HP Revenue Sharing Deal Broken? Related Searches Ad Income not Shared!

Jump to Last Post 51-61 of 61 discussions (204 posts)

90
Will Apseposted 11 years ago
I have a horrible feeling that this thread might be hastening the moment that HP announce that they cannot sustain a 60/40 revenue model in the era of mobile.
reply report
1. 78
  sabrebIadeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You think that mass exodus after the first Panda hit was bad....
  It would be nothing compared to what happens it that occurs.
  reply report
  83
  SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sadly they may have no choice - is revenues are decreasing (thanks to mobile and recent changes Google made to the way adsense works) then they have no choice - I would imagine that all online article writing sites are facing the same choices:
  
  -reduce the share of revenues keep development the same
  -reduce development keep share the same
  -do not development - this occurred at Webanswers - they simply stopped working on it in a major way, just maintain where requried - they still earn from it but have moved on to develop elsewhere.
  
  There may be a mass exodus - but the grass isn't greener on the other side sadly....
  reply report
  78
  sabrebIadeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  My blogs are doing pretty well since the last Google upheaval so the grass is pretty green over there.
  I like it here and I've been here for over six years and I plan on staying until the *end*.
  But traffic IS improving here for me and I think HP can still pull this off.
  So I dont see the *end* anytime soon.
  Either way, I'll do whatever I can to keep my end of this relationship going.
  reply report
  83
  SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed - same here. The 'grass is greener' meant other article sites...I always thought that HP should be a stepping stone towards fully owned blogs/sites and it may give some writers the impetus to concentrate more on their own content sites...which isn't necessarily a bad thing....
  reply report
76
psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago
I am totally fine with reducing the share rather than have the stated share be misleading because some undisclosed income is unshared.
reply report
90
Will Apseposted 11 years ago
I wouldn't recommend talking up the advantages of changing the revenue share, lol.

I would just let them have their little extra from the related ads (pennies for the average writer) and hope it will fill the hole until the site gains more traffic. Which QAP may or may not deliver.

Of course, Simone's hints earlier in this thread (that the site is struggling to find the money for QAP) might have been misleading. Those ads might be funding the staff's taste in fast cars. Then I could get outraged and envious at the same time.
reply report
1. 89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report
76
psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago
What if the "little extra" turns into 20% of total income or more? Well, we wouldn't know.

I want to know what the deal is. Then I know for certain if it is something I want, or something I will walk away from.

I have already gone through the goal-post moving with Today.com and Examiner. I don't want to do that again.
reply report
1. 86
  aa liteposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I would seriously doubt that the "little extra" amounts to that much individually. It seems to me that to earn from this you need 2 clicks, first for somebody to click on the 'related search' and then for somebody to actually click on an Adsense ad (I would imagine that most people would hit the 'back button' in disgust when they land on a page full of Adsense.
  
  It also seems to me that if your page is good and satisfies the need of the searcher, there is less of a chance of them clicking. Paul E. has said previously that thin pages have a higher CTR on Adsense then good pages. I imagine that also applies to related search.
  
  I guess it generates money for HP, simply because they get it from the whole site. They are now advertising getting 50 milion visitors a month. With that many people, I guess the clicks ad up, even if they are rare.
  
  I still think the ads are wrong, one because of the underhand way they've been introduced and two because they make the site more spammy. I'm just saying I don't think we'd be better off if HP removed them but changed the revenue sharing deal to 50:50.
  
  As to HPs presumptive financial difficulties, there is really no way to tell. I've never seen any published data on how HP is doing. According to quantcast unique visitors are about 75% of those before the first panda, while the number of page views is a more like 80%. Adsense doesn't pay as well now as it did a couple of years ago, but the HPads CPM seems fairly high, perhaps somebody who was well established before Jan 2012 could give an idea of whether HPads CPM is signifcantly lower than their Adsense CPM was in those glorious days.
  reply report
  83
  SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I just compared 2011 earnings (fully Adsense) against 2012 earnings (fully HP) and the CPM is 75% higher. When I include the Adsense earnings for the 2012 (the HP Ad program sometimes includes google ads) my CPM is 100% higher.
  
  My total traffic was about 10% higher for 2012.
  
