jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (11 posts)

Topic Saturation and New Hubs

  1. EricDockett profile image98
    EricDockettposted 2 years ago

    I'm interested in some opinions here.

    Let's say you have an idea for a Hub. But in your research process you quickly realize you already have another Hub ranking for the topic you intended to focus on. Even though the old Hub isn't about the same topic exactly, search engines seem to think it is close enough to be useful.

    In other words, by writing the new Hub you are competing with yourself. While search engines should be able to figure out that your new Hub better addresses the topic, realistically that doesn't always happen. And even if it does, at least some of the traffic the new Hub gets will be taken from your old Hub.

    So, would you:

    A) Write the new Hub anyway and let the search engines straighten it out.

    B) Edit the Hub that is already ranking to better address the new topic.

    C) Do nothing and be happy with whatever traffic you are getting for any search terms.

    D) Write the new article for another site (Wizzley, etc) so you don't mess with your HubPages mojo.

    What's your opinion?

    1. Marisa Wright profile image98
      Marisa Wrightposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      What Kylyssa said about Hubs "feeding each other".   I'd probably write a second Hub that went into the topic in more depth, then interlink them (i.e. refer to the other Hub in the text of each one). 

      Reason?  I'd be frightened that while editing, I delete the sections that were attracting search engine traffic.

  2. Paul Edmondson profile image
    Paul Edmondsonposted 2 years ago

    If the currently ranking hub can be extended to fit the additional information in a good useful way, I'd recommend that option first.

    Most of the data I've seen supports this. Extending, updating and keeping an article fresh is the best way to preserve and grow traffic.

    1. EricDockett profile image98
      EricDockettposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Paul. I was hoping you'd have some advice! :-)

      So, using an example from your portfolio: If you noticed your Hub on gifts for 5-year-old-girls was ranking highly for the term "Gifts for 6-Year-Old Girls" would you add advice on choosing gifts for 6-year-old to the 5-year Hub?

      Or, in that case would it make more sense to write another Hub about 6-year-olds and link it early in the text of the 5-year Hub?

      That example is actually pretty similar to what I usually encounter.

    2. EricDockett profile image98
      EricDockettposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I just realized you have the 6-year-old version written too, so I guess my  example isn't exactly accurate. But I hope you get what I mean.

      1. Paul Edmondson profile image
        Paul Edmondsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I wrote the hubs as each of my daughters was turning a new year a long time ago. Had I had it to do over, I'd have written one hub for gift ideas for 5 to 8 year olds and broken it out into logical sections.

  3. janshares profile image97
    jansharesposted 2 years ago

    "B" is a good choice and does make sense with Paul's explanation. I would still be tempted, however, to write the new hub and link to the old one. I had a couple of similar situations with two sets of hubs: a) annoying, self-centered people (first hub) and b) parenting self-centered children (second hub) and a) tithing fears (first hub) and b) time, talent, and treasure (second hub). The first set worked out pretty well, the second set do okay. I guess it depends on how much new content you have and whether a hub might become too long and require two hubs. But I do understand wanting to keep up momentum of a good engine with proven performance by adding more fuel.

  4. Kylyssa profile image94
    Kylyssaposted 2 years ago

    If the new material allows you to keep a tight focus on the original topic, add it to the hub. If the new material has a different focus, write a new one. If you are adding detail and depth to the original subtopic, it belongs on the original piece, but if you are adding a new subtopic, you probably ought to write a new piece.

    For example, if you have an existing article about chocolate cake, add the new material to it if it's about chocolate cake, but if it's about yellow cake, transporting cakes, or about chocolate frosting, write a new hub. If you have an existing article about chocolate cake and you have new material about chocolate cake, add it to the existing hub.

    I have over twenty hubs about homelessness, but each answers a different question. They don't compete with each other; they feed each other.

    1. Vic Dillinger profile image62
      Vic Dillingerposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Smart thinking on your part.  Inter-related pieces always benefit each other.

  5. Vic Dillinger profile image62
    Vic Dillingerposted 2 years ago

    Eric, I know you tend to write on similarly-themed subjects (like your birds and squirrels) as I do (only the bulk of my work is on murderers and women in history).  I also write series focusing on specific topics (not here, yet).  Instead of thinking about each individual article think of them as a collective (my series, "Why I am Madly in Love with  . . . ", for example, has nearly 30 articles in it.  Some perform better than others but the whole is definitely greater than the sum of its parts as they are all interlinked).  You need to think of what you do as a body of work--a portfolio, as it were--and not just a loose aggregation of material.  I'd go ahead and write it and post it on HP--you already have similar material, right, so the older things would pop up in the "related" section, yeah?

  6. DzyMsLizzy profile image96
    DzyMsLizzyposted 2 years ago

    I think I got into a similar tangle just the other day.  I was going to add a new photo to my article on knee replacement surgery, as I had just re-found the photo the doc gave me following a subsequent procedure.

    However, after I added it, I discovered I had already addressed that procedure, and really, all that was missing was the photo.
    I then realized that the text I had before was not as good as what I put in recently, and I aim to combine those sections.
    I've not done so yet, as it was late and I was tired.  It's on my list for today....

    In another matter, I recently edited my hubs on genealogy, and found that really, one of them needed to be split into two separate articles, so that is now done, and the others appropriately edited (I hope!). 

    I have no delusions, however, about getting much traffic from those latter hubs, as that topic is fairly well saturated on the Internet, anyway.  I only hoped to add a different slant or way of looking at the research process and the forms used.  Maybe it's enough; maybe not.