Been looking around I have. Related Hub listings are a significant source of traffic and income. Many times they are reciprocal; you click on a related hub on your hub, you will then see your related hub on their hub. Not so if your hub has a low hubscore.
I could give personal examples using my hubs, but I'm not in the mood. Besides, folks would want to confirm with their own hubs anyway.
Between the referred account problem, the EC label problem, and now the low hubscore problem...
What's the 'referred account' problem Paradigm?
I probably should not have included that, not in the mood to rehash it.
Interesting extract from the blog about the new Hubscore.
"Please keep in mind that HubScore was never intended to be be looked at in a vacuum or as a grade for a particular Hub" Hmmm?
Agreed. That statement is indeed false. Low grade? No Related Hub privileges for you!
What kills me is the hub that got my attention on this received approx 100 organic views in the last 24 hours.
HOW do you tell the number views in one hour? Mine are not updated on the accounts page very often - sometimes for days.
For hours, I'd go to GA Land and guesstimate via the hours chart. In this case, re: the 24 hours, I just clicked the hub stats on the hub, selected "Day" (rolling 24), and added up the organic entries. Since I didn't bother with GA Land on this, that's why I said "approx".
This is really good to know.
I just purged links that were unpublished from several of my hubs. I suspect broken links kill hub scores.
I'd never thought about low scoring hubs not being included in Related Hubs. Not that the Related Hubs section does any good since the labeling - unless most of your hubs have been selected, of course.
I am mostly select-less. Am contemplating the disassembly of around 10 hubs into 30 to 40 website pages.
Whatever!!!! blah, blah, blah, blah....My lowest score is 50 and my highest score is 72. My score on my picture is 82. All of my hubs claim they are featured and showing up on other people's hubs with the POTENTIAL of being showcased. Time will tell. Why worry... ????
- don't answer that ---
It is remarkable how much time, effort and money HP spends on its 'quality' ranking systems which are designed to favor hubs which HP likes and authors which it likes (pets). It is remarkable how much debate and ill feeling and confusion this ranking and scoring system generates among the authors in the forums etc..
Imagine a system without all this stuff, where scores and internal rankings were driven by traffic purely and simply - Where traffic was the bee end of everything with a sting in its tail.
Traffic is all that matters, really, and it is the only real measure of what Google 'likes' and regards as good quality. [HP admits this by de-featuring low traffic hubs based on the assumption that G hates them]
Second guessing what Google regards as quality is useless and frustrating, especially when there is no transparency with how the scores are devised etc.
Imagine if all the effort HP devotes to scores and internal ranking was devoted to removing all the junk and poorly written hubs (obvious things such as spelling etc.). Doing it properly! Doing it now!
Image if HP imposed tough traffic thresholds (after a 6 month wait to build traffic) and really encouraged traffic as the primary aim. Image if hubscores and hubber scores were based purely on traffic. Its easy if you try. Traffic scores would be transparent - the Good, the Bad and the Ugly traffic stats.
Would hubpages driven purely by traffic be a better more productive place? I think so!
It would encourage writers to write new stuff and re-edit continually as their old stuff showed signs of falling below traffic thresholds. Warnings could be issued for authors to act to lift their traffic prior to removal of hubs with poor traffic. HP could analyze what matters for creating traffic and create traffic-centric advice, rather than promoting capsule-stuffed and bloated stellar hubs in the hope they will get traffic some day [second guessing what G likes].
PS - Hubpro is designed to rewrite and 'stellar -ize' high traffic hubs that are already performing well (G loves them) - Sorry I don't understand this!!
Back to the sand-pit!
Just a thought - does Hubpages itself have a Murphy's 20/80 rule? Eg if 20% of all our hubs are doing well, maybe only 20% of Hubpages is doing well and to have more, more hubs need to be written? Just occurred to me this morning....
There is a delicious circularity developing
=> HP promotes stellar hubs with tables, videos, polls etc. that increases dwell time and that are complex and take longer to read
=> QAP scores are based on stellar-ness
=> The new Hubscores are based on QAP and stellar-ness (engagement), not traffic!
=> EC are the pick of the stellar crop
=> EC hubs are promoted in the related hubs and probably dominate the topic pages, appearing first. So EC hubs and stellar-ized hubs will get more internal traffic because HP favors them
=> Hubpro rewrites high traffic hubs to stellar-ize them adding tables, polls, longer content, videos, extra pics, etc. etc.
