Hi Hubbers, I mentioned in the past that we've been working with a company that helps identify SEO issues. Many of the issues they identify come in the form of penalties which they believe hurt the entire site. We've been trying to look at these penalties and come up with solutions that work for the vast majority of scenarios.
One of the areas they've identified as an issue is outbound links.
A significant portion of the total outbound links on HubPages are in the source field on photos. Many of these links are fine, but often they are problematic in a number of ways (broken, spammy, misused). We've decided that we are going to change the way that these links are displayed in the hope of reducing some outbound link penalties we believe we have.
Shortly, we will release a UI update that places an "I" when a user hovers over on an image for signed out users. When the I is clicked it will display the URL/anchor text of the source field in an overlay.
Here is an example of what it looks like when it's clicked.
For anyone that is using a licensed photo that has specific requirements on how attribution is displayed, we encourage you to make sure your photos are properly attributed.
You certainly picked an interesting example there...
Meanwhile, I'd already suspected problems in this area. As such, I've been removing my photo links (in most cases) whenever I happen to notice them. My exclusive source of pics are the public domain, federal .gov sites; so all is well.
[Edit] And the occasional meme.
Good move. I've been thinking about outbound links in photos, have been thinking they could have an adverse effect for some time now.
Writer Fox pointed out this issue in one of HP´s forums about a year ago. That was free SEO advice that HP could have gained from without paying an outside company.
However, for those of us that took that advice to heart, and were able to get increased traffic after removing those useless source codes (like "DrMark1961" or "pixabay", when pixabay does not even require it), we were told our hubs were so bad that they were no longer eligible to be Hub of the Day.
That's a good work around.
Any thoughts about the q & a section and removing it? It mostly produces very low quality pages and is not used for the purpose it was created for.
Agreed. I've used the Q&A, but for the most part, it does not seem to be generating hubs, as was the intent.
Plus, a lot of the question are just plain stupid, and still around, coming up in my HP notifications, even though the OP is 4+ years old.....I say, ditch it!
Paul, does HubPages have any advice on how this affects Creative Commons licensing requirements?
Practically all the photos I use are CC licensed, and as far as I know, this new method should be fine because the attribution is still there - but it would be nice to be sure!
We think this is a reasonable way of displaying attribution. For licenses in general, they can have really different requirements, so I hesitate to say this will work for all licenses. Folks should make their own decisions on if they have properly licensed photos.
I had often wondered whether or not this was hurting the site.
Glad to see it is being addressed.
I have most of my link information in the 'Source Name" field (ie: Wikipedia, Appetizers, Creative Commons - Gandydancer). I did that to all my hubs when we were told no more than two links to the same site.
Should I go ahead now and edit all my hubs to put the URL in the 'Source' field?
I want to make sure I get my hubs correct as far as links go so as to not receive penalties for HP and myself. Please let me know as soon as you can, so I can get started on it.
Thank you so much.
Can't we put the info on the photo capsule and not do links? Have we ever received penalties from Google for this issue?
Is it possible to do this project in January? I ask again about the links in the capsule. I have been using the source in the photo capsule without a link, making sure my info was correct. Is it imperative that there be a link and a description of the license in Wikimedia Commons.. I am still confused as to what is absolute.
Will we have to make changes to each image, or will this automatically happen to the source field.
How does this help with outbound links, if this is still an outbound link? Just curious.
It will automatically happen.
The way we are technically handling how crawlers see hubs without the link in the html source of the hub keeps crawlers from associating it with the hub, but still accessible for users we hope partially solves the seo issue.
Might be a stupid question but how does it affect people like me use only their own images?
This is kind of irrelevant when the source links are already 'nofollow'. It does look cleaner in terms of design though.
The way Google treats a 'nofollow' link:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/a … 6569?hl=en
I like that new method of displaying the source link only when hovering and I look forward to the implementation.
I am concerned that this will look like a way to fix a problem in an underhand way that could lead to a bigger Google penalty.
I don't understand what the specific problem is but it sounds like a webspam thing, at least partially, which Google is very hot on.
Separating captions from alt tags and keeping out anything remotely like keyword stuffing or linkspam might be a good long term aim.
Frankly, I just plain don't understand...
Google makes serious money off of HubPages each and every single day.
Google has given HubPages their very own Google account manager.
Google has to know by now HubPages does not and has not engaged in tacky practices for quite some time.
So why does Google apparently still seem to have some sort of problem with HubPages?
Because hubbers continue to engage in tacky practices all of the time and in high volumes and there is a huge backlog of unrevised pages following the old rules, and because content writing is on average less valuable than writing from a pure mission to inform. That is just a fact of life.
I thought the same thing when I read his comment. HP may not be involved with tacky practices, but there are a lot of hubbers who are. Google probably notices that.
Just to be totally clear, this change only affects photo capsules where the source URL has been filled in, correct? It has nothing to do with the source name? I've always used the source name box for the attribution. I've never put in the url.
I'm a little confused, too. If I recall, most hubbers removed photo links earlier this year when we were told to decrease the number of links on our pages. I changed my images to public domain so I wouldn't have to put a URL with the attribution. So, if I understand correctly, once this is implented the new system will pick up the URL in hovering position even if we didn't manually put it in? Please excuse the non-tech cluelessness.
I agree, janshares...it is a bit confusing, as SOME images, even though they may be CC actually DO mandate a link back to the source page. Why, I don't know, but there it is.
