Over 1/4 of my hubs have not been moved to a niche site. They do not have much traffic from Google, so it is not HPs fault that they have not been selected. There is nothing wrong with them, but they do not have "Google love" so are only moved in the slow process where I ask HP to move them to a niche site.
Would I be better off deleting them, rewritting them with a new title, and publishing them again? I am not losing much from Google, since they are not ranked high in the SERPs,
I have triend unpublishing and then republishing the same hubs after minor edits, as suggested by a helpful Hubber from Australia. That does not work.
You've done spectacularly well, getting so many of your Hubs moved. Congrats!
I think I know what you're getting at with the other Hubs. You could follow the advice to edit and improve, but it's still a lottery whether or when those improved Hubs will get moved to the new sites. Whereas if you delete and start again with new URL's, it's almost certain the new versions will be moved to PetHelpful soon after they are published.
If those existing Hubs are getting so little traffic that you're not worried about losing reputation with Google, then deleting and creating new ones is definitely a much faster fix. The only thing, as lobobrandon pointed out, is that you'll need to use a site like Copyscape to ensure they are not copied elsewhere.
What Marissa says is true, but I'd suggest holding off deleting an article and republishing it. The age of an article matters. We are still curating and discussing reviewing articles to move under additional criteria.
Another way is taking the first sentence or two from the article and doing a google search-make sure you use quotation marks when doing that. I found a few of mine that were copied. Thankfully the site owner had them removed within 24 hours.
My answer is an absolute YES! I have rewritten and re-titled a few articles as a test to see if they will get a little more Google attention and HP attention and the result is that a couple were selected for niche sites right away after completing the edits and google traffic picked up the very next day. I didn't share them on any social media so I can rule that out as a factor. Keywords in Title and subtitles at the beginning and end of the title seem to work well. It can be tough to make the titles appealing that way but it works.
I also changed longer list with bullets to the table capsule and they seem to be the ones that were selected. If that is any indication of what HP likes I'm not sure yet. I have recently change another article to have tables to find out. It is possible that the table capsule makes the content searchable and just as valuable as a keyword inside a title. What do you all think about tables capsules?
As long as the information is relevant still, I would touch them up the best you can and sit on them for now. Perhaps you will go back and see a new angle for it in the future. Just my opinion if it is good why delete. Just be happy with the couple extra views as well.
Hi DrMark1961! I agree with Jesse Drzal on this.
I had edited one of my older hubs according to the current standards and it got moved to PetHelpful. There are 2 hubs still remaining out of my 10 hubs that haven't been moved, even though they are written like my other hubs on niche sites. I suggest that you don't delete them.
Thanks Jesse. I tried a significant edit on each one back in Novemeber, and although I still get a few from Pinterest the total per day is not significant. I appreciate your input.
If I were you I would do it. Almost all my hubs are on niche sites and I do not have that many so I don't mind waiting the 14 days. But in your case deleting may be the best option. Maybe a fresh go on the URL too?
Don't forget: Check for duplicate content on the web before you delete, you don't want to be the guy who is copying if you know what I mean.
I do not see any real negative effects of doing what you want to do. Losing age and links is the only drawback, but that seems irrelevant here.
I had not thought about the duplicate content, thanks.
I just found one of my hubs reproduced on WikiHow, in total, but he rewrote it to include all of my recommendations, and then added a link to my pethelpful hub at the bottom of his page. Is that the guy who is copying?
Oh... No I did not impIy knew a guy who is copying. That is just sad and you should file a DMCA but if it's wikihow just write to them, they should take it down.
I meant you should watch out for duplicate content before you delete. Otherwise, when you publish on a new URL, it would seem like you were copying from whoever copied it in the first place.
I was joking about the guy. A lot of my hubs have that little "copied" sign.
I had not even thought about writing Wikihow. I usually do not even bother.
I too would get that person remove the article from his site. Even though it is copied in full and with a link back to your niche site, Hub Pages would see that as duplicate and would unpublish your article. I have had that issue myself and basically contacting the site owner, the article that was stolen-and yes that person did steal your article-was removed from the other site. As for your other question, I would not delete because it does take time for them to go through all the articles.
We recommend leaving them for now. Curators are still working and they could be moved.
Okay, but what about the Google issue? These last hubs have only a few per day, and they could rank a lot better and be getting significant traffic from Google. Editing them does not seem to make much difference to Google.
Even if they do happen to be moved by HP, they still are not getting traffic.
My advice is to edit and improve the articles getting traffic first. I spend a lot of time with other large publishers and we all are investing in this first. There is a pretty direct corollation between more words and more traffic to about 2500 words before diminishing.
We believe articles on topical sites have an opportunity to do much better than on HubPages and are continuing to curate. It's entirely possible for low traffic articles to pop out. I was just looking at a wehavekids article that went from hundreds of views to 7000+ per day. I believe editing and improving articles improves the chances of this happening.
My recommendation is to invest in winners, write new articles for areas that aren't covered, and make edits from time to time on low traffic, good articles.
One other thing to watch is how sites do. For example, pethelpful is starting to do well for specific dog breeds. In depth pages on doodle combos like sheepdogs, German shepherds, Australian shepherds that go deep and have the pros and cons are pretty significant opportunities (I'm not endorsing these designer breeds).
Thanks for that advice. I did edit all of them, but did not add too much material. I thought the ideal word count was about 1200, but from your post you mention up to 2500. I could definitely add more to some of them.
More words = more potential to rank. All my best hubs were long, most over 2k words. On my website too, the long informational pages do well. The other kind that do well are the ones with schema markup. I wonder how the receipe hubs are doing on their niche site?
Not to forget as Paul pointed out a while ago, articles with lists do well too.
There are actually two different types of readers out there
- the scanners who won't contemplate anymore than 2.5k
- the serious readers who are really interested in a topic - who LOVE long articles.
It seems to me HubPages has always been focused on articles that are not too long.
By way of contrast, I've been writing very long blog posts and pages on websites for 12+ years - and have got millions of pageviews to suggest there is another way of accessing audiences and generating traffic. However my compendium type content does not work on HubPages (although it did very well on Squidoo).
The trick is to make the length of copy suits the host it's on.
* Long copy is usually best suited to your own highly focused niche website.
* Short articles work better on sites like HubPages.
* Tweets are for people who can't cope with words!
I also do best with long hubs, but I have a particular niche. Don't be too quick to push the Delete button. I've been tempted, and found those hubs moved to niches if they are getting traffic
Look at your older hubs. You may have a few that are well written and have good bones.Maybe you wrote them as a newbie and forgot about them. Change the title and see how else you can improve them. I have fixed many that I am waiting to submit, but more than half of my hubs have moved and are doing well, and I have a lot of hubs.
Only delete if the traffic is awful. Otherwise, look closer. Little things like subtitles and spelling matter more now. I took most Amazon capsules off. Add any new info or anything that can make the hub more interesting and less dated. You only need one full width picture at the top now, but I have 3 on longer hubs for people who need something else to look at if they are going to read something longer. Good luck.
Had to Google "schema markup". Thanks for that, opened up some good info for me.
The ideal word count used to be 1,500 words. At one time, it was seen as SO crucial, HubPages even paid for Hubs of that length!
I noticed Paul mentioning the 2,500 words thing a few months ago. That's a new development. I struggle with it, somewhat. It sounds as though Google is rewarding articles over 2,000 words, but it's fairly well-established that human beings find articles over 1,500 words irritating because it's too hard to find the information they're looking for. So I feel caught between pleasing Google and serving my readers.
If we had better ways to enable people to skip to different sections, I'd be a lot happier.
Hubs for dummies? Dont those Dummies books always have a little icon to the side of some paragraphs you can skip?
How about Hubs with stacked headings. The body of the hub would be hidden unless the reader opened the whole thing. Otherwise, they would open only the tabs they wanted.
I think they would load faster too. (Not sure, maybe a techie could comment.) I think Google would appreciate that, so if HP wants to make changes to please Google, wouuldnt this be a good change to make?
Isn't it true that many readers simply scan the capsule titles rather than reading the entire article? If you insist on having 2500 words people will start filling hubs with fluff which will lower their value and drive readers away. I do have a few hubs that are in that range, but I usually keep mine between 1000 and 1500. I think it depends on the topic and would look awkward in many cases to write more than that.
In my own case, even though I do love to read, I get turned off when I see a hub that has too much text unless the topic is highly interesting and is one I really want to research.
A good thing you don't read mine so! Some of them range from 6000 to 10,000 words. I had a contents capsule at the beginning of the longest hub, once upon a time, but an editor removed it.
If you read Paul Edmondson's post, he says it's beneficial to write a longer article up to 2,500 words (because Google likes length) - but that's the about the limit. After that there's not much benefit in adding length, and it just becomes tedious for the reader to have to scroll and scroll and scroll.
For that reason, you'd be better off splitting a large Hubs into separate 2,000 to 2,500 word Hubs. That way you get the maximum benefit of the length, but also you've got three or four chances to rank on Google instead of just one.
As I said in an earlier post, I don't believe it's possible to write 5,000 words on just one thing. Once you get over 2,000 words, it's virtually certain that you're covering a few different aspects of a subject, so that when you split the Hub you end up with two or three laser-focussed Hubs instead of one broad one. Again, that should help with ranking.
The longest hub is a troubleshooting guide, so every part of it may need to be consulted. If I split it into sections there would have to be interlinks between each section and every other section so that if a reader lands on any one section, they can navigate to any other section. If there was a proper way for a reader to flick between sections, rather than having to scroll all the way up or down to the where the hyperlinks are located, it would be easier. Something for instance like the way it's done in Adobe Reader with a navigation pane on the side, or alternatively tabs on the top which could switch between sections (which would be implemented as separate hubs).
I had the same experience with one of my longer hubs. I had included a capsule with a list of the section headings, each linked to the respective section. I thought it was a good idea, but an editor removed it.
I never knew that HP actually paid for longer hubs! Where did you ever hear this?
Is this because there are more articles on these specific breeds on the website? The pet niche could probably be helping the whole site, but there's maybe a specific strong sub-niche on these breeds?
This could be very useful information as individual authors could work on strengthening their own sub-niches on the niche sites over time.
A lot of my hubs had almost no traffic when they were on HP. Many of them have an amazing upturn as soon as they are moved. The hub itself has not changed, or if it has the changes were minor.
There is no reason you can't follow both suggestions. You know which of your hubs are good. Go over the best ones, and make sure they are as good as they can be. Then submit one every 14 days to be moved.
The ones that are less promising, you can assess whether there is anything there worth saving. If you think they are, then build upon them and publish your new version.
I deleted and rewrote some of my earlier hubs. This time I created better URLS and titles. I also removed any Amazon capsules in which I did not mention and recommend the product and made sure it was directly related to my title. I also ran each of them through Grammerly.
All but two of those have been moved to niche sites. The two that did not were for one link each, which were linking to visitor's bureau centers (travel hubs). I haven't had the opportunity just yet to make inquiries why these links weren't permissible, so unfortunately I can't provide any insight there.
My point to my rambling is yes, sometimes it is best to delete and start over. Just make sure the ones you delete aren't already well ranked within Google before doing so.
I have one hub that I wrote over four years ago that was not moved to a niche site. It wasn't moved because it was not a good article. It was very shallow and did not give people any valuable information. I finally rewrote the article. Some of the original was there, but for the most part, it is a new article written in a four-year-old hub.
I would take a good long look at a hub before deleting based on the quality. Quality can be improved upon. Nearly every hub I have rewritten has been moved to niche sites. But I can say confidently, that my new hubs are moved very quickly because of the new emphasis on quality. I work harder at producing high-quality hubs and that is rewarded by HP.
I just rewrote an old article that had been received well in the beginning, but was not even featured anymore (under my other name, Watergeek). I tried to submit it to Heal Dove, but it wouldn't let me go through the process. Next day I noticed it had received a few reads. Tried submitting it again and this time it worked. Now Heal Dove has accepted it.
I recommend looking to see how well your old articles were originally read and commented upon. If you got a lot of readers at first, you'll get more when they're cleaned up. Reformat a bit to fit smart phone reading. Maybe change a major photo to one that's more interesting. Put a references section at the bottom. Then submit to a niche site and see what happens.
I find that when I increase the word count on older hubs and delete amazon capsules my traffic increases. Longer hubs do well and changing the title seems to help as well. I've only deleted 2 hubs in my 7 years with hub pages. I prefer editing my "slow" hubs and concentrate on making it a stellar hub.
Sometimes if hubs aren't doing well and they are on a similar subject, I combine them together. I've made one hub out of three and republished and it was moved to a niche site.
by Sarah Spradlin 17 months ago
I pretty much have the same amount of traffic everyday but last week 5 of my hubs were moved to niche sites and since then I've has less half the traffic as normal. What could cause that?
by Scott S Bateman 2 years ago
I'm very happy with the results of the niche sites. It's a win-win for HubPages and writers like myself. But I'm a bit curious about the process for choosing Hubs that go on those sites.One of my most successful Hubs on a niche site has more than 1,250 words, multiple photos and an original video....
by Farrah Young 2 months ago
I read on here that articles that aren't moved to the niche sites don't get as much live as those on the niche sites.Would it be wise to continue writing here knowing there's the possibility of that happening, although I try to make my articles optimized in the hopes it will pull in some traffic...
by Missing Link 14 months 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? Example--let's say your overall rating is 75. If 10 non featured hubs become...
by Sondra Rochelle 2 years ago
Many of us here are working hard to upgrade our hubs so that they can be moved to the niche sites. I think it would be a good idea if those upgrades are viewed by the team the same way as new posts so that they can more quickly addressed. It's a shame to let much better upgraded...
by Kylyssa Shay 3 years ago
I've noticed that I keep seeing HOTDs that fit the niche sites yet weren't chosen for the niche sites because they still have HubPages URLs. Why not save some time in the selection process for the niche sites and mine all the recent HOTDs and all of the Editor's Choice hubs for use on the niche...
Copyright © 2019 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.|