Introducing Idle Hubs

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 295 discussions (1259 posts)

78
LeanManposted 11 years ago
Personally I think it is a reasonable Idea, if Google already dislikes the Hub, after all they are sending it no or little traffic, then it is time to try to change it until Google does like it. If we de-index all the hubs that G does not like and only leave the ones that are receiving love then we can be sure that there is little within our account to make G annoyed at us and drag down the rest of our content.

I would still however like an answer to my earlier question about COPIED CONTENT, if our hub is de-indexed by Google and someone copies it or has already copied it, will our hub then become the copy if it is then later indexed?
report
1. 88
  IzzyMposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  This is a good question.
  
  Many of my hubs have been copied and I have not had the chance to chase down the plagiarists because there are simply too many.
  Now they get to keep them?
  Or the Wayback Machine and I become good friends?
  I have issued a DMCA against a thief using the wayback machine as proof of earlier publication, and Google has accepted that to be the case and de-indexed the offender.
  So I suppose nothing really changes as we already have proof of being the first to publish an article.
  report
2. STAFF
  Paul Edmondsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The tests I ran showed that Hubs that were removed (not visible in Google's index) and then republished appeared to be treated as they were - went back to their prior ranking place.
  
  One important thing is we use a no index meta tag so that Google can crawl the page. They won't show the page in the serps, but they appear to maintain some meta data.
  report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That is exactly what I figured from previous observations.
  
  As such I:
  
  A. Unpublished.
  B. Instructed google via webmasters to outright remove the url and cache.
  
  I am now in the process of doing complete overhauls and republishing as brand new.
  
  I am posting this in case there is anything I should know while I'm doing this.
  report
  78
  LeanManposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  How long were the hubs you tested not in the SERPs / not indexed for before you "republished" them? Do you have any firm data that says that they can be out of the SERPs for a prolonged period and google will still retain their data?
  report
  78
  MyWebsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So if a hub, lets say a seasonal hub, gets Zzz'd for many months out of the year we are to believe it will magically return to its former position on Google when we update it and get the evil Zzzz removed in time for the seasonal traffic. I find this very, very, very.... difficult to believe. Please show me some proof where you tested this for more than a short period of time. i.e. more than 2 months.
  
  I find it hard to believe this even holds true short term, much less long term.
  report
74
cheaptrickposted 11 years ago
Congrats to all you pros who know the ins and outs of"driving traffic".Some of us are techno peasants and don't have the time to learn all that.We just write and hope for the best.I hope this doesn't sound the death knell for us but I fear it will.
The changes from a year ago till now have made it very difficult[mechanical glitches]to publish as it is.Seems like those who can wrangle views will be the haves while the rest of us sink to the bottom.
I had a suicide hub a year old that was getting lots[for me]of views and comments thanking me for writing it.You folks in your wisdom saw it as substandard and rejected it even after it was rewritten.I assume[since I don't write for money]that my opinion doesn't matter,fair enough but...Please explain why my author score is consistently in the 90's if my work is substandard and"Idle".Sure wish I had some of what Y'all are smoking.
Also,could someone tell me where this access to switch to the new profile is[I'm old and don't see well anymore]...or is that HP's way of inviting me to leave.
report
1. 82
  snakeslaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  For new profile, go to any new profile page (mine is fine) and click on the new profile 'invitation' at the top of the page..
  report
2. 75
  Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If you go to on of the staffs profiles, there is an option to switch there. Or anyone else with the new profile.
  
  report
90
Pcunixposted 11 years ago
I'm so glad you did this.

I've been toying with doing the same thing at my main site but just couldn't decide if it made sense or not. I kept going back and forth, unsure of it.

Now I feel that if you've done it for HP, it's probably the right move, so I'm implementing it as of today.
report
57
ITcoachposted 11 years ago
Hi Every one.

I have read the Hub, We can post a public reader's interest not the critical one that has a hidden sense. A common Hub will appear to be more popular one that discusses the ideas related to common life. I would also like to launch such a hub like home cleaning, Home management, Kitchen management,
You may also make your hub even more attractive by connecting you social media friends and circles.
report
90
GA Andersonposted 11 years ago
I saw it mentioned several times - seasonal and niche' hubs. But... not sure if I remember the optimal solution recommended

My sales account ID looks like sleepfest - Z's bouncing off the walls

Many hubs idled fit the criteria, but as mentioned by others, I have a lot of seasonal hubs; holiday and event-specific types, that do very well in their season, ie. Valentines, St. Patrick's Day, etc. that are now idled.

If they are updated to get "un-idled" now - will they stay active? Or will they die again if it is too long before their season?

For instance; Halloween. Stores are stocking and beginning to promote it now - 60 days prior, so will an "un-idled" Halloween hub with little traffic stay live to make it into the season?

Christmas is even more extreme - some promos, (and reader/customer) interests start in late September - can a hub "un-idled" in September stay alive as traffic builds with the season?

moaning and groaning isn't going to be productive, so maybe a little more details to helps us plan and reorganize would

GA
report
0
annmackiemillerposted 11 years ago
I've tried to skim most of the posts here but there is too much to take in, forgive me if these questions have been answered already

I was disconcerted to see that it is my creative writing hubs that have been targeted - poetry and memoirs - now I KNOW they are not substandard - but my question is - is there any real value in posting creative writing on Hubpages now and is there somewhere better?

If I decide to remove them, how do I get them off Google index so they are not flagged as duplicate copy and how long does it take to 'disappear' off the internet. I have actually been thinking of putting them in a book on Kindle so maybe this is a blessing in disguise but ...

... I do want to know what type of writing is going to be acceptable on here from now on. For many of us, writing online is our only source of income so we need to maximise our efforts, not waste time on what is not going to work.
report
1. 0
  annmackiemillerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  oh meant to ask - how does this square with the need to give a hub 3 years ro 'mature'
  report
2. 72
  That Grrlposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  HubPages hasn't given people a real way to back up their content. So you need to go through one by one and copy everything. You can save the page which saves everthing as HTML. But, for reposting the content it will be best to copy your content as plain text with the images saved separately. Set up an account on Blogger.com and re-post everything there.
  
  You could start posting to a blog now just to see if you want to run a blog with your creative fiction or not. Give it a month and see if you love it or hate it.
  report
  88
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Try downloading the Firefox browser, and then download the add on called 'Scrapbook'. This will back up all your hubs in a matter of seconds per hub. There is an excellent video on how to do it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aUmTRrEsyE
  report
  82
  snakeslaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you!
  report
  88
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are very welcome, and this also proves your prior ownership of a hub if you ever choose to delete it here, de-index it and then publish it elsewhere, (the actual 'My Account' page with publish dates is also saved).
  report
  0
  annmackiemillerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  thanks, I'm not a fan of Firefox my computer keeps crashing with it - but it might be worth it just for this.
  do you have to do anything else except remove the hub for it to be de-indexed on google?
  report
  88
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes you do. For speed use the Google URL removal tool (takes about 24 hours). You need to unpublish the hub first, and then copy and paste the url into the link below once you log in. Remember, Firefox is considered the best browser to use with HP, and that you can have as many browsers as you want on your computer, you just need to select which one you like to use each time you go online.
  
  https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogi … ers/tools/
  report
  0
  annmackiemillerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  thanks so much for this it will be very useful
  report
  82
  snakeslaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I did this today. The video was so helpful. Scrapbook is awesome. Thanks again. Now I just have to figure out how to 'unpublish' using the webmaster tool, which I believe is posted somewhere in this thread.
  report
  88
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You don't use the tool to 'unpublish', you use it to deindex hubs or articles you have already unpublished. If you try to deindex an article that is still published the tool won't work. The link to webmaster tools that you need is: https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogi … &hl=en
  report
  82
  snakeslaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you very much!
  report
59
Shawn May Scottposted 11 years ago
Hubpages team,

I like this idea. It makes us work alittle harder and provide better articles for our readers and each other. Are we really afraid of a little hard work??? I do not think so as I have often seen the Hubpagers community rally for cause and our community being improved is one of the best causes I could think of. Positive move as would not want my search engine results lowered due to any crappy content that I would publish. High quality ges the view and this is a step in the right direction!!!
report
69
Shelly McRaeposted 11 years ago
This sounds like a very good reason to unpublish my evergreen hubs, refresh them... and publish them somewhere else - where they won't get de-indexed on an algorithmic whim.
report
1. 78
  MyWebsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I agree.
  report
74
jacharlessposted 11 years ago
Cool Feature.
Am looking forward to the short-long effect of this.
Now, a quandary. Have 23:43 minutes until the Pending alarm goes off, else the auto-snooze kicks in. So, am off to get some fresh-grind coffee. Anyone care for an espresso Granita, Lungo or {for the truly brave} a Dead Eye? My treat!

