'So called “Authoritative Hubbers” who are either clueless or just “Throwing Junk Out There“ start off something like this ~“If You Would Like To Improve Your Hub Visibility Do This“ ~
Add more images, no wait, delete a few images, no wait, your hub is way too long, or maybe not long enough, or maybe you should re-arrange the sales capsules, put more emphasis on this or that, try standing on your head with a mug of frothy cold Sam Adams at your lips, stand up, twist your hips, put your arms like this and say MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC three or four times, the phrasing or wording is way too complicated try “Dumbing it Down”~'
The thing is, Google Algorithms (that decide placement on SERPs) change all the time, so trying things out such as moving sales capsules around, trying out pictures, altering content and length actually makes perfect sense. It's an eternal cycle of 'tweak - test - review'.
The only people that truly know what factors definitively impact SERPs placement and how much they do so, is Google itself; the rest of us are just making educated guesses, based on correlation and research.
I do like the idea of a frothy, cold Sam Adams though,
You make a solid point Paul Maplesden. Only Google knows for sure, the rest is up to experimenting to see what works. Or, by following good examples.
The best example (IMHO) I have seen on HubPages is this hub that was recently published by Writer Fox. http://writerfox.hubpages.com/hub/Israe … m-Pakistan
My Hubber Score went down 3 points for publishing that, after it went down 3 points under this new 'algorithm.'
Whoever decides these things at HP doesn't seem to understand how these scores demotivate people from publishing here. New content, it seems, is no longer the HP goal for the site's future, as Robin stated on the forum:
"However, we believe that the content that is [already] getting traffic is the most critical piece to the site's health—this is the content that impacts readers."
Most webmasters view the creation of new content as the most critical element in the future of a website. Not HP. The whole concept of the HubPro program (and almost doubling the size of the full-time staff by hiring nine new employees to manage it) is to 'prevent' highly-trafficked Hubs from losing traffic in the future, as if a few edits is all that is needed to prevent that.
On the one hand, HP indicates that traffic is important but, on the other hand, traffic is no longer used to evaluate a Hub's Score or the Hubber Score. This all seems a little schizophrenic to me. This forum post from Paul E. explains the mindset:
"I don't like to talk about doom and gloom scenarios, but our current model isn't working. We've tried numerous things to help authors become successful. Editing is just about the only thing I've seen that has a significant opportunity to help individual Hubbers and the community as a whole."
It doesn't seem to matter to the 'Community Management' team that Hubbers don't like the scoring system which reverts educated adults back to a high school classroom, devalues Hubs which get high traffic but refuse the HubPro program, and gives high Hubber Scores to people who don't have high-traffic accolades.
I agree with Writer Fox. But not with Mr. Expert A.P.
Also like to add, Writer Fox's hub on Pakistan/Israel is the best Hub by far also in my opinion, I have not commented on the hub itself because I am still half way reading it I want to digest this information slowly so I understand all aspects of it. It is a very long hub so in intervals am there back and fourth. I have no objections to hoe HubScore works It doesn't even bother me as does the attitude of Mr.Expert A.P
"My Hubber Score went down 3 points for publishing that, after it went down 3 points under this new 'algorithm.'"
After publishing an article like that hub, I would have thought that your Hubberscore would have rocketed. Maybe it still will, here is hoping.
I don't always agree with Writer Fox but that post is spot on.
There's a lot being said about HubPages systems and performance at present - and rather a lot of it is NOT on this forum. That's what happens when people start to worry about how what they say affects how their sites are treated.
The fastest way to lose highly trafficked sites is to annoy the people who own them - period.
The fastest way to degrade perceptions about the quality of a site is to make feedback on performance opaque, incomprehensible and inconsistent.
* remove the Hubscores
* remove the Hubber scores
* remove HubPro
* monitor new hubbers and new hubs for quality issues
* follow up on spam reports by hubbers
* allow Google to tell you what works and what doesn't - without any filters - and that means allowing EXTERNAL traffic to be seen as important by everybody
My personal take is, and always has been, that the emphasis should be on cleaning up the sight, which means getting rid of articles that
written in less than excellent English
deal with subjects that are frowned upon by Google (drugs, sex, drinking, nudity, etc.)
use profane language
have shocking images that include gore and blood
The team also needs to do a better job of catching copied content. I found an article yesterday that had copied 34% of one of my articles. It had been online for three months...the team never caught it.
