If we find that our new site for health is falling drastically, wouldn't it be a good idea if we scrapped it and gave it back just as hubpages again? I keep reading that google only likes professional health articles. Actually that annoys me because who better to know, understand and experience the health problem symptoms and cures than the person 'in the street' so to speak!
I don't see how moving them back to HubPages would help. The reason HealDove is falling is that Google only wants to see health articles from sites that have genuine authority in that field.
It seems Google has looked at HealDove and decided it fails that test - but there's no question that HubPages would fail that test too, in fact it would score far worse than HealDove!
I agree that there is no point in moving hubs back. As you said, they will do worse on the main site because they will be mixed with untelated subjects, a practice that Google clearly no longer likes.
But as for you second paragraph, I don't see how Google decided HealDove fails the "expertise" test.
According to Google's Quality Rating Guidelines, they say they will value "everyday expertise" and "will not penalize the person/webpage/website for not having formal education or training" if it's shown that they have life experience. They go on to say "It’s even possible to have everyday expertise in YMYL topics." So that would include HealDove.
It doesn't help that there are so many hubs that were moved to HealDove, earlier when it was fist setup, that contain so many grammatical errors and spelling errors. I don't know if HP used editors to fix these things at that time like they do now, or if they had inexperienced curators when the whole idea of niche sites was first being implemented. Either way, I think those hubs need to be examined and either fixed or unfeatured.
I agree--if, as the congratulatory e-mails state, "...only the highest quality hubs are moved..." Then someone didn't do their job very well in choosing such error-filled articles in the first place, and failing a second time for not going in and double-checking those articles, and pulling any that are not up to snuff.
I'm deducing that Google thinks HealDove failed the "expertise" test for the reasons you mention.
Google's robots are not clever enough to understand whether authors on HealDove have written from expertise or experience. That's a bluff on Google's part, IMO, except for the small percentage of sites where they have human moderators looking at them. What they can do is make their robots judge what they can judge - grammar, spelling, readability, consistency, use of keywords etc. And as you say, some articles on HealDove don't meet those standards.
I would not call that bluff. We are not just talking about robots, but artificial intelligence. Human raters are used to improve and TEACH the algorithm. Maybe it doesn't have that ability yet, but that is exactly what Google intends it to be able to do.
Rankbrain and the surrounding algorithms can learn about context and word usage. That means that it theoretically could learn to look for expertise by the language used on the page, some kind of reputation metric, and a bunch of other ways that I can't fathom.
I would imagine this is why the Google Search Quality Guidelines is enforcing transparency. The presence of certain types of well-marked data, such as clear contact information, might soon be used as a metric useful for the algorithm.
Don't underestimate the implementation of artificial intelligence.
Be very afraid...first writing sites, next the government!
It looks like we are both on the same page Marisa. I was actually making two points. Yes that HealDove expertise is recognized by Google based on experience. And yes that HealDove fails the "expertise" test because of all the poorly written hubs.
HubPages can do something, but talking to Google, as Paul Edmondson said a few weeks ago, isn't going to help. HubPages needs to clean up the bad hubs that were moved to HealDove when it first began. The initial curators did not do a good job when it first started. Those are the hubs that need to be examined again.
I agree that HubPages needs to clean up HealDove. There are many writers who might not like that. Some of those people would likely become angry enough to post bad reviews about the site, which wouldn't be good for reputation. But, Hubpages still has to do something.
They could give writers a chance to fix whatever the issues are before removing their content. Some people take long breaks from Hubpages, and might not even realize the seriousness of it. Hubpages could remove the content and offer a route back. I certainly hope that new hubs added to healdove are actually high quality.
The newer hubs are of better quality. As I mentioned, the hubs I found that had spelling errors and grammar errors were old hubs that were moved when HealDove first began. Some of them even had spammy Amazon capsules. That's why I was thinking that the curators/editors were not trained properly at the beginning.
As for Hubbers being upset, if all they did was read their own hubs, I think many of them would catch their own mistakes. I am sure most of them are typos that were missed because they didn't proofread. The articles I refer to have good information that I feel is useful, but that gets lost with the poor quality of the writing.
Yes, I just checked my bio on each of mine and ouch! not even there! I wrote them before the bio thing started! Thanks Glenn for the reminder.
I had that same problem with this account Nell. 77 Hubs I am editing on this account, lol and none of them had a bio till I noticed!
The early Hubs were chosen because they were getting very high traffic from Google.
You might remember there was a mention that 20% of Hubs accounted for 80% of HubPages' traffic (or some similar figure), and those Hubs would form the foundation of the new niche sites. Since all those Hubs had high Google traffic, I think HubPages took that as a sign Google loved them already, so there was less need to make changes.
Yes that's true. I remember that, now that you mention it. Too bad, however, that they didn't actually review those hubs to discover all the grammar and spelling errors. At that time Google probably just went by view duration to determine quality and usefulness. Now they seem to be cracking down more on proper English usage (accepting both U.K. and American style). I could be wrong though. What are your thoughts on that Marisa?
Don't listen to what everyone else says. Go straight to the Google Quality Rating Guidelines. Go to page 19 and read the last three paragraphs.
Here is just one sentence from that sections. It says more. It isn't that everyday people can't be experts. If you read the entire 149 pages, there are many places that help us draw conclusions. Personal experience can be expertise, but we must make sure to present our expertise as personal experience clearly.
"If it seems as if the person creating the content has the type and amount of life experience to make him or her an “expert” on the topic, we will value this “everyday expertise” and not penalize the person/webpage/website for not having “formal” education or training in the field."
*meant to post this from my other account, now I can only respond to this thread with this account* opps.
A problem I noticed with HealDove is that the curators who selected the initial hubs to be moved there were not careful. I found hubs with grammatical errors, spelling errors, even one with transposed words (dyslexic) in sentences that should have been caught and corrected. I also found a hub with Amazon capsules that were not closely related to the subject.
Since I found a few like this, I expect that there may be others. HubPages may have not been so careful with the curators/editors they hired at the beginning of the move, or maybe they just didn't have the proper training yet at that time, about a year ago.
I think it would be wise for HubPages to review the initial hubs that were moved to HealDove when they first began with that site. These hubs may be what's causing the problem.
As TheDragonBringer pointed out, based on Google's Quality Rating Guidelines, hubs written by non-professionals is not the problem. Having had personal experience is acceptable for considering expertise.
I've noticed exactly the same things -- errors in spelling, grammar, word choice, etc. on articles that have been moved to niche sites. Sometimes errors are even in the title. There are too many articles like this to make it practical for a concerned Hubber to contact the author (if it's even practical or possible). Unfortunately, on a device It's not easy to report an article for a quick edit. This is not just HealDove.
I think the issue stems chiefly from changing requirements to move articles to niche sites and from inconsistency across sites. It's a fixable issue, but it has to be recognized first.
I have seen the same and was very surprised. I thought a hub couldn't pass to a niche site through HubPro/QAP unless it was near stellar. This is a real problem.
I hate to ask Hubpages to do this, but I think they need to review healdove, removing any articles that we now know do not meet the Search Quality Evaluation guidelines. If it doesn't meet them, it probably doesn't belong on that niche site. I know this might thin out the content, but then people with personal experience can write about the topic appropriately. They could also require every article by a non-medical professional to be exemplary on making their life experience clear.
The other thing people need to be aware of is that the guidelines also mention are the frequency of updates to the article. The bad news is that they don't explain what frequent means in that context.
Even if you have the perfect article that follows all the rules, you still have to regularly edit it, just to let google know you haven't abandoned your content.
The snag I see, in addition to the faults mentioned already, is the 'updates' requirement. If you are writing from personal experience, (as I did about knee replacement surgery), it's over and done with; in the past, and there are no updates to be had that would make any kind of logical sense.
I did update it once, early on, when I had a problem that had me go back for further adjustment--but once that was taken care of, it was all good. That was now three years ago, the new knee functions perfectly, and there are no further updates to be had.
An update could mean taking out a comma or replacing a word with a synonym. As long as the date is current, I think that's what it means. At least that's how I've been updating.
Here are two ideas for updates...
Almost every time I reread my own hubs, I see something I could have said differently to achieve a better understanding by the reader. That motivates me to update the hub with those changes. I'm constantly keeping my hubs updated with changes such as that.
In addition, every so often I review the search strings people have been using to get to my hubs. That gives me ideas for improving the titles or subtitles so that they relate better to the content of the article.
Yep me too Glenn, trying to update all now! thanks
Also I notice sometimes that parts of a string may lead a reader to a hub, but other sections of the string or keywords may be missing from the hub. So it may be useful to work these into the text.
My HealDove articles are dying. Monies earned by them down by around 80%. It's soul destroying. Some are written from personal experience but I have made it clear that I also have some expertise in that genre. In other words they have the best of both worlds. I feel my hands are tied. Is it a waiting game (yet again)? Do I accept defeat? I feel like writing to recognised expert sites now but they are so hard to get into. Is HP planning on doing anything about the situation?
Two weeks ago in the forum thread below, Paul Edmondson said he would look into it, i.e., make some tweaks to HealDove and HP staff would "negotiate" with Google.
http://hubpages.com/community/forum/140 … k-a-tumble
We haven't gotten an update yet.
Yes they did. They made some changes to the desktop ad layout.
http://hubpages.com/community/forum/140 … -ad-layout
I am sure there is a lot more going on behind the scenes than we realize.
Your hands are not totally tied. There is at least one important thing you can do right now. I noticed that you have not placed your bio in most of your hubs. That bio is the first thing people see where you can express your background and "expertise" in the subject. I would think that Google's quality algorithm takes that bio section of hubs into account.
It's not just Healdove that is off, my Pethelpful hubs have dropped 20%, with no relief in sight.
Sorry to hear that Solaras, I don't have any on there, but that is a shame
I get Healdove, but I don't get pethelpful.
Thanks what's worse was a 40% drop in earnings lol. I think that may be ticking backup a bit.
Edit: Spoke too soon. now 50% off. Oh well, off to write another hub and hopefully offset the latest loss.
Interestingly my blog on Dog Stuff is up 20%. I am using a blogger "magazine" layout which only allows one Adsense ad per page, and will not display Amazon native ads (forcing me to despam my blog). I can add unlimited Amazon text and image ads, but only have 3-4 per page on 2000 word articles. Perhaps that saved me from Fred.
by Dale Hyde 6 years ago
I am experiencing an overall average off 66 percent less page views per day, for seven days versus a week previous and for the past two months. Such a huge drop in page views makes me think that Google has tuned up something again. I do know that I don't have the time and energy to keep...
by Marie Gail Stratford 3 years ago
When I first started at HubPages, I wrote several Hubs of around 800 to 900 words. Now the goals for creating quality Hubs include 1250 or more words of content. I've noticed that some Hubbers seem to be padding their Hubs with irrelevant or superfluous content to hit these goals, and I admit it...
by Don Bobbitt 6 years ago
Why am I seeing SO MANY Hubs with obvious GRAMMATICAL ERRORS in the TITLE?I mean, People? The Title is your HOOK!
by Eric Dockett 10 months ago
This is getting silly. The last few Hubs I updated had all links to other Hubs snipped, even though these links were (a) on the same topic (b) helpful to the reader and (c) pointing to the same niche site. I really try to understand why Amazon links are removed, and I get why links to other sites...
by Steve Andrews 5 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...
by Keith Abt 5 years ago
Looks like another content sniper is at work, stealing our shizz from HubPages. This so called "music news" site has sniped at least four of my Hubs and it looks like there are many other pieces pinched from my fellow music Hubbers as well. If you've written any Hubs about music (any kind...
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.
|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.|