So soon it will be clear that the pages that get more traffic on HP will be the Stellar ones ! HP will be able to say: "I told you so. Stellar is the Go, it works!"
I beg to differ.
I write simple, concise hubs that satisfy what readers want quickly and easily . I call them 'Jane' hubs not 'Stella' ones. I write to get traffic from Google and other search engines. I also write for Pinterest traffic (with fabulous images, but otherwise unrelated to stellar-ness). I also like to research stuff and write about it in my yellow sub 'beg-to-differ'.
I believe that 'Jane' hubs are the future, especially with the growing emphasis on mobile traffic (simple, concise is better). [PS Google is to revamp ratings based on mobile readiness and suitability in April 2015!]
Down scope! Dive, Dive, Dive! Back to the salt mine!
Cheers, Enough Already! Have fun!
A low HubScore has always been not good, even before EC or related Hubs were invented.
I am inspired to do a quiz hub, however... you would think that a quiz hub would encourage reader interaction, SINCE they'd be interacting by taking the quiz. Hmm.. and fun, too... WIN/Win... now to think of some questions..
question number 1...
Now that I've done me, I can now do other Hubbers. But only those Hubbers I truly like, respect, and trust.
Meanwhile for those who are interested...
Hubscore 60: No reciprocal Related Hubs found.
Hubscore 66: Yes, I did find some Related Hubs that reciprocated back.
Ya know... With not that much effort, it wouldn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out the exact hubscore demarcation point for when a hub's Related Hub privileges are revoked.
Most of my traffic comes from google... but I feel like I am in the minority here from everything I have read. At least 70% of my traffic comes from Google, and most of the remainder comes from social media.
PD, there's some truth to what you're saying, but your opening post should have stressed on the fact that hubs with scores 60 or less aren't reciprocated. I don't have any 60 or lower on this account, so went to my other account with just 2 hubs. There one is 66 and the other 60. The one with 66 is reciprocated a lot and linked to from many other hubs as well.
However, the one with a score of 60 even though the title, keywords, etc are similar to some that appeared as related does not show as related on those hubs at all.
paradigm and lodobrandon, this was an enlightening exercise. I randomly went through several hubs from lowest hubscores (60s) all the way up to a few high eighties and was surprised to see no reciprocity on most. It seems that score did not matter. I found 2 reciprocated hubs under "Related hubs." This was sad. I have a feeling it had to do with the way my hubs are grouped and low traffic. A lot of my poetry hubs where keywords are picked up by the Related Hubs bot don't match any informational hubs on that subject (hope this makes sense). Sigh. Also, I rarely see any EC hubs listed under Related Hubs, across the board.
I played with some of mine, too, and found that the only time I didn't get reciprocity from a link (or a hub down the "circle" one more notch) was with a hub that apparently HAS to "related hubs". It has only one related link, and that's so far away from the topic it wasn't surprising that it didn't link back.
Which, I think, is what you're saying with your poetry; there just isn't any good choices, so poor ones are made but those hubs DO have good choices for "related" links and use them.
by Eugene Brennan2 hours 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...
by Marcy Goodfleisch2 years ago
Do you have ideas on ways HP could improve the site or its usability in the coming year? No flaming, please; hoping to have some serious and helpful suggestions for staff to consider.Please share your ideas on:...
by Palis Pisuttisarun2 years ago
Hello guys!I just started HubPages less than a month ago so I'm fairly new and might not understand the way HubScore works like you do.I have published 5 hubs and I published my 5th hub yesterday. My fifth hub is called...
by Marina2 years ago
A month ago I announced some updates to HubScore: raw traffic is deemphasized, reader satisfaction is emphasized, and overall, the scores are a more accurate reflection of the quality of Hubs than they used to be....
by yellowbutterfly9 months ago
Can someone tell me what is the 'hub score' please? It seems to have no relevance to the number of page views on my hubs.Thanks!yellowbutterfly
by Marisa Wright3 years ago
I'd like to suggest we get rid of Hubber Score - and perhaps even Hub Scores. They:- are constantly misunderstood;- cause a lot of upset and grief in the forums; and- encourage newbie Hubbers to direct their...
Copyright © 2017 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.