Just curious, but, where would the "How to shave your butt" hub go? And that other butt hub?
I'm guessing either health or beauty. (I'll go throw up now!)
Featured on the Landing Page for the Beauty Hub?
It's so omnipresent on HubPages I guess they'll want to give it a prominent spot on the new Beauty site as well!
Please create a subdomain for all the medical hubs and make an attempt to separate them from HubPages. They are all fine, but you know, the 'cyst' hubs appearing on novel chapters I read is rather terrifying. I think a lot of people would approve of that, there was another thread where this has been discussed and the issue was dissected.
Note the NEW featured hub requirements clearly state
"* Medical, Finance, Law, and any other topic that may have an impact on a person's well-being: a Hub that offers advice on one of these topics should meet all of the bullet points above AND:
Have top-notch grammar, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation.
Have enough expertise to be authoritative and trustworthy on the topic.
Provide unique, expert insight and not merely reword information found on other websites."
The problem isn't truly the content of those hubs, except if what you quoted also refers to shock-value pictures used as covers. I haven't really visited many of those hubs, but I think they are well-written, the only problem is the gross-out factor on the first picture, which also appears in hub advertisements on other hubs.
But the problem truly is the content of many of the medical hubs. I don't know if you have plumbed the depths of the health category, but there is a lot of ridiculous stuff. Like the hub about diagnosing your cancer with a pregnancy test and curing it with habanero peppers. That hub has hundreds of thousands of views and thousands of comments and HP loves it to pieces.
Hey watch it, bucko! That pepper sandwich cured my cancer!
All joking aside, IIRC, that article has plenty of comments with people basically saying "no need for chemotherapy, eat this pepper sandwich instead!" It's dangerous, IMHO.
On another note, sorry if I missed it in this long thread, but was the "ring" portion of "TatRing" ever explained? I don't get it. But I am definitely not a member of the site's target market, so I guess it doesn't matter if I understand the name or not.
and yet it does not meet the guidelines just laid out by the team! So, will they include it or not??
I suspect certain non-doctors whose quack hubs get enough views will quietly be given a pass to continue...
We will not include dubious medical advice Hubs on any health/medical site.
Good eye. I wonder if HP will enforce that equally over everyone who writes medical hubs or if certain "pets" will get a free pass to keep pretending to be doctors. The unchecked proliferation of medical advice on HubPages is certainly one of the reasons why the site can't fully redeem itself with search engines. I agree with Medvekoma, that stuff needs to be quarantined on a new site.
Anyone who writes a hub on medical, legal should provide source information to backup their information.
What about those who write about their personal experiences with various medical issues?
I did that. No advice (except to see a doctor), but lots of personal experience information. What it felt like, what the "repair" was like, what it cost, results, etc. They get some traffic, not a lot.
I have a few of them, also, but no advice that can bring harm. The health category has a wide range that we can write about such as Quality of Life and Aging. Not all hubs are specifically about diseases, etc. I do think personal experiences are very helpful to readers and hope we will be able to continue to keep those types of hubs online here.
Yes, they are very helpful to others. A recent hub I read was very detailed about the author's new diagnosis and will alert others to be aware of the symptoms. I do believe it was a necessary thing for her to write - not only has she gained a lot of support and realized how much people care, but I am sure it helps her a lot to share what is going on and to stimulate healing within herself.
I agree. We had some serious health related issues in my family and when I searched for information online, it was all the same thing repeated over and over. Once I read up on the professional information, I was hoping to find personal stories about regular people dealing with the issue. I could find nothing. Maybe personal stories were buried deep on Google page 237 or something. But a little human interest, putting a personal face on the subject would have been most welcome.
Even if they do not get a lot of traffic, it may really help someone who has the same issue and is seeking as much information as they can find. Someone who is newly diagnosed with a health issue needs to clarify many things in order to understand what is ahead for them. And, it is often a form of healing for the author of the article who is recovering from the issue.
I feel that is different, TT2. Hubs like that can really be beneficial to others with the same health issues, for they are their own source based on their personal experience. As long as they do not give medical advice it is fine as a personal journey type hub.
Moving to this system is only going to be beneficial to anyone who writes Hub, in particular those people who will be lucky enough to be included in the new niche sites. To be frank I'm surprised it's taken Hubpages HQ this long to do it. The penny dropped for me years ago.
While it might be true that Hubpages.com could suffer a decline, why would it matter? As long as the Hubs are ranking high in SERPS on a different domain that has to be a better thing.