One of the things I learned many years ago as a teacher was that consistency is extremely important. This constant changing of guidelines is upsetting to writers and creates a great deal of work for them that could be better spent producing new materials or editing and updating older articles.
Saying that unhealthy articles existed prior to the QAP is a reason for them to still be here is ridiculous. Countless writers have reported many of these, yet they still appear...and they are ruining this site.
I have always felt that HP was a remarkably clever website that was well organized and had a responsive team. It would be a shame to see it go under because the team's philosophy is sideswiping any chance for future success.
We still have a good base of strong writers, many of whom would be willing to donate their time and expertise to help eliminate low quality articles. I do not understand why the team is not taking advantage of this pool of talent, but I do feel that doing so is the only way they are going to rise from the ashes to create a site for quality writers and materials that will be respected and supported by Google.
End of rant.
I agree. There are good tools for detecting copied content such as Copyscape and Grammarly etc. There are great spelling and grammar tools. Surely HP could develop tools which highlight spelling errors, bad grammar and copied content when hubs are submitted to be published. Note: The existing spell checker underlines in the text box, but does not list errors for the entire hub. Likewise these errors could be highlighted whenever hubs are edited (like the link problems). Hubs could be periodically scanned, like is done for unfeaturing for low traffic, with hubs needing attention being highlighted on the stats page. Most people would love HP for finding these errors for them and would be glad to fix them.
I recently checked the 3 hubs listed as Hubpro examples and found spelling errors in all of them, and one had copied content. The recent EC winner had 3 spelling errors and a number of grammar errors. Surely Hubpro is counter-productive if problems remain. It was suggested that more errors were introduced by authors after the Hubpro process, but that highlights the need for continual checks.
Surely spelling, grammar, good expression and no copied content, should apply to ALL hubs on HP. Perhaps this is the kernel of the problem that cause the Panda slap. Action is needed. The software exists - why not use it.
I agree. All of my best work has been stolen, so besides making all these idiotic changes to my best written hubs, I'm tired of tracking down my hubs on sites in other countries that have my article and maybe two others on it from two years ago. It's NOT worth it to file paperwork on it, because the site doesn't exist anymore anyway, but HP keeps "reminding" us our work is stolen.
Maybe the administration needs to take a motivation course.
Even if the site is in another country, you can still file a complaint with Google's legal department. They can eliminate the Adsense for that site and/or shut it down. You have to go that extra step. I just did it for this current thief, and he is GONE. Took me less than 20 minutes because I keep a template of the complaint letter on my desktop, so all I have to do is fill out the http info, find the email and go.
You talk as if that's all you have to do. (Ask the hubbers who have had it happen time and again to the same hub)
As if the thieves aren't going to work their way through your hubs - as has happened to a number of people. Just multiply that 20 minutes by the number of hubs which have been targeted and it doesn't seem such a small number any more.
As if HubPages hasn't become a spam magnet - which is how many people now think of the site
We, of course, all know that putting any content online makes it a candidate for the thieves. However what none of us need is for it to sit on a site which isn't taking a vocal, energetic and proactive stance against the thieves - and seems to behave most of the time as if it's all up to the hubbers to deal with.
The other alternative is to take the even bigger step - and just remove your content, especially any which is repeatedly targeted.
Sorry - that's a diversion from the topic of this thread - but it needed saying.
I agree, I think HP could be more proactive against thieves. I moved most of my best work, but so much has been stolen I don't even care anymore. I can rewrite it again, and probably better this time. Just not here.
I can only go from my own experience. In every instance except one, this has worked, and the only time it didn't it was because the URL of the copied article was not correct, so Google could not access the information.
My goal is to always have the plagiarist REMOVED from the net, not just to remove the work they copied. If they are out of the country, only Google can take action on a writer's behalf unless that country is compliant with US DMCA rules.
If I see that it is an american based company, I simply make a "courtesy" call and warn them that if the work is not immediately removed, I will file a DMCA. It's gone within hours...and one place, by the way, offered to buy the article and employ me to write articles for them!
Another part of this is that many who plagiarize and spin use such poor English and do such a crappy job of the copying, that even if they stay online, the work is so hidden in the index that nobody ever sees it.
Our articles are date stamped, so even when you update and someone copies, you have proof as to when you produced the work.
There is nothing I hate more than cheaters and liars, and I do everything I can to go after them...it has worked every time for me...but I do carefully follow the guidelines. An angry email demanding action is not how you do this. Using proper DMCA documentation and following up, is.
All I know is that this works for me. If I see that it doesn't, I contact Google, and that takes care of it.
Yes, it's a pain in the butt, but it is part of dealing with this type of issue.
By the way people can use a DMCA generator http://www.whoishostingthis.com/dmca/ as a template for the letter and simply fill in the http information for both parties, sign and date and then send it to the offending party or their host. This saves a great deal of time because it is mostly copy and paste plus a few minutes searching whoishostingthis.
Things have changed so much in the five years I've been here that I'm even more lost than usual...and that's saying a lot!
My author score has dropped below that of newbies who haven't even published yet!...guess that's an invitation to leave....Git On Now Boy!You Ain't GOOD Enough For Us No More!!...lol
That's exactly what I thought. Hubbers with no featured hubs have a higher score than most of us who have been here 5 years plus. When were the only ones attracting readers to HP.
Again I repeat, I am not that fussed about scores as much as I am about more than ten hubs I had to delete because I was fed up totally about them being unfeatured.
When each one had hundreds of views and comments and engagement even if it was just poetry.
I don't like the new way- but even.more I dont like the likes of ~AP@~ EXPERTS judging my work and fellow hubbers who are here more than 5 years and write from the heart. None.of his hubs have been commentfled or ..its always less than a few people. Im disappointed.
Looks like it is an exit.. So why dont we go ? .... I dont know il.be vert sad to leave. But feel soon will have no choice
I wondered what would cause a 37, so I went and looked. Looks like HP indeed really is big on adding purdy pictures.
I'm sure you're right paradigm search,but I believe content has much more to do with it.Divergent thinkers(nut jobs)...such as myself use to have a niche here.Now we're just relics to be discarded as HP becomes PC...the holy dollar wins again...and the site I love must soon become a memory...
cheaptrick: Google now considers photos as content, especially those that have text on them and that carry appropriate captions. It all counts now!
It probably doesn't count for much, cheaptrick, but I actually think you are one of the most talented writers on HP. I love how your brain works ... and the words you write.
Now if you could just teach your fingers to put spaces at the end of sentences, I'm sure you would find your score would climb. Then, as TT2 mentioned, add a few images.
Sounds like a lot of work, but I'd love to see you stay. (And if you move your existing hubs, you'd still benefit from adding the spaces. Promise!)
Really love seeing the stats after these changes, I'm a sucker for data. Distribution chart helped to put it all into perspective!
I think external traffic really needs to be a key component though, it is the life blood of the site after all.
Using something like a HubScore can be a great way to motivate your team and align everyone's interests which should always be working towards high quality content that drives external visitors to the website.
Has anyone else noticed the absence of hubber scores on hubs? Is this a happy change ... or just a glitch? lol.
Hi colorfulone. Unless I actively force myself to look at anything that resembles a number, I completely ignore it. Words and pictures, love them. But when it comes to digits, that part of my brain must have been re-assigned to some other duty.
Everyone who knows me thinks it is hilarious how I don't get excited (or stressed) by anything numeric.
Phone companies are very understanding when I need a new phone number. I ask them for a phone number with a pattern, and we spend ages playing with available numbers until I find an easily identifiable pattern within one of them.
So, back to the issue of scores on hubs. I have been actively looking at people's scores (due mainly to this thread) and reading what others have written about scores, and how they influence their lives. I've seen a number of hubbers complain that hubber scores should not be shown on hubs.
I'd never noticed them on hubs before, but that could have been just me. So when I deliberately looked, and didn't find one, I was wondering if it was a change or not.
So have they never been shown on hubs? And if not, why do some people demand they be removed?
Perhaps they are the opposite to me. I don't notice them even when they are evident, and others must see them when they don't exist.
I am an accountant, so numbers are music to my ears. Even my dreams are in numbers. I was with the academe and taught higher accounting. All subjects are in numbers but you need to be proficient in the English language to understand it. Like in school, these numbers signify something like making the grade. In Accounting, if you don't get at least a 75% in the board exam, you don't become a CPA. So these numbers in our profile would be like our grades in school or in the board exam. In HP, we are not merely graded based on how good we are as writers, but on how we kowtow to the rules of the site and that of Google. I guess, just like school. That's how I understand it, as I see writers who are better than I am, getting a lower hubbie score.
Again. my one cent...
Well I'd go along with that but for one thing.
I've recently had three unpublished hubs with hub scores of between 90 and 100. They've actually gone up since they were unpublished and the rules subsequently changed.
Can't quite work that one out....
....other than I happen to know they are good sites which don't quite fit HubPages rules for hubs. They've been around for years and successful for years but HubPages says "we rate you extremely highly but we still don't want you!"
C'est la vie!
I do exactly the same thing in relation to plagiarism of my blog.
However you miss my point. The problems people experience with sites outside HubPages are as nothing compared to the level of plagiarism of hubs.
It's all down to what the site owner does at the end of the day - and in the case of hubs that means the HubPages Team as well as the hub owner.
These are indeed SOME, QUITE interesting scenarios to the situation of hubs, don't you think so?
I get it now...thanks for the clarification, and I cannot agree more.
Unfortunately no, I don't have any account here Hubpages, however, to prove a point psycheskinner has an account for over 4 years if I am right but experience constant fluctuation in the hub score etc..
I have never monitored my hubber score for more than a moment to ponder, "How do they calculate that, anyway?" Now, I have some more information to ruminate. So, thanks for this informative post. As I reward, I share with you these questions the new information inspired:
1. Overall hubber score is an average of the scores of individual hubs. These individual hub scores were weighted by traffic volume. Is that correct?
2. The new score algorithm does not consider traffic. But, if higher traffic creates a more accurate evaluation of readers' time on page, then that can indirectly improve your score IF the more accurate measure is positive. True?
My understanding is that HP allows more than two links to sites they have whitelisted - like Wikimedia Commons.
It's not possibly to provide link credits to images via one GENERIC link to Wikimedia Commons. The whole point of the link is to identify the source of the precise image - which is perfectly possible given the way the site is structured.
Personally I'd rather credit an image correctly than worry about mythical "link juice"
I am not sure whether you are correct about that or not. What I do know is that it definitely is possible to link several Wikimedia Commons pix together by using their generic license. Once you write the source info on the hub, anybody can go to Wikimedia Commons, type the main info into their search and pull up the photo. I've done this many times.
Wikimedia commons does not require you to link directly to their site, but you do have to credit the source. There is a difference.
All of this gets complicated, which is why I use Pixabay and Morguefile for the great majority of my photos. That way, I have no problems. Their photos are terrific and getting better every day, require no accreditation and can be modified.
I take back what I just said and offer my apologies. I went back into the learning center and discovered that what I said about grouping links, etc. is incorrect.
Not only that, but because you confronted me, I realized that I had gotten very lazy about crediting my images, even though I thought I was doing a good job of it. I just finished redoing every single one of them...so thank you.
Or you can directly link to the precise image in Wikimedia Commons.
I have never seen the point of providing imprecise links
Actually I don't think that's quite correct. The point of attribution is to give credit to the photographer or artist, not to enable the reader to find (and possibly steal!) the original image.
So if people are linking to the image on Wikimedia, that often means they are doing it wrong - if you read the information under the image on Wikimedia, the attribution is frequently required to a photographer somewhere - not to Wikimedia at all.
When I link I provide precise links to the source that I'm crediting and the reason I provide a direct links to the precise image in Wikimedia Commons is to avoid having to do the complete commons licence every single time.
As it happens virtually every image I link to is long out of copyright so the issue about the artist seldom arises
However I do wish HubPages would wise up to the need to be able to provide credits which recognise Creative Commons licences and provide an acceptable way of linking to them without swamping the hub.