Jan, if you don't provide a link, then HubPages doesn't have a link to show. If you wanted it, I think you would have to add it again.
Paul, whenever I incorporate an image, I generally copy paste the url of the image as the source of that image. It may or may not contain the licence number/ identification or author name. (It does not show the cc2.0 or something like that) I am not so much technical in all these things. But, I always see whether it is free or not. Mostly I select from wikimedia commons.
Not all Creative Commons images on WikiMedia are free for commercial use. HubPages is a commercial site since you get paid for your hubs. You can only use images that allow use on commercial sites. For example, if the license says "Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0)" you may NOT use it on HubPages.
Thanks Glenn for the clarification and prompt reply. But, whenever I search images, my search tool is 'labelled for reuse'. So, I consider them to be free images for my use. However, I will check your above cited reference also.
They may be labelled for reuse but that does not mean they may be reused commercially.
(a) Search engines do NOT always get it right. I have seen images marked "labelled for reuse" which are, in fact, copyright. So you need to check. If there is nothing on the original page stating the photo may be reused, it is copyright and not legal to use.
(b) Even if they are correctly labelled for reuse, you MUST go and look at the original to find out what the requirements are. If a photo is available for reuse, there is often a requirement for attribution. If you use the image without the required attribution, it is illegal.
When using Google images, I was advised by another website I write for to use the advanced search option of "free to use or share, even commercially." I have been using it for years on a news site without problems.
I noticed the new "i" on my pictures. Looks great!
I have been using the source to provide a "CLICK HERE" suggestion for referring people to Zazzle purchases.
That no longer works. No one is going to look at the "i".
So I had to make minor change to add a separate LINK box. It looks clumsy and rubbish. It will have to do for now.
Now that the attribution information is not displayed 'live', but is only accessible by hovering over the 'i' symbol, authors can expect a huge increase in claims that images have been 'stolen' or used inappropriately. HP must accept responsibility for this, especially because HP removed the subdomains. The fact that the attribution information provided by the authors is not displayed 'up front' is clearly HP's decision and HP must accept responsibility for this, and deal with complaints as they arise.
IMO it would have been better to have shown the attribution as text without the live link. Another issues is that if authors back up their pages so that they can be moved to another site, the back-ups will not include the attributions. [a side issue]
Does a hover link actually meet the CC attribution requirement? I mean, the attribution is not technically on the page?
I agree, HP is not displaying the author's attribution on the page itself!
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/M … _Technical
" => Copyright notice should be published on the web. Offline or peer-distributed works should refer to notice published on the web. A web notice allows content to be found via web search, content owners to be found by viewers of untethered works, may be trusted to the extent a web page may be trusted, and allows for further annotation by the owner and others.
=> Copyright notice should be visible and unambiguous to humans and computers, especially the former. Human and computer visible notices should be one and the same................"
I agree. This is NOT an acceptable method for attributing CC images. HubPages should know what a bad position they are putting writers in by implementing this.
I suppose we can put attribution info in the caption field, but then caption, image alt and attribution will be the same field. I wonder what the "SEO experts" would think of that.
Properly attributing images has to do with more than staying out of trouble. Attributing image creators is the right thing to do. When people make their photos and graphics available for commercial use it is a great benefit to us and HubPages as a whole. We should have the mechanism for attributing them in the manner they request, and that means the name of the image creator need to appear near the photo.
I have over 300 Hubs. Thankfully, many of them don't use CC images, but many do. I won't remember which is which until I look at them all. It seems I have a project ahead.
This sounds like a good idea - at least it will be 'visible'!!!!!
"I suppose we can put attribution info in the caption field"
=> I trust that HP QAP and reviewers will allow this????
But then your image alt tag will also be your image attribution. A picture of a tree will have an alt tag that says "Joe Smith" or whatever. I'd think that would be bad SEO. It's bad enough caption and alt tag are the same.
As for the QAP, I don't think most reviewers would have a clue.
IMO, it was correct the old way -- with both the name of the image creator and a link to the source/license, which is what the CC license demands. If HP insists on hiding the link (which is wrong and sneaky, also IMO), they should at least return the attribution field so we can add the name of the source.
Also: I'm not an SEO expert, but I don't see how a bunch of nofollow links to wikimedia could be harmful to the site. If people were abusing the image link and attribution field surely there are better ways of dealing with them without irritating thousands of Hubbers who do it correctly.
All my opinion. What do I know.
This is the way I am doing it [not a real attribution => brackets '()' inserted here to stop it appearing as a link here in forum]. There are length issues but it works.
"Scrambled eggs is a wonderful dish. Discover how to make it properly with stellar flavors. | Source: Alpha [CC BY-SA 2.0] https:(//)commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AScrambled_eggs_with_chorizo.jpg"
I might be unpopular here but seriously...
A recipe for scrambled eggs and chorizo?
Why not make it and take a picture?
If you use a standard picture it will be the same as all those other scrambled egg and chorizo recipes.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
It is a make believe example. Get Real! Really! PS I like your new hair color - how about a selfie!
OK, my apologies.
That is not hair colour. In the original image it is a Santa hat. HubPages puts that stupid number where the bobble should be.
So much for my Xmas viral.
I didn't have very many so added license to each capsule. Photographer name already was in capsule. Took very little time.
Got a sudden broken link warning that turned out to be in a photo capsule. Don't know if related to the UI change or not. Being a .gov pic, twas an easy fix for me. Just thought I'd mention it, so folks could keep an eye out for the black triangles.
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.