Look at one of your articles and check out the format for the Related Hubs. On mine it now looks like a list.
Yes mine looks like that. I guess they want to connect hubs to each other which is a great marketing strategy. It may also let others read your hubs that normally wouldn't by yours being included in the bottom. Sharing is caring lol
I'm not happy with it, because I can't control the hubs that are linked to. This is even BIGGER than the way they were listed before. When you add up the misleading "related search" and these huge links at the bottom, that's a lot of exit links that I'll see no benefit from if people click them. Not only that, but the quality of my work could be negatively perceived. I think it would be fine for pages with no links in the text, but when I've already hand-chosen 8 related links in my text, it's frustrating to see low quality photo links so prominently displayed.
It is awfully big and very intrusive. The presentation overtakes so much space that one almost misses the comment section below it. I understand that HP wants to promote hubs, but this is too much "in your face" with the size of the section. If they could cordon off one section of space - like Google does with "ad related" space, maybe that would be good.
I've noticed them that way on some hubs and not others. I like the older way where they were smaller and in two columns. It might be just me, but the smaller ones looked more professional and visitors don't know we have no control over them so they think we made an ugly mess with the big ones.
I liked the previous method better. It was easier to read. They were not cluttered and more conducive to reading the titles with ease of reading. I really didn't like scrolling through them.
They do not offer any value to me as the hub designer it seems. To me they offered clues at times how that algorithm connected with other hubs. If all the recommended hubs were on the subject I wrote of then I felt I was inline with the content. I could very easily compare and contrast with other hubs that algorithm made connections and tailor my hub better. Differences would occur with changes or of least I seem to think so. Maybe not true. If they made connections with other topics I felt I needed to make edit changes.
Oooops! I got off topic. No, I liked much more seeing them all at once with a glance and using 'chunking' reading methods. I do not like the large print and pic icons. I don't like large icons in my pic files either on my PC either. Too hard to read.
The one advantage it does offer is it is easier to click on the recommended hubs (my two in the same group or their recommended hubs) to bail out of the hub rather than the effort to scroll up to get out.
Yep, I noticed that too. It takes up too much room. HP should put them back in a box with two columns as they had it before. A non-Hubber may not realize there's a comments section below.
I think I prefer how it was before, but it's not terrible now. My real issue is I would prefer to have control over what appears in related Hubs and be able to plug in my own Hubs.
It would also be nice if related Hubs, Hubs linked by grouping and the voting buttons would appear BEFORE the ugly minefield of ads at the bottom of the Hubs. As it is, I've been creating links at the bottom of my Hubs in hopes of getting people to click away before they hit that awful "realted search" and "Sponsored from Around the Web" section. You can write the best Hub in the world, but when image links like "15 celebrities with ugly spouses" or "Gorgeous New Tanner" appear at the end it just looks terrible.
I hope HP reconsiders how they manage the space at the end of our Hubs. Consider allowing Hubbers to plug in their own related Hubs in this section, and consider making it appear before people get to the ugly and VERY unrelated "Sponsored from Around the Web" ads.
It seems to me the related Hubs and grouped Hubs can be a great tool for keeping people on-site and moving them on to other Hubs, and that has to be good for traffic, ad impressions and revenue.
Apart from ads, Related Hubs are what readers click on when they visit a Hub. We've been running experiments to see if changing the way Related Hubs are displayed increases the clickthrough rate on them. This layout performed 48% better than the former, two-column one! In addition to a huge boost in CTR, reader engagement with the rest of the page increased by 10.3%. That is, readers are more likely to click on other parts of the page with this layout compared to the previous one.
I can understand why it seems like a bad thing for readers to leave your Hubs. The thing is, most signed-out readers leave after visiting one Hub anyway. More engagement with the Related Hubs section results in increased readership on HubPages in general, and that benefits all Hubbers.
We realize that Related Hubs now take up more space than they used to. We're testing whether a shorter listing (5 Hubs) will perform better than or at least the same as the current listing (8 Hubs), and although this experiment is still running, preliminary results show that the shorter list converts slightly better. For the next couple of weeks, expect to see some changes until we settle on the perfect design that keeps readers visiting as many Hubs as possible.
Would HP consider sending emails to hubbers or including these experiments in the weekly newsletters so we're not caught by surprise? Filling us in - especially with the statistics you present above - would keep us in the loop and keep the community vibe alive.
I think that's a great idea! I'll bring it up with the team at our next meeting. We know that many Hubbers prefer to be in the loop about what we are working on, but also don't want to inundate you all with announcements (we've tested about 10 changes to Related Hubs alone!)
That being said, a weekly update via the newsletter might be the perfect way to keep everyone informed on a weekly basis. Thanks for the suggestion, bravewarrior!
You're welcome, Marina. Thanx for acting on it! :-)
Hi bravewarrior! The community team discussed your suggestion today. I'm afraid that the newsletter may not be the best place for updates on what is currently being worked on at HubPages. Instead, we will use the forums for these types of announcements. Your point about keeping Hubbers in the loop when tests/experiments begin resonated with the whole team and we plan to do this on a regular basis moving forward. Thanks again!
Is there any discussion about allowing Hubbers to include their own Hubs more often in the Related Hubs section, or changing the way Hubs are chosen so more of the Hubber's own Hubs appear?
I understand how the Related Hubs section is helpful to Hubbers and HubPages in general. What's frustrating is when HP is plugging in other people's Hubs on my page when I have a similar Hub I'd much rather send them to.
I can use links at the end of the Hub as I've been, but the Related Hubs section with the thumbnails is much more attractive. It would just be nice to be able to use it more effectively.
There are issues with having Hubbers pick Hubs in the RH listing. For one thing, Hubs might become deleted, moderated, or lose their Featured status - the RH algorithm will only show Hubs that are published and Featured. The algo does prioritize Hubbers' own Hubs assuming they are related enough but ultimately it chooses to display the strongest matches. If you have a series Hub, the RH listing on one of those will almost always include the other Hubs in the series. The algorithm also takes into account the CTR for an individual listing, and will prioritize displaying a Hub that has a higher chance of being clicked on. There are other factors, but that's the gist of it.
I think it's great that you want to show more related content to your readers. Instead of putting the links in list form at the end of your Hubs, I suggest placing them within the text of your Hub. Inline linking provides the best reader experience -- assuming the links are related and high quality, of course. The links within your Hub engage your readers early (i.e., while they're reading the Hub) and are in context.
Thanks for your reply, Marina. I do see how there could be potential issues there.
I do use links in the Hub text, but I also use them at the end of the Hub to offer more related Hubs to readers (and keep them on my subdomain). I figure, they must have liked what I've written if they made it all the way to the bottom of the Hub, so why let them go away without giving them the chance to read something else I've written? With Related Hubs, they might read another of my Hubs . . . or they might read someone else's.
I suggest that the 'Next' and 'Previous' links be made the same size as the related ones. Why make the author's related links so small?
Thanks for letting us know Marina. I don't think it looks good but what matters is the bottom line in any case, so it was most helpful to hear your explanation.
Marina: Thanks for the explanation. If the new format continues to lead to more reader engagement in the rest of a hub or in other ways helps the hubber on which they appear, I'm all for it.
On the topic of related hubs, at the bottom of each hub, before the related hubs list, we each have a 'previous' and 'next' would it be possible to change the default for these as although we group hubs by topic, the next/previous one might not be the MOST likely one that the reader of each hub might read.
This would be more beneficial to each hubber as the click through would be to another of their hubs.
I just wish it didn't make it so far for people to scroll and comment but maybe it will be for the good of all of us.
Don't like it - it's too big and intrusive, we have no control over what displays there and the related hubs display much larger than the "next" hubs of our own. Not pleased with this change.
After one reads a hub, the section of related hubs is so huge (I counted 9 titles!!) that readers will be too distracted to leave a comment, and be more inclined to go off to read the related hubs. We have to hope some of our other hubs are in the list!
The reason this new section is especially bad for hubbers is that it will make less reader interaction on your site. Because Google partially ranks your site by how long readers interact and stay on your site, this "distraction" of related hubs is sure to make interaction go down and will rank our overall individual sites lower with Google.
9? wow. The most I ever saw was 8, and a long time ago the max was 6.
^This - I completely agree. It not only looks huge and intrusive, I believe it takes away even more control and interactivity from our own hubs. The two column layout from before was perfectly fine and was working as I do get traffic from other hubs. This change was not necessary and it looks tacky when there is a huge list of SO many other hubs.
I like the new look, but there are still too many on most hubs. Eight has been the max for a while and it's overkill, especially when quite often the suggestions aren't related to the original article.
Four would look much nicer, and given that the algorithm that chooses the related titles isn't sophisticated enough to choose the most relevant titles, it would reduce the weirdness of unrelated options that pop up.
I just noticed this too and i am quite okay with the way it’s laid out. I find it clearer and less 'jumbled up'. I like the visibility of the "related hubs" column better.
Different strokes . . . i guess!
Whatever, I didn't like the related hubs before, but it didn't do me any good to complain. It does seem like a long way to scroll to get to the comments.
However, I seem to get some pretty good traffic coming from other people's hubs sometimes, so I don't mind sending some back the other way.
I personally don't mind that people have to scroll down further to the comments section because we don't get paid for comments. We get paid for views and clicks.
Don't get me wrong, comments are nice and the conversations can be interesting but in the end comments make us zilch on payday. Hub views and advertisement clicks do. This new set up will send more traffic to where it counts, in our wallets.
I preferred it the old way because it was nice and neat, easy to read and people could pick where to go next. This new thing looks like some graduate played with the web design and has no idea how to fit in with the overall look of the site. Please revert at once before damage is done and we lose visitors!!!! PS - you could fit more related hubs into the old layout than this one. Can't you at least make this new layout smaller so it looks good?
i think it is great for everyone to get seen, it improves the overall performance of hubpages and reduce the bounce rate.
by Phyllis Doyle Burns 5 years ago
I fail to see the need for the "related hub" section on each of my hub pages. Sometimes these hubs do not really relate to mine. Readers come to our pages to read the hubs we wrote or because they like to follow us. Pulling our readers away to other hubs is not quite fair.There are...
by julieannbrady 6 years ago
I am NOT 100% sure where to post this before anybody jumps on me! I personally would like to see the comments section of a hub precede the ads and the related hubs. It feels like our readers come in to read the information on our hub and then are tantalized by the ads and encouraged by the related...
by Dr. John Anderson 8 years ago
This issue has been raised many times in the past – but given the 20% drop in traffic it should be rectified urgently (good enough is no longer sufficient (IMO)Links to unrelated pages is something that Panda and Penguin have hit sites for. If an author puts an unrelated link on their page they get...
by Carolee Samuda 5 years ago
So I'm replying to a comment on my hub and upon scrolling through the hub (I always check for errors or how I can improve), I see the related hubs section. There are five hubs there including one of mine. What immediately got my attention is that the other four hubs has "editors choice"...
by Kerri Bee 6 years ago
At the bottom of the lens it has related hubs. Is there a way to exclude some hubs from showing there, or to encourage better (more related) ones by limiting the category or using keywords or hand picking them or something?For example, my lens on a simple wooden toy is getting horror movies...
by Eugene Brennan 2 years ago
I've had links to my own related hubs snipped on several occasions (mostly blatant lists at the end of a hub), but some links have been left in place after several snips. So is it acceptable to include a link to a hub which may be very relevant to the specific content in a section of a hub, if it...
Copyright © 2020 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.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|