Hubpages isn't going to decline. Those saying so really don't understand how Google is ranking and indexing sites.
And yes, I realise it's not all about Google, but the fact is that Google is King when it comes to SEO.
I've written a Hub on this to try and explain some of the reason why: <link snipped>
So if HubPages progressively moves all the good content to new sites - and it indicates it will do this across the board for a number of specific niches where it thinks it can get traction - why would that NOT have a negative effect on the content that remained on HubPages?
I agree this is a good move, it really does make sense. As for what will happen to Hubs that remain on the main domain, I think the wise thing to do, for individual writers here, is to wait and see what happens to those Hubs traffic-wise and then have a Plan B if the traffic takes a dive. Actually, it's best to have a Plan B before all that happens. I know I do.
My Plan B is implemented. I have ten hubs remaining which can stay as they are, go where they will.
The pages I once cared about or see possibilities for have been removed.
I hope HubPages and their writers do well but I am not hanging around any more. Here are my main reasons.
I quite liked sub domains. A chance to prosper without being dragged into the pool of other people’s content. I didn’t like the change back to a main domain and the niche idea is just more of the same – only slightly worse as far as I am concerned. My preference would have been to individualise sub domains more – especially by getting rid of those awful links.
The more I do my own stuff the worse HubPages pages look. Too many ads and way too many links. It is hard to see my content in among the distractions. When I scroll down a page I want to see my content not weird distracting spammy floaty things.
As for spacing, fonts and picture layout. Not good.
Some people (claim to) make proper money. I don’t. Losing a few dollars a month from HubPages is no big deal. I have long given up hoping for substantially more.
rules and editing...
I don’t need it. I want to create my own stuff, my own way and if it works that’s great. If it doesn’t – well that’s Ok too. What I do not need is anybody telling me what to do, how to do it and making some kind of judgement over whether this or that is ‘good’ enough to be published.
That's it. Not a rant, more a resignation.
I hope you will still stick around the forums, and I wish you all the best. I also hope the team reads this post because you have stated what many feel, and I think it's important for them to have that info.
Best of luck!
Whatever you do or go, Mark, I wish you all the best. I will always treasure your Blue Katsina.
The good news... I have around 50 flash fiction stories that could go on the appropriate niche site.
The bad news... Based on my armadillo experience, QAP would flunk every one of them. Grammar, punctuation, etc. are an outright 10, but QAP does not like short or a dearth of pictures. Oh, well.
I must admit this whole thing is filling me with gloom. I have to try and write 100 bios which won't make my toes curl up and are in some way meaningful.
For example, I have a hub about bookplates. I had a girlfriend once who liked them, one of her many oddities.
So my honest bio would be: Women seemed to like this kind of thing once upon a time and certain kinds of men too, probably, though I have never met one. I wrote this page in a nostalgic mood thinking of lost youth. I don't consider myself an expert on this peculiar pastime but then, in this day and age, who is?
'Every Hub that is moved to a new domain will have a 301 redirect in place.'
Does this apply to new articles are well as old ones?
It appears that authors will still develop and post content onto the hubpages(dot)com site once the new sites are established. After QAP and snipping, if required, selected pages will be published on the new sites. Editing by the author and updates will still be done on hubpages(dot)com. So basically every page, new and old, will have a 301 redirect. As mentioned previously, this could cause major problems with Pinterest and in other ways. Can staff you please confirm that this is the way the new system will operate?
Yes. New and old Hubs will get 301s.
Re: Pinterest (in case you missed my other post): http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2795432
I am concerned about the implications of an entire site consisting of 301 redirect pages. Are there other implications in addition to Pinterest? What about social media such as Facebook, Reddit, etc.? Not sure how ranking may be affected as well (though Google claims effect is minor). There is a suggestion that 301 redirect 'reduces your pagerank score by 15%'.
301s do a pretty good job and the switch to https may even help a bit. The big thing (imo) is getting a site out from under Panda. If that happens, that should far outweigh any link loss. From what I can see, it should take less than six weeks to see how the new site gets assessed.
Easy solution-make one of the new sites '21stcenturysnakeoil.com' and move the pseudo science/medical hubs there.
Are there enough quality hubs to make a fishing/hunting site? Or maybe an outdoor recreation website? If there is I will likely start writing here again but the way things are now it just isn't worth the effort, at least not for me.
Wake me when you're ready to launch the niche sites devoted to music and/or movies.