  I was considering switching back to all Google, but as the CPM for HP seems pretty consistent for me when analyzing the last two years, I guess I'll stick with HP Ads.
  reply report
  52
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There is a lot of trust involved in the HP ad program and revenue sharing. I am not saying there is a problem, but this whole scenario with reluctance to admit that 100% of income went to HP, for more than 6 weeks, raises some concern. However CPM is up recently and we reap the benefits of HP's hard work with that.
  reply report
73
livewithrichardposted 11 years ago
I don't care about the "Related Searches" link as much as I care about their placement. I don't like the fact that they scroll with the page. I would prefer that the links were placed BELOW the "Discover More Hubs" module and be stationary. I would prefer an ad link that we could earn from in the position that the scrolling links are now. I think we would all earn more, including HP if this were the case.

The 2 step CTR on those links has to suck. I'm certain the CTR on an obvious ad would perform tenfold better.
reply report
1. 90
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +1 I couldn't agree more.
  reply report
90
mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years ago
It bothers me less that they get the income from those 'Related Searches' than it does the fact that they are utilising a prime advertising area on our hubs where an advert should be placed that we could earn from and split is as per normal with HP 60/40. I feel a standard Ad block would perform well in that spot, so why not put one there so we can all benefit!
reply report
1. 83
  SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed - there is a 'related searches' section at the bottom of the Hub - why not simply leave it there!
  reply report
91
Sue Adamsposted 11 years ago
The income HP make from the so called "Related Search" links must be quite substantial.

Every single R.S. link leads to a page with no less than 10 adverts plus a huge colored unrelated ad in the side bar. That makes 12 adverts per link. Multiply this by 11 links on each Hub, that makes 132 adverts per Hub.

Compare that with the 7 real ads placed on our hubs for which we get 60% exposure.

By looking at your average monthly income over the last couple of months, then working out what that income could be with 139 ads per Hub instead of the mere 7, anyone can work out exactly to what extent we are being ripped off here.
reply report
1. 83
  SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That's not a fair comparision - they are not all visible at the same time - the 7 ads are all visible.
  
  Effectively it becomes one extra ad in a prominent position - so it probably gets a few more clicks than the other ad, but the click through ratio after that is probably pretty poor....
  
  ...however, as these are on all hubs there probably is a small boost in total revenue for HP....
  reply report
2. 52
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I agree the 'Related Search' Ads are likely to be highly successful and the link text is spot on in most instances.
  reply report
91
Sue Adamsposted 11 years ago
On the contrary, the sliding links are visible all the time, while our 7 ads are only visible when you scroll down to them all.

It becomes potential clicks on no less than 6 x 12= 72 ads in the most prominent sliding position, never to leave your peripheral vision while trying to read the content, plus another 5 x 12= 60 at the bottom.

But that is probably just what we are expected to do: Argue among ourselves.

Which side are you on guys?
reply report
1. 83
  SimeyCposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  At the most it's an additional page of Ads - would you click on every 'search' item especially after finding the first one leads to a list of ads? I don't know that anyone would. Would you also click on a search element, click on an ad and then come back and click on another ad?
  
  There may be a potential of 72 additional ads - but the reality is that it'll only usually lead to one click on one ad if that....
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Would you accept a comparison to Amazon? With a click on a RS as equating to clicking a product link and a click on a ad equating to an Amazon purchase?
  
  I find about a 1% click through rate to Amazon with somewhere around 5 or 6 products per hub. As those hubs with Amazon capsules are written around those capsules and designed to promote sales, we might see half the click through rate with RS - as others have commented they aren't really very "related" and there is nothing in the hub pushing for a click. In addition, I would doubt that a reader clicking a "related search" button is expecting a page of ads, where the Amazon product click produces exactly the expected result. If half the rate is valid, then, that means a .5% click through to the actual ads.
  
  Once in Amazon, a 6% conversion rate isn't bad, but keep in mind that most sales (at least for me) are not the product advertised but something else, and that "something else" comes from the millions of products Amazon has. So let's figure the same thing; half the conversion rate. 3% of the click through's will result in clicking an ad. At this point, 50000 visits has produced 250 clicks to the ads page and 8 clicks on the ads themselves.
  
  Given that those ads are not well targeted, that they nevertheless depend on the hub topic (very variable) and probably the reader history, I wouldn't expect the earnings to be very high. Maybe $.50 per click.
  
