First you find an image online you might like to use in an article. Save it to your computer and rename it using keywords. Upload it. Then add an image title and caption. Assuming you use keywords for all of that, would you consider it over optimized?
In general, it is a good thing to caption a photo with keywords; it is more likely to come up in a search for those words.
But why not use your own photo? That way you can modify it as you choose (it is often illegal to modify photos from the web) and even make it into an MFP picture.
I'm of course referring to creative commons. Not stolen images. Images you can copy, distribute, display, perform, make derivative, and commercial use. Have you seen the amount of beautiful pictures available on Flickr? I'd love to use my own, but I'm not that talented.
I know it's a good thing to implement SEO, but with the latest Google updates, it's hard to know what works and what doesn't without constantly testing.
Mostly I use wikimedia. Or sometimes morguefile. Particularly wikimedia seems to have more of the type of photos I need. The biggest problem is that you generally cannot modify them and I almost always crop or in some other way change the pictures I need - the license often specifically prohibits that.
So for the most part, I use my own. I feel that google prefers it as well as copied photos are obviously duplicated. Plus, of course, when a search turns up a set of photos, mine will be the only one like it in the group rather than one of a half dozen identical pics.
I used to use wiki until I recently visited Flickr. They seem to have a bigger stock of images. Regarding not being able to modify them, you can if you contact the original creator and ask for permission. I've been messaging a few people today. I'm just waiting on a reply.
You have a good point about using originals. Google do love that! Although, most images on Flickr have numbers for names, and Google can't recognize images, so having the same picture show up in results for the same (long tail) keywords would be, well, I don't know the odds on that but it would be slim.
Whatever the file name is for an image, the HP system will automatically change that to a number.
The Google algorithm does NOT factor the source of an image in its algorithm. In other words, it doesn't matter if your image appears on 1,000 other sites or if you took the photo and it is only found on your Hub:
A unique image, however, can benefit the ranking on Google image search, but that would mainly attract people who want to use your image and not visit your Hub.
Since the HubPages platform does not allow a way to NoFollow an image source, I recommend never using an image that requires a linkback. Also, for SEO purposes, HP does not have a way to designate an Alt Image Tag. Google recommends the use of this tag, but on HP the caption of the image is used for the Alt Tag, which generally isn't an appropriate Alt Tag.
I just viewed the image information on one of my hubs. You're right, hubpages have changed the keyword to a random number.
Pictures are used primarily to please the reader, is what they're saying then, not to help rank your hub.
I've got a nofollow add on for firefox, and it shows the link for the image source to be nofollow.
The reason you have a NoFollow link on your image sources is that your Hubber score is below 85, which is the new threshold for followed links. For people whose Hubber scores are above 85, there is no way to make the link NoFollow and there should be.
I think good images are important for a webpage and visitors and search engines do take note of them.
That sucks! Especially if one of your hubs are over 85 and providing a dofollow link to your other hubs, helping them to rank in Google. Then it drops below 85 making those links nofollow and the rest of your hubs are dropped in position in Google as a result. Up and down like a yo yo, unless you get your hubs to 100 and keep them there, which is extremely difficult.
I may as well concentrate on getting my hubpage profile page rank higher to help with individual hub rankings, and not rely on backlinks from each hub. Unless they decide to make profile pages nofollow in the future if they drop below 85.
The change in Hubber Score for followed links was just made two weeks ago. It's discussed here:
It's a mistake to NoFollow internal links on a website (your links to other Hubs). It sends a message to Google that a website doesn't recommend its own webpages!
I suppose it does help to keep low quality hubs from taking advantage of internal linking. However, people with average writing skills (such as myself) shouldn't suffer. Only people who blatantly try to manipulate the system with garbage content should be affected.
Thanks for the link!
With today's Google what some poeple might consider "average writing skills" might actually get a penalty, affecting the whole site. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Actually I had a look at a couple of your hubs, and I don't think they are bad by HP standards. I'm sure if you write more your score will be above 90, you seem to only have 3 hubs right now. So, I don't think you are one of the people who will suffer from this HP policy.
I've just checked all of my hubs on ahrefs.com. I had about ten to fifteen backlinks for each hub, which have all disappeared in the last few weeks. I'm losing the will big time here!
What are hubpages trying to do, narrow the site down to handful of people? Every site I join there's always some sort of clique and if you don't happen to fall into that clique, you're out on your ass. Like Squidoo for instance, you can smell it in the air it's that obvious.
Squidoo actually banned a substantial chunk of its veteran lensmasters from commenting on HQ's blog or the forums because they were "too negative" for raising concerns about some of the changes this year.
So being an active part of the community there for many years is no guarantee you won't wake up to find yourself "kicked on your ass."
It really is not difficult to maintain a hubber score of 85. As for giving "average writers" a chance, it all depends on what Google considers average. It is possible that what you consider "average writing skills" actually gets penalised by Google, affecting the whole site.
I don't think HP is about having only fantastic writers, I am certainly not one of them, and many of the people who are way more successful than me are not the literary creme de creme, really.
They write well, and they know how to provide useful content for readers. That is really all that is required to have a decent hubber score, and with today's google, it is a lot more effective then building backlinks to your hubs.
I'm not exactly sure why you think HP could have done anything the backlinks you built to your hubs? Really only you have the power to remove them.
The links on your hubs are no-follow, true, because your score is under 85, but what does that have to do with links on other sites pointing to your hub?
I don't have any external links to my hubs; not any I'm aware of anyway!
The only links I do have are from other peoples hubs, on related subjects, and from my own hubs. Those have turned nofollow so my hubs have dropped a bit in Google search.
Each of the hubs are on pages two and three for various keywords, but they could be doing better. One of them is on the bottom of page one for one keyword.
Maybe I should build external backlinks to them, but I don't know how to evaluate a site before requiring a link. What if that site had been damaged by the recent updates, and hasn't even partially recovered. A link from there would do more damage than good.
by Paul Edmondson2 years ago
Hi Hubbers, I mentioned in the past that we've been working with a company that helps identify SEO issues. Many of the issues they identify come in the form of penalties which they believe hurt the entire...
by Edweirdo7 years ago
I'm pretty new at this, so I can really only gauge my hubs' performance against one another!This one is one of my earliest hubs, yet it has fewer views than ones that I've published just a few days...
by M. Toni2 years ago
I've been on here for a few years, and I guess I never really understood the point of these scores. They don't seem to provide any real value to the user and I can't convince myself that they add value because they...
by Jason Menayan5 years ago
There is a lot of bad SEO (search engine optimization) advice out there, and the use of automated services that procure backlinks to your Hubs is one particularly egregious example. Using services to get backlinks can...
by Paul Goodman6 years ago
Article for discussion. I know that this recent development has already been mentioned by some hubbers in forums. But I am now wondering if this might be the main reason why we are seeing the current traffic...
by bayoulady3 years ago
Hi Anybody..I need help.I am probably am asking stupid questions. If you feel that I am, just ignore me. I've been here since late June, and thanks to all the advice I took early on, I have a good hubber score...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.