...wait, you *are* going to launch niche sites devoted to music and/or movies, right? Cuz if you're not, I'm pretty much screwed. (glances around nervously)
What will happen with our accolades? Will everything still be reported under the main HP account, or are things going to get split up. Will pageviews start from scratch after the move?
Your accolades will still be reported on your main HubPages profile.
For pageviews starting from scratch - do you mean in My Account > Stats and/or Google Analytics? In My Account, Hub views will continue to get tracked and there should be no interruption. In Google Analytics, pageview tracking will "start over" because a Hub will have a new/different URL when it's moved to a site.
They already said most topics on here will be covered. I am sure entertainment and media will soon follow.
Marina, what do you think about keeping the main page as forums only? Yet hubbers will still be able to click on the link to create hubs from that page.
There could be a list of links to forum topics Also on the same page in a separate column could be a list of links to the niche sites.
Hi Kristen! PetHelpful will be just about pets, not animals in general. I'll publish the sitemap with all of the categories soon so that you can see exactly what we're looking for!
As for poetry and fiction, perhaps down the road, but it's unlikely to be among the first 15 sites.
There are a lot of very unusual animals kept as pets. Recommend having a catch all, "all others" category for those species not specifically listed; or maybe call it "unusual pets". It might even turn out to be your most fun, interesting section. Just a thought.
Actually, looks to me the vast majority of Hubbers are fine with this. Am looking forward to a fun and possibly even prosperous 2016.
It has been a hell of a long time since I was a 'hubber', and the site has changed radically since I was here in pretty much every way (rules, staff, members, design), but I've followed this place a bit since I departed and their various attempts to recover from Panda. Its a really interesting case study because I can't think of any other site which is reasonably publicly transparent in their attempts to recover, probably because most have given up.
I really hope that this change works out for hubpages. It feels like it is make or break for the site, its probably all going to boil down to how good the editors are at ensuring that they select only the highest quality content and don't allow any complete rubbish to slip through the net.
A huge problem that I think Hubpages currently has is that they'd really struggle to define their current purpose in a sentence. Just before I quit this site I really gave a lot of thought to that question. "A place where can people can write stuff to try and make money" is effectively how they would currently define themselves.
From an external perspective it is easy to see why people would struggle to understand what value it adds to the internet or their lives, save for the odd occasion that they are looking for a specific piece of information on Google and chance by a helpful page which solves their problem or satisfies their curiosity. As somebody who searches for stuff on Google a ridiculously number of times per day, I can tell you that this doesn't happen too often these days.
When you are a content creator earning $3000 a month and an algorithm update bumps you down to $1500, then $750, then $500, and you are looking at the situation with a highly vested interest, it is easy to shout about how evil Google are destroying livelihoods and small businesses.
But when you look at things from an outsiders perspective they had a point about doing away with what was termed as "content farms", because they existed for just one purpose, and that was to grab search traffic to generate ad revenue, they were self-serving. They existed solely for the benefit of the author, not the consumer.
Niche sites can, if they are done right, be a completely different proposition. If you have a site about tattoo and piercings, and somebody who is well into tattoos and piercings (does Relache still write here?), they will visit the site and probably stay around and look at the other content, possibly even bookmark it, follow it on twitter and facebook, perhaps even decide they want to add some content to it.
Hubpages can define itself simply as: "A business operating a network of specialised information websites". There you go, a reason for existence.
And every single niche site has its own reason for existence, and people who may value it. I'm assuming that Hubpages also intends to create social media profiles for each niche? As this would be a huge opportunity missed if they don't, I've seen examples of some really successful sites recently which obtain 60%+ of their traffic from social media, this change shouldn't be all about whether you can escape Google panda but also how the site can diversify its traffic sources.
At this moment in time literally nobody thinks "I fancy looking at some tattoos, I'm going to hubpages". And literally nobody follows hubpages on social media on the strength of a great article about tattoos they read, and then wants to see their next post sharing an article on Auschwitz in their feed.
From an SEO perspective though, I'm really surprised that you are creating these sites on brand new hand regged domains with a 1 year registration period. Would have thought you'd have allocated a small budget to domain acquisition, and registration length of new domains is well known to be a proven consideration of Google in how to treat a site. Will surely be a period where the domain has to gain authority and trust irrespective of the redirects.
Contributors to this site should be excited by the prospect of niche sites if executed correctly and hubpages broader strategy moves away from simply existing to game Google, that is so 2011.
For Hubpages though this shouldn't be simply about starting afresh to try and escape panda, they really need to push social media for each site to diversify their traffic. That's going to be a big labour intensive challenge assuming that there are going to be dozens of sites, each of which need their own social media profiles managed by the hubpages office.
As an aside, hello to anybody who was here back in the day and remembers me, doesn't look like many of you
HP need editors who understand the niche thoroughly, understand readers' passions, can be credible in social media and understand the likely future trends.
Content farms were originally about exploiting a weakness in Googles' algos (mega-sites did abnormally well regardless of content quality).
Niches are about quality content, developing reader bases and getting some brand recognition.
Anyway, thx for that injection of intelligence, ghostly one.
Building and managing so many social media accounts is going to be a huge challenge. I'd be willing to bet a few quid on Hubpages attempting to automate them, and that won't be optimal.
I also wonder about having multiple similar articles on one site. It would be a bit weird to visit a blog about tattoos and find 10 separate articles about Skull Tattoos and find that 4 of them are using the same image of the same tattoo.
Or reading two articles on the same subject which make precisely the same points.
That is also a challenge, just how effective hubpages can be in making a site look like it is carefully curated. It is still going to look spammy if one niche site has multiple articles about the exact same subject with similar titles?
Will be interesting to just observe how well they implement these sites. Social media is a requisite to success these days though. Not necessarily as a traffic driver but also purely for domain / brand identity (or trust).
This excellent analysis says it all, and it makes me wonder just how far the team will be able to go to make sure this plan works. It will require employing more people and pouring more money into what they are doing, and that will be a big change from what has gone on in the past.
I, too have wondered about having multiple articles on the same topic. I don't think it will work. The team will need to pick the most well written and informative articles in each sub area, and the rest? Well, they'll simply be lost on the old site.
Interesting that you mention the importance of Social Media. HP currently unfeatures hubs that have too much SM traffic. One would think they should be happy to keep hubs online that get it, for the very reasons that you state.
I think many here are going to have a rude awakening when the competition for spots on the new niches becomes intensive.
However, we can only wait and see what happens. Let's hope this attempt at saving the site is not half-hearted or done sloppily. That would be a killer for all of us.
I think you are getting a little confused around unfeaturing. Pages can be unfeatured for low traffic from search engines but unfeatured pages can still get traffic from social media.
I agree about sloppy implementation being a worry, though. HP has always been about managing massive numbers of pages. Niches are different. I hope they have done their homework.
For one thing, there is usually a need for core info and a solid site structure. A quality niche site for pets should have basic info about cat and dog breeds, common pet illnesses, types of pets in each category, (bird, reptile, furry things), etc etc. Someone needs to get that kind of stuff together. Or it will just be a collection of unrelated pages, strong in a few areas, sad-looking in others.
I'm not confused. I know we can still get views from SM if an article is unfeatured, the point is that I want to be able to get views from search engines and not be penalized because I marketed my work on SM sites. I don't do a lot of this, so it does not affect me much, but I do not see the point of penalizing people who do get those types of views. Why keep them from Google, etc., just because they get more views from SM? Makes no sense.
Yes, excellent analysis, ryanpugs. Maybe you can get a resume to HP and offer your consulting skills? I learned a lot just reading the broader picture you've presented. Thanks for the cogent presentation.
Haha, I don't think we parted on particularly good terms, and not enough hours in the day to run my own business, which isn't content these days but eCommerce.
This change from hubpages has come at just the right time for me to be interested in observing it though, because I've started building a niche site which will be 5000+ pages by the time it is finished. Presumably not too dissimilar in size to some of the sites that hubpages will be launching.
It is daunting enough building up social media profiles for one niche site yet alone dozens, which is why I'm particularly interested in that aspect of their strategy. Its difficult to see how they can anything other than hope that they build them organically with some degree of automation.
I'd be amazed if they disregarded social media entirely, because even if the clock went back to 2010 in terms of the google algorithm, the growth of facebook, twitter, instragram etc has been astonishing since.
Also the ad economy has changed somewhat. There are many challenges which don't relate to the google algorithm at all. Google Product Listing Ads is a huge change which has affected CPMs for content sites. Adwords was always very expensive for ecommerce, where margins are typically slim, but Product Ads which are presented only directly on search pages are massively cheaper and more effective for general consumer goods and they cut out third party publishers entirely.
Anyway, I'm just going to enjoy observing, I hope I can learn something from their strategy to take into my own new project.
