|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.|
Just curious about what other hubbers have experienced so far.
For me, I currently have 162 featured hubs of which only 2 have been chosen for niches.
That is just slightly over 1%.
I have about 280 featured hubs, and about 4 or 5 have been selected so far. That, too, would seem to be about 1%, or even .01%, in case I did the math incorrectly.
9 out of 158 hubs, across three different accounts. Of course, they've just basically begun the process of moving content. I'm sure there will be more to come.
I have 15-20 of them selected out of 80 hubs.
The good thing is, as soon as they move my hubs to the respective niche sites, they start ranking well immediately.
I just started with Hub Pages. I have 15 hubs so far. I do not write about topics that are very popular so I have not done well. The niche idea sounds great for people that have several hubs.
Thank you for asking this question, Jack Lee. While we can't really tell much from the small number of people who will respond here, at least it gives us slightly more idea of what percentage of hubs are getting moved and how many are getting left behind.
So far, 2 out of 78, which is about 2.5%.
Guess I'd better learn to write better hubs. :-)
I'm 5 for 225, which ain't very good but I already over it.
I had a couple editor's choice hubs that were going to be going over - but I replaced the 'snips' that they did because those articles already made good money without being moved. Most of the money that came from them came from the Amazon capsules that they are so fond of removing almost completely. To me, the new niche sites are yet another backwards way that HP has been trying to 'fix' things. It's been one silly fix after another, and since none of them really address the real things that are wrong with HP - waste of time & money.
Well my hubs that moved over to a niche site are getting 4x the traffic they were 4 months ago. So I think it was a success as far as the PetHelpful niche is concerned.
I am having the same results as Solaras. My traffic has seen a MASSIVE increase since many of my Hubs went to a niche site. From my end, this isn't a waste of time and money. It's a fix. I have already made two times the money this year that I made all of last year. I realize my results won't be seen by everyone, but to whitewash the niche sites as a waste of time and money without knowing the results is rash.
It's definitely a fix. They are taking some of our content off of a site heavily penalized by Google and moving it to spam-free, crap-free, and junk-free sites with no Google penalties.
Some of us have an issue with the fact that they are taking Hubs that Google "likes" and removing affiliate links and Amazon Hubs which Google clearly has no problem with (otherwise they wouldn't be getting traffic in the first place!) but that is their prerogative I guess.
I don't care much either way, because I wrote most of my hubs years ago. It's just nice if they make a little more money. But it's not necessary, I wrote them because I like to write and pass on info in my niche.
There is a human element involved. I write a lot of hubs in series forms, because the topics have much information. When HP moved half of a series, I asked that the other half be moved, or it wouldn't have made sense. I was also asked to combine two rather long hubs into one, even though it made one really long one. The administration knows I tend to write long hubs.
There are so many niche sites planned, I would think only very few hubs of low quality would not find homes. They are rolling them out pretty fast. I guess it will take time to see the overall results.
2 out of 111. I'm still uncertain about the reasoning for these sites.
The reasoning is simple. Do even the most elementary research about how to get search engine traffic, and you'll find that most internet gurus say, "to be successful, a website MUST specialise in a single broad topic area". Even Google itself says that, in fact.
HubPages lost a lot of traffic when Google started favouring specialist sites. At first it was reluctant to change its business model, and tried to compensate for the traffic loss by improving quality and getting bigger (by buying Squidoo), but neither strategy worked. So now it has finally accepted that it can't fight the new reality and is creating specialist sites.
I have five niche pieces, but none since the beginning of May.
Just curious if anyone else has experienced this. I was searching on google with one of the title of my recent hub and came across a snipet of my beginning text showing on the top ten list of search results. When I click on the link, it claims it is offline. The site is www.askmix.top...
I am wondering if this is the beginning of a new niche site...
How is this being found by google search? Very strange.
One of mine so far (nearly 200 hubs), and it's the one I published this week.
I wouldn't put too much stock in it. I'm not sure what the benefit is (although I'll be prepared to be pleasantly surprised if there is some).
Your page views to go up for the articles selected but nothing to write home to momma about.
I have 250 hubs and 7 have been moved to Delishably. I don't know if that is a good thing or not. Of those that have been moved it is the fairly new ones--not the ones that were written some time ago.
I have 112 hubs left after having merged a few with similar topics, and deleting a few that weren't working. Of those, 25 were selected for four niche sites. That's 22%. Two were new and eight were Editor's Choice.
I had 22 moved mostly to Exemplore, out of 155 hubs. I was advised to take a two part hub and make it one hub. I also made the monthly payout in May for the first time in about two years.
My question is: Is anybody writing new hubs? If so, are you writing them for the niche sites? It does appear they have quite a few niches and that most of our hubs will be able to fit in one, as long as it has the qualities that are necessary (whatever that is at the moment).
I'm afraid to get my hopes up!
I wrote one new travel hub a few weeks ago, it went right to Wanderwisdom.
I've written two or threenew hubs that went to PetHelpful in half a day to two days, if I remember correctly.
As you know Jean, I very rarely write new Hubs but I had such a good time on my recent cruise, I couldn't resist writing a Hub about it. I just got an email this morning that it's been picked for the new travel site.
So it does look as though it would be worth writing new Hubs with the niche sites in mind. I don't know how they decide whether to choose a new Hub for those sites - it's probably part of QAP.
I have 1 out of 22 articles selected for a niche site so far.
3 out of 34 .... the ratio is slightly better for lucky me. 8.8%
I too have 3 out of 34 hubs = 8.8%
I did publish one hub, about cutting back a large tree in our garden, specifically thinking to would go well on Dengarden, and I was lucky enough to have that happen. I am very pleased.
The percentage of Hubs moved doesn't mean anything. HubPages has clearly said that the main criteria for moving Hubs to the new sites is TRAFFIC, i.e. how much Google traffic they are getting.
So they are not looking at individual writers or going from account to account and picking out the best - they've said "we will move all Hubs with a monthly traffic over x amount", then they're looking at the whole site's traffic stats and picking the Hubs above that threshold.
Once they've done that, they look at the result and see whether the new niche site is nicely balanced with a good number of Hubs in each category. If not, then they go back and look for good lower-traffic Hubs to fill out the empty categories.
Also new Hubs are being considered for inclusion as they are published, probably as part of the QAP.
So try not to take it personally.
I concur. All my hubs with good amount of traffic has already been moved to niche sites.
That's interesting, I didn't really know the process of how they decide what's moved. Although, I'm sure I read about it somewhere along the line, wasn't put together in my mind.
I don't think people are taking it personally that most of their hubs are getting left behind. I think people are trying to plan for the future and more information than we have is necessary for that. Not everyone is comfortable with flying by the seat of their pants; many people prefer to plan ahead when it comes to things they see as important.
HP staff is far too busy to even take stock or to try to estimate what percentage of hubs will be moved so we only have each other to help each other try to work that out.
Yes, it's lovely that they are moving a tiny percentage of hubs to more viable vertical sites and I applaud them for trying to save HubPages, but that still leaves us as users of the site with a vast majority of our hubs still in need of viable homes. HubPages is making very nice homes for a small percentage of our hubs but it's up to us to find homes for the rest.
I think you are forgetting that most people don't consider their hubs that are getting left behind as disposable junk. I think it's a pretty fair guess to say most hubbers plan to do something with their hubs that get left behind. I do. So we'd like to know how many of our hubs we'll need to find new homes for and in what topics in order to make plans. Also, it would be great to know how and when we can be sure a particular hub has actually been left behind but I can see no logical method to determine that at this time.
Several of my low traffic hubs (including a real stinker of a recipe) have been moved to niche sites so traffic isn't the only criteria for moving a hub to one of the viable sites. It's also almost impossible to judge how well Google actually "likes" a piece of writing when it's been launched on a heavily penalized site. I think HubPages is using a number of criteria to choose hubs, not just traffic stats, and I think it's very intelligent of them to do so.
Notice how the traffic on the hubs moved off HubPages proper have surged in views. Those hubs haven't miraculously gotten a lot better or become individually more pleasing to Google; they've just moved to sites that aren't penalized and they can get the views they merit now.
If you publish elsewhere online, you're surely aware that content published on sites that aren't penalized get far more traffic than content of similar quality published on HubPages. Judging a piece of writing solely by the traffic it gets on a heavily penalized site is like judging an art show with most of the pieces of art hidden under drapes.
Very estute comment and I agree. I am not sure what will happen after lauching these niches sites. Time will tell if they fulfill there mission. My personal belief and preference is for HubPages to preserve the rest of the hubs as is. As many have commented, low traffic on hubs should not be the deciding factor on the quality of content. If HubPages could not generate enough money to keep it going, I for one would be open to converting HubPages to a subscription based platform. For a small monthly fee, I as a hubber would be willing to pay for the priviledge of publishing here. I cite Tribalpages.com as one example. It is a site for geneology and it has a sliding cost, free for beginners (trial member) and $30 per year for a more robust member and somewhat higher for full capabilities.
As for the niche sites, I hope they do well but it is too early to tell. There are just so many of these sites that it would be hard to stand out and the key is also promotion. Based my own limited experience, I have one hub in wanderwisdom niche that I promoted with my friends and they are getting a bump in traffic, the other hub in the soapboxie niche is getting no bump in traffic.
Anyway, just some ideas on saving HubPages for the long haul.
I really don't see how Hubpages would work as a subscription service (especially if you are suggesting that it is the writers who are subscribing). Not only would most writers not be making money, but they would be losing money by paying for the subscriptions (and I think the vast majority would just move their content elsewhere). Even if you are just writing for passion, there are no shortage of free platforms out there. Also, if you were wanting to pay for your platform, web hosting for your site really isn't that expensive.
I am not aware of any other free sites that allows for personal publishing like Hubpages. In addition, the preferential treatment of google search ranking of Hubpages is not to be minimized. I realize anyone can just create a personal website and publish to his heart's content but it will not get found by search engines.
The small fee I'm suggesting will just help pay for the minimal storage space of the server and the few staff needed to maintain HubPages. This would be separated from the more successful niche sites that Hubpages seems to focus these days.
I'm just throwing out ideas to save HubPages (the rest of the hubs not moved).
I welcome any other suggestions.
The reason for the niche sites is because Hubpages has been taken a hit from Google. Why would you want to pay to publish on a site that is penalized by Google? Most of the content that is going to remain on Hubpages is going to be low traffic (and in many cases probably low quality). But if the niches sites do well, the Hubpages can either scrap the main site (and you can just submit directly to the new niche site), or they can just keep it as a feeding site (during the QAP process) and a parking lot for content that doesn't fit into the niche site. They might also want to keep it for the forums and community, if they choose not to launch individual forums and community for each niche site. But either way, it is not going to be something that most people would want to pay to be a part of.
There is still a number of free platforms out there, but many of the user generated content sites were branded as content farms and took even bigger hits than Hubpages did. For the most part, free platforms are more about writing for passion than profit. But if you are not making money from Hubpages and you don't have the time or know how to brand your own site, then that is just the reality that you are dealing with.
I don't know that dissolving the main sight is the best idea, as that would require us to sign into each site separately, and write only what fits into those individual categories. It would also be incredibly inconvenient in regards to tracking traffic, income, etc.
As an aside to the original discussion, I have had about 10% of my hubs moved to niche sites, having had a few more moved over in the past week or so. Traffic for those hubs has improved for most of them, though not a whole lot, overall.
I also agree that it is probably not be the best idea, and I don't think they will go that route (I was only mentioning that they could, not that they should or would). I think it will primarily become a Hub for checking your earnings and your dashboard among multiple platforms. Also as mention it will continue to be a feeding system into the niche sites and it will still be there for the community. But any content remaining will basically be a parking lot for homeless content.
In a way, don't we already have that in the form of "unfeatured hubs"?
In another word, HubPages may have gotten the similar results if they just kept everything the same and just tighten up the Quality Assessment Process by doing some human inspection as they are doing now with the niche sites. They can go back and "re-assess" previously "featured hubs" that were not of high quality. The results would be a new improved HubPages with better quality hubs...
They have already been trying to tighten the QAP for awhile. But, my understanding is that part of the rational was that sites based on niches generally perform better on Google than sites that are a hodgepodge of subjects. Also the niches sites also come across as more authoritative and part of the theory is that they would be less likely to be branded as content farms.
The Island of Misfit Toys (Hubs). LOL
Good point. I totally agree. We need the main Hubpages site for the Stats and login...in addition to the forums and Q/A.
I am just speaking for myself here. I am on Hubpages not for profit but for my own enjoyment. From what I can tell, not too many hubbers make enough profit here of any significance. I was on Squidoo prior to being on Hubpages and over there, they allow me to donate my income to some charity. I am continuing that tradition here on Hubpages. The small amount that I made when cashed out will be going to a worthwhile charity.
The problem with google is an ongoing problem that won't go away even when moved to niches sites.
HubPages can emerge as an unique social media Web 2.0 site where people who likes to write and publish can do so preferable free of charge. The hubbers here can participate in forums and Q/A to help each other or debate hot issues in a civilized manner. It is the only site I know of that can provide this. I am surprised they cannot make a success out of this model. They were able to beat out Squidoo who was its main competitor.
I am not sure niche sites is the answer, only time will tell.
I am hoping the rest of Hubpages stay intact as is and hopefully be profitable.
If you are not here for profit why would you want to pay to use this service? You can start a tumblr blog (or similar platform) for free and you can also social network with other users.
But if you are not in it for profit I don't really think you have anything to worry about. Even though it would be an option if the niche sites take off, I don't really think Hubpages will scrap the main site. They will still have the community and you can still park your content that doesn't fit into the niche sites. You can still write for passion and do it for free.
As far as the niche site being the answer, only time will tell. But so far it seems to be working out. Also Hubpages had to do something. I'm glad they they are not throwing in the towel and I'm glad that they are trying to find ways to adapt to the ever changing internet landscape.
Another suggestion for HubPages to make additional revenue. How about allowing current hubbers to publish eBooks from the existing hubs? I know some are already doing that with kindle ebooks. This way, HubPages can get a slice of the profits from converting Hubs to eBooks for sell and profits.
There are numerous other free sites that allow personal publishing. infobarrel, Wizzley and DailyTwoCents all operate the same as HubPages. Then there are numerous sites where you can write for free but not earn income: creativeexiles.com, allpoetry.com, writerscafe.org etc.
HubPages has NOT had preferential treatment of Google search ranking since 2011. In fact, personal blogs or websites on a niche subject are now likely to rank BETTER than a Hub on that subject.
This is exactly why HubPages is changing over to niche sites: it recognises that niche sites do better on Google. Consider - there used to be many sites like HubPages, now there are only a handful, and that's because the generalist model does not work any more.
I agree with others that HubPages will need to keep the "back office" aspect of the main site running, so that we all have a central place to manage our Hubs and submit new ones for publication. But whether the main site will continue to host articles - who knows?
You mean to tell me that HubPages did all this on account of Google? What happens when google change their algorithm again as they have been doing...?
Perhaps a better strategy is to go after some other search engines such as bing and yahoo or baidu. Remember, competition is good.
Do you know google search is blocked in China, the largest population in the world?
Bing or Yahoo have only a small share of searches so why would you target them in preference to the biggest player?
Sure, Google's share is dropping a bit, but most people think it will be a long time before it drops below Bing or Yahoo:
http://searchengineland.com/googles-sea … ing-237045
I know what you mean about algorithm changes, but that's why HubPages is being so strict about Amazon etc on the new niche sites - trying to anticipate Google becoming stricter in the future.
I don't think HubPages would go the subscription route - but I have to say, on doing a bit of research, that I'm amazed how many sites exist where members are not just willing to write for no return, but are willing to PAY for the privilege!
I agree that traffic shouldn't be the sole criteria, and I'm sure that high quality Hubs are an important consideration. But, I do feel traffic should be a consideration. After all, if a Hub manages to receive decent traffic despite being on a penalized site, the Hub will obviously recieve even more traffic on a site that is not penalized.
Plus, certain low traffic Hubs are doomed to always be low traffic Hubs. It has nothing to do quality. These Hubs might even appear on the first page of Google for certain search terms. But they are not on topics.or subjects that people generally search for. These hubs would most likely continue to receive low traffic if you transfer to a niche site and they would most likely continue to be low traffic if you find another home. I'm not saying they are disposable junk, because it could be well written and it could be something we are passionate about, but I understand why Hubpages isn't going to invest a lot of time transferring content that probably isn't going to get read under any circumstances.
Of course the waiting game is frustrating, and each individual writer will have to decide how long to wait and what they want to do with any leftover content. For myself, it is no big deal to leave content parked here, because at the moment I really don't have another home and finding a home isn't a high priority for me. Now that I have Hubs transferred to the niche sites (and they are performing well) and I know that new Hubs immediately go into the QAP for consideration for the new site I'm now at the point of periodically starting to write here again. I took a hiatus from writing here, because I wanted to see what would happen with the niche sites.
Yes but on the other hand, if someone is active promoting a hub, even if the quality is suspect, who is to say that hub is better than one that does not get promoted. The traffic number is only one factor and it should be qualified based on who the audience is and how much time they spend on the site and whether a product recommended was purchased...
I don't think it is too hard for HubPages to do that kind of analysis if they want to determine the"quality" of a hub.Of course, the best judge is an experienced human editor who can make a total assessment based on his or her experience. No AI program can do that as far as I know.
HubPages is clearly using more criteria than just traffic. I've had a number of low-traffic hubs moved to niches so they are definitely doing more than just moving high-traffic hubs.
In that case, I am willing to bet it is a human eyeball that is making the final decision to choose a hub for niche.
I think a lot of the hubs getting moved have passed a human review. The high-traffic hubs were shoe-ins, but HP isn't limiting their selection to only high-traffic hubs. The process is going slowly, but that's the price you pay for accurate human reviews.
I think HubPages is doing the right thing and taking their time. Only a human can determine if a hub is a match for a given niche. This process is not as simple as some would guess. My personal opinion is that Artificial intelligent systems have a long way to go in this arena.
I agree and I stated that traffic shouldn't be the only criteria. I'm also suspecting that with newer Hubs that have to pass through QAP it will be more based on quality (because of course a new Hub hasn't had a chance to generate traffic). But it is time consuming to evaluate existing content and the reality is that Hubs on certain topic and subjects will never generate much traffic. Even though some of these high quality (but low traffic performing) Hubs may get transferred in order to balance the new sites out, they aren't going to spend a lot time transferring Hubs that will probably never receive a lot of traffic.
Kylyssa, I didn't say that I agreed with HubPages' strategy, I'm just stating what it is. And I did explain why some low-traffic Hubs are moved as well. Remember also that I am a Hubber and I don't consider my left-over Hubs (of which there will be many) as disposable junk either.
I can understand HubPages' reluctance to give us a percentage or reveal their traffic threshold, because then Hubbers would start removing all their Hubs below that threshold, and the old site would collapse. They don't want that to happen until the new sites are up and running.
You may feel it's not reasonable to keep us in the dark, but HubPages' priority has to be its own survival - we may not like it, but it's their business so it's their decision.
I get why the HubPages team has to keep us in the dark; I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with us talking about it here. We can talk to each other and sort of figure out some very rough ideas of such percentages on our own. My health makes the wait a few years and we'll see sort of option extremely unattractive to me because I want to do something with my material while I'm still alive to enjoy it.
I get that HubPages has chosen to create the illusion that HubPages proper is still a viable site on its own to get people to keep adding to the slushpile that feeds the viable sites. There are other, more effective ways to attract and to keep writers and to keep them adding to the slushpile that don't involve maintaining an illusion. But I understand if they have no time to implement them or if they just don't know what they are. They may even fear it would disturb the balance of power or something if they behaved more like a central publisher of magazines on assorted topics than like a content mill or farm. Whatever their reasons, we're stuck with them. So if we want answers, we just have to make the best guesses we can.
I just don't see why you are concerned about this conversation. It's not like anyone is paying attention to it but those involved and we're just using it to get some idea of what to do with our material. We can't hurt HubPages by revealing their secrets because we don't know them and no one is paying attention to the planning peasants in the corner here, anyway.
Even websites that pay nothing get a ridiculously high number of submissions if the submission guidelines are clear and the language used in them is positive. HubPages could and probably should acknowledge that HubPages is now primarily a submission gateway that hosts the slushpile for the niche sites. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by not doing so. At least in part, it's the uncertainty about what HubPages proper actually is now that has slowed the submission of new hubs.
I'd bet that most hubbers who have been here longer than 8 months already realize HP proper isn't the same thing as it was when they joined. By insisting that it sort of is the same it gives the impression that HP is just like it was with a few new rules except it's now just like it was and failing. It gives the impression that the HubPages business is failing. The HP family of niche sites isn't failing and neither is HP proper because HP proper is now a publicly visible slushpile and slushpiles aren't failures; they are resources.
P.S. I know you are a hubber, but what I got from your post is that you don't feel it really matters what happens to our hubs that don't find homes on the viable sites.
I'm not concerned about this conversation. I'm just saying it's not productive, and could be misleading, because you can't draw any conclusions from what percentage of each Hubber's account has been moved to the new sites.
If we were allowed to discuss traffic, then it would be a worthwhile conversation. We could all compare the Google traffic stats for our Hubs which have been transferred - then we'd be able to arrive at a useful conclusion, and be able to start making plans.
Of course there would be anomalies because they have also selected some low-traffic Hubs (where they didn't have enough high-traffic ones to fill a sub-category) - but I'm sure we would have enough to reach a verdict. Perhaps that's a conversation that's already happening on a HubPages or ex-Squidoo Facebook page somewhere?
You may feel that Google traffic is not the best thing to use to select sites but HubPages staff have confirmed that's what they are using as the primary criterium. As you know the search function on these forums isn't that great, or I'd find the posts for you.
As for not caring what happens to the Hubs left behind - like MakingAMark, I saw the writing on the wall and moved on long ago, so I am not too worried about my own Hubs. I do recognise that other Hubbers care far more about theirs, but right now I don't believe there is anything that can be done - and I don't see the point in worrying about things we can't control. When all the niche sites are done, then I'll review things and see where I stand.
We can't discuss traffic? I thought only earnings were taboo.
Gosh, actually I'm not sure. I have been ticked off for discussing so many things I've forgotten what's allowed and what's not!
If it is allowed, then that would be the direction I'd recommend this discussion should take.
After all, percentages mean nothing - particularly now, when so many niche sites still don't exist. Take my account for instance - I've had 8 moved out of 97. That's 8%, but that means nothing - because most of my Hubs are about dancing, and that niche site doesn't exist yet. For all I know, when the dance site is created, half my Hubs might move - or none. But the point is, until it is created, I really don't know what my "true" percentage will be.
LOL- I think traffic is okay, since they count it up and give us accolades for a few milestones.
One Hub out of 128. My Hubs that get traffic are overlooked under the same niche.
The one Hub did get much more traffic but it has leveled off for the end of gardening season without one new comment added by visitors.
If only a few Hubs get transferred periodically the new sight looks as if it is being added to in a ever green manner. HubPages may not be able to count on comments for that.
I do appreciate the rise in overall Ad Program.
We've all been quite clear that we're only sharing what little bits of information we have and don't know how they relate to the big picture.
I have no problem with HubPages moving high Google traffic hubs out of the slushpile first. I have benefited from their choice to move high-traffic hubs because they moved all of my highest-traffic hubs for which niche sites exist. They moved instantly once the appropriate niche sites existed. My moderate-traffic hubs on the relevant topics moved soon after, which leads me to believe they are likely either done or almost done moving high-traffic hubs to the niches that have existed for more than a week or so.
I doubt they missed many high-traffic hubs on each niche site's opening so, going forward, they'll have to use quality standards as they already are. I have no doubt existing hubs that go viral or even just substantially pick up in views when their season hits will and should be moved, but they'll add more hubs based on quality while waiting for those traffic spikes to occur.
I truly have no problem with them using traffic as one quality signal among several. Some people here seem to have the impression Google traffic is the only quality signal they are using and that's just not true.
Good points, Marissa, and one I think many of us were not aware of, in that the hubs are being selected based upon traffic, instead of being picked for quality.
That is "interesting," given that part of the problem here on the main site seems to be low quality...hubs with abysmal grammar and spelling; non-native poor English, etc., as well as spammy links. Since they are snipping ALL links, there is obviously some attempt at 'quality control,' but I thought they were paying attention to actual article quality and substance, which, given the dumbing-down of our schools, and general instructions (from many sources other than HP), to write for a "4th grade reading level," would not seem to impact traffic.
A hub might be terrible on all of the above, yet gain traffic because the topic is of interest, even to people who cannot seem to distinguish between 'your' and 'you're,' or 'their,' there,' and 'they're.' Or those who say 'could of' instead of 'could've,' or 'could have.' I doubt such modern audiences are going to be the fussbudgets about quality that HP is.
On that note, it is then somewhat disheartening to learn that we are being selected solely on traffic, and not quality. And here I was, patting myself on the back, for having 'made the cut' with several of my hubs!
Traffic is a main factor (and it should be), but it is not the only factor. Part of the sniping and HubPro is to address quality. Also I'm reasonably sure that some high traffic hubs don't make the cut due to low quality. Google will eventually ding low quality content and obviously Hubpages don't want their niche sites to be penalized.
Actually, hubs are getting chosen for quality as well as for traffic. As I mentioned earlier, some of my low-traffic hubs were moved and they are not former HOTD selections nor Editor's Choice hubs.
That doesn't seem to be the case for me. So far, out of 96 hubs, they have taken 23, but some were moved as soon as they were published. Others were older. Some had high traffic, some, not so much. They also took a hub from my second site, which only has about 18 hubs, as soon as it was published.
If it was just about traffic, I have at least 6 more from my main site that they should have taken. Maybe they'll get those later.
I will say that traffic on the majority of the hubs they took is quite good, but then, this is the season when my hubs would do better. The other day I compared my numbers for the month of May last year to this year...and it went from 18,000 views to 44,000. That's quite a jump, and I do attribute it to the fact that those 23 hubs were moved to the niche site.
It must be both or either criteria, TIMETRAVELER2. I just had a other transferred to LetterPile shortly after it was published, not much traffic at all. Maybe they rate them based on potential for traffic? Anyway, how are you? Was wondering if you were okay. Welcome back.
New Hubs are being assessed as they are published, so obviously traffic can't be part of the criteria. It would be nice if we knew what criteria they were using but obviously it is something to do with quality.
Thanks. Yes, just got back from a 1 month RV vacation. Tried to stay online, but wifi was tough to grab on to while we were away.
I'm fine. My back is recovering, albeit slowly.
I try not to announce when I'm leaving town due to security issues and am surprised anybody even noticed I was gone!
Hope you are well and that your spirits are "up" with regards to your HP writing.
Glad you're okay, good idea about not announcing. Of course we notice when you're not in the forums. I'm doing well, spirits back up with writing again. I published my first hub after a 7-month dry period. It made a niche site! So I guess I'll keep writing.
Over my two accounts on HP, I have 50 published hubs. Of those, 33 have moved to niche sites (66%). The moves to DenGarden and Bellatory have not made much difference in traffic, although one hub produced a nice sale the day after its move. Something that that hub had not seen in a long while.
Those moved to Pethelpful have seen a 3-4 times increase in traffic. I think that new site is doing very well for those of us that have hubs transferred over. Those hubs left behind are struggling along. I may look at doing HP a favor and deleting the poor performers over the course of this month.
I have 12 out of 50 (24%) that were moved to Spinditty. 1 of those is a new one I just wrote. Of the other 11, they have all experienced nice spikes in traffic and May was by far my best month ever in terms of both traffic and earnings (with about 90% of my traffic coming from those 11 hubs). Hopefully that trend will continue with the implementation of the niche sites.
I have 25 our of 57 - 44 percent. However HubPages said they were looking especially for authors who had expertise in their field. I write about dog agility, and have almost two decades in the sport. I think being an"expert" in what I write about helps. I have several hubs on other topics that have not gone to niche sites though. I don't write on other topics anymore as they haven't panned out well. I stick to my "thang." I also found that my few dog related Hubs that didn't go over were not updated to a mobile layout. Doing that before they chose the Hubs for PetHelpful was a big help, I think.
And as Solaras said, my PetHelpful Hubs (and my dog related Hubs still on HP) have all had a nice spike. My Google traffic is up probably 200 percent, but my Facebook traffic has soared. I also get a lot of hits from PetHelpful itself. I have many creative writing Hubs that I keep online just to have a place for them. They are not featured. I am wondering if I should delete them along with other poor performing Hubs.
Four out of nine. 44%
Of my four, two are at FeltMagnet, one is at Exemplore, and one is at Delishably.
Lisa, how are you doing with your hubs? I remember you from Bubblews and maybe a couple of other sites (I was goatfury over there).
The hubs I have left here are ones that either don't have a place on my web sites, or lead traffic to them. I haven't added any new content here in quite a while, and don't plan to. I make more money from my own web sites.
That's exactly my situation too. Although I did add some extra content when I decided to close one of my websites down, which wasn't doing well enough to justify the effort involved. And I did just write one new Hub because I felt like having some fun.
Thanks! I was mostly just curious. I'm doing okay over here; a little too lazy to switch to my own site, even though I know it would likely do far better. I do at least get a small income stream here, though.
I feel that way too, sometimes I just feel like writing a hub. I know my main niche and could easily write on my main topics without duplicating what is written here, I don't do well with my own websites.
I am considering writing a book about a totally different thing which is affecting my life, I'm still not sure of the outcome and how I want to handle it.
I thought I read somewhere there would be 3 sweeps through our hubs here, and we are just experiencing the first one. I can't recall where I read it, so don't quote me. I suspect they want some new material now and if they don't get it, will go back through our hubs again.
Out of my 170 hubs, nine have been moved - one each to Axleaddict, Delishably and PetHelpful, 2 to ReelRundown, and four to Spinditty. I'm math-tarded and can't figure out what percentage that would be without taking off my shoes, but I know it's "low."
Since the bulk of my hubs are about music and movies, I was kinda hoping that more of 'em would've been vacuumed up for ReelRundown and Spinditty, but whatever. (shrugs)
It would be nice if HP allows hubbers to recommend our hubs for a particular niche. Who best knows which hub should go where?
If I understood correctly, they will be doing that at a later date. Because they are rapidly putting up sites right now, they don't have the time to go over all of the old Hubs. I understand later they will allow us to submit Hubs we think qualify for certain sites. New Hubs are now looked at for inclusion, but our old Hubs that didn't make the first cut will have to wait.
None of mine have moved to the new sites and that's just fine by me.
However of the hubs I've moved to my own new niche websites (2 mega niche sites up and running and 2 more mega niche sites to do), traffic is now about 100% better than it was at HubPages and Amazon sales are steadily building as the traffic increases.
With respect to the point made about traffic on a penalized site being something of an odd criteria to use for selection for new sites - I think that's a very good point. I had lenses which did well at Squidoo, came here and started to lose traffic almost straight away. I've moved the content, done a bit of tweaking (mainly separating out very long topic hubs into a number of different pages on a topic) and the traffic is better than ever - as in a LOT better than ever!
So in my view it's not the content that's the issue - it's where it is located. A penalised site is a no-win situation.
With respect to subscriptions - why would anybody pay subscriptions to be here as opposed to pay for their own website so their content always gets indexed and not interfered with?
PS The really odd thing is that as more niche sites get announced the traffic to my hubs here seems to do better. I wonder if they are weeding as well as selecting?
I have had 13 out of 78 hubs moved. Odd thing is that I notice that even if I have two red arrows showing upward, the hub score reduces when it should really go higher. I also have one hub with 42000 views, my highest and it has not been moved. I have sold more products from that hub than any other, really strange! I can't figure out how they are choosing hubs for the niche sites.
That's a lot of views for one Hub!! Has the niche site for that Hub been launched yet?
Just an observation. When you search on google, the top response is invariably something from wikipedia. The alexa ranking of wikipedia is #6 behind google, facebook, youtube, amazon and yahoo.
While Hubpages is at #1646 as of today and heading south. It seems to me, we need to imitate what wikipedia is doing. They must be doing something right. They are one domain name with all topics under it and yet they are very successful. I suspect their quality is very high even though all academia seems to disregard anything from wikipedia as a reference source. Just saying there are alternatives to the niche sites...
Jack Lee, you are one incredibly naive person, Wikipedia is a Government controlled and censored website and has been for years. I know authors that have tried to correct mistakes about their own books that have had their editing deleted.
Wikipedia is a disinformation site designed for those that prefer to have their thinking done for them. Somehow you seem to equate profit with the truth? Their quality is geared to the status quo, to keep people in the dark, WOW dude you need to wake up, bro!
Wikipedia is a user created site where average people like you and I contribute our knowledge to share with the public. 90% of the contents are factual. The other 10% are controversial because some people have an agenda to bend the truth for political advantage. I and most people are smart enough to know the difference. I will avoid those wikipedia entries like the plague. If you do a search on how wikipedia gets it top ranking on google, you will find the 5 main reasons, 1. Domain authority 2. Quality of content 3. Markup and structure 4. Internal and back links. Those are the qualities among others such as traffic that determines the search result page ranking. Your conspiracy theory is just that, a theory to be taken with a grain of salt.
Again with the limited world viewpoint, one must step outside the box, you're still thinking inside it and hence the limited view. 90% is based on a lie that has been indoctrinated through our false education system.
It isn't about how smart you think you are if you continue to accept the lie that 90% of the world accepts as true. If you continue to accept your education as the facts anything outside the paradigm is considered false, this is how it works to keep the sheep mired in their herd mentality.
Humanity is waking up to this cold hard fact that they have been lied to for thousands of years and their thinking conditioned by lies. Why do you think your top article hasn't reached a thousand page views?
You have good ideas but they are limited by your narrow minded thinking and accepting the status quo, people recognize this and lose interest, quickly. I used to read your articles but I quickly realized you are not doing your own thinking just mimicking the status quo.
That is what Wikipedia is doing, that is why Academia scoffs at it, it is not original thinking, the content is geared for our education system which is based on false information dressed up as facts.
Take the Brontosaurus (Thunder Lizard) huge skeleton in the Smithsonian but the creature never existed, it is made up of many different creatures. Academia has KNOWN this for over 100 years but the public still accepts this as real because our education system tells them it is.
Your entire College education is based on outdated concepts, ideas hundreds of years old, physics and ideas developed centuries ago and backed up by "His Story" books published by the World Bank.
Profit does not equate to the truth but does further your enslavement. Knowledge is Power, so why would the Cabal wish to empower you when they can own you . . . and you are smart but you are owned because your thinking is owned.
As far as trying to duplicate Wikipedia, that would be hard to do, because they already have brand authority for that type of site. Also if you do use that format, you would have a number of different users that could go in and edit any article. Also, the article would have to be encyclopedia type of article with a specific focus. Also, the individuals who voluntarily write, edit and revise Wikipedia content don't get any kind of revenue for it, and the article have to be written in a 100% neutral voice, with no credit to the writers. So you are basically suggesting that Hubpages delete every article (because they don't really fit into that type of site) and completely start from scratch. I don't really see how that is a feasible option. At this point, the niche site seems to be yielding positive results and Google likes authority sites, so that seems to be the way to go, at least for the time being. It would be definitely be foolish for them to change that course midstream, especially when there is signs of improvement.
On the contrary, I am not suggesting Hubpages compete with wikipedia. I am suggesting following some of the tactics they use to gain top billing with google. If Hubpages could reach the top 100 ranking on Alexa, that would be fantastic. Some of the ways HP can improve is with SEO and with better linking both internal and external. As far as getting better ranking on searches, that will determine on getting better titles and keywords for hubs. Perhaps HP can provide some tools to help the hubbers on that front. Increased traffic is another way we can self promote. How about recommending hubbers to sample other hubbers writings as a daily reminder? This will help with the traffic even on a small scale.
It's not possible for HubPages to copy what Wikipedia is doing. Wikipedia succeeds because hundreds of people link to it every day from blogs, websites, and social networking sites. To Google, a link (created by other people, not by the authors on the site) is a vote of confidence, and Wikipedia gets hundreds every day.
Wikipedia gets those links because it has built its reputation as an information source for many years. No matter how much effort HubPages put into improving things, it could not possibly catch up with that kind of reach.
HubPages has always had extensive internal linking - some would say too much.
Have you been following what's going on with Google lately?
I posted some links on my "Google Doodle Politics" hub.
If they keep this up, they may go the way of AltaVista or Lycos...
I saw that. She is so corrupt, she's even got Google doing her dirty work. Unbelievable how corrupt our political system is, this election has really exposed it.
I was not surprised by Mrs. Clinton's corruption because she is known for it since the 1990s. However, what is shocking is the extent Google and other liberal leaning companies are willing to put their credibility on the line for such nonsense. What did they think - the American people are stupid?
I've had 3 hubs out of 25 published hubs moved to niche sites. May was my biggest earning month in almost twelve months (back to what I was earning in 2013-2014 and early 2015).
Hi, I have posted 10 hubs and 4 have been moved to Delishably! I just had a knee replacement so no action from me, can't wait to get back to posting hubs!
Hi everybody, currently 1 out of 28 of my hubs has been featured on ToughNickel. Since being moved to ToughNickel the hub received twice the traffic. My earnings have slighly improved but after years I still haven't reached the minimum payment threshold.
Thanks for the feedback everyone. It helps to understand how others are faring here on Hubpages. For the average hubber here, speaking for my self, I don't think you can make anything significant writing here. It is mostly for self satisfaction. I also intend to donate my earnings to charity if and when I reach my payout.
I'm here for more than two years but is active for some months, So I know a little about niche site produced by HP and also how can I know the number of my hubs has been selected for niche site or not?
by Cholee Clay3 weeks ago
I'm curious if anyone knows if the new editors that were hired have completed the training and are on their own now, or if article standards have changed for some reason? The last few months I've had some very old and...
by Missing Link6 weeks 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 Brandon Lobo8 days ago
If people want to know how to work on a hub so that it ranks well once published on a niche site, I would be open to writing a guide. I will show you my research process and the way I generally structure the content and...
by Michael Kismet14 months ago
I already have a number of hubs moved to the Hubpages network sites, but haven't really seen a drastic traffic change in said hubs. So, is it worth the risk to submit one of my hubs that already receives a decent amount...
by Glenn Stok14 months ago
I noticed that hubs in niche sites no longer include the "More by this author" section below the hub. Is this just an oversight or was it a decision to drop it on niche sites?
by L Sarhan3 weeks ago
What is the real difference between having your article (hub) on the main Hubpages site compared to being sorted into a network site? In other words, what are the benefits and the cons? There have been so many changes...
Copyright © 2018 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.