James.
report
1. 0
  summerberrieposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  report
  74
  jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  y u m.
  Am two triples in already and still half asleep. lol
  And the nice, cold breeze just outside the City, is not helping me focus on writing. lol.
  
  James.
  report
2. 74
  Horatio Plotposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Holy Smoke Fella! Line 'em up. We don't do much Dead Eye over on this side of the pond, unless you you are referring to "Dead Eye Pete", lackey to Sheikh Ahmed Al Maktoum and newly crowned double trap king!
  Let that Caffeine Monster out for a quick walk up Doppio Mountain.
  Have a good day.
  Horatio
  x
  report
0
Arlene V. Pomaposted 11 years ago
Send it, James! I need so liquid bravery to do my housework since I'm no housewife!
report
1. 0
  summerberrieposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  report
2. 74
  jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  ha! will do.
  report
69
sunforgedposted 11 years ago
I used to enjoy attempting to predict future trends and topics.

Things I enjoyed reading about perhaps in industry journals, "kickstarter" style communities and similar ilk.

Topics that would not be public knowledge (yet)

It was always a gamble. (and I didn't use this account, usually)

The payoff was sometimes massive. For example, for one eventual blockbuster movie - I ended up in top placement for 5-10 halloween and merchandise terms (by being an entire year ahead of the pack)

By massive - I mean, ebay sales of 10-15 items per day from each term +adsense + amazon sales.

HP made a very healthy cut.

Under your new regime, your platform will not be able to compete in that type of scenario. Other articles, at other sites, regardless of quality will be the ones that turn up in early searches, get linked to and appear as the older more authoritative sources.

Besides, such speculative stuff (since HP has turned away from more "commercial" endeavors such as I described) we also will no longer EVER benefit from surprise/trending news.

For example, I had a hub that was about a not commonly known (Fashion) Designer . It got very little traffic, there was very little interest and very little searches, I got a good enough proportion of the interest that did exist.

Then said designer, had a dress featured on the Academy Awards by a hot young starlet. IN 2 days views exceeded 20k - including some great sales for dresses in the $300-$700 range on Amazon.

That hub was not particularly commercial and had very few Amazon options as there was a very limited selection of dresses publicly available.

Under your proposed plan. That never would have happened - the hub would not have been indexed and would never have been given the opportunity to take in that surprise trending interest.

I really don't see how you can stay competitive with "seasonal" topics if during the down times the hub disappears from the index

I don't have a dog in the fight, I moved every hub and topic that I mentioned above and most of which I didn't want to modify based on past rule changes I didn't want to play with.

BUt, figured, I would share that little for what its worth to you.

I think its pretty audacious to believe that you can out algorithm google. If you (or anyone) could do that consistently , you would probably not be bothering with clocking into work every day anymore!
report
1. 72
  That Grrlposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The only way to pull a Hub post out of idle is to keep pushing it and promoting it. But, this will make you look like a spammer. So, it will be interesting to see if HubPages becomes known as a site which spams a lot of low quality content. It's usually the people with the least time spent on writing good content who put the time into promoting the heck out of it.
  report
77
frogdroppingposted 11 years ago
This has got to be right up there with plucking out your eyebrows and drawing them back in again with a pencil.

Ludicrous.

I know I am the last in a long line of folks that are here, offering my two pennorth but seriously? The testing? The empirical evidence? How are you going to work this nonsense into seasonal trends?

If you'd have listened to the guys that were screaming and yelling about the spam, the idiots, the trash, porn and god knows what else way back when ...

Basically you are binning content that doesn't make you any money.
report
89
SimeyCposted 11 years ago
OK there seems to be a little discussion going on here! Perhaps there can be a probationary period - say one month - where the hub is flagged 'idle' but it is still indexed. This will give the writer chance to either update, or contact Support with arguments why the hub should not be 'idle'.

Seems like a fair compromise to me....
report
1. 66
  Michael Willisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  SimeyC has a great suggestion for you HP Staff!!! Their should at least be a time frame BEFORE hub are de-indezed due to slow traffic. Give the hubbers a fair chance to correct their hubs.
  The HP filter does make mistakes at times and why should a hubber be penalized for a filter error?
  report
  88
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, about 3 years as per the length of time HP said it took for a hub to reach its full potential
  report
90
Millionaire Tipsposted 11 years ago
I absolutely love the fact that my idle hubs are pointed out, so that I can do something about them if I choose. Many of my idle hubs don't stand a chance of every waking up, and by pointing them out to me, I can simply unpublish them and get them out of the way to make room for new hubs. (Or maybe you can have a "let it be deindexed" option for those I especially like but know that they are there only for my own amusement.)

However, some of my other idle hubs are idle because of some other reason. Only some of them are seasonal. Maybe the rest of them are not getting traffic because Google's current algorithm doesn't like them, or because I have been focusing on other things and other hubs, and haven't marketed them enough. Maybe I just have so many great articles, that the average ones are getting lost in the shuffle. (Hey, I can hope!) How do I know the next Google algorithm tweak won't get them flying fast and far?

Sure I can, and will, edit them to make them better. But can you please give me some time to do this? Wednesday is way too soon. In fact, while you are giving us time, you can look at your data and see how simply giving us this information affects the traffic. I think you might be in for a pleasant surprise if we start unpublishing the hubs that are sinking us, now that we know what they are.
report
0
Arlene V. Pomaposted 11 years ago
summerberrie has rubbed it in with some outstanding graphics. My Starbucks card has $7 left on it. Or I can drink the leftover COSTCO coffee that hubby made this morning. Yecccch! Maybe I'll go back to bed and start over!
report
83
Mark Ewbieposted 11 years ago
report
90
Pcunixposted 11 years ago
I think what many are missing is that the intent here is that Google will think more of your un-zeed hubs if the idle ones are de-indexed, thereby giving you a net gain.

Some also seem to be missing what should be rather obvious - if the hubs are idle, they weren't getting any Google love anyway.

As to whether this intent will translate to reality, I don't know. It's something I have been ruminating over for a year now for my main site and I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Now that HP has braved the trail, I'm going to follow along and try it.. perhaps a little less aggressively than they have done, but I did de-index more than half my pages..

As to the seasonal stuff, Paul covered that.. and why on earth WOULDN'T you revisit seasonal hubs just before the season to see if they need freshening as they almost always do??
report
72
Barbara Kayposted 11 years ago
I have a large number of hubs about gardening that get traffic this time of year. Will they all be put on idle for the winter months? Will a computer be able to tell that they are seasonal hubs? I think there are good points to this program and not such good points.

Any topic that I question in the least, I'll be afraid to write about. If it doesn't get great traffic, it is just a waste of time writing.
report
53
janderson99posted 11 years ago
Love the subtle change of emphasis in the heading on my account from "featured" to "idle status"

Let sleeping dogs lie
report
77
Greekgeekposted 11 years ago
Wow, you really did it! I'm impressed; it takes guts to tinker with site architecture in a big way.

I felt a bit hubristic a few months ago, suggesting that Hubpages try something like this. We'll see what happens when the next Panda update occurs. Panda resets have been occurring lately about the third week of every month, so I'm going to be watching Quantcast with popcorn in hand to see if Hupbage traffic jumps around Sept 24.
report
1. 96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +1 It's my birthday next month (September), let's hope it's a good one! :-)
  report
83
Mark Ewbieposted 11 years ago
15% of my pages now deleted.
Some given minor tweaks because although they don't get traffic - I like them.

I cannot see that this achieves anything apart from saving server space.

Will Google think my remaining pages are better because I got rid of some?

I guess art, poetry, history, stories - anything that isn't readily searched for is destined for the bin. Thankfully I just write crap.

And there's always a market for that.
report
1. 53
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Will Google think my remaining pages are better because I got rid of some?"
  
  I think the point is to apply this to the entire HP site. It has been done because HP got a warning from Google about infringements -
  
  "We've detected that some of your site's pages may be using techniques that are outside Google's Webmaster Guidelines.
  
