Google's NEW Search Quality Guidelines (March 2017)
This is worth a read Updated Google Quality Rater Guidelines target fake news, low quality and clickbait"
It includes a link to Google's REVISED (March 2017) Search Quality - General Guidelines
In terms of revisions to content rated as LOW QUALITY, the blog post highlights that revised guidelines highlight the following changes
the following types of content have also been singled out:
* Pages or websites which are untrustworthy, present unreliable information, or not accurate or are misleading
* Factually incorrect content which may cause harm to the reader (for example inaccurate legal or medical information)
* Pages or sites with no original content
* Pages or websites promoting hate or violence (such as racism or sexism)
It also highlights MISLEADING TITLES
Under its definition of low quality main content, the search engine has now added titles to its definition of distracting or misleading content, adverts or supplementary information. The advice now acknowledges that, “Misleading titles can result in a very poor user experience when users click a link only to find that the page does not match their expectations.”Thanks Katherine. It all sounds good but one of the comments makes a good point regarding content that may not reflect the accepted viewpoint. What happens to anyone who writes about 'alternative news'? I suppose they are at Google's mercy. We'll all be worshipping Google soon - sacrificing our first-born in order to placate the GGG.
@Katherine,
Thank you, Katherine for sharing this with us.I'm not guilty of any of these "crimes", but it is good to know. Thanks for the heads up.
Very interesting. So what is Google doing about spam sites?
I am talking about sites that miss use our names and HubPages...
For example "jack lee on hubpages"
You will find a slew of websites with that as the title of an article with contents are giberish.
Why are these sites not flagged or banned but showing up high on page ranking?
That is part of the problem with quality issues.What should Google be doing?
Not all pages get looked at all the time. Those with low quality content and/or low traffic get looked at very little. Google has an algorithm which recognises gibberish and buries sites as a result.
You should only be concerned about sites which appear in response to popular search queries which affects access to content created by you and/or misleads people about the type of content you create.
Remember, there's a ton of content out there which never appears in response to anything.
If you've found something while doing a search on your own name, you're at liberty to report it to Google it if it is:
1) masquerading as you
2) stealing your content
3) making money from your content.
However you might want to reflect on whether this is a serious issue worthy of your time and effort or whether a wiser approach might be to check on the URLs again in (say) 3 months time and see if the page still exists.
Also remember the only person who looks after your reputation on the Internet is you. Nobody is going to hold your hand and do it for you. You need to decide on what sort of strategy is the best use of your time.
However, very helpful people do pop up in this forum (and others) from time to time and tell people to watch out for a specific domain which is stealing content.
Rather than complaining about vague examples without details why not quote specific domain names (carefully - you don't want to link to them!!) and the problems you encountered and suggest others check them out also.I have reported to google a few times with no results.
Here are a few of the domain names...
Edhardy-onsale.com
Subcontinentaldub.com
Artmimics.net
Sigmamarketing.com
My10000dollars.com
Why is google having so hard a time getting rid of these sites?
The other point I want to make is the fact some people are using our names and hubpages
says something about our success. The only reason they go to the trouble of creating these sites is that they are riding on our success here on hubpages.
Many of my hubs show up high in google page ranking, many on the first or second pages of google result pages. I have not promoted these hubs.
They just do well as part of being part of the hubpages.com domain.Did you read the guidelines?
Did you report in the correct way?
Did you use the correct form?
Did you prove the existence of your own site?
You have also done precisely what I suggested you should NOT do - which is quote the domain names "as is".
If you want to quote a domain name BREAK IT UP eg insert a space between the name part and the extension eg 'jackclee .com'
re. your comments about creating new sites - are you not aware this is a completely automated / robotic process which tends to target very large sites as they "hoover" up content.Mark, I am well aware of this which is exactly why I criticize google for not doing a better job from their end. If I can spot one of these sites in 2 seconds, why can't google? Perhaps they just don't care or don't want to for $$$$?
@TheRaggedEdge - Isn't the accepted viewpoint more related to the health issues - as in wanting to reduce the amount of quackery circulating via Google? (i.e. because of the potential damage it can do to people - thereby reducing Google's third party liability if they were to be sued? As in financial drivers are very often the reasons behind change.)
Interesting that Google wants to downgrade some sites for fake news etc but are still content (on the Google Ads side of things) to decorate sites listed on Google which promote nasty people and nasty things. It's not just fake news they need to get rid of!
Major UK companies are taking a stand on the latter and are withdrawing adverts from Google until they get this fixed. Their view - which I agree with - is adverts should ALWAYS be appropriate to content and you should NEVER mix brands with unacceptable material. (Note - we have a very stiff standard on advertising in the UK - and the Regulators also have clout!)
I suspect once Google Ads have got that sorted the NEXT UPDATE will be addressing this one for everybody else. Start the queue for people lining up to address this re. their own content/adverts....Very likely, but this is also dangerous because of, for example, the erroneous dietary advice given out by the NHS over the last 40 years. We should always be able to access a wide range of information, not have it shut down by one search engine because of financial considerations.
I'm not sure why anyone would sue Google because of information given on an independent website?
Maybe we're talking at cross purposes here
Katherine,
U.S. advertisers are also pulling ads from Google for the same reason, and Google's recent announcement of policy changes to try to crack down on inappropriate ads and content and to give advertisers more control over where their ads appear, among other changes, does not appear to have stemmed the tide of advertiser departures.
Big US advertisers unmoved by Google content crackdown
Google knows (because it's being dealt a huge blow in the wallet) that it needs to get a lot more serious about cleaning up its own house.A long time a go I knew someone had built up a successful betting system in which (say) 90% of bets were made on form and 10% randomly, allowing for the unpredictable. I woud have no problem with 10% of ads I was seeing being random and if an advertiser I would also be happy since I would be tapping the "Oh yes, I forgot about that" and " I was going to look for that next" market. Similarly with news: I do not want everything delivered to me to put me in a bubble.
I guess it is hard for a machine to decide what's good medical advice and what's not. They probably just go by whether it comes from a credentialed medical website, like WebMD or the Mayo Clinic.
Those sites are great for general information, but they only go so far. A patient who has lived with a condition can give very useful advice people won't get from a medical website or from their overworked doctor.
As long as they make it clear that they are not medical professionals, and they don't tell people to ignore their doctor's advice, I think it can be a good thing, However, I guess an algorithm can't tell that from quackery.Personal testimony from patients with professionally treated medical conditions has always been considered valid but healdove contains a lot of advice for self diagnosis and home remedies. Not sure about those.
I go on a lot about user metrics but there are areas where readers lap up stuff that is not good for them. Good advice can be at odds with popular advice.I do not write about health much but if I do I try to make it clear that readers should do their own research.
one problem is that leading edge research that counters the mainstream view is usually behind a pay wall. But untrustworthy information is easily available for free.
Squidoo still gets a mention in the poor quality section:
https://static.googleusercontent.com/me … Health.jpgThey should remain there forever, for all to see.
Maybe I am taking this the wrong way but doesn't it sound like Google is trying to become one big CENSOR. It does put hubpages in a bad spot. Do they allow writers freedom to write what they want? Or do they instruct editors to go overboard and vet every sentence?
These guidelines are a real challenge for HP. One of the things the raters are asked to do is establish the reputation of the sites they visit, the whole site, not just an individual page. They are asked to look for external evidence that the site is well regarded by authoritative publishers. That is tough for new sites like the niches.
Also, of course, the close linking with the main HP site will catch anyone's eye and that association cannot be helpful.
Just going back to the Squidoo ginger thing. They are plenty of pages here which are not much better:
http://hubpages.com/search/?s=ginger+for+healthI saw these new guidelines. I am in the process of editing ALL of my articles. It doesn't matter if you're a brilliant writer or not. Time changes, language changes, facts change. Articles need to evolve as well. If you want to be relevant and trustworthy, then your articles need to be appropriate for the times. And Google MUST know that advertisements need to be appropriate too!!!!
Also, when using Pinterest I followed a link that took me to a Google employees blog. It indicated that they want to see websites evolve as a whole. He basically said that a site that is willing to put in the hard work will be considered more trustworthy than one that won't adapt.There is the question of how far a site like this can genuinely adapt. Google is looking for authoritative articles but HP writers are prone to:
See HP as a place to air their prejudices without necessarily understanding the evidence-based perspectives that are available. Some prejudices are genuinely toxic.
or
Make a little money writing stuff they think might appeal to someone but they personally do not care about or understand.
or
Deal with personal issues
Also, many writers are absolute amateurs in every sense. They lack writing skills as well, as expert knowledge and the capacity to present balanced articles.
Staff have decided to adapt by selecting the best articles and placing them on the niches, but this only works if the pool of talent on HP is deep enough. For Healdove it may never be enough and you have to fear for Toughnickel, Wehavekids and, even, Owlcation.I agree. My head dove article is about comparing insect bites with bed bug bites. I never really meant for it to be a medical article, but that is what any rash is classified under. My traffic on other sites is going up since edits, I am lost as what to do about that article.
Great points will. So much to think about!! I wish I could wrap my mind about how the algorithm deals with subjective issues and expertise.
The facts change on some things, such as accepted treatments.
However, the facts do not and cannot change when an article is written from personal experience; e.g., my Hub on knee replacement surgery.
That happened, it's over and done with, in the past. There is no changing or updating that can be done. It remains what it is, and explains what was.You can add an update explaining how you are a year or five years later. Did the surgery have consequences that you discovered later? Have you have your full life back again? There really is so much you can keep adding to the hub as time goes on. I did that with my health related hubs, and I plan to keep adding as time goes one. You can too.
Hmm, I notice those all say Hubpages, not Healdove. I searched Healdove for ginger, and did find articles that mention it as a treatment for certain conditions, but not any that were just generally about the healing properties of ginger.
Would an article about healing properties be judged less harshly than articles about treating conditions?
Well, the articles on Healdove are not hyping ginger, just mentioning it as one option among many. The articles about ginger are just about all the great things ginger is supposed to do.
When one thing is touted as curing a long list of problems, that's a clue.The Guideline mentions Your Money Your Life pages. Medical pages are one type of YMYL page. I keep inspecting the language used in the Google Quality Rater Guidelines, thinking I might suddenly understand what changes are needed.
I did notice the mention of images. It says that spammy and overused images should lower rating. I have been trying to replace my old pictures with new, better ones.There are two points:
We would all like to see hubpages.com recover and cleaning it up might help.
Is associating Healdove so closely with hubpages.com a good idea, when there are a lot of very poor article still in place?Two points:
How do you clean up a site where so many users go MIA for months and years at a time.
Honestly, I don't think it's a good idea to for them to have a close association.These are the links from one healdove page. Over a third point at hubpages.com:
1
https://pinterest.com/pin/create/bookma … t2.hubs...
textEmpty anchor source whois
2
https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?ap … &li...
textEmpty anchor source whois
3
https://pinterest.com/pin/create/bookma … t2.hubs...
textEmpty anchor source whois
4
https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?ap … &li...
textEmpty anchor source whois
5
https://pinterest.com/pin/create/bookma … t1.hubs...
textEmpty anchor source whois
6
https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?ap … &li...
textEmpty anchor source whois
7
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 193448.htm
textAnchor Omentum Research source whois
8
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v& … du/abou...
textAnchor The Healing Capacity of the Omentum source whois
9
http://news.health.ufl.edu/2012/19940/m … /belly-...
textAnchor A University of Florida Podcast about the Omentum source whois
10
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wH5fkIVUq … mp;start=0
frame source whois
11
https://pinterest.com/pin/create/bookma … t2.hubs...
textEmpty anchor source whois
12
https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?ap … &li...
textEmpty anchor source whois
13
https://pinterest.com/pin/create/bookma … t1.hubs...
textEmpty anchor source whois
14
https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?ap … &li...
textEmpty anchor source whois
15
https://pinterest.com/pin/create/bookma … t2.hubs...
textEmpty anchor source whois
16
https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?ap … &li...
textEmpty anchor source whois
17
https://pinterest.com/pin/create/bookma … t1.hubs...
textEmpty anchor source whois
18
https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?ap … &li...
textEmpty anchor source whois
19
https://hubpages.com/education/Adult-St … d-Research
textAnchor adult stem cells source whois
20
https://www.youtube.com/embed/HOcvlN9UC … amp;start=
frame source whois
21
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/the- … lly?page=1
textAnchor Beer Belly Facts source whois
22
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8436409.stm
textAnchor Waist Fat Risk source whois
23
https://hubpages.com/health/Cholesterol … nd-Dangers
textAnchor LDL cholesterol source whois
24
https://pinterest.com/pin/create/bookma … t2.hubs...
textEmpty anchor source whois
25
https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?ap … &li...
textEmpty anchor source whois
26
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12481427
textAnchor Body Mass Index Problems source whois
27
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/losing_weight/
textAnchor A Healthy Lifestyle and a Healthy Weight source whois
28
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/belly-fat/WO00128
textAnchor Belly Fat in Women source whois
29
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/feb/visceral-fat
textAnchor Not All Fats Are Equal source whois
30
https://pinterest.com/pin/create/bookma … t1.hubs...
textEmpty anchor source whois
31
https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?ap … &li...
textEmpty anchor source whois
32
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/ … 9F20100301
textAnchor lack of sleep source whois
33
https://pinterest.com/pin/create/bookma … t1.hubs...
textEmpty anchor source whois
34
https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?ap … &li...
textEmpty anchor source whois
35
https://caloriebee.com/misc/Abdominal-O … a-Potbelly
textAnchor <img alt="Get Rid of Potbelly (Abdominal Obesity, Metabolic Syndrome)" style=...+ 1 more link source whois
36
https://caloriebee.com/
textAnchor caloriebee.com source whois
37
https://hubpages.com/@drbj
textAnchor <img src="https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/1465972_100.jpg" alt="drbj pro... source whois
38
http://hubpages.com/@drbj
textAnchor drbj and sherry source whois
39
https://hubpages.com/@aliciac
text12Anchor <img src="https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13430261_100.jpg" alt="AliciaC... source whois
40
http://hubpages.com/@aliciac
text12Anchor Linda Crampton source whois
41
https://hubpages.com/@billybuc
textAnchor <img src="https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/5983215_100.jpg" alt="billybuc... source whois
42
http://hubpages.com/@billybuc
textAnchor Bill Holland source whois
43
https://hubpages.com/@shiningirisheyes
textAnchor <img src="https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/6641914_100.jpg" alt="shiningi... source whois
44
http://hubpages.com/@shiningirisheyes
textAnchor Shining Irish Eyes source whois
45
https://hubpages.com/@vocalcoach
textAnchor <img src="https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13170945_100.jpg" alt="vocalco... source whois
46
http://hubpages.com/@vocalcoach
textAnchor Audrey Hunt source whois
47
https://hubpages.com/@ytsenoh
textAnchor <img src="https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/8529712_100.jpg" alt="ytsenoh ... source whois
48
http://hubpages.com/@ytsenoh
textAnchor Cathy source whois
49
https://hubpages.com/@mjennifer
textAnchor <img src="https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/7722080_100.jpg" alt="MJennife... source whois
50
http://hubpages.com/@mjennifer
textAnchor Marcy J. Miller source whois
51
https://hubpages.com/@aviannovice
textAnchor <img src="https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/7921927_100.jpg" alt="aviannov... source whois
52
http://hubpages.com/@aviannovice
textAnchor Deb Hirt source whois
53
https://hubpages.com/@nell-rose
textAnchor <img src="https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/6395960_100.jpg" alt="Nell Ros... source whois
54
http://hubpages.com/@nell-rose
textAnchor Nell Rose source whois
55
https://hubpages.com/@relationshipc
textAnchor <img src="https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/8532859_100.jpg" alt="Relation... source whois
56
http://hubpages.com/@relationshipc
textAnchor Kari source whois
57
https://hubpages.com/@dde
textAnchor <img src="https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13449110_100.jpg" alt="DDE pro... source whois
58
http://hubpages.com/@dde
textAnchor Devika Primić source whois
59
http://hubpages.com/help/copyright_infringement
text2Anchor Copyright source whois
60
http://hubpages.com/help/user_agreement
text2Anchor Terms of Use source whois
61
http://hubpages.com/help/privacy_policy
text2Anchor Privacy Policy source whois
62
http://hubpages.com/my/activity/online-notifications
textAnchor Notifications source whois
63
https://hubpages.com/redir/?redirectUrl … &no...
textAnchor Account source whois
64
https://hubpages.com/redir/?redirectUrl … rId=511...
textAnchor Earnings source whois
65
http://hubpages.com/@willapse
textAnchor Profile source whois
66
https://www.facebook.com/HealDove-214390002277044
textEmpty anchor source whois
67
https://www.pinterest.com/healdove/
textEmpty anchorI don't know what any of that means.
But I just found a couple of paragraphs in the Google Quality Guidelines that may be very relevant to healdove somehow.
Please see:
Page 19 Section 3.2 The two paragraphs below the bullet points.
It seems to suggest that we should only write medical information that relates to direct personal experience. This will reflect, and translate to being an expert.
Now I feel like I should change my healdove article so it emphasizes my expertise through life experience.
Will, can you read that section and share your thoughts? I would REALLY appreciate it?Melody, I know you were asking Will, but I'll reply too. I interpreted that section the same as you had. For that matter, the sentence "Sharing personal experience is a form of everyday expertise" makes it clear.
We can use the author bio to describe our personal experience or include it in the hub itself. Since the bio is at the top now, it's the perfect place to let the reader know how our expertise applies before they get into the article. I think that's what Google is looking for.
Now that I think of it, I'm going to reexamine my bio I use on my YMYL hubs.Thank you for your input. It makes sense that we are encouraged to include them. They aren't many characters, but they provide valuable information.
I will definitely look at my bios and see if I can improve them.I always work hard at getting the most meaning I can in 140 characters just to get all my bios right.
Sorry, busy weekend. I have only managed to skim half of that pdf so don't expect me to have too many useful things to say, lol.
To me, Healdove, is a strange mix.
It has a few real medical doctors offering serious medical advice, mixed in with real patient experience and then stuff which is in the 'apple cider vinegar cures everything' category with stuff tending to quackery.
Staff have used this blurb: 'Medical knowledge and health tips from people like you.' This is a variation on the 'everyday experts' theme. Is this good enough for a site actually offering 'cures'?
What would a rater make of it?
Also someone mentioned author bios but what about author names? Here are a few:
Vicariously Yours
Doc Wordinger
obsexed
JenBarn
healthcarepro
BoneMD1
prodriver08
These names alone would raise doubts for me.We have the ability to create a name, but I really wish we could change the handle. Thanks for your input. You raise some interesting points.
I totally agree with you Will. The fact that HubPages is accepting hubs for HealDove from authors who use names like those examples worries me. When I go searching for health information, the first thing I look at is the name of the author and the site I stumbled upon. If either one has stupid sounding names I don't even start reading.
If that happens to HealDove hubs, Google lowers the ranking based on short visits. This could damage the ranking of the entire HealDove site.
As for using real names, I noticed HubPages started showing the real names when Hubbers leave comments in hubs, if available.
They should do the same for the authors names in niche sites — display the real name and not the username. And they should be more diligent about avoiding hubs with stupid sounding names. All the Hubbers with silly usernames need to do is add a real name to their profile. It doesn't have to be their name if they need anonymity. Just a real-sounding name will do.What if I were to change my picture from my face to a close up of my Medical Reserve Corps uniform or a Medical Reserve Corps icon. I haven't mentioned it in my bio either. I am mostly trained in radiation disaster but have other skills. Would that show my expertise better?
I am just under the impression that most of the American public doesn't know about the Medical Reserve Corps.Who would decide if a user name was "silly"?
I know this discussion is about HealDove, so what I'm about to say may be irrelevant, but anyway:
Back in the olden days of HP they would advise you create a web presence and branding strategy around your user name. Taking this advice, I now have two large niche profiles for which I also have Twitter, Facebook and G+ page. For one of them I have a domain name, various blogs and a FlipBoard account. All of these match the user name I've chosen on HubPages, and all of this was done with a specific branding intent in mind.
It worked very well.
If HP suddenly forces me to create a "real sounding" name for these niche accounts I think I'd be pretty darned miffed. It's like I'd be saying to my readers, "Hey, you know how you've known me as this name for the past 5 years? We'll, now I'm somebody else. Surprise!" And, yes, my readers do know me by those names.
I do agree that a real-sounding name possibly carry more credibility in certain topics, and more and more I've been wishing I could just move everything to this account where I use something that sounds like a real name. However, I don't think that change should be done by force, or by HP making people use a different name to be moved to a niche site. There are other issues to consider, such as a pen name that had been carefully cultivated over years suddenly vanishing from the online discussion.But seriously, if someone is going to skip an article because of a name they don't just need to read the article they stumbled upon, but also visit a psychiatrist to get their brains checked. Don't judge a book by its cover - ever heard of that phrase?
I've been following this thread, not too closely but well enough. The whole discussion would be valid if Google chose to manually check this website (Healdove) but unless HP has this in their webmaster account, it's not the case.
Algorithms cannot:
- Tell that you have an author bio (Is there some markup for this?)
- See your profile picture
- Tell if you are legit or a quack
- Do almost everything else this entire thread is worried aboutThe human raters are used to evaluate different versions of Google's algorithm. Google wants to know which algo tweak surfaces the best content.
The new guidelines show that Google is now concerned with site authority more than ever. Fake news, hate sites, misleading and idiosyncratic perspectives are being targeted along with thin, badly written content. Raters are expected to check the factual accuracy of individual pages as well as the reputation of the site.
I don't think Google would ask raters to do this if they do not think their algo can somehow target these things.
Also, they might use raters evaluations directly, in some way.
The name and bio thing is important. A lot of people will react negatively to silly names or poor bios. That means fewer links to the page and worse user metrics.
I avoid using pics if I have to include a credit to someone with a weird pseudonym.
This is in reply to Brandon (for whatever reason, every post in this thread has a "reply" under it except yours.)
The only points I can concede are the YMOYL issues. Sure, I suppose readers might hit the back button constantly or manual raters might ding the site if there is a goofy user name. Maybe that's what happened to HealDove. Who knows.
For the rest of it, some of the highest-ranking pages on the web are niche message boards. Often the posters are experts, often they give outstanding information, but they also almost always have what might be considered goofy user names. Bearsfan1985 or Bigfoothunter22. Whatever.
Those pages rank because they have good information written by people who know what they are talking about. I don't see how a Hub is any different.That's the sad part of it when dealing with YMYL hubs. Some professionals destroy their own success by using names that turn off any potential reader IMHO. Would you really trust health related content written by someone named anything like Bearsfan or Bigfoothunter?
LOL. Probably not!
But I may consider it if they were, for example, writing in a support forum and had first-hand experience with a certain disease or issue. But for an authoritative page on a topic, probably not.
However, I may trust them for expert advice on how to change the oil in my car or repair a kitchen faucet, particularly if the forum or website was known for quality information on those topics.
But I tend to agree in regard to the YMOYL content, as I said to Brandon above. You seemed to be suggesting all niche site should avoid odd pen names, which I was responding to.
For the YMOYL pages, it's clear Google has gone out of their way for a few years now to scrutinize these topics severely. I can understand why. In fact, I've avoided writing about a few topics where I felt I was knowledgeable because they do seem to cross into that territory.No, I was not suggesting all niche sites should avoid odd pen names. Never said that. On the contrary, I was focused on the theme of this thread – dealing with YMYL type hubs that are related to health, disease, etc. – Basically anything in HealDove.
As for your example of automotive repair, which I don't think would be considered your money or your life, I agree with you that it doesn't matter that much. I know I've taken advice from some YouTube videos authored by strange sounding (silly) names about topics related to fixing my car. In those areas I usually don't even look at the name of the author. It's not important. If it sounds like it's created in an authoritative way, that's all that matters.
I guess I'm just more diligent when it comes to health related issues that could be life threatening if wrong. For that matter, the way those guidelines sound, Google is suggesting the same thing.
All that makes sense Eric, dealing with other content. But this is about HealDove and some of those names Will mentioned don't go well with the E-A-T quality guidelines.
By the way, it's not HubPages forcing you to do anything. This entire thread is based on the Google Guidelines and specifically related to YMYL content. I'd like to know what your thoughts are, related specifically to that.Eric, about forums. The word forum appears 49 times in the Google Quality Rater Guidelines. Someone on a medical forum is not held to the same rules as someone on a website. On a forum, the name won't be held against you the way it might on healdove.
Very interesting, Will! It looks like my article. It's one of the hubs that I have open for editing, so the links may change. I'm going to look at your analysis carefully, though.
If google is becoming a censor they are assuming liability for what they let through.
When were they ever not a censor? The whole Google algorithm censors by deciding what gets seen and what gets buried.
All they've ever done is continuously refine and spell out - more and more emphatically - what they mean - given huge numbers of people ignore them most of the time.
When people don't listen and/or ignore them they kick sites instead until people wake up and read the detail.
I'm worried about this impacting my content and sites for a few reasons, since I write in the pregnancy/birth niche.
-I write articles using bait and switch titles such as "How do I do [stupid thing]" then the article covers why you shouldn't.
-I write a lot of borderline medical articles, but they usually reference multiple studies and cite doctors and midwives (but I'm a doula, not a medical professional).
-Do listicles come under clickbait? How is clickbait defined? There's extreme clickbait, but what about midway clickbait which gets the reader excited but is mostly accurate in its description?
Time to really get into my food website building methinks!Clickbait is broadly defined in the dictionary. I don't know that you're guilty of clickbait. I think that the area you are concerned about is classified as misleading titles.
Go to the Google quality rating guidelines and use Ctrl+F and look for the words "Misleading Titles". It should be easy to get to section 6, which answers a few of your questions. It starts on page 31.
I don't think I have violated any of these things but still have lost three quarters of my views! so disappointing, its a bit like filling a bucket with water only to find the bucket has holes!
Nell, you do a really good job at showing your expertise by emphasizing personal experience. According to the Google quality rating guidelines, that is exactly the kind of real-life medical advice that matters.
In the new guidelines, it makes it clear that medical advice should come from professionals,
"High quality medical advice should come from people or organizations with appropriate medical expertise or accreditation"
BUT
It goes on to state the value of life experience. In your article about bipolar and Asperger's, you are showing your real life expertise. By the way, my son has Asperger's, so I love that article.
The bad news
The new acronym for quality is E-A-T. Expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthy. Even if you nail one and two, your excellent articles may still be penalized under trustworthiness.
From what I understand it looks like trustworthiness has many factors. But there are two main ones:
Website reputation
Main content
We have to be realistic about this. They use plain English to let us know that the reputation of Hubpages matters. You can do one of two things:
Move your content somewhere else, which would suck for us because we need people like you with good reputations.
OR
Encourage changes at Hubpages that will help us earn trustworthiness. The Hubpages links issue is an example of a change that may need to be made to gain back trustworthiness.
But, that doesn't solve anything. Google wants the people who are responsible for the website to be transparent. So even if Hubpages and Healdove are not cross linking (which it probably shouldn't) the association must still be obvious.
So, even if the link issues are fixed, Hubpages reputation still matters for niche sites.
With medical sites, absolutely everything has to be professional. And if you have a smattering of genuinely medical articles then it is likely to be judged as a medical site.
With Healdove you move from this:
https://healdove.com/disease-illness/Di … rt-attacks
to this:
https://healdove.com/alternative-medici … f-the-Body
If you removed the medical advice articles, you could simple go for an alternative health site (a more appropriate level of expertise for HP writers in my view), or a' personal experiences of healthcare' type site.
I am sure they will try to save Healdove as it is, but reconsidering the whole nature and purpose of the site might be necessary.I wonder what Google does in regards to news or other sites that re-post articles and stories that are under the Creative Commons Licence? Government sites here in Australia for example, post news and press releases that you can re-post in full on your own website, thus making it not original. I'm guessing you have to add something somewhere on your website that is original so that Google will pick it up.
Yes of course, there's no point in Google indexing sites that just repost non-original material when that information is already available on government sites. One way around that might be to do a commentary on a news article and then link the article, but that can also lead to content that becomes dated quickly and isn't the evergreen material that ranks better.
I think the gist of the whole thing here is original, authoritative content that helps the reader. I'm really not sure why Google needs over 100 pages to explain that concept honestly.
I just noticed something really odd about daily views. Ever since mine dropped like a stone, every few days it comes back to the same number! weird! for example say I got 1458 in a day, then day after day I get 1458! and its not stuck because it goes up and down apart from that! and let me just say, I have had a lot higher and lower since then.
This may be like apples and oranges but I noticed that mturk is in the lists of domains that have been reading my articles for over a month. I clicked on the link to see who it was and it's Amazon's Mechanical Turk. So, who has hired mturk to read my work? I tried to apply for a job doing this after I clicked on the link and it said they could not hire me and they could not reveal the reason why they could not hire me. Has anyone else seen mturk in the lists of domains reading your hubs? Could this be part of the quality process google or others are using to rate our hubs?
Hubpages uses Mturk to check the quality of hubs before they are featured.
I'm in Australia and have an approved worker Mturk account. I'm not sure why they'd reject you - could it be to do with tax laws in your state?
I do work on Mturk, to review Hubs you have to pass a standard test. It's actually pretty hard most do not get accepted to do it.
Thanks Jesse, They didn't even give me the option of taking the test. I'm pretty good at test taking so I would have loved the opportunity.
Do you have a Mturk account? Pretty sure they let me take the test when I first joined..perhaps they changed it's been a little while.
I registered after following the link that was under my "Traffic Sources" in Hubpages so maybe it didn't show me the test because of the way I came to it. Thanks Jesse, I might go back in there and see if I can find where the test is and see if I can take it and see what happens from there.
HI, sorry this got me interested, what is Mturk, and do we earn from it if we are accepted? never heard of it before, thanks
mturk is Amazon Mechanical Turk - If you go to mturk.com you can learn more about it. When you go to that link, the blue side is for people looking to be employed and the orange side is for employers...Something went wrong with my registration as it never allowed me to take a test to get approved but there are different job things you can do if you get approved.
Mturk is a big crowdsourcing platform run by Amazon. Basically, people are paid pennies to do tiny tasks - such as 5c to copy down information off a scanned receipt. There are many forums and apps devoted to making the most off Mturk. On average, people can earn from $5-15USD/hour, depending on their speed.
Hubpages is an employer on Mturk, so if you signed up as a worker, you could work rating hubs.
Thanks for all your answers, I will have to go and take a look, how come I never know about these things? LOL!
Related Discussions
- 68
Google Algorythm Change and Hub Pages
by And Drewson 13 years ago
Here's an interesting message from Seekyt, which mentions Hub Pages fondly."Important DecisionMake sure you've read the news to the right before reading this paragraph. ---->There is always a way to get around these things; however, do we really want to "get around it" and try to...
- 361
I really think this Idled hubs idea is ridiculous
by Steve Andrews 12 years ago
When it was first introduced I was annoyed by it but made an effort to tweak my hubs to get them out of Idle status. Now, a whole load have got zzs against them again and many of them are hubs that at one point were very successful and even now still have scores above 70 or higher.One of the hubs...
- 23
Want to know what Google's looking for? (Advanced)
by Ellen 13 years ago
1. Relevance to search query2. Quality of content3. User experience4. Relevance to search query5. Authority of author (I hope Hubpages gets rel="me" working.)6. Relevance to search query7. Who's linking to you8. Relevance to search queryBut BESIDES that. Here's some useful stuff.READ...
- 35
HP needs to get off their Duffs and manage the LOW QUALITY Hubs.
by Don Bobbitt 9 years ago
Honestly, HP needs to step up and start filtering their input. I have been here for over 5 years and I have watched a lot of changes, but what I see as what must be the most damaging to HP (ergo we writers) with Google is the number of low quality Hubs being allowed in the gate. I hear a lot of...
- 332
Upcoming Changes to Pethelpful, Dengarden, and Discover
by Lisa Winter 4 days ago
Thank you for all of your contributions to HubPages over the past many years. You may have noticed that the HubPages operation is in a stage of transition as we move many of your articles back to Discover.HubPages from our network domains. This decision was made to try to capitalize on the...
- 25
Download and READ Google's latest "Search Quality Rating Guidelines"
by Katherine Tyrrell 9 years ago
Read "Updating Our Search Quality Rating Guidelines" - plus comments - on the Google Webmaster Central Bloghttp://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot. … uscommentsRatings from evaluators do not determine individual site rankings, but are used help us understand our experiments. The...