What proportion of your hubs are de-listed under the new policy. What do you intend doing with them? Are you leaving them alone, deleting them, amending them, or finding some other way such as linking, to try to increase traffic and remove the de-listing?
sort by best latest
When you express concerns about the 'new direction' HubPages is going, I sincerely hope you are wrong, but seriously worry you may well be right. I hope either way, you find a home for all your work, in which it is properly recognised and respected.
Hi Steve. I had 3 zzzs, but all have cleared (temporarily at least) with a couple of very minor tweaks, and hubber visits. Hopefully it won't be a problem - your hubs have quality, and quality - I feel - shouldn't be de-listed even if traffic is low.
Thanks Alun, I think hubpages were looking for a way of shedding the thousands of dead or dying hubs on the site so google search bots didn't have to index them each time. Seems they didn't take into account important seasonal or speciality hubs.
I'm not sure changing a hub will suddenly make it more popular Dallas, unless it is poor quality and needs to be improved. The only way to get more traffic to a low traffic but well written hub is thru' promotion and linking. Thanks for you comment.
I've been following a forum thread on this, and the question of seasonal hubs has been raised, so HubPages are aware of this worry. However, I'm not sure they've satisfactorily answered the concerns yet. Hopefully they will take this into account.
I wonder if editing idle hubs really serves any purpose? A little tweaking may temporarily lift the hubs out of 'idle', but is it really going to bring more regular traffic to keep the hub visible? You may be right to focus on more popular hubs.
Apparently the Zzzzs struck again - a third hub has now been idled. Odd since it received some traffic this week. Again, I'm not likely to spend much time on it and will instead focus on some new hub ideas.
I agree. Hubbers who take time and work hard to make their hubs high quality should not be penalised just because the hubs struggle to attract interest - only low quality, poorly written, hastily put together hubs should be delisted.
They're doing us a favor by unlisting them. it raises our credibility with Google. Plus if they have been unlisted they weren't getting many google hits anyway.
I don't agree with unlisting hubs unless it is possible to differentiate between 'low traffic' and 'low quality' hubs. Currently it seems all low traffic hubs are unlisted regardless of quality. Quality minority interest hubs should stay live.
I hope amending them helps flashmakeit, but I wonder if it will only help short term to move them out of idle? Unless the amendment significantly improves the hub, traffic levels probably won't rise. Will the hub then go back into idle?
It seems fairly easy to get the Zz warnings removed with a few tweaks, but the question is for how long? If the Zzs are purely traffic driven, they will return. I hope HubPages will look at hub quality as well and override the traffic filters.
I'm not sure it's purely traffic driven. One principle of good SEO is fresh, updated content. An article stales when it hasn't been changed for a while. I like the new idle status because it forces us to optimize our work, which only benefits us.
Sure, if the article is poorly presented, one can improve it. If the hub is topical, it can be updated. But if the hub is good and if it is not topical, or if the hub consists of creative writing etc, what can you do? Updating is not always possible.