HP scores seem to go up in part based on the length of the article as well as the number of photos.
But that increases the amount of time it takes to download a page into a browser.
Google measures a page in part based on how fast it downloads and boosts the search rankings for articles that download quickly, especially on a mobile phone.
If I do what HP wants, I get punished by Google. If I do what Google wants, my scores on HP go down.
Which one is right?
I would like to know also. One of my hubs which received 150 views peak per day, has dropped from page 2 of a Google search to page 4 with a halving of views. It has 47 images. Views for another hub with 44 images haven't changed greatly.
You can of course compress your images before uploading. This dramatically reduces file size without a discernible reduction in quality even when zoomed in. This can hugely cut down on download time (90 % reduction feasible). However there may still be an issue with the mobile devices ability to decompress and display images at the other end, especially if a lot of images are involved. I don't know whether this would defeat the purpose of compressing.
The first image below is 1003 kb in size
The second image is 81 kB
(You cant zoom the images below, but even viewing at full size on my computer, theres only a very slight reduction in sharpness of detail)
Excellent point. Google offers the PageSpeed tool to analyze the performance of pages. It often will list optimizing images as a recommendation.
I try to optimize mine before uploading them. But even when they are optmized, a page with story images plus ads and other graphics can end up weighing close to 1 MB. I can't imagine someone on mobile waiting that long.
I guess it comes down to a question of balance.
It's worth pointing out that "authority" articles from credible writers carry a lot of weight with Google. So does originality.
HP guidelines and scores make a lot of sense from that point of view. I guess what I'm trying to ask is, how do you make an article credible, authoritative, aesthetically pleasing, etc., without making it slow to load? Optimizing images doesn't seem to do enough.
I personally believe it all comes down to topic. You can have a zillion photos, fast loads, long articles and all the rest, but if you are writing about a topic nobody wants to read, it won't matter.
My best article was one of the first ones I ever wrote, which was long before I knew anything about the technicalities. It still does well even after three years. I wish my others were as successful!
I would like to know the answer to this. I'm barely getting Google traffic but all my scores on here are doing well because I include plenty of photos and videos as well as lengthy hubs. I've also only been here a few months so that might play a role but what is the fine line between this site and Google.
I went a year without getting any traction on my articles before some of them took off.
I've seen other posts from people indicating that one or two out of 10 articles will do well. It comes down to how many other articles have been written on the same topic, whether or not you are promoting your articles, making them search engine friendly and other tactics.
Satisfy your readers and not HP or Google. That's the right thing
I agree that we should satisfy our readers. Research has often found that one of the complaints by readers of Web sites in general is that they are "too slow."
I had the impression coming in with Hubpages that it was a platform for writers, in a pure sense. As I observe the conversation among hubbers on forums and QA's, I become aware of certain complexities of "the business" of Google searches, etc. It brings to mind the age-old conflict of the arts: do I express or do I market? We weave through these traffic cones daily. Very interesting.
Hi promisem, I addressed a similar issue a few weeks ago in this forum:
I agree with you that it's about striking a balance. But since Google determines the traffic we get, I would lean toward doing what will keep traffic flowing and have less concerned for my scores going up and down. But I admit it does bother me to get slapped by HP's algorithm.
by Missing Link5 days ago
I'm thinking the answer is probably yes?If you have hubs that have been deemed "not featured", for one reason or another, will that factor into lowering your overall score/rating as a HubPages member? ...
by Ray19 months ago
Curious: Do you have multiple accounts, because your profile shows 68 hubs. I took a lot of mine and moved them. I let what I have left sit til it goes idle then I take remove it. I have over 80 articles, new ones, that...
by Heather Edgens2 years ago
I am not all that familiar with the ends and outs of blogging. My understanding is that you can blog about anything- from handy parenting tips to telling people about how you slipped on some ice and landed on your booty...
by Kidgas8 years ago
I am new to both but just wanted to say that I am very much impressed with HubPages. I put up some stuff there first and then found out about this site. So, I put up a few things here as well. The...
by Juliette Kando10 months ago
Instead of being addicted to the Stats page and getting frustrated by its inefficiency, I suggest we get rid of hub scores and hubber scores and stats. Just keep us informed on a daily basis of earnings. This would free...
by Jason Menayan7 years ago
I know that there has been plenty of discussion (and Hubs, by Darkside, Jimmythejock, Hovalis, and others) comparing HubPages to Squidoo, a similar Web service.We recently signed up with Quantcast, a service that tracks...
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.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.