  Specifically, we detected low-quality pages on your site which do not provide substantially unique content or added value. Examples could include thin affiliate pages, doorway pages, automatically generated content, or copied content."
  
  http://pauledmondson.hubpages.com/hub/W … -Providers
  
  HP has finally decided to something to lift the quality of hubs that are indexed and get rid of the crap. The Grim Reaper will examine all new hubs and the poor ones will be put to sleep, as well as examning all existing pages.
  All our rankings were tainted by the crap on the site because of the links through "latest" "best", etc.and the topics. Google has also advised that the ranking of ALL pages in a URL can be downgraded by a few bad apples. So hopefully there is a doubly whammy of benefits from lifting the quality of all hubs on HP and within each SUB.
  report
  88
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  But for the fact this will equally penalise 'young' hubs that are not old enough to have earned some 'Google Love' yet! Not good news for new hubs under the '3 years old' level that HP said a hub needed to be in order to reach its full earning and traffic potential.
  report
  53
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There is a quality component - see HP comment below, I presume that the ZZZ may be applied even though a hub has traffic, if for some reason the Grim Reaper flags it. I had a couple of hubs in this situation which I updated - still waiting to see if the Prince's kiss awakened them. The post also says the Reaper goes easy on the updated hubs.
  report
  88
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well looking at the choice of my hubs that got the 'Z' treatment there is clearly a problem as they are either very young hubs or hubs that are based on book reviews (2 of them) mainly. I don't write product hubs, I write 'How to' or informative hubs in general. The hubs that got the 'Z' treatment that were written in March are on subjects like how to save money, how to start seeds indoors, how old should children be before they start doing chores etc. They are accurate, articulate and only lack the ageing process they needed to rank. My most successful hubs took over 2 years to get serious traffic, and then they were getting over 1500 - 1700 views a day each, (up until a few months back when they started to go down again bit by bit). Now my new stuff won't get that chance, and I will not be making the mistake of publishing further articles on HP when more sensible options like Wizzley are out there.
  report
82
LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years ago
My two cents worth....I agree with some that would prefer that this option be left to the discretion of the author...........
report
1. 57
  Alternative Primeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I said it before and I'll say it again, it's a control thing -
  
  With very few exceptions, everything should be left to the discretion of the author who exerts all the effort & hard work and obviously owns all exclusive rights to their respective work -
  
  HP employees are very green and should absolutely accept & consider invaluable "Advice" when offered from those who have already been there and understand precisely how to grow a legitimate and ethical enterprise both online and off, not attempt to be the sole interpretors of "Quality" -
  
  The level of "Quality" has never been determined or measured by "Popularity" and that's a well known fact -
  report
89
RedElfposted 11 years ago
I was worried about which hubs would get slapped as I have many seasonal hubs, and quite a few poetry/fiction hubs as well.
I have also been wondering about the older HubNuggets Round-up hubs which now get very few views. I felt I should keep them as they do provide links to all the nominees' articles that are still published here.

I was very pleased overall with the results of the zZz campaign.
1. Almost almost all of the older Round-up hubs (except for a few with really good/well-searched titles/URLs) have been set on idle. That means I can keep them as an archive if nothing else, but they will not affect my other work. Thanks very much for that!
2. A number of the poetry/fiction hubs have been set on idle - this does not make me happy, but at least they are not affecting the rest of my work while I decide where best to publish them.
3. A couple of recipe hubs and 3 seasonal hubs are "zZz-ed" - they have weak titles/URLs
3. Several older travel hubs are "zZz-ed" - they also have poor titles and not very search-friendly URLs
4. A couple of very old 30 Day Challenge hubs got the axe, but they have REALLY poor URLs, and needed to be pruned or seriously fixed.

I did get one surprise. A (seasonal) hub on a Weekly Topic that, incidentally, won a Hub-of-the-Day Accolade was "zZz-ed" - not a big deal, as I can easily re-tool it and a few others for another site, but a bit surprising...

Overall, an interesting experiment so far. ...and my page views are up by over 200 in the last day (and no, my poking about is not enough to account for the jump , though this may just be the start of the seasonal upswing in views my hubs experience each fall)
report
1. 88
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Don't get too excited, the actual de-indexing apparently doesn't happen until Wednesday even if your hubs show the 'z's by them now. Might be the seasonal change though
  report
STAFF
HubPagesposted 11 years ago
Yes, there is a quality component to this. Most of that happens during the 24 hr pending period. You won't necessarily see your Hub in the Z state because we try and be a bit more helpful with new and updated Hubs with the explanations. This isn't new. We've been enforcing quality for a long time. There is more focus on new Hubs now as we get caught up with the backlog.

We are also working on getting more granular quality data so we can help Hubbers. When that's useful, we'll see how to incorporate it into the larger system.
report
1. 53
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What us new is that there are three responses to the assessment.
  => Not publish as breaks the rules
  => ZZZ published but only internally (not indexed), with new set of rules - able to be revised and reconsidered.
  => Featured = published and indexed and can appear in SERPS - but reviewed periodically for minimum traffic and test for periodic updates so remains 'fresh' and not out of date (stale).
  report
57
Alternative Primeposted 11 years ago
Obviously, you are not focusing on "Quality" but now appear to be shifting exclusively over to enforcing "Popularity" which is of course a completely diverging element - By putting Hubs to sleep at HP's sole discretion you are unquestionably encouraging "LESS" time spent by members to create an article as a protection just in case it is dispatched to the trash bin in the future - How does that concept foster "Quality"?

How does HP plan on increasing the number of "QUALITY" Hubs when members will no longer be concerned with spending the necessary time it takes to create a professional appearing, top "Quality" article?

This sounds like the same lame concept pushed by a genius in the past - He recommended a "Share Stats" column under the "My Accounts" page to gauge "Quality" when everyone knows the number of "Shares" only measures participation by little "Cliques" of members, rarely is a "Share" the sole indication of "Quality" -

But let me get this straight - All Hubs with a "Zz" next to them will be unilaterally De-Listed by HP? Correct or not? -
report
1. 90
  Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Toatally agree with Alternative Prime. The policy intention seems to be to increase the number of visits to HubPages articles, but certainly it doesn't appear to do anything to increase the quality of those articles. Number of visits does not equal quality.
  report
  57
  Alternative Primeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely Greensleeves Hubs, number of visits does not necessarily equal "Quality" - Never has and never will -
  
  I'm sure you've put in the hours to create some quality works and now you have lost control as it will be judged by a select few, and swiftly tossed aside at the sole discretion others regardless of your opinion -
  
  I'm actually astonished at the very notion - Attempting to connect "Quality" of work with "Number of Views" is a worthless idea -
  
  Everyone knows this is a totally absurd and obscene concept - Any member who has the least bit of self respect, dignity, and regard for their contributions should be absolutely outraged at the very thought of their work becoming "De-Listed" while still in good standing with search entities -
  report
  88
  IzzyMposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  But the work can't be "in good standing with the search entities" if it doesn't get traffic.
  
  So, no loss to the author.
  
  If a hubber writes an outstanding hub that gets zeed, all they need to do is write a more search-friendly hub along the same topic and link the two.
  
  Then the search-friendly hub will get the traffic and send some to the zeed hub, which should bring it out of dormancy.
  report
  57
  Alternative Primeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely incorrect,
  
  Now you're trying to equate "Search Friendly" with "Quality" - Just because an article is not "Search Friendly" does not mean it's not a "Quality" contribution to a global society -
  
  This is almost as worthless as the "Share" equals "Quality" mind set -
  report
  88
  IzzyMposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I never said it wasn't quality, but if it is not search-friendly it doesn't get traffic, unless you count social traffic.
  
  That is a fact of internet writing; it is not the same as offline writing.
  
  Nothing is contributed to the global society if they can't find the article!
  
  If it is that good, change the title and a few words in the hub to make it search friendly, and reap the rewards.
  report
  57
  Alternative Primeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There is no debate when no debate is necessary Izzy so forgive me if I ignore any of your future gestures -
  
  The best work of art in the world might garner zero views due primarily to unfavorable "Search" criteria, or non-popularity, however, there is no doubt it is still the best work of art in the world -
  
  And that's a fact -
  report
  88
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Unless of course it is a hub under a certain age that has not had the time HP originally said was required for it to reach its potential.
  report
  90
  CyclingFitnessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What about seasonal hubs?
  
  I have a selection of hubs which will hit some traffic in December with Christmas and the festive season.
  
  However they will effectively be de-indexed if i'm not on the ball as their year round traffic is poor
  
  Will there be season filters to such an indexing
  report
  57
  Alternative Primeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately, for all of us professionals there are innumerable scenarios like this which will emerge to the detriment of the author -
  report
  88
  Victoria Lynnposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  My Christmas hubs don't have ZZs on them, so maybe they're okay.
  report
57
Alternative Primeposted 11 years ago
BTW - My previous comment was directed toward "HubPages" not janderson -

To elaborate further on my concerns - Even if a member exhausted a solid month of hard work dedicated to producing a single "Quality", hub, it now runs the risk of becoming "De-listed" at the sole discretion of HubPages primarily because I don't belong to a "Clique" and don't receive "Pity Views"? Where was the disclaimer which explicitly stated this absurd policy? Don't you think the prudent thing to do would be to display this warning in oversized font on every page within the community?

So now, if a Hub "De-listing" is the latest "Fear" members face every day, how much time does HP expect the average member to spend creating articles if they continue to participate at all? - If it's any longer than 5 minutes per piece that member probably needs a lobotomy plus a brain re-wire -

So now that we've established the fact that members will absolutely spend significantly less time creating Hubs, will less time and effort expended erode or enhance overall "Quality" of published work from this day forward? - I don't think we need a lobotomy to figure this one out -
report
1. 90
  Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Alternative Prime talks a lot of sense in his comments. As this hubber says, a writer may devote a lot of time - many days or even weeks (as I have done several times before now) - on a hub, trying to produce something of real quality without the need for regular updating, but of course if the subject matter is of minority interest then it may now be de-listed. A hub written hastily by a hubber who goes out of their way to attract 'followers' and publicise their work on Facebook, Twitter etc, may be really poor in quality, but presumably would be more likely to stay listed, especially if they spend a few minutes each month 'updating' it.
  report
  82
  snakeslaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +1 Greensleeves Hubs, I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head. This is a sad day for scholars, poets, satirists, fiction writers and artists on Hub Pages. It is also a great loss to the wider www 'searchers' who will have no access to unique and valuable pages (presumably as long as they are posted here).
  report
90
Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years ago
Hi;

I have some grave misgivings about this latest policy by HubPages, which I would like reassurance about. It seems from reading the blog that the key definition of 'quality' in this regard is a hub which receives lots of traffic. 'Underperforming' means a hub which lacks much traffic.

But traffic is not the measure of a good hub, it is the measure of a popular hub. There is a difference. Suppose for example somebody chooses to write a hub about some obscure little fungus or some figure from history unknown to the general public, whom only a small number of people are interested in. Such an article may be the best written, most informed, most definitive article about that particular subject ever published, but it's still not going to get much traffic. And if it's not indexed by search engines, then presumably it will never be found by those who do want to read it. Meanwhile, a really trashy page about a current phenomenon of popular culture, or other popular subjects, will receive lots of visits, even if such visits are only brief. But which are the better articles, and more deserving to be on Hubpages?

Likewise, much is made of the need to update hubs with fresh information. If you're writing about a subject from history, there may not be any fresh information to add. And if a hub is good (even if it is not on a mass appeal topic) why should it be revised. Change doesn't always improve.

I've recently been writing some reviews of hubs in various topics, and some of the very best are hubs which have received very few comments and presumably very few views in the past - not because they are bad, but because of the subject matter, or the lack of publicity for the hub, or because the hubber hasn't been very active in trying to garner followers. Some of these are very clearly superior in every respect to some hubs which have received much more attention. And yet such hubs will surely now be invisible and untraceable to all?

It seems that popularity and mass appeal is being accentuated at the expense of quality. I am all for revision and updating of hubs where necessary, and it would be a useful service for HubPages to indicate to a hubber that their work is not attracting attention, but to actively remove such hubs from search engine indexes seems wrong to me. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the way this new policy will work. If so, I hope you can put my mind at rest.

Alun.
report
1. 86
  aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think it can be purely based on how much traffic a hub receives, that would be very simplistic, I suspect that there is a quality element to it. One of my sleeper hubs, has had a bit more traffic than others that are still featured.
  
  The other thing that is not very clear, is how much traffic is too little. From my not very popular hubs, that are still featured (touch wood) I don't think the bar is very high. If you look at the HubPages stats, you will see that there are over a milion published hubs (so far), but only about 300,000 get 10 views a month. I suspect, although i admit this is just guessing, that the traffic that is required to stay indexed, is probably less than 10 a month. It is difficult to imagine that the site will suddenly de-index 2/3 of its content.
  
  Having said that one of my hubs that was idled got 11 views in the past 30 days. Maybe they were all non-search engine views or the hub had other low-quality signals. It will actally be interesting to see how many pages will be in G's index next week after the idle hubs are de-indexed.
  It will give an idea of what percentage of the site is affected by this development.
  report
2. 53
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It would seem to me that there are two stages.
  1. The Grim Reaper reviews a new hub - and it is either unpublished (fails a rule), published internally but not indexed (ZZZ-low quality) or featured and indexed.
  2. After a certain period of time the Grim Reaper review the page in terms of traffic and freshness. If it has poor traffic / is stale and needs updating it is given a ZZZ - it remains accessible on HP but is not indexed. It can be reviewed updated and resubmitted.
  
  So these is a minimum quality test and a popularity test to get indexed.
  A fabulous hub about an obscure topic can remain published on HP and enjoy all the benefits of being published as part of the HP community, but will not be indexed. The author has an incentive to upgrade it and make it more popular. It will be reassessed and 'awaken' if things change.
  
  Only having hubs that are popular, 'fresh' and of good quality is required to lift the rankings and reputation of both HP and the SUBS on the search engines.
  IMO
  report
  53
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  To use an analogy
  Lets say HP is fresh produce market business.
  They very generously offer to list anything buyers want to sell in their catalogue for free, provided they meet their minimum quality standards. No charge for this ever.
  They also offer self-space for free for goods that are excellent quality and they are likely to be what people are looking for.
  Your goods will be indexed and placed on the selves. If the goods get stale, lose their appeal and are not bought very often, they take the product off the selves and let you know that they will be reinstated if you the producer can make them more attractive and popular again. They are still listed in the published catalogue for free.
  HP has to maintain its popularity for having the best quality produce on its shelves to keep attracting buyers and getting good reports from the reviewers.
  HP is a business but they generously offer to add any produce to their catalogue for free and allow the producer to update and upgrade their listing at any time using their fabulous set of editing tools.
  HP is a business that offer writers a share of income from their hubs on the shelves and in the catalogue. People can but stuff from the catalogue (the internal pages on HP).
  report
  90
  Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  'all the benefits of being published as part of the HubPages community'? There are undoubted benefits but in terms of traffic these are mostly in the first few weeks after publication. After that, almost all traffic will come from off site, and if the hub is not indexed, the possibility of receiving that traffic is lost, and there are then virtually no benefits to being published on HubPages. The 'incentive to upgrade it and make it more popular' may be read as meaning that - in the case of a serious or academic article - one should dumb it down to reach people for whom the hub was never intended.
  report
  53
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Lets say you write a series of articles on garden pests. You do your research and find a popular vacant niche that you can compete in and will get traffic. You can then write a series of other articles linked to this one which will get secondary traffic via interlinking. People who come browsing on HP after reading one pest article, even not your own, will also find your series under the 'garden pest' topic. So there are secondary benefits of being ZZZ on hubpages. Some people may link to your sleepy hubs, lift the traffic and you may be able to ask for reassessment based on the increase traffic.
  report
  72
  Barbara Kayposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  But you forget that the article on garden pests will be de-indexed in the winter months, because no one is searching for gardening info in the winter. All of the other hubs on gardening will be too.
  report
3. 88
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Very well said
  report
83
Mark Ewbieposted 11 years ago
Seems to me that my best work is that which is not aimed at the cheap keyword trick.

Therefore I fail as A HubPages writer.

Maybe it really is time to put the 'good' stuff in a Kindle and just churn out keyword crap in order to try and sell it.

No traffic = poor quality and a deindex penalty.

I'm just waiting for a decent piece of my writing to get the Zzzz and then I'm gone.
report
1. 74
  Horatio Plotposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  This is not just about keyword SEO rubbish vs quality writing. Your being too simplistic for a man of intellect.
  I think HP and Google really do believe that they can improve what's out there.
  And as I don't think you've ever written a bad sentence Mark, (and I think HP think that too) I'm willing to bet you have zero "idling" hubs.
  report
84
Azure11posted 11 years ago
I agree with a few of the posters (haven't had time to read all of the comments). I think this is a step too far. I also have seasonal hubs that have Zzz's on them and now think that it is not worth keeping them on here. They do not need updating, they just need to stay indexed until the appropriate season arrives.

Also, I have recently deleted a few hubs. It was my choice to delete them. Taking my hubs out of Google is to me as good as deleting them as I am here to earn money and I can't do that just by other hubbers visiting my hubs.

What I think would redeem this feature is if we could manually turn off the Zzz for our own hubs if we disagreed with your decision on it being idle. It is useful to see the Zzz so that we can amend any underperforming hubs but tbh I can see myself by the stats if a hub is not performing.

On the plus side hopefully this will cut out some of the dross that is on the site.
report
1. 90
  Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Azure11 makes a good point about seasonal hubs - should a Christmas hub be de-listed because it doesn't receive much traffic in June? How is it supposed to build up traffic when the subject matter becomes topical if it is invisible to all? I agree also that the ZZZs should only be advisory - it should be up to the hubber to decide what to do with their own hubs.
  report
  88
  Victoria Lynnposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If a seasonal hub has enough solid content, maybe it won't be marked as ZZZ? Just wondering. Only one of my seasonal hubs--Valentine's Day--was marked, so I added a video to it. My Christmas ones are fine so far. It will be interesting to see what happens!
  report
0
SirDentposted 11 years ago
Nearly all of my poetry hubs have Zz's, along with some of my Bible study hubs. I can understand what HP is trying to do. Some hubs which have more traffic are flagged with Zz's while others with less traffic are not. I honestly believe a little tweaking should be done before this is actually put into effect.

Right now, those hubs with Zz's are not yet hidden but they will be tomorrow, unless HP delays it.
report
63
MarleneBothaposted 11 years ago
None of my hubs are idle... I suppose it's because I don't have an adsense account as yet?
I have 7 Hubs so I'm almost ready to send through my application.

Reading the blog post and this thread took the excitement away. I can't see how this will make things better. Why the change if everything worked perfectly fine before? Sounds to me like you'll be losing some writers here. The pro's are less than the con's. The things HB staff are saying is fair, somehow I suppose, but the majority aren't okay with this. I'm not either. I don't like it one bit. I don't know if I should even continue to write here, or rather search for another site to write on. This just sounds like much more effort, and I think it's unnecessary. Not the part where we have to edit our hubs, but having to send it through to you etc. Argh.
report
57
Alternative Primeposted 11 years ago
Is it even legal to unilaterally "De-List" an authors work which he/she owns exclusive rights to, while in good standing and indexed by search? Regardless of page placement? -

Would this action require mutual consent from Web Site Owner & Intellectual Property Owner?
report
0
Daniella Lopezposted 11 years ago
I can honestly say that two of my hubs that were marked Zzz needed to be updated. However, I had several poems and recipes that were marked this way and it kind of aggravates me. There are many amazing poets and fiction writers on Hubpages who may end up facing the fact that nearly all their articles will be marked with Zzz.

I don't really have a problem with the system otherwise, as most of my hubs are evergreen topics. But I do have an issue with the poetry and fiction work that may be removed from the site. Just because these articles are a little low on the search engines does not mean that they bring down the value of Hubpages.
report
88
Victoria Lynnposted 11 years ago
Will our hubs actually be removed by HP if they keep ZZs on them? I think it's a neat program if we're allowed to deal with our hubs in our own way.
report
1. 57
  Alternative Primeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  In a universe where the individual creator's unique expression, integrity, and desires are respected, you are allowed to deal with your hubs in your own way -
  
  But somehow, HP Employees are being steered toward the misguided impression that "Views" equals "Quality" and now we have a policy, legal or otherwise, which dictates a unilateral "De-Listing" of those Hubs which do not get "Clique" views or traffic from other sources -
  report
88
Victoria Lynnposted 11 years ago
Okay, I just answered my own question. According to the Learning Center, we don't have to delete idle hubs unless we want to. Also, I know that people are worried about poetry, but a third of my hubs are poems, and only a few had ZZs, so hopefully this will not affect the poets on HP. We shall see. I've already updated quite a few of my hubs and am waiting to see if the updates got rid of the snoozes (ZZs). :-)
report
1. 90
  Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I think the concern people have re-poems and creative work is valid. How do you update a poem or a short story? One can tinker with it - adding or removing a photo or an introduction - but this is just cosmetics. Works of fiction cannot effectively be updated because there is no way of updating them,
  
  Equally, some academic articles which are factual - such as historical research - may not lend themselves to updating. If the facts are presented well, no updating is necessary, because no new facts will emerge with which to update the hub! A little cosmetic tinkering is all that could be done.
  report
  74
  Horatio Plotposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If you want it to stand there, alone in the cold night air, just wobbling on its own, do nothing, let it sleep. If you want the rest of the world out there in Googleland to see it and recognise your genius, add a picture, or a silly little poll and maybe watch it fly.
  Very few do it for the art, most do it for the money - including the site owners.
  report
  90
  Polly Cposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Most of my hubs on this account I have written with the intention that they will not need updating. Therefore, I had no plans to go back and add new information because I do not believe it to be necessary (with maybe the odd exception). Why should hubs need updating for the search engines if the content is designed to last?
  
  Also, some of my hubs are about attractions and places that are very local to me and I knew, when I wrote them, that they would only get a handful of views at a time. But still, they are helpful to the few people that might be looking for that information.
  
  I write a fair amount of poetry and would be mortified if my poems received idle status. I read a comment by staff on this thread that poetry is not written for the search engines - I can assure you that in my case it is written exactly for that. Most of my poetry views do come from google, but again I have zero intention of ever editing them because they are finished.
  
  I can't understand the analysis behind the procedure. For the record, none of my poems or hubs on local attractions are idle, so maybe the judgement is accurate. On the other hand, I sort of feel I would rather take my own risks rather than have the decision made for me.
  report
  90
  Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly Polly. All your points are valid and unarguable.
  report
  74
  Horatio Plotposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Polly.
  You have 59 Hubs. Can I ask how many of them have been sent to sleep?
  Horatio
  report
  74
  Horatio Plotposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry Polly, didn't read your post fully.
  report
  86
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That was my intention, too. It's not passive income if you have to keep going back and tweaking.
  
  Squidoo has a similar filter. Greekgeek wrote a Hub about her success on Squidoo, and in it she mentions that you have to republish (Squidoo equivalent of update) all your articles every month or so. If that's the way we're going, HubPages starts to become not worth the effort...
  report
  80
  Dale Hydeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Most true, and I agree. I have no "idle" hubs at the moment, but I went through them all within the past few months applying "tweaks" I read about in various posts...so they are showing as revised and such within a relatively short period of time.
  
  When I started here on HP, it was the "passive" earnings that was what caught my eye in the advertising to get me to sign up.... It appears now that there will be no such thing if we have to continually pop in and revise.....even good material.
  report
60
paradigmsearchposted 11 years ago
I've noticed that whenever HP does something...

Pandemonium immediately reigns across the land...

But eventually it always works out.
report
1. 57
  Alternative Primeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Your statement is absurd and I find it totally disrespectful to all expert contributors - All I see is a mass exodus by the best writers/photographers/artists -
  
  Your comment might ring true for those who do not take pride in their work, but this is not the case for those of us who have exhausted innumerable hours or days to ensure quality experiences are had by a global audience only to have it subjected daily to the risk of random, unilateral de-listing by HP -
  
  P.S. - Any thoughts on the legalities of unilateral manipulation of an author's work?
  
  The only members who could possibly agree with this policy are those who have not and DO NOT spend the necessary time it takes to produce "Quality" works - Therefore, it's no big loss if their Hubs are randomly dismantled -
  report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Give HP a chance to react to all of the feedback. They've always done so in the past.
  report
  70
  thisisoliposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  From what I have seen they have ignored reactions and done whatever their initial plan was, hence the mass exodus of hubbers that were generating large quantities of traffic to the site.
  