Hey Ryan, first and foremost you better get your profile pic back up. I liked it.
Yes, I did point out the problem about similar (or same) content with different titles (read URL's) on the HP domain. I do hope the editors only pick one on each subject, the best one. About social media, yeah that's true and I think the editor, if they are going to be specialized in the niche, should also be in-charge of the social media account, at least until HP can hire another person.
I thought our articles getting social media attention from sharing, good read through rates and things of that nature was building up some Google juice if featured. Not the case?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe articles are unfeatured due to insufficient Google traffic as opposed to "too much social media traffic."
Well, for insufficient search engine traffic anyway. Google isn't the only search engine out there.
The team told me that one hub I had that was unfeatured for traffic was that there were too many SM page views as compared to SE views. I was very surprised, but that's what they said. The overall views were good, so that obviously was the issue.
That is just bonkers. I know I'm a naïve soul, but surely views are views. Unless HP's advertisers pay more for SE views than SM ones (I can't imagine why they would do this, but hey.)
I have also been told by HP staff, and it has been stated in various forums that Social Media traffic is not taken into account for views to keep hubs featured for engagement. Only search engine traffic counts apparently.
Yes but "too much social media traffic" can get an article unfeatured?
I think TT2 got a clumsily written response from the team. I don't believe too much social media traffic will get you unfeatured.
I think they meant to say we don't care how much social media traffic you get, if you don't have enough search engine traffic, then you need to update your hub to make it get SE traffic, or we don't want them to see your hub on our site.
Edit: Pinterest sharing, for instance, is about posting pretty pictures. Some click through, but many just want a collection of interesting images. That does not guarantee that the content behind those images is very good. The reasoning would be: if the content were really good, then the search engines would recognize it too, since all the social media link juice is there to point Google to that hub. If Google looks and still does not find favor in it (i.e. high bounce rate & short view duration), it must need an update. So it goes unfeatured for you to improve it, and make more attractive to G and readers.
That's possible, but if you had seen the figures you would know that the ratio of SE views to SN views leaned in favor of the SN views, even though there were also a fair number of SE views there. That tells me there is some sort of ratio formula they are using.
What happens if an article is transferred to one of the new sites and the author decides that they are unhappy with the move, and wants to remove it from the hubpages group (effectively delete it and put it elsewhere). Can this be done simply? Will there be any delay with the removal?
"You may remove Your Hub Content from the Service at your discretion. You may not remove your Author Content from the Service. HubPages may preserve and store Hub Content (including, for a commercially reasonable time, Hub Content you have removed from the Service) or Author Content, and may disclose such content if required to do so by law or if HubPages believes in good faith that such preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary."
The issue is that an author may want to remove their content and publish it elsewhere once it has been deindexed. Does the retention mean that the author cannot publish it elsewhere once 'deleted'. Also the moves are compulsory and author cannot opt out. If the Pinterest issuers are not fixed, the move of hubs to the new sites may cause a loss of traffic ( >70%) for some pages. Perhaps the pages with 'mini virals' from Pinterest and other social media sharing should be considered exempt from the move if the traffic from these sites is going to be gutted with the change in URL (301s).
What is the difference between author content and hub content? This is confusing and needs clarification.
That part of the T's and C's has always been there.
Hub content is the content of our Hubs. Author content is the other stuff, like forum posts, profiles etc
Why in the world would they want to keep the author content? Wieird!
They don't want former Hubbers demanding that HP remove their comments from the forums. That would make a headache, and old Forums would become mysterious, losing coherence - like when a comment gets snipped, but responses to it still remain.
You will still retain ownership of your Hubs and may remove them whenever you wish. Should one or more of your Hubs be moved to other sites in our network and you are unhappy with the move, you can always delete them from HubPages and publish elsewhere online.
couldn't you simply put them back on the original site?
I guess you could in theory, but once they have been republished there would be nothing to prevent them from being selected as a newly published Hub for the niche site and moved there again. If Hubbers have strong objections to having content placed on these sites, I recommend moving that content off of HubPages.
I've decided to stop worrying and let HP get on with it. I'm sure everyone wishes them luck.
Uncertainty is bad for the nerves, but hey! The changes might work out this time.
Well, it only took four days, but this thought finally trickled across my mind... I will not be removing anymore hubs for awhile. A hub currently floundering here could very well perk up on a niche site.
It's makes sense that Hubs would do well on niche sites. It's been said over and over again, not only here but on many SEO sites, that Google likes authority sites.
That's IF that hub is chosen to be on that site. Let's face it, they're going to have to limit the number of hubs on any specific topic, so regardless of how good a hub is, it might not make it onto a site and will be stuck on the main HP site.
"Niche sites can, if they are done right, be a completely different proposition. If you have a site about tattoo and piercings, and somebody who is well into tattoos and piercings (does Relache still write here?)"
Yes, Relache is still marginally active on HP. She was more than vexed, when they did away with sub-domains.
Perhaps Tatring can renew her enthusiasm for HP; perhaps Tatring was created especially for her. It would be the best test of the new niche concept, if HP HQ could inveigle her into assisting with the structure and content curation of the new site. She certainly has the expertise, and is rigorous and succinct in her analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of various SEO strategies.
Will the articles chosen for the "niche" sites be held to a higher standard than those that can earn "featured" status on HubPages? I sure hope so. I see way too many "pet" Hubs on HubPages written by someone who happens to own a dog, trained it to "sit," and thus is now an "expert." These Hubs are filled with inaccurate information and would damage the reputation of a new niche "pet" site. I would hope that only articles of high quality AND written by people who have expertise in the niche field would be accepted.
Many pet sites focus on 'cute' or 'bizarre'. Seals playing basketball, snowboarding cats, pigs going shopping with their owners. I bet they get good views too, lol, especially through Facebook. I have a feeling HP are going to be more serious, though.
I do think the staff need to drop the 'only very long pages will do' approach. A page like 'Pros and Cons of Owning a Doberman' (or any other dog) should be no more than a couple of bulletted lists...
Since these sites will probably be in "magazine" format, length may well become a big issue, but who knows. I strongly doubt that people will have to be "experts" in their fields because most readers are just regular people who may enjoy seeing pet articles by people who taught their dogs how to "sit", etc. I doubt they care much about a writer's pedigree in this situation. However, when it comes to training service dogs, yes, it is an issue. That's why the team needs to be careful about choosing who writes what. The same is true for recipe sites. You don't have to be an expert cook to produce really good recipes, but when it comes to specific genres of fancy cooking, yes you do.
This is a decision only the team can make, but I think that they need to be careful about only wanting "experts" to write because I doubt there are enough of them here.
I agree it shouldn't be only "experts" writing, but when it comes to training "sit," there are many abusive training methods out there. I have read Hubs here written by people who aren't experts who describe those methods and claim them the best. Even training "sit" by pushing on the dogs haunches can cause lasting hip damage in years to come. Training is amazingly detailed, and doing it wrong can cause injury. That said, there are lots of pet topics lots of non-experts can write about, and I don't think they should be kept off of the site if they are good. I think the "cute," "funny," and "silly" are especially important to be included as people LOVE that stuff. I just hope the vetting process is tighter than on the general HubPages.
Every Hub that is selected for the new sites is looked at by a moderator, and trustworthiness and experience of the author are currently factors we take into account.
Will we be allowed to have Amazon capsules on these new sites?
I am also still under the old Amazon system here, where HP doesn't pay me but Amazon pays me.
I am concerned my income with HP will plummet with changing to new sites.
I am curious about the names that were chosen for the new sites. TatRing and PetHelpful. Are they SEO friendly? It seems to me that since they have been merged into one word, that Google algorithm might not recognize that the word merge. With Tatring with an abbreviation as well as a merge, I would think it is even less likely to be very helpful i terms of SEO.
Paul E. says TatRing is off to a great start, and that certainly seems to be the case. I did a Google search for "tattooing" and a TatRing article ranked at #3. A search for "tattoo ideas" shows a TatRing article at #8. Not bad!
Did you do this search from a browser which you don't use for HubPages?
The trick to making an assessment of real rankings is to do them through an anonymised browser. Try again.
The check I did (using one of your suggested search queries) didn't show anything from the new site on either of the first two pages of Google Chrome using an incognito window.
Verticals as Stand Alone domain(s) is a very interesting approach. Clever thinking HP.
Am curious if there is a back-end connection to the stand alone domains. Not in the sense of a link back to that particular vertical on hubpages.com, but rather a communication between "Mama Hub" and the nth:children? That would be some amazing tech.
Just wondering if there will be a Home & Garden or Home Decor site?
I tried to review, but maybe I missed it - do we need to register on each of the new niche sites, or can we use our current HP login? I tried to sign in to TatRing just now and it just took me to the page to register a new account.
Copyright © 2020 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.|