|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.|
I've had links to my own related hubs snipped on several occasions (mostly blatant lists at the end of a hub), but some links have been left in place after several snips. So is it acceptable to include a link to a hub which may be very relevant to the specific content in a section of a hub, if it provides additional info?
The team does not want to see too many links within a hub, even when they are to your own related articles. Also, it appears that having a list of links at the end of a hub isn't a good idea. I would include a few of them and only within the text. You can still list references, but you can refrain from linking them.
That's what I've tended to do because it seems to be ok once the link is useful in the context of the hub. Lists at the end of hubs are a no no and are always snipped. However I've just been looking at USER Flow in GA and only less than 1% of traffic flows out to to other hubs, so it's not really fruitful!
I usually add 3 links to my own hubs, maybe one of external post
Well I only link to relevant pages. So for example one of my hubs is about electricity and appliances, watts, amps, volts, kwh - that sort of stuff. I linked from that hub to another hub about how to use a multimeter to take measurements of these quantities.
Link lists at the end of a page certainly deserve to go. But if you are convinced that linking to another of your pages provides the best resource for a reader, and the reader really needs that resource, then why not do it?
I wouldn't provide links to pages which just happen to be in the same subject area. The side bar is already full of those.
Please feel free to link to other articles. Here are some guidelines:
1. Only link to articles that are directly relevant to your content.
2. Only link to articles on the same domain, e.g., if your article lives on DenGarden, link to other articles on Dengarden. If you are linking outside of the HubPages Network, be sure that the link meets the site's editorial policy standards and is extremely useful to the reader.
3. Be sure to have clear anchor text for the article that you are linking to so that your reader knows exactly where the link will lead them. I do not recommend "click here" anchor text. Anchor text should be rich and self-explanatory.
4. Only link to articles that are high quality.
You are correct that we do not like to see lists of links on an article and usually snip those, but links that are within the text that follow the above guidelines should not be snipped. Thanks for asking the question!
Thanks Robin! That totally clarifies the situation and clears up any confusion as regards linking.
Well that opens the floodgates, lol.
I hope you know what you are letting for yourself in for as people litter their pages with vaguely related links to drive a little more traffic to their other pages.
I know many major sites do it, and there is no sign that Google has anything against it, but it does not necessarily make for a great user experience.
I reckon I will keep the readers' interests in mind, protect the dwell times of my pages and not use self-serving links.
I would at least look out for people deliberately producing pages designed to give readers the run around and emphasise that readers interests are the primary consideration when constructing any page element.
Robin, welcome back from your trip. Based on your 2nd point, it seems I am breaking that rule. I knew we shouldn't link from vertical niche sites to the main site, but I didn't realize cross linking among HubPages network sites is not allowed either.
My latest hub, the one on Prosopagnosia, has been moved to HealDove. But I have an in-text link in it pointing to my DNA hub, which is on Owlcation. The editor chose to move it to HealDove anyway. Does that mean I should remove that link?
Technically, it's an educational hub which may live better on Owlcation anyway. Then the linking would be within the same network site. I wasn't going to complain about the choice to move it to HealDove, but now that I saw your post about linking, I figured I better bring it up.
This is in addition to the issue last week with another educational hub that was moved to Letterpile. Please don't let that confuse you (Two different issues).
Thanks for that clarification, Robin. Can you explain why you dislike a list of links at the end of a Hub?
On quite a few of my Hubs, I have a "Further Reading" section which lists useful websites on the topic, with a short description of each. I always felt that was easier for the reader to follow than scattering blue links through the text.
@will: Links that are not useful or directly related should not be added and if authors add them to articles on a Network Site, they will be snipped when we look at the article after editing. The internet is meant to be an interlinking medium and useful links are helpful to readers. We believe that interlinking within the domain can help the entire domain. I do think authors should find the best articles to link to on the domain, not just their own.
@glenn: We do not recommend cross linking across Network Sites. It can potentially look like we are doing something to pass on link juice when we interlink across domains—even if that's not your intention. I recommend removing the link on HealDove to Owlcation.
@marisa: I understand your thinking, but we are recommending that you link within the body of the article with rich anchor text. We have been given this advice.
So are you saying that Google doesn't want us to follow the standard academic reference process - where citations are all listed at the end as references with full source material?
I do know Google does NOT like links where people are unclear as to where the link is going which can happen when people are not used to using embedded links in an appropriate fashion (i.e. signalling where the link goes to)
I use both - embedded links and reference sections - but I'm a big fan of proper reference citations in a reference section of links following a topic and I certainly find that I have no problems using this approach on my websites.
My actual preference would be for a proper footnote system where references in the text where linked to proper citations as to sources in a reference section at the end of each article.
I've always supposed that's one of the main reasons why Wikipedia has so few problems with Google when producing endless articles on different topics. My approach with my websites has been to model them on the Wikipedia approach. It would be nice to be able to do the same thing on HubPages.
I see other people listing resources used for their articles at the end. I usually try to embed it in the article, and use links sparingly.
I've always used loads of highly related links - embedded and at the end - on my blog. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding or in my case in my traffic stats in the side column.
It's one of the reasons why I take "theories" as to the best way to do things with a somewhat wary perspective. I go with what I know works.
This is too much a restrive attitude.
You may not allow the links at the end of the page in a separate section. But, the links within the text capsules should be allowed for any type of link that is useful to the reader and solves his problems and is relevant to the particular subject matter of that article. It shouldn't be restricted to that single domain.
Robin, your editors have just snipped a link leading to a medical research site that is 100% relevant to my article. It couldn't be more academic if it tried. It is 100% relevant. Yes, it certainly is a long read, and you have to read through quite a bit to get to the precise bit that I'm referring to, but the entire abstract is evidence of the entire article that I wrote. Why wouldn't you accept it? Is it too much for the editor to read?
Tess, Is that site you referenced a leading source of credible health related information? Google wants high quality leading sources referenced. If you link to low quality sites, Google will lower your ranking.
That's one reason why links get snipped. They are watching over you to assure you get organic traffic.
How much more credible can you get? It has virtually all the research linked to the product which I am writing about. It is more than credible. It is hardcore scientific fact. Why would anyone snip that?
Yes, now that you showed me the site, I agree with you. I would always think that any .gov site is highly respected. Maybe I'm wrong about that. It will be interesting to see what HubPages staff says about it. Probably have to wait until Monday.
Glenn, did they tamper with my articles also? How to know? Do they edit something without informing the authors of hubs?
Venkatachari, HP always sends you an email when they edit any of your articles. Your stats listing also shows you which hubs were edited. There is a little pen icon next to the edited hubs, and if you click that icon, you can see all the edits they made (changes, additions, and snips).
I wouldn't go so far as to say 'fact'.
The journal is the Asia Pacific Journal of Tropical Bio-medicine, which seems very worthy, if a bit fringey. And of very recent origin.
Published by the "China Humanity Technology Publishing House"
This is a little ominous: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/2020/
"The journal no longer participates in PMC (PubMed Central)."
There is a message at the top right side that says the journal is no more participating in PMC. Does it affect the quality of linking it?
I wouldn't know how to assess the reliability of a journal that is so new and so obscure. Also I have no idea why PMC longer publish its new articles. Could be any reason.
The articles already published are still there so I can't imagine the publication has been hit by scandal. But in an info vacuum what can you say?
Really, I was simply trying to point that you need to be wary of any data. The paper referenced offers evidence, not rock solid facts.
I never doubt the value of the rich information provided in those papers. But, I am referring to our HP staff. Do they find any degradation in the richness or worth of that information? Why did they remove that link? Nothing justifiable seems to me.
That is very interesting. I wonder why. Bears further investigation. Thanks.
Tess, this is a very rich information with so much elaborated review of the medicinal values of N.Sativa herbal healing.
I'm stumped! I don't see that link in the article or that we have made any snips to your Black Cumin Oil article. Did you get an email that we snipped it? A link's article length wouldn't have an affect on whether we remove a link or not; we just look at quality and credibility.
Robin, herewith screen shot.
It is under the subtitle "What Science and Clinical Research Says About Nigella Sativa."
And this is the article. https://healdove.com/alternative-medici … -Your-Life
No, I didn't get a snip. It just says it is not working, but it is, and when I try to insert it again, it won't inset it. So I'm assuming you removed it.
It works for me. However, it's not a good resource - it's a commercial site and he's trying to sell the stuff. He has only used information he's got from elsewhere. You need a proper link to a bona fide study.
Edit: Okay, I thought you meant the Dr Axe link.
The other one has been entered wrongly, the URL leads back to the hub so is circular. Try again by copy and pasting the link in again. Don't accept HP's suggested link.
Thanks Robin. Your #2 above answered my question as well.
This is how CNN does it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/18/healt … index.html
The page is about a female celebrity with a brain tumor. There are 4 links in the body of the text.
Two are to high authority medical sites and used to back up factual assertions: 'women are more prone to brain tumors' and there are '27,000 cases of meningioma per year '.
The other two links are to CNN stories of two other female celebrities with brain tumors.
That is all pretty tight. Let's hope hubbers stay in the tramlines.
This is a very good example of providing genuine, rich, and highly useful links.
I hope all hubbers may follow this kind of linkage to articles.
HubPages should be more flexible to allow writers to link to articles all over the internet and shouldn't be selfish to restrict to their own niche domains and that too within that particular domain. I do not support this kind of attitude.
Thank you, Will Apse.
Well I guess that's one way of doing it if you want to pitch at a newsy type of article.
For those of us more inclined to write in a more academic way, I still maintain that the footnote facility which is omitted from HubPages would go a very long way to making links both on topic and explicit
I've had editors literally send me a message telling me to add references to the end of a hub or my article wouldn't be moved. I think I'm missing something...
Let me clarify, and I'm sorry for the confusion! You are absolutely welcome to add links to articles off of the HubPages Network, and we are happy to have resources at the end of articles (in fact, we encourage it).
It gets a bit tricky when we are cross-linking on HubPages Network Sites, and we don't want to link back to HubPages from a Network Site. Our rules when we are reading articles for review and assessing links is that the linked-to pages have to meet the editorial standards of the site or they are removed. Most HubPages links do not meet this criteria, and if they are unfeatured because of traffic or quality, they should definitely be removed.
Please add references to your articles, and it is fine to have a list at the bottom. We are adding them in Premium edits. What we don't want are long lists of links to HubPages or to an author's other articles at the end of the article.
Sorry again for the confusion!
Thanks for this explanation. I had just written a comment asking for clarification because I was so confused, but you answer it all here.
Hi Robin, what about interlinking related Hubpages Articles? From Hubpages to Hubpages(same domain)? Is that Okay, or should we avoid links aimed towards Hubpages altogether? Thnaks
I'm sure Robin will reply but my take would be, don't do it.
If you have a Hub which is still on HubPages, your goal should be to revise and improve it so it can be moved to a niche site, because it is likely to be more successful there. If you link to other Hubs, then you're only going to have to change all those links when it's moved to the niche site.
Thanks for this clarification, however I'm now wondering why, for my Assertiveness article, I was told to go through my list of references (at the end of my Hub), pick the two best ones and delete all the rest? They were all links to outside websites offering resources on assertiveness.
I took a look at your article, and I believe the editor asked for those changes because it wasn't apparent that your links were references. If you format your links in a work-cited format and the links are high quality, it should be fine. Of course, we are still looking for spammy links that are masqueraded as a resource. Also, I don't recommend using our Link Capsule because the description is cut off if it's over a certain number of characters.
Ok that makes more sense. Are links to the references allowed? Or should we just list the references?
by Brian Leekley4 years ago
If this is not the correct place to ask my questions, please let me know where to go on HubPages, or if I should send an email to the people running HubPages.A few months ago an expert hubber with lots of experience and...
by BennyTheWriter7 years ago
Is there any value in linking to your own hubs within OTHER hubs and your profile page, in terms of search engine page ranking? Any advantage at all? I've seen a lot of people do this.If this is a silly...
by Brett A Rogers4 years ago
This is how I understand backlinks. Linking to a webpage that links back to you is more valuable to SEO than not having it link back to you. The more removed this website is from your own the better. ...
by LisaKeating3 years ago
I have a blog, and some of my hubs are related to that niche. Is it okay to put a list of related Hub links on my blog? If so, is there a way for them to show up with the picture and summary?
by SmartAndFun13 months ago
Is it still OK to link to our own hubs? I have several hubs on baby names, and when I wrote them several years ago, I linked them all to each other within the body of the hubs. I haven't been good about updating my hubs...
by Ben Guinter6 years ago
I'm curious to hear if there are any hubbers, who saw a big drop in traffic after the most recent Google Panda and Penguin updates, have fixed their issues and are getting good traffic again yet?I think it would be good...
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.