  Up until now I have left my hubs up for the meager earnings they still provided, last month being about $400, far from the payments I used to receive. After this change which in my opinion is an extremely misguided move SEO wise, I are seeing more reasons to move my content away than leave it of here.
  
  Hubpages has already said that this is happening, I don't doubt that it is going to be followed through, and in my eyes it is going to lead to yet more lost traffic due to their misunderstanding of Google's aims towards quality (I can only assume they haven't seen any of the numerous leaked documents and Google patent applications that tell us what kind of things Google actually is looking for.)
  
  It's sad to me that a website that used to provide such a great community now only catches my attention when I see them doing something that is yet again going to take a chunk out of my earnings.
  
  Hubpages got hit by something that was completely out of their control. However the fact that their policies have driven off a large number of major traffic generators (Who are still mostly seeing success on their own properties) should be an indication that something is inherently wrong here.
  
  This is still not a 'I'm going to take everything down' rant, but it's getting very close to that fine line.
  
  If Hubpages really wants to improve things right now they should take a lead off Google's current move towards social interaction being a real ranking factor, and marketing testing showing Google+ having significant impact over other social tools, and get a Google+ button in multiple locations on the pages.
  report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I remember you from long ago. I haven't seen you in ages. I thought I was already following you. Fixed that.
  report
  70
  thisisoliposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Heh, hope you don't become discouraged by my lack of activity on the Hubpages feed :p
  report
  59
  tussinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are correct about everything except:
  
  "Hubpages got hit by something that was completely out of their control."
  
  They had years to clean up their spam/spun/Engrish content before Panda.
  report
2. 80
  Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You've been told
  report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  report
  96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Let me just say, that I have always appreciated your absurdist statements, Para!
  report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks! Sometimes, though, I have to immediately depart afterward...
  report
74
Horatio Plotposted 11 years ago
So here's the thing. It's not like the standard's been set that high, is it? I have a Hub with 19 views - 1 of which is from google.com and 1 of which is from google.cl (wherever that may be), and it's OK. Chill chaps, if a Hub's got Zzzs, it probably deserves them.
Horatio
report
90
Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years ago
As anyone who has read my posts on this topic will be aware, this policy of de-listing hubs seems to me to be directed towards increasing traffic - NOT increasing quality - the amount of traffic a hub receives has virtually nothing to do with quality.

The policy is also promoting the idea of 'updating' or 'refreshing' hubs - whilst this may be a good way of improving one's ranking on google, updating or refreshing may only be of value for a rotten hub. A good hub may not need updating - the reason it doesn't get much traffic is not because it is stale and needs refreshing, but because it is of minority interest.

The one virtue I can see in this policy is that it may encourage hubbers to find ways of advertising or linking their less 'popular' hubs to attract more traffic. For example if one writes an obscure (but excellent) hub about - say - the breeding habits of the duck-billed platypus, which doesn't get much traffic, the ZZZs may give the incentive to link the hub to sites covering Australian natural history or other related subjects, thus bringing in a litttle more traffic, without the need to modify a perfectly good page.. However, this should be the choice of the hubber - the hubber should not be forced down this path by having the hub de-listed. The ZZZs should only be advisory, not enforced.
report
60
paradigmsearchposted 11 years ago
Here is the answer to a question I've seen posted several times.

noindex also means de-index.

When a search engine runs across a noindex, and the page is already indexed, the search engine will de-index that page.

So say the tech sites I've visited.
report
1. 80
  Dale Hydeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well if that is the case, then I will simply unpublish here and move it to one of my other sites. Thanks for that. Talk about "censorship".....
  report
2. 80
  Dale Hydeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I have seen that "Google" visited the hub upon my index request, but it IS NOT indexed. First time ever.... So it appears that HP is blocking the index. Not good and not acceptable to me. This penalizes members who have many hubs and quality hubs with no past problems.
  report
0
Arlene V. Pomaposted 11 years ago
Well, if the Zzz's keep coming, the focus couldl be on fixing these Hubs instead of writing new material. If you've overhauled your account during all these changes, you are free to pack it up and split at any time or find new homes for some of your Hubs. So far, I've got about 120 "homeless" unpublished Hubs that I don't even want to deal with. So I leave them where they are.
report
69
sunforgedposted 11 years ago
Let me show you an example of something that you will lose out on.

(Feel free to show me how It is not a lose scenario)

Lets say I was a huge James Bond fan.

There is talk that in 2014 "James Bond 24" will be released. (No title yet)

There are currently only 390 searches a month for that term.

One could RIGHT NOW - dig through all the industry buzz, talk about their own love of the series - recent incarnation of Bond, etc. Make something fun about who might play Bond, who the villain may be - blah blah blah How it may tie- in with past Bond movies

If you were a fan you could really make a great quality sneak peek style article.

That article could very well be the article that all other articles later down the line choose to reference when they discuss the film.

At some point, the release of the movie will be become more publicly known and search interest will skyrocket. But, as of now - your looking at a possible 10-ish hits a day max. Its very likely you will receive almost none until interest spikes.

If you were ahead of the game such a topic could segway into something hugely profitable for you (again, IM assuming a high quality based on the theoretical fan writing this article)

Since hubpages would put this (intentional) SLEEPER to sleep - you are screwed, such foresight will never work for you here.

As a fun aside, I had a way better example with way less search interest and a much larger profit potential and an actual title, but I decided to pull that info out because it began to seem like a great opportunity to pursue

As more information was released you would actually be updating such an article, so possibly would come out of Idle - but by the time that happens you may have missed out in being first or catching the first wave of real organic links

WHat used to be a subdomain of individual articles seems to be being pushed to a concept of dozens-hundreds mini blogs.

what level of return is an individual hub worth to require that type of time investment!

I think its nuts that everyone is so open to this!!! Obviously, its going to happen, no reason to scream to much, but there are so many scenarios where having your hub lose visibility is going to make you miss out on unforseen opportunities, surprise trends and simply choosing to discuss or perhaps create awareness for unpopular topics simply because you enjoy them!

Deindex means invisible.

Feel free to run with the James Bond 24 concept.
report
1. 74
  Horatio Plotposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds like a great hub. Why do you think it will be sent to sleep?
  report
  69
  sunforgedposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Because at this time - the search history is only 390 monthlys of which other articles will also demand some traffic.
  
  Its just a hypothetical.
  
  Pick any topic where your expert knowledge or hobby insight/research skills can you provide you with a future hit
  
  Traffic may be nil to none for awhile - but being one of the first to the "ball" very often (and very rightfully) can become the beginning of a snowball.
  
  If you dont come out of "Idle" until the rest of the world catches on - you just lost your head start!
  report
  74
  Horatio Plotposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So tell me exactly how little traffic would sent "James Bond 24" to sleep?
  I have a fiction Hub that has a title that gets no exact or broad searches at all and that has received 7 google hits in 5 months via searches for the words "good", "day", "in", "wardrode", "ice" and "cubes".
  It has not been sent to sleep.
  I think you are over-reacting, the bar has not been set very high.
  report
2. 86
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  report
3. 59
  tussinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Good example Sunforged, but you know what HP staff will say...."Oh, we have some algorithm that detects potentially future trending topics just like we have an algorithm to tell if something is seasonal."
  
  Uh huh, yeah right.
  report
4. 74
  Lissieposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  report
90
Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years ago
I wonder;

If Shakespeare were alive today and were to publish one of his sonnets on HubPages, it probably wouldn't get many viewings (because Shakespeare, being a 400 year old gentleman, wouldn't know very much about advertising his work on the Internet, or linking to twitter). Likewise with Byron's poems, Aesops fables, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and any other historic work you care to mention.

No doubt Shakespeare's sonnet would be de-listed if it didn't get many views because it was 'underperforming', it was 'stale' and it would be 'damaging the reputation of other hubs'. No doubt HubPages would encourage Mr Shakespeare to 'update' it and 'refresh it'. I'm not sure how he would do that, but that's the message of the new idle hub policy.