Other people certainly do not always link to images or credit them correctly - and of course some of them also pretend they also created them - but that's another matter........
This is a very confusing subject and may be the reason why so many aren't getting it right. After reading these posts, I had to go back and change many of my image links to correct them...and all the while I thought I was doing things the right way!
I went to your hub on Great British Sculptures and I see source is listed as Wikicommons - Could it also be the author's name and then a link to that page? (BTW one of your images is not showing up on that page - something about the great wall I think).
Are we required to say that source is the author's photo or can we just leave that blank if it's ours or public domain?
If photos are our own or public domain, then we can leave the source empty.
Thank you - that was what I thought but you never know lol
This is true, but on the other hand, noting the source lets Google as well as the team know where you got your photos, and this info may help to improve your rankings. Otherwise, it is a guessing game.
Google doesn't care where your images came from and original photos are not part of Google's search engine ranking factors, according to Matt Cutts.
Also, photo sources are not part of HP's QAP either. Photo sources are only required if you want your Hub to be eligible for Hub of the Day and, for that, they even want you to link to Public Domain photos.
And, since those of us no longer willing to lose our hubs to the Editors Choice "program" are never going to have a HOTD anyway...
Then I guess the reason they are so demanding about this issue is CYA due to the fact that there are probably liability issues?
Thank you for clearing that up about photos, Writer Fox.
The simple fact is I've been writing about and reviewing art for a very long time and I just make a point of crediting it
What's more important re. sculpture? The name of the person who made the sculpture or the person who took the photo? If it were in a magazine the credit underneath would be the sculptor and the very small one up the side would be the photographer
The fact is the link always goes to the precisely correct page on Wiki Commons where all the credits are for the photographer. The photographer would be rightly fed up with me if I'd neglected to do the link to the correct page
I always say if it's mine. Mind you that's because I'm always very suspicious of those who don't say anything at all.
Checking out a few from time to time often underlines the reasons why one might be suspicious.
There again, I find rather a lot of people have a very poor understanding of the "public domain"
I'm asking because I have a variety of attribution "styles" based on advise I have gleaned from the forums, some of which is probably quite wrong. Lately I was saying: source Courtesy of "Photographer" and then linking to the wikicommons page I downloaded it from. I have a fist full of other schemes. I am trying to find one that works appropriately without all the Wikicommons CC2.0 mumbo jumbo, and that gives everyone their best credit due.
As a photographer, I would prefer my name be listed in the source with a link back to wiwkicommons. Maybe that's just me.
I think the difference between you and me is that I'm always writing about art and you're not?
When using images about artwork, it is ALWAYS the creator of the art who is of primary importance and the person who took the photograph of it is of secondary importance. For example, Google Arts does not give a credit to the person who took the photograph of all the artwork in museums which they have digitally recoded for the benefit of us all with the agreement of the museum.
There's also the question of whether it is possible to claim any sort of copyright for an image which is not materially different (in look not media) from the original. If it's not you can't claim copyright as it's not an original work of art. Copyright ONLY relates to ORIGINAL works of creation. It cannot be claimed by copies.
If you're using an image for any other reason then the chances are that the photographer created the image - i.e. it's their original creation - and hence it is eligible for copyright and the photographer should be credited
If you read Marisa Wright's post you will see that indeed there WAS a problem with link juice awhile back, but the team corrected it. I did not know this, but the point is that it was not "mythical".
I posted to you last night, and will say again, that I got it wrong about joining image links from Wikimedia Commons together and using their generic license for all of them. This goes back to what WF said to do to protect the link juice issue.
I have now gone back and fixed every single image to make it correct. Mea Culpa.
I am no expert with these tech issues, so I try to go with what the most knowledgeable people here support. Unfortunately, when things change, I do not always find out about it until it's too late.
This was one of those situations. Also, I wrote to the team about using white list links, and you are correct, there is no limit.
It is amazing - after nearly 500 posts most people are none the wiser how their hubber score is determined and how to improve it. Clear as mud!
It's amazing how the fluctuations are so frequent with the new algos for both hubber- and hubscores. I wonder what that means?
My question is that before the change, one of my hubs was an Editor's Choice, and now it's not. Why did that happen?
Copyright © 2019 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.|