, when I can be bothered, I make my point in such a way that no one will understand it.  It keeps me sane.

                  1. lobobrandon profile image80
                    lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok I get it smile

                    1. 2uesday profile image90
                      2uesdayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      smile

                  2. 2uesday profile image90
                    2uesdayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Where I come from it might be called sarcasm (but maybe it is closer to banter), but done in an amusing way it is a useful and entertaining tool.

                    I often conjure up a sarcastic response or banter to a situation, but rarely use it,as sometimes it in real life it would be lost on those listening and other times it would be too cruel.

                    However the way Mark uses it I often find it entertaining and it is good to have a post like that in a forum as it is a change from the to and fro that takes place.

                    1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
                      Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Thanks 2uesday.

                    2. lobobrandon profile image80
                      lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      That's true smile

        7. GoodLady profile image83
          GoodLadyposted 4 years ago

          Really don't like number of 'page views' at all.
          Hope you get rid of it!

        8. Mark Ewbie profile image83
          Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago

          Idea.

          Authority is conveyed by this view number being shown.

          I mean, "is it bollocks" is one response which UK readers would be familiar with.

          Although, I do tend to view the YouTubes with the higher views so maybe there's something in it.

          IF that really is the case then why not just put a really large number on all pages?  Something 123,456 views.

          Then we'd be really authoritative.

          Just a thought.  Always trying to help.

          Here is a picture I have been trying to upload all morning to Facebook and Blogger.  It is in honor, homage, whatever to Keith Haring.  No, it has nothing to do with the thread.  But he's a cool guy, and dead now, and I missed him first time around.


          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6735716_f248.jpg

          1. lobobrandon profile image80
            lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That's a smart idea smile And just hubbers would know about it tongue
            Also, the published date should be like a calendar changing as the days go by - that would be awesome.

            1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
              Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              We cracked it!  And a five star rating on everything.  Six stars if you let HP take a slightly higher ad percentage.

              1. lobobrandon profile image80
                lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ya that would do it! I wouldn't mind as long as I get more visits to compensate the losses.

        9. frogdropping profile image85
          frogdroppingposted 4 years ago

          One thing that HP seriously lacks is a like button. There are one or two posts in this thread I woulda liked, shared and gone to bed with.

          They're just too good not to.

          1. lobobrandon profile image80
            lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You can do this- +1

            1. frogdropping profile image85
              frogdroppingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I know Lobo but I want to like the posts direct. HAlf the time I'd be +1'ing and the post's three above, or the page before. Misses the point then. I like to hit the Mark, know what I mean? smile

              1. lobobrandon profile image80
                lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ya I get it smile But, the fact is it's never going to happen. They'll say Q&A's are meant for that. So you'll need to make do with what you've got lol

        10. frogdropping profile image85
          frogdroppingposted 4 years ago

          *sighs* oh well.

          Guess we better stop our little tête-à-tête, otherwise we're going to derail the OP big_smile

          1. lobobrandon profile image80
            lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            +1 wink

        11. WebsiteConfetti profile image87
          WebsiteConfettiposted 4 years ago

          It seems a little silly adding to to this thread seeing everyone has already said what I want to say, but to add to the feedback anyhow,  I love the new designs, but do not agree with publicly promoting how many times a hub has been read and since when. Writing on various sites and my own blogs, the articles that always do well for me are the evergreen ones.  I particularly try to word it, so it has no time reference in it (no mention of current events) having the publish date on the  Hub goes against that.

          Also as a reader, If I see that an article has been written a few years ago, Im likely to hit the back button and look for updated information, it's a psychological thing,

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I guess that only applies to certain subjects - yes? An article about WWII or a soup recipe will not get any better or more relevant because it was written last week.

            1. Mark Ewbie profile image83
              Mark Ewbieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yep.  I was thinking about stuff like the Bible (sorry, I know your feelings) or Shakespeare.  Shame he can't update Hamlet anymore.  Guess it will just fade and die.

            2. WebsiteConfetti profile image87
              WebsiteConfettiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I agree it's only certain topics and it shouldn't make a difference on those topics on when they were published. But personally, I guess I prefer if the content I read has been recently written. I know it makes no sense, great content should be great content.. perhaps I just have odd Google search habits.

              Although, I think my biggest issue with showing the date published has more to do with the views being shown as well. If  a hub that has low traffic views and has been published a while, I think it makes  the author 'appear' less credible as you would expect great content that has been online awhile to have high views, even if simply an  issue with lack of using the right keywords.

          2. ktrapp profile image92
            ktrappposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So I wonder what human nature (the psychological thing) would cause a reader to do when faced with two similarly titled "what others are reading" links that have vastly different amounts of page views?

            Let's say the links are for chicken noodle soup recipes, both with an equally enticing image. Would you click on the one with 150 page views or the one with 5,000? I'm guessing our knee-jerk reaction is that the one with more views must be better, when in fact perhaps it only has more page views because it is older, not because it's better. It puts the new hub, perhaps with much better content at a disadvantage.

            1. WebsiteConfetti profile image87
              WebsiteConfettiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly.  It's the same thing when I am on YouTube. I always go with the videos with the higher views which is unfair to newer content, but I don't want to waste time on what is 'perceived'  to be of less value to readers/viewers.

            2. Marisa Wright profile image93
              Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              This made me think, and I realize I'm guilty of that, too. 

              In fact, I was looking for recipes for chicken livers just last week - and on sites where views were shown, I went for the ones with the most views.  Daft, when I think about it, but obviously it's one of those irrational things most people do.

              Which makes me even more unhappy about having the number of views showing.

              1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image90
                mistyhorizon2003posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                +1

              2. Cardisa profile image92
                Cardisaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I just want to point out too that most viewed does not mean best. There is a hubber here with a bunch of Jamaican recipes that are all crap and he gets thousands of views. It really irks me that someone could write that crap about my country's dishes and get away with it.

                1. WriteAngled profile image92
                  WriteAngledposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course most viewed does not mean anything in terms of quality or being best! To think it does is a reflection of the shallowness of Internet "culture", which unfortunately also permeates the rest of modern society.

                  A hub will get more views if its author:

                  - is active on HP forums, makes thousands of comments on other people's hubs in order to get reciprocal views and comments, participates in one of the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" HP-related Facebook groups that serve the same purpose

                  - endlessly spams his or her Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus accounts with notifications about hubs

                  - additionally announces the hub on Pinterest, Tumblr, Digg, Stumble and all the other self-promotional pseudo-social cesspits of the Internet

                  - has the knowledge and means to use keywords in a way that suits Google's current preferences and to produce backlinks that Google accepts as being genuine.

                  None of this activity in any way relates to the author's level of qualifications, knowledge, experience or capacity for research with respect to producing a quality hub (unless it is a hub about SEO and other ways of gaining hub views lol )

                  I've looked at a number of hubs that are being paraded as high-view, quality hubs. Yes, some are good (laws of probability mean that a few good ones must turn up in the sample), but many are full of vapid, ungrammatical drivel of little interest or value.

                2. Marisa Wright profile image93
                  Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I know, that's why I'm a bit annoyed with myself for taking that attitude - it doesn't make sense, does it?  But I have a feeling we're all a bit inclined to be swayed by the number of views, silly though it may be.

        12. paradigmsearch profile image91
          paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

          Ya know... I'm continuing to warm up to the idea of public hub traffic stats.

          To paraphrase something I read awhile back, "When everyone else likes you, then Google likes you."

          So presumably when Google finds a high traffic number posted on an article on a reputable site (like HP), Google will turn around and send even more traffic to it.

          Of course this is just another example of the haves continuing to get, and the have-nots continuing to get screwed. Internet=Life.

          1. lrohner profile image84
            lrohnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There is absolutely nothing to back up the random hypothesis (call it "grabbing at straws" if you will) that Google uses current traffic stats when ranking hubs. And even if it did, Google already knows how much traffic your pages get. See: Google Analytics, Google AdSense and/or Google Webmaster Tools. If you use any one of these services, Google's got your number already.

            So back to my original statement -- the only ones that stand to really benefit from publicizing the pageviews are the spammers, scammers, content thieves and plagiarists.

        13. paradigmsearch profile image91
          paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

          As to the theft issue, the thievery is already as bad as bad gets. So what difference would it make?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It can get worse though.  And probably will until the search engines are penalized for promoting the thieves.  Ain't gonna happen though.


            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

            1. paradigmsearch profile image91
              paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              My theory is that high-traffic hubs have lots of backlinks as a natural result. Thus they should be immune to being outranked by the thieves.

              @Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. If that's not the case, then you guys need to work on that. big_smile

              1. lobobrandon profile image80
                lobobrandonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                High traffic hubs have lots of backlinks on that page (Suppose you're other hubs aren't doing that well or you have just a few hubs), but sites that copy have loads of pages and totally more links (From useless sources too) but that doesn't seem to make a difference - not yet at least!

              2. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It isn't unusual for copied articles to outrank the original, even if the original has better photos and advice.  It's a game being played by thieves with Google not caring until it is reported to them.  They are the "pawn shop" of search engines.  mad

                I think I'll sue them for selling stolen merchandise!  Any other business would be charged with selling stolen property by now.  Google needs to go down.


                                                            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

        14. paradigmsearch profile image91
          paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

          Another lively day in the HP forums. smile big_smile smile

          While I'm at it, I'd put this, "This Hub has been read 2,041 times since it was originally published May 14, 2010. It was last updated by the author on May 27, 2012." at the top of the hub, not the bottom.

          In other words, have both dates at the top.

         
        working