I can certainly understand the need to diminish the impact of poor quality hubs. But there is a massive difference between poor quality hubs on the one hand, and low traffic hubs on the other. There must be a better way of doing this than to de-list hubs merely on the basis of how much traffic they receive.
report
1. 57
  Alternative Primeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You've said it well Greensleeves,
  
  But unfortunately, "Poor Quality" hubs, which is of course a primary driver of overall "Reputation" is only one of a myriad of issues facing HP -
  report
2. 78
  Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Here's where I struggle. I'm a writer in the old fashioned sense, as in, one who makes stories, one who strives for art or at least poignancy. But I have to tell you, I am also a man of the modern world. The emotive side of me wants to agree with you. I want to complain that HP is crapping on genuine creativity. That they deny themselves access to art and reduce themselves to the commonplace, the banal, the empty language of commerce or, at best, high school research.
  
  But here's the thing. They don't pay the bills with sonnets. If Shakespeare were alive today, he wouldn't be writing on HP. Why would he? That would be stupid. Nobody would find his stuff on here. (While I'm no Bill S., I can certainly see that my most muse-inspired such and such languishes un-seen sometimes here.) Bill was a clever guy, however, and he was smart enough to get the Globe up and did his own thing.
  
  I think in that is your lesson, and mine. HP is not a place for art. It's not a place for humor, cleverness or satire. Those things can exist, but they must exist in the place of, first and foremost, commerce. If you can't deliver a metric that pays, then you shouldn't be here. You need to build your Globe. Your website of beauteous art.
  
  Trust me, I'm not happy about it, but I see it. I have some satire and spoofy stuff that I wrote in the context of search, lampooning SEO or at least some ranting humor that pooped on something commercial that I made with attention to keywords. Perhaps in that model will come a new form of art. A hybrid thing where the clever and commercially conscious mock the thing that floats them. I know I will try to do so. (I ridicule tags with almost all my tags, and so far, it hasn't cost me yet... which it probably now will when some young, ambitious moderator goes to take a look... sigh). But my point is, Shakespeare would have put up Shakespeare.com for his meaningful works. He would have built an audience, sent them to his FB page, and thrown up lots of posts encouraging people to buy tickets for tomorrow night's show at the Globe.
  
  Lament the change. Change always sucks, but HP is not a site for art. We might convince them to add that as a department, but right now, I think they need to pay the bills.
  report
  90
  Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Shadesbreath; I understand and appreciate the points you make, but I would suggest that Hubpages have never, to the best of my knowledge, promoted themselves as a site purely for commercial writers. They've always emphasised quality more than anything else, and they seem to be trying to subtely change the emphasis now by implying that quality = quantity of traffic. The topics categories on HubPages include large numbers of subdivisions covering the most obscure and specialised appeal subjects as well as creative writing categories in which the subject matter cannot be easily updated to stop it 'becoming stale'. Very large numbers of the hubs in these categories - however well written they are - will now be likely to be hidden from the general public.
  
  You may be getting close to the truth when you say:
  
  'HP is not a place for art. It's not a place for humor, cleverness or satire. Those things can exist, but they must exist in the place of, first and foremost, commerce. If you can't deliver a metric that pays, then you shouldn't be here'.
  
  I wonder if Hubpages would admit to that though, or whether that is really what they want.
  
  Re-Shakespeare, you are probably also right when you say:
  
  Shakespeare would have put up Shakespeare.com for his meaningful works. He would have built an audience, sent them to his FB page, and thrown up lots of posts encouraging people to buy tickets for tomorrow night's show at the Globe.
  
  Certainly one lesson from this is the need to use links and promotions away from HubPages to increase traffic, but is that really what HubPages want - to become just a vehicle for advertising posts? Do they really want the quality stuff to be posted on members' own websites as in 'Shakespeare.com' rather than on HubPages?
  
  I appreciate your thoughtful comments - I just hope though that HubPages does not go down this direction but finds another way to 'pay the bills', rather than penalising quality non-commercial hubs. Alun.
  report
57
Alternative Primeposted 11 years ago
Just for the record, without conditions, I unequivocally reject the act of HubPages unilaterally "De-Listing" or "De-Indexing" any or all of my Hubs while they are still in "Good Standing" with search -

I unequivocally disapprove of this ill-conceived policy and have not granted permission or consent to any Hubpages employee(s) to pursue this unilateral action -
report
1. 78
  MyWebsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I concur with that statement. If a hub is as you say in "Good Standing" ,which to me means it is listed in the search engines and not buried in the SERP's , then it clearly is not being penalized by Google. The only penalty being applied here is by HP telling Google not to index content that it otherwise already did index. This is insane!
  report
90
Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years ago
MY 'IDLE' HUB ABOUT 'UNITED 93'

Of my 77 hubs, only 3 have ZZZ idle signs next to them. Two of these, ironically, are hubs promoting HubPages itself and the virtues of membership.

The third is one of 20 film reviews I've done. The review in question which has incurred the site's wrath is a review of the film 'United 93' about the plane which crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers tried to wrestle back control on 9/11. Admittedly the review doesn't get many visits at all, but I suspect this is because many millions of entries will be brought up by a google search of 'United 93', which my hub has to compete against. Whether this review is one of the best or worst I've written, I leave to others to judge, but certainly I am prouder of it than I am of many of the others I've written because of the emotional significance, and the effort I put into it. I hope it is OK to link here:

http://greensleeves-hubs.hubpages.com/h … eensleeves

so that anyone interested can let me know if they think this is a hub which should be de-listed in order to improve the overall quality of the site.

Alun
report
1. 53
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I did some research - Try this Title
  'United 93 Movie Review and Summary of the Plot'
  the keywords
  'United 93 Movie Review'
  'United 93 Movie Summary'
  both appear good choices on Jaaxy.com
  
  add a video trailer
  get some links -via interlinking and external.
  report
  90
  Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  janderson99;
  
  Thanks for the advice about keywords to use. - not my strong point! My actual title is 'United 93; A Film Review', and that precise combination of words puts me on Page 3 on Google, and I'm not sure I could get it much higher ranked than that, with a different title, tho' the point is taken.
  
  The point about interlinking is very valid I think. The one virtue of this new 'idle hub' policy from my point of view is that it may encourage hubbers to think more about how they link their hubs and advertise them on other sites to reach a wider market. That's probably the only way I could increase traffic to some of my hubs because I honestly spend so much time getting them as good as I can in the first place, I'm not really able to improve them just by tweaking them.
  
  My fundamental issue with this development is the apparent correlation of 'traffic' with 'quality'. I hope my hubs have quality, even if they don't all have traffic.
  report
  53
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't want to dwell on this but if you enter
  united 93
  autosuggest shows
  united 93 movie NOT united 93 film
  cheers
  report
  90
  Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I might try that as an experiment, but I like to keep my hubs of a similar nature to a formula so I guess I'd have to change the titles of all of them to '(Title); A Movie Review', rather than '(Title); A Film Review'. I'll have to learn more about how key words work in the title and in the text to understand the benefits. Thanks.
  report
2. 82
  snakeslaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hello Alun, In terms of quality Hubs, you are one of the best writers Hub Pages has, and could ever hope to have (I say this after reading many of your pages). I think you got it right earlier when you referred to the new updating process to gain better traffic as a 'dumbing down'. (To satisfy advertisers, I assume.) Hub pages is a commercial venture, so this is not surprising. When I started writing at Hub Pages I was under the impression that my 'Subdomain' was a seperate entity, but clearly it's not.
  report
  90
  Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you so much snakeslane. I very much appreciate your words.
  Whilst I can certainly see the need for HubPages to try to ensure quality on the site, I think to de-list on the basis of traffic is not the right way. Many hubs are not designed for mass appeal - they are designed to be read and hopefully enjoyed by those with a particular interest in the hub subject matter.
  My deep thanks for what you say.
  report
3. 61
  SomewayOuttaHereposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  that is a good hub - just read it....and of course, now I would like to view it...and no....your hub should not be delisted if that is the case...if it is slated for delisting, then, Alun, it is really too bad......
  report
  90
  Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks SomewayOuttaHere; I appreciate your comment very much. And thanks so much for visiting and reading the hub about the film 'United 93'. I must admit I did feel a little indignant when I saw it had been listed as 'idle', just because it doesn't receive many visits. Clearly it wouldn't get any visits at all from off the HubPages site if it stays delisted. Once again, thanks for your support on this.
  On a related note, if you do watch the film at some point, I hope do you find it a rewarding and thought provoking experience.
  report
  61
  SomewayOuttaHereposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  you're welcome...i definitely want to see it now based on what you wrote in your hub.
  