  So, a 50,000 view month might produce $4 in income. If a 60/40 split was used the hubber would have earned $2.40 for each 50,000 views. IF the assumptions and guesses are valid.
  reply report
  90
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Fiendish mathematics, lol, but probably in the right sort of area.
  
  The important thing for me is that my traffic has increased by thirty or forty per cent over the last six weeks or so and my income has risen by about the same. I would say QAP has a lot to do with this. Since the related ads do not seem to be harming me and my income has risen dramatically, it is hard to get upset.
  
  The point others make about shoddy ads putting readers off doesn't seem to be borne out by read times either.
  
  If HP introduced ads that flash, for example, that would be a different matter. Flashing ads on some of my favorite news sites have forced me to start using Adblocker. Adblocker is a really stable, effective and easy to use tool and a real income killer for writers. You don't want to be giving any reasons for readers to start adopting it.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Me, too. Traffic is up, likely with the QAP to thank, and income right with it. I don't see those ads putting anyone off. So yes, it's hard to get real upset at losing out on an addition dollar or two per month. If it even helps a little toward paying for the quality program I'm OK with that.
  
  I do rather agree that the RS is really skirting the edge of the agreement, but don't find it worth blowing a gasket over, either.
  reply report
  94
  SmartAndFunposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Good for you that your traffic is up. Not everyone's is. Perhaps those of us with declining or stagnant traffic are the ones who are most upset about this -- well, and those of us who value transparency and principles. I believe HP has broken their agreement. What's upsetting to me is the principle and the fact that there's no transparency. It doesn't really matter what the dollar amounts in question are, in my opinion.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I tend to agree on the principle, and said so. HP has followed the letter of the agreement but not, IMHO, the spirit.
  
  The "no transparency" thing is becoming a mantra without meaning, though. We've been told exactly what was done, why we don't share and about everything else you can think of about this. What isn't transparent here?
  reply report
  76
  psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  1) The number of times we had to ask.
  2) the exact proportion of our traffic we now get to earn from (which was already a little vague around the edges.)
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  ?? Could be wrong, but as I recall the question was answered in the first thread with a direct question as to why it wasn't shared.
  
  The proportion of your traffic that you earn from is 60%. Given, of course, that it is a random thing and will never be exact. How that is calculated and applied was explained years ago, along with instructions on how to check it.
  reply report
  52
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There is nothing in the Learning Center or FAQ about this. The image shows that ads in the right hand columns are part of the Ad program, and Adsense shared revenue. The only information about this major policy change was in the forums and the final confirmation about the revenue going 100% to HP was via response to a private email to Simone. No blog, no listing in Learning center or FAQ. Sorry, but to me that is not transparent.
  
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Opening a hub, I find 34 links placed there by HP including the 12 in the Related Searches. Many, if not most, of those pages can carry ads that I won't share in.
  
  Not one is an ad, and not one is shown in those diagrams from the Learning Center. Are they, too, showing a "lack of transparency"?
  
  No, Janderson, while I agree that the RS links are skirting the edge of our agreement with HP, accusations of a lack of transparency is out of line. The RS links are not shown in those diagrams of ad placement because they are not ads - there is nothing wrong with not showing links to other pages as ads.
  reply report
  76
  psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The related search box on the far right is labeled in orange with a key saying "ad unit" and a definition of 60/40 for all "ad units", which is incorrect as we earn nothing from a click in that area. That orange box is exactly where the related search links are on all my hubs and there is no other content in that area that it could be referring to.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That's correct, 60/40 for all ad units (on your page - nothing is said about other pages). And the RS links are not ads - as there is no pay for clicking on one, I guess you get 100% of the income produced by clicking one of those links.
  
  You may not have an ad there, but I do.
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/111781? … ost2394722
  report
  73
  livewithrichardposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Where is the transparency? Is it with the, maybe couple hundred hubbers that viewed this forum post, or is it with the entire community?
  
  In the FAQ about the Hubpages Ad Program
  
  What types of advertisements are considered unacceptable under the HubPages Ad Policy Guidelines?
  the second answer is:
  Blinking/Jumping Ads: Advertisements that excessively blink or "jump around" in the ad space to gain attention are not acceptable.
  I would think that scrolling ads break this rule. Yes it is an ad that takes the viewer to another page of ads.
  
  Get rid of the scrolling link module which is supposed to contain advertising we agreed to and leave the "related search" in the stationary position at the bottom of the hub. I know the ad is there when we are signed out but so is the scrolling link module which devalues and diminishes the paying ad.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The moving ads thing comes from Adsense. They don't have a problem, neither will HP - this has also been addressed before.
  
  In any case, if the RS link is an ad, who pays and who gets paid? It's not from adsense, it's not from any advertiser, so who pays for a click on that "ad"?
  report
  73
  livewithrichardposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Google does have a problem with scrolling Google Ad modules, but this isn't a Google ad module. What do you mean, IF? This IS an ad by HP for the HP Google Ads page. HP knows this which is why they made it scroll and placed it in a prominent location. A location reserved for the HP ad program, or so I was led to believe. You can play devil's advocate all you want but you're not making any headway convincing me or anyone else that the scrolling RS link is anything more than a ruse and provides no value at all to a visitor. Me losing possible revenue is not the point. The ad is a distraction and is deceptive.
  report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  But, Livewithrichard - don't forget:
  
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LOL. You've got it - that's exacatly what those RS links are.
  report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You don't do irony, do you?
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, yes. In this case, however, it was truth as much as irony. At least as far as I can see - those links are indeed masquerading as ads while insisting they are no such thing. Rather twisted logic, there, but that's what I see in them.
  
  And I did find the comment and picture ironic and funny as well. It's appropriate.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The only real argument you will get from me is calling those RS links an ad.
  
  I repeat, if they are an ad, who pays for any clicks? If you're going to change the definition of what an "ad" is to any link leaving the page you need to be transparent about that.
  report
  76
  psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  They feed to an ad. Technically they are just an outgoing link but I think we are speaking to their function.
  
  This change replaces an ad on our page (for which we are sometimes paid) with a link to a similar ad off our page (for which we are not).
  
  Saying this is okay because the new feature is not in ad is, in my opinion, missing the point. It used to be an ad, and I wish it still was.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yep. Technically, they are not ads, and that is why the whole transparency thing is false - there's nothing to be transparent about. Just as the whole 60/40 thing is satisfied according to the letter of the agreement; there is no ad on your hub that you don't share from.
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You've said twice now that it replaced an ad, but I don't see it on my own hubs. Every ad indicated by the learning center is in place; the RS links are added in previously blank space below the one on the right.
  
  So we may lose from a reader clicking through those links, but not from not having an ad described as ours.
  report
  73
  livewithrichardposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I guess I pay for those clicks as well as you do and every other person here that has published hubs. We pay for it with lost potential clicks. There is no doubt that the RS module is anything but an advertisement. It scrolls to get the readers attention, it deceives the reader by letting them think they will be taken to actual related searches... oh and it is just an entryway for what... more ads. It is an ad for more ads.
  
  Hey, can't find what you're looking for? Click on these scrolling words and you will find what you are looking for? Psych... You'll find what we want you to find... more junk ads. How can anyone who is committed to user experience not see how deceptive this is?
  report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Here I fully agree with you. They are not technically ads, but they are links that not only do not add to reader experience but detract from it. By simply being there, by scrolling and by leading to an unexpected result.
  
  I don't think we lose much, either in straight income or in traffic, but there is really no way for us to know. HP might (might) be able to analyze it with the information they have on a million hubs, but all we can do is guess. I haven't seen any significant drop in visits from my subdomain (readers clicking away via RS instead of my textual links) or in income. I haven't seem a drop in visits from HP (other hubbers hubs) either. While it sounds reasonable that we are losing, then, I cannot support that with data - just guesses that don't mean much. Much like my previous post comparing those links to Amazon ads - a best guess but without data that's all it can ever be.
  report
  76
  psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It was clearly answered in the fifth thread I saw raising the issue.
  
  And it the code is displayed "60% of the time". Depending on the time it is displayed, that may or may not be very close to 60% of the traffic. I have never seen any explanation of how the time is actually divided which could be crucial in terms of when the most profitable traffic is on the page (e.g. US daytime).
  
  As mentioned above, the help section is simply incorrect on this issue and should be corrected.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  From 5 years ago:
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/3062#post21420
  
  Paul Deeds very plainly explains that each visitor is individually selected by a mathematical formula to be either the 60 or the 40 part. Time of day is not part of the selection.
  reply report
  52
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Easily Fixed ===> see image + need extra entry in FAQ
  
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  But that's not what I see when I sign out and look at a hub. The side green area you've labeled RS is an adsense ad (or, presumably one from a different advertiser using HPads - they do use some adsense in that). The RS links are shown below the adsense ad.
  
  The left ad is that one in the top right of the hub, in this case under a full width pic. The ad on the right is adsense. The RS is immediately under that, in what is a blank space in your diagram. No adsense or any other ad has been displaced as far as I can see.
  reply report
  52
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, It is different when you log out. But the point remains valid.
  HP should clarify the FAQ and Learning Center and include "related Search".
  The new ad links are plain bloody obvious, why not let everyone know about them.
  ITS NOT HARD TO DO
  IT WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR FOR EVERYONE
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  ...giving a CPM of $0.20. I highly doubt that HubPages would bother implementing an ad unit with a CPM that low.
  
  Well, yes.
  reply report
  89
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Good point, and unless there are other factors involved, I would agree. They would be better off putting one more actual ad on the hub and splitting the income.
  
  Maybe they're shy of adding more ads, feeling that any more could lose traffic from google. Or maybe something else. Or maybe the assumptions are all wrong - it IS a pretty wild guess, after all.
  reply report
2. 0
  summerberrieposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yours. HP could follow their own protocol and not be so deceitful in naming it related searches and label it more ads. But in the very least like livewithrichard says place them at the bottom.
  
  Thats all I'm going to say because I don't want to siphon my time away in forum banter. But I did want to offer my support to those who are speaking up about the pros and cons of this issue. More cons is where I stand, personally.
  reply report
79
aravindb1982posted 11 years ago
I have read entirely through this extremely long thread and I must say that I was really shocked to get to know about this happening. I felt very disappointed too. I would like to urge everyone at HP to consider this and come to some decision soon because status quo is definitely not something that any one us seem to like!

This feels like a breach of trust for me... And the 'related searches' link definitely makes the hub ugly. First of all, the 'ad level' capsule was done away with completely! The 'medium' settings was something that I loved. But its gone now. All one has to do is to log out of one's account and see how on's hub looks like- ugly with toooooo many ads. And now, this 'related searches' thingy!

Please do something soon... Frankly, with so many 'ad-related' changes happening, the hubs have become like ad-centers! The only reason that I feel disinclined to move away from HubPages is because of the good standing the hubs have achieved on Google... But each thing like this pushes me a step farther....
reply report
1. 59
  paradigmsearchposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Uh, make that former good standing...
  reply report
73
Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago
OK, I have not published a hub since August of 2012. Today I chose to work on a new project. To my dismay, there is a floating message as I work on the hub.

It states:

"Advertising Space - After your Hub is published advertisements may be placed in this space."

ADVERTISEMENTS, ads, revenue earning capsules, if I am not getting a share of this advertising space, the 60/40 agreement has been broken. There is really no other way to see this scenario. It is clearly stated that the space is to be used for ads. There is no other reasonable explanation! Although the irrelevant links bothered me before today, I am now of the opinion that this is more than a tad treacherous!

reply report
76
LillyGrillzitposted 11 years ago
Another problem with unrelated ads is that they are often trashy "meet young Asian women", on a Hub I have written supporting and informing about Exploited and the Missing. Then the HubPages ads are discontinued for content violation, it is those ads!. Then, that junky crap that is a violation of what we can publish continues. HP continues to make money for the week it takes for them to apologetically reinstate my ads. This is happening with greater frequency. I have started unpublishing these Hubs while awaiting the fix.

I have a difficult time believing HP has such high overhead. The site is self policed when it comes to theives taking our unique content and republishing it here. A computer program checks for quality and other various violations. I have always been faithful to HP even when I know I have been screwed, but honestly if a cpm is 14.56 and I earn .10 cents, I am not getting the math. I guess its HubMath.
Peace.
reply report
1. 79
  aravindb1982posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +1.
  Meet Asian Singles and then there is that irritating "Meet Travel Girls" ad too. In fact, since the major part of my readership would get offended to even see such ads (I rely more on a huge readership base rather than Google organic views). After a lot of thinking, I have actually taken the step of shutting off ads completely. Loss of revenue is better than loss of face for me!
  reply report
  76
  LillyGrillzitposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I just went to a kind Hubber's profile page to see what things she publishes and to become a fan. "Have you ever been arrested?" "Snog- Sleep shirts [sp] were ads flashing on the sidelines. There was in her reply that it was based on ads I click on while on the Internet...this is not so. I rarely click on ads, and never the type which are being displayed on our pages. The ads scroll and change with each movement or maybe in time. I never am still long. I have high quality unique evergreen content, and I write for the entire web not just HubPages. Thank you Aravindb1982
  reply report
  90
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I get ads that target things I have previously searched for online, not specifically relating to ads I have clicked on (I too rarely click on adverts). For example I looked into a 'No No Hair Remover' for my sister some months back just to get prices etc. I didn't look for it by clicking on an advert, instead I Googled 'No No Hair remover'. To this day I still go to all kinds of websites and see adverts appear for the 'No No Hair Remover'. This also happens to me regarding the advert '5 Foods you should never eat', simply because I once visited a site of that name out of curiosity when I saw it in search results. You can go to your Google settings and ask not to be supplied with 'targeted ads' but if you leave things as they are you will frequently find adverts you see on pages are ones which relate to previous sites or products your have visited or searched for using Google Search. Even then some adverts you see on pages will be random ones, not ALL of them will be based on your previous activity on the Internet. Just remember, because of this targeted Ad system Google uses (unless you change your preferences in your Google account) not everyone is seeing the same adverts you are. I hope this helps
  reply report
  76
  LillyGrillzitposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you. Thanks for taking the time to explain further.
  reply report
  90
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are very welcome
  reply report
2. 92
  Susana Sposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Lilly - you seem to be getting wound up simply because you misunderstand how adsense ad targeting works, why ads are sometimes disabled from hubs and what CPM actually means.
  
  Ads can be targeted using a range of methods such as your IP address (location), previous Google searches, ads you've clicked on previously, websites you've been to, topic categories you've shown an interest in...plus others. Most ads nowadays are based on these types of audience targeting. A lot of the dating type ads seem to be based purely on location because I never see them (and most of your visitors from search will not either).
  
  You can learn more about that here: http://www.google.co.uk/ads/displaynetw … tools.html
  
  Content violations are a different thing altogether. It simply means that ads are disabled on those hubs because of a word or words in the text of the hub that have tripped a filter. (The ads are disabled both for your impression time and Hubpages time, so HP isn't earning anything either). With hubs that have tripped the filter you can ask for a reconsideration and often ads will be reinstated. You need to be aware though, that if you edit the hub the filters will be applied again so it's best to leave those hubs alone unless you want to have to keep on requesting reconsideration which is a pain for you and I'm guessing for Hubpages staff as well.
  
  The reason that these filters are in place is because Adsense is very prudish and Hubpages errs on the side of caution so as to avoid losing its own and our adsense accounts (sensible seeing as adsense is a major earning stream for the site). http://hubpages.com/faq/#adsdisabled
  
  CPM can be confusing, but it lets you know what you would get if your page/s received 1000 impressions. So for every 1000 visitors you could expect to receive $14.56. On the other hand, if your page got 100 visitors (10% of 1000) then the earnings calculation is 10% of CPM, which in this example is $1.46. If those same pages got 10 visitors (1% of 1000), then the earnings would be 1% of CPM or $0.14.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_per_mille
  
  Hope that helps clear things up for you
  reply report
  90
  mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Very well explained. I looked at answering Lilly last night, but realised it would require a lengthy post, and to be honest it was well after midnight and I had to be up this morning. Instead I hoped someone else (like yourself) would step in and explain things clearly (which thankfully is exactly what happened). Nice one
  reply report
  92
  Susana Sposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks Misty
  Yeah, I thought twice about replying too....and it did take ages lol
  reply report
  76
  LillyGrillzitposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that does help. It has been bothering me for a long time CPM. Just think three years, hundreds of hours researching ad-sense and I do not know anything about what is going on. I have been schooled, thank all of you. I will crawl back under my rock and unwind. Thank you for taking the time in giving your knowledgeable and thorough answer Susana S. And thank you others for the added commentary, this remains a community. :-)
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 2

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)

HP Revenue Sharing Deal Broken? Related Searches Ad Income not Shared!

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

HP Revenue Sharing Deal Broken? Related Searches Ad Income not Shared!

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies