What does Google want?

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (15 posts)
  1. Farkle profile image91
    Farkleposted 9 years ago

    I have had some articles that for over 4 years ranked pretty high on Google, and now, since the latest update, other websites are outranking them. So I decide I want to learn more... What do these websites offer to outrank mine? I go on them, and this is what I see:

    -The articles are much shorter than mine
    -They were published many years after mine (the newest is from 2014)
    -They have ads and affiliate links
    -The newer websites basically repeat the same stuff my original articles had
    -The articles don't have as many pictures/videos as I have
    -The competing articles lack polls/comments and engagement from readers
    -I don't think the websites owners add fresh content and update them as much as I do as they appear always the same
    -Many of them aren't the authoritative, well-known websites that you would expect to outrank you.

    Yet, for some reason Google decides to make these websites outrank mine, which were there many years prior. This makes me think that older no longer means that you will be given an advantage as before. I suspect the search engines just decided they don't like Hubpages anymore--or at least, not as much as before. I have a feeling that if I published a new website on the same topics, they would also outrank my hubs. Anybody else have any idea why Google decided to take this stance?

    1. Elsie Hagley profile image70
      Elsie Hagleyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting study. Thanks for sharing, it sure does give you food for thought.

    2. sara0129 profile image67
      sara0129posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I think you are right about google not liking hubpages. I transferred an artcle from HP to another site during the transfer period and was surprised to see amazon sales from it within 3 weeks while at the same time traffic to all my hubs fell.

    3. TolovajWordsmith profile image89
      TolovajWordsmithposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Google always wanted the same: to make profit. We can try guessing about the parameters and so on, but the fact is nobody, including the big G, can't predict what a searcher really wants. We can only guess.

      This is the reason Google rolls split tests from the very beginning and updates its algo approximately twice a day. If low quality content outranks better stuff, this will not necessary be the case tomorrow. And vice versa.

      I sill see a lot of black hat tactics used at articles which outperform mine and although I believe they will be eventually penalized, new black hat tricks will be there even before. The only way to have constant traffic is to build a brand and have a list of subscribers. Social media can be of great help at this, but unfortunately this is not the my favorite area.

    4. Marisa Wright profile image84
      Marisa Wrightposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Google has said that one of the objectives of this latest update was to give small- and medium-sized websites a fairer chance at ranking in the search results.  Obviously, if smaller sites are going to do better, larger sites are going to lose out somewhat. 

      The other thing is that there seems to have been a major change in the way Panda works.    After the first Panda in 2011, sub-domains were introduced so that Google would evaluate each Hubber separately - because at the time, that's how sub-domains worked.   That meant the sub-domains of good Hubbers weren't dragged down by the poor quality content of others.

      In 2012, Matt Cutts of Google made a video where he said sub-domains would no longer be evaluated individually - but  it's very easy to find examples on SEO blogs, where webmasters tested sub-domains vs sub-folders and proved that sub-domains were still being treated separately.   Hubbers' experience supported that, because at every Panda update some Hubbers did well while others tanked. 

      However with Panda 4.1, it seems as though Google have finally implemented what Cutts promised back in 2012.  Paul Edmonson has said that virtually ALL sub-domains lost traffic this time, suggesting that HubPages has been given an overall Panda score rather than each sub-domain being separate.

      1. Barbara Kay profile image72
        Barbara Kayposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Google shouldn't be the ruler of the internet. I wish there were something that could be changed about that. New internet businesses are controlled by them. Either you prosper or fail depending on Google. That isn't right.

        1. LeanMan profile image78
          LeanManposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Google provides the best search results according to its users which is why so many people still use Google. While they continue to supply their users with what they want then people will continue to use them and they will maintain their dominance of the internet search game. The recent move by Firefox to use Yahoo rather than Google as its default search engine should help provide extra competition...

          But whether us few writers like it or not the users like Google or they would not be using it; so Google are obviously doing something right!!

          Most of the issues that have occurred with Google have been driven by us "writers" trying to game the system to get found by Google. So we have driven the many changes to Google that make it harder for us to rank.

          That being said; what is wrong with Google promoting dedicated niche sites that have been around for a long time or highly reliable and trusted sites over free to use multiple user sites like HP with a lot of questionable and substandard content? If you were a searcher which site would you rather the search engine gave you?

          1. jeffryv profile image63
            jeffryvposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly +1

            1. paperfacets profile image86
              paperfacetsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              Google is so computer done. I hate that my tea bag folding pages all rank after the stale websites that have no new material since 2001 when I started the craft.

              Till the major Panda hit in 2012 I was first, 2nd or 3rd now all the others are on top with their old graphics and old language not updated for months.

              I took drastic measures and am calling my craft flat unit origami because I was so infuriated.

              So I know your frustration, Fankle.

          2. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image85
            TIMETRAVELER2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Multiple user sites provide a large variety of topics, many of which are written by people who have vast experience in their areas.

            There is no reason why writers for these sites should be penalized just because Google does not like where they locate their articles.

            It is up the webmasters to assure good quality within their sites, and when this happens, Google should have no argument with such sites.  Unfortunately, it is very hard to police those who continue to produce substandard work.  It is too bad Google refuses to view subdomains in the same way they view stand alone sites because this would resolve the problem completely.

            1. Marisa Wright profile image84
              Marisa Wrightposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              The problem is, TT2, how do you suggest that Google works out which writers on multi-user sites have "vast experience", and which ones are just keen amateurs, or worse,  just writing drivel for money?

              Given the millions of articles on the internet, it would be impossible for Google to use humans to make that decision, so they have to use automated systems.  They are getting very clever these days, but they are still limited.

              Step back and take a hard look at HubPages (or Squidoo, or Wizzley, or any other multiple user site) and ask yourself what percentage of the site is really written by people with "vast experience" of their subject?  If you were Google, would you invest  your time and money trying to sift through such sites, trying to find the nuggets of gold?    Perhaps you would, if there was no alternative - but there ARE alternatives, in the form of thousands of dedicated websites covering the same topics.  Those websites are far more likely to be written by specialists and therefore to be more reliable.

              Yes it's bad news for amateur writers but I can see exactly why Google is doing it.

              1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image85
                TIMETRAVELER2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Oh, I understand completely why Google is doing this, but I do not believe they are incapable of separating the good from the bad...and whether they like it or not, those good articles do make lots of money for them!

                What is the difference between someone who writes with expertise in a niche area on a multi user site and one that writes on his own site?

                Are you telling me Google bots are unable to discern, for example, whether someone has written 50 articles on a single topic, while somebody else has only written five or ten?  I don't think so.

                If they took that one point and made their decisions on that alone, they could easily weed out the amateurs.

                Then, if they combined that information with their other guidelines, which they so clearly are able to do, I think this issue would be resolved.

                I can see their point when it comes to writing about important issues such as health, but I'm not buying it when it comes, for example, to raising and training dogs.

                They favor those big sites because many of them PAY for their ranking, while the others do not.  THAT is what I think the underlying issue is here...it's the elephant in the room that we all know is there but nobody talks about.

        2. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image85
          TIMETRAVELER2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

          I totally agree and have been saying this for some time.  It is the very reason that the UK is trying to break Google's search engine away from its other businesses, and why they have been sued so many times.  Good people are suffering as the result of their antics, but they are so big and so powerful now that it is likely things will continue on as they are.  It is very upsetting.

  2. brakel2 profile image72
    brakel2posted 9 years ago

    It's not fair, and there must be a way to win. I wrote a highly ranked article and was on first page like many of you were. Now those keywords belong to highly ranked medical sites. I need to get off Google. Any suggestions?

  3. brakel2 profile image72
    brakel2posted 9 years ago

    Some writers on this site do ok with medical hubs. If they use good images on Pinterest and do well with SEO, they seem to. make it. I have some of them on my boards and know they keep getting repinned. One hubber had her article picked up by Cosmopolitan magazine. Marisa, is it worth it to keep trying to get it right?


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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 ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis 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 LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis 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 YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis 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 LoginYou 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)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore 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 PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)