  Cheers!
  report
4. 88
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  One of mine is on the main mistakes new hubbers make lol. It has a stack of comments, most of which thank me for providing the information. I have retitled it slightly today to see what happens, but still find it funny that it has been 'Zeed' when it has received so many comments thanking me in the past.
  report
57
Alternative Primeposted 11 years ago
I would advise everyone to stay focused on the underlying issue -

What authority does HP have to unilaterally "De-List" a quality Hub which is indexed and in "Good Standing" with "Search" regardless of view count or page placement? - It just sounds like another "Hail Mary" in a desperate attempt to somehow resurrect a few ailing "Favorite" members at the expense of all other contributors - Understanding how this ill-conceived plan could possibly will achieve this result is an exercise in insanity -

All I can say right now, is after all my hard work, if I wake up tomorrow morning only to find one or more of my Hubs had been unilaterally "De-Indexed" by HP, I will be livid -
report
1. 53
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  HP is a business - they can do anything they like. There is no contract with authors, who pay nothing for the service they provide for free.
  report
  64
  Beaksposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  We are not provided with a service. We are content providers.
  report
  88
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Just to be accurate the service isn't 'free', we pay 40% of our income to HP effectively.
  report
  53
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  They list a hub for free, and the author gets a share of any revenue.
  If the hub gets no income, HP still publishes it for free and keeps it listed.
  report
  88
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Not any more apparently. Now they don't give it a chance to earn any money before they de-list it so only people who are on an HP search can find it.
  report
0
ateinposted 11 years ago
HP seems to be shutting out the emerging topics traffic as pointed out by one hubber . There has to be a threshold before which HP can de-index a hub . There are topics - country specific topics, that might become traffic generators in next 6-8 months though they have zero number of people looking for it right now . So if a hubber writes a quality hub about it today he would be perfectly positioned to get traffic for that topic after about 6-8 months. But according to present algo put forward by HP , that hub would be de-indexed resulting in loss of traffic and exposure . Not a very good thing to do .

IMHO, taking September 2012 as the reference point, HP should go back by one year(or six months) to September 2011 and cull all the traffic less hubs that were written before September 2011 . One year is suggested because seasonal hubs and some other hubs receive search engine traffic in a single burst over a year . HP can do this again in September 2013 . De-indexing a current hub for the reason of not having search traffic might be counter-productive . Every new hub should be given enough time to generate it's own search engine traffic even though people may not be looking for the topic right now .

P.S .

I have only 3 hubs right now. But I had a bunch of them ready and was going to be publish them over next month or so . But now I will just wait and see how this pans out.
report
57
Alternative Primeposted 11 years ago
janderson99,

I don't know where to begin to explain how wrong you are - But I don't have the time right now, I've wasted enough already -
report
STAFF
Paul Edmondsonposted 11 years ago
@Dale Hyde HubPages isn't blocking Hubs from the index yet. I'd put the URL into Google and see if it's there.

for Hubbers with a HubScore above 80, 99% of traffic remains featured. Largely the other 1% comes from other means and is likely to be in a similar range.

@polly c - I really appreciate your comments and saw a few of your Hubs had Zs, but just a handful. Over the next 60 days we'll see how much this helps the community across HubPages. At the end of the day, we are one world class community. Figuring it out together.

The recent feedback we got from Google on this is that it can help significantly. We've been planning this since 2011 and have gotten top experts in the field of seo to comment on the merits. We certainly aren't cavalier about decisions like this. Many of us have been on HubPages for years and we know HubPages is only as strong as the overall community. Thankfully, we have one of the strongest.

I love seeing the insightful feedback. Many of the issues we worked through and have anticipated.

One of the hardest things to do is get scalable quality data that is accurate. When we can get data we can trust that a Hub is of high quality then I don't see why it should sleep. We are working toward that. It's a really hard technically to do it well (Google and the zillion phds are trying) or very expensive to do it manually at scale, but I believe we are on a path to getting it done well.

We are going to iterate on this over this the next several months. Ultimately, we hope to provide insights and to be able to help Hubbers succeed.
report
1. 90
  Greensleeves Hubsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Paul;
  
  your response to some of the comments appears thoughtful and moderate, and for that I am grateful.
  
  I am one of those who have very grave concerns that quantity of traffic is being linked to quality and value of writing, as though the two go hand in hand. A hub may not attract many visits, but that does not indicate poor quality, or a need to refresh it or dumb it down so it appeals to a wider market.
  
  Your comment - 'One of the hardest things to do is get scalable quality data that is accurate. When we can get data we can trust that a Hub is of high quality then I don't see why it should sleep. We are working toward that'. - seems encouraging. Does this mean you are looking at ways to identify quality, other than the amount of traffic received? I appreciate it is much easier to simply count hub visits than it is to assess quality which really requires a human input looking at the hubs, but nonetheless if quality can be identified as a valid criterion regardless of the amount of traffic received, then that would improve the reputation of HubPages far more than relying solely on traffic stats as a means of assessing a hub's worth.
  
  Alun.
  report
2. 88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'm delegating all this stuff to you, Paul. So please don't screw up!
  
  If it saves a few dozen good writers from Panda- people who have invested years of work here, it will be worth it. If you force us to update pages that don't need it, you will not be popular. lol.
  report
  88
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ditto this, and right now already happening as far as I can see
  report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I think Squidoo use their forced update feature for evil purposes. They oblige writers to engage in sweatshop type labor to squeeze a few more per cent out of their pageviews. A few per cent more views for the writers is nothing but for the guys at the top who pocket the profits, it is a lot.
  
  I am hoping Hubpages isn't going to be so exploitative. I hope it really will be for the good of all. Where you set the bar is everything.
  
  Anyway, I have Dengue Fever and a head full of viruses is never going to come up with much sense. So I am back to bed.
  report
0
Angelo52posted 11 years ago
I see a lot of negative comments about this new feature with only a few, very few positive comments. Perhaps it's because the new ranking system or whatever it is doesn't make any sense. Some of my hubs have been tagged but I expect low search results and views because stories and poetry just are that way.

I will take a look at this new system over a month's time, perhaps a little longer. If it shows improvement I will continue to write for hubpages, if not I will decide then what to do.

By the way, at least one of my hubs that has been tagged has had views this week.
report
64
Beaksposted 11 years ago
The problem here is that a lot of traffic to HP comes from other HubPages members. It's largely a social site, like Yahoo! Voices. I never see Hubs come up in search engine results, but Hubbers spend a lot of time reading Hubs. Therefore, the best business procedure would be to court Hubbers and make them happy with the experience. This is not how you do that. On writing forums, most people are saying that they are leaving. I'm definitely pulling all of my Zzz articles and putting them on a site that respects the people who basically work for free to provide them with content.
report
1. 80
  Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The majority of my views come from Google, not HP. I see hubs quite often in searches I do.
  report
  72
  Barbara Kayposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The majority of my views come from Google too. I did update most of my hubs about a month ago and the hubs that got the ZZZ's were ones I didn't update.My Google traffic did increase on the hubs that I updated .
  
  As I stated earlier though, now I'm afraid of wasting my time writing hubs that may not rank well. Some topics you don't know until you write them if they will be popular.
  report
  86
  aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That is true, I can't remember the name of the rule that says that 80% of your results come from 20% of your work, but certainly the majority of my traffic comes to a few hubs, and although I do some keyword research, ultimately there is no way of predicting which ones these will be. So from a money making point of view, I was wasting my time writing a lot of hubs that didn't perform as I wanted them to, even if they were indexed.
  
  The new feature doesn't really change things. Now I have some hubs that hardly get any traffic from Google, therefore they are making almost no money (perhaps a few cents a month), and are read by very few people. If these hubs go idle, and actually most of them didn't, they will not make any money. However the difference of a few cents is hardly worth getting excited about. One of my hubs that went idle had 11 views in the past 30 days, they were probably worth 0.3 or 0.4 cents. So next month I will be poorer by 0.3 cents, I think I can live with that. My other hub that was idled had 3 views in the last month.
  
  From what I've seen from my hubs, the bar is not set very high, plenty of hubs that have disappointing traffic are still awake. I think people are getting very emotional about the idea of being de-indexed and substandard.
  report

Closed to reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 23 4 5 … 6 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Introducing Idle Hubs

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies