So most of my current articles are doing okay but one article has fallen dramatically over the past year and I'm not sure how to fix it.
I've tried tweaking the title, the summary, adding more to the article but it has only lost more traffic.
Any helpful hints on what I can do or is it just out of my hands?
I'd suggest posting it in the Improving Your Hub section so we can give specific feedback.
Have you looked at the competition?
generate some backlinks, post some reviews on another's hubs
It is sometimes possible to improve the article by changing the title and thus making it more search friendly. I have noticed over the years though that some articles will get hundreds of views one month, and then go down to less than a hundred the next month. Sometimes they come back, sometimes they do not.
It is sometimes the competition, as others will read your article and try to write something even better. If that is the case, you can try to read their article and write something even better, or write another article that might eventually get even more page views.
Well if the title changes aren't helping, then it must be the competition. When I wrote the article, there weren't many prominent sites covering this idea like there are now, and Google will always give reputable sites coverage.
I'm thinking maybe I add on to the piece since it's less than 1500 words to make it stand out a bit.
I second Marisa's thought. If it is stolen, or has been in previous months it can sometimes take several months for traffic to recover. I have an article going through a vicious cycle as it keeps getting stolen every couple months. Frustrating. Everytime my traffic seems like it's going to recover it gets stolen again and my traffic drops off. It still hasn't recovered from the last time and I believe it's been four and half months since I've had the stolen article taken down.
I've checked and it doesn't appear to be stolen. I'll post in the improving your hub section soon to see if anything can be done. Thank you for your help.
Well technically I've found a few that partially copied the first paragraph I wrote but I'm ranked well above them.
Many of my articles have been stolen, way too often to waste days tracking down web site owners and filing DCMAs. My articles still rank a lot better than the stolen copies, in all cases that I have been able to find, so I do not spend time worrying about it.
This is a little test I perform on my own sites when I see a formerly performing article not do as well over time.
- Start on the index page
- See how difficult it is to reach the intended article(literally count the clicks required).
If you can click on a category tag and it's one page deep in the archive then the article is 3 clicks away before being readable. If however you start on the index page and have to click on a category page and then tap the "next" page some 20 times then the difficulty is over 22 clicks deep. The deeper it is the less important it appears because the value of the archive pages drops as you go deeper. This was easy to see when Google displayed pagerank.
One remedy is to interlink articles, which hubpages does well. The catch however is that Hubpages currently displays non-article pages as related too, ie: Q&A or Forum posts so related articles don't always interlink.
Interlinking of articles brings the value of category pages down slightly while raising that of actual articles, you can obtain the same benefits by finding/obtaining quality links on other domains. Search engines don't care where the interlinking comes from so long as it is quality and it makes sense.(ie: not obvious spam).
Hope that helps explain one of the factors for fading over time.
Also, not all articles can be boosted with high visibility in this manner, there is only one index page and a limited number of 1st pages in the categories to boost articles with. When I do this with my sites I have to decide if a page merrits being given more exposure or not and I try to make sure I make my best pages, or money pages so to speak, be the most highly featured. The rest help boost these via interlinking etc. ie: support pages that are good too, but won't become rock stars(nor do I want them to).
One more point. If a website has 50 articles about changing spark plugs Google will still only be able to top-rank one of them as best for "changing sparkplugs" so you want to make sure you feature the right spark plugs page and have the other 49 support it by being less visible on your site(so as not to eclips the one Google has chosen as best).
In some cases Google has the wrong one, but not often. You occasionally see Google link to your category page snippet instead of the full article, this is a sign you aren't interlinking articles enough and that Google perceives your category pages as more important than articles.
Internal link structure is a really interesting and complex topic. It's taken me years to get a good feel for it. Bottom line though, you make an article more important by linking to it from important places. These can be external links too so definitely get some good ones if you can.
Good luck! (sorry for rambling, I'm passionate about this topic!)
I am learning a lot from your comments but was concerned about this one and wanted to come back and make this comment. You mentioned that not all of your articles are rock stars, nor do you want them to be.
I guess I feel differently on that subject. No, not all of my articles are rock stars, but I do want them all to be. Maybe if I had 50,000 articles I would not be as concerned, but since I only have a few hundred I want them all linked and performing as well as possible. Not all of them (or even most of them) are money pages, and only a few even have products for sale, but I did put a lot of work into each article and want it to do well.
I am sure you put as much work into each of your articles. Why would you not want each one to be number one on the search engine page?
I'm not sure what relevance this has, since we have no control over interlinking on HubPages. As Raggededge has pointed out to you, we are not allowed to interlink our own Hubs extensively.
Sure we can, just not from Hubpages to Hubpages. Google does not care where links come from, to Google the entire internet is interconnected.
Lets say I have a pet care blog and I post a pet care article on hubpages. While the category pages on Hubpages may not display a link to that article there is nothing stopping me from adding a link to it from the category section of my own site to make it an important part of my pages.
Get past the idea of "domain" and just consider connections - act as if your site and hubpages are all one site and you can use your site, or any site, to make that hubpages article more important.
This goes beyond "backlinks", you are creating a link structure to maximize specific pages in a non-spammy way that simply ignores the fact articles are on 2 or more domains.
Joost De Valk is a believer in this as well - https://www.searchenginejournal.com/bes … ts/231253/
He's managed to hugely increase traffic on sites via simple internal link structure changes. It works.
also, "as raggededge has pointed out to you"... ??
She mentioned HubPages' limitations on internal linking to you in another thread.
My point was, if you don't mean internal linking (which you've just said you don't), then don't say internal linking. I'm not saying links between separate domains aren't valuable - of course they are - but it's confusing to call them "internal".
And just to be clear, HubPages has a rule that says you must not link from the vertical sites back to a Hub on HubPages.com or to a different vertical site.
internal linking = how I set up MY pages. I'm trying to convey the idea to you that you can blur domains in creating your internal link structures(and they are internal to your articles) without breaking hubpages or any website's rules.
We're not looking at this the same way, obviously.
You quoted Joost - here's his definition of internal links: "Every website consists of internal and external links. Internal links connect pages and posts on your own website and external links connect your page to other websites."
Here's Moz's definition: Internal Links are hyperlinks that point at (target) the same domain as the domain that the link exists on (source). In layman's terms, an internal link is one that points to another page on the same website."
No ambiguity there, is there? If you want to propound a theory (which you're absolutely entitled to do) about interlinking your own pages on different domains, then I suggest you come up with a new term for it. Otherwise you're going to get people misunderstanding what you're saying, like I just did.
...and I failed to convey the idea to you that Google just doesn't care about domains, they care about pages, and you can optimize the results of your pages by carefully considering the link structure you choose for them.
"Link structure", how's that, I dropped the "internal" part for you if it helps you.
I've read the same rules you have about links here and on network sites, no need to remind me, you will not see me inserting link schemes here. That doesn't mean that in writing articles here, and on domains I own, I haven't created an interlinked network of my own content with some very powerful pages as well as many pages which only support those pages. That is what an internal link structure achieves... though, as I hope I'm able to get you to at least consider, it's really just a link structure(not spam, not linkwheel, just careful consideration to what is linked from where).
It's unfortunate that authors will work hard on a blog and gain innitial success only to wonder why their traffic keeps falling. The answer is often that those early articles are buried in their hierarchy and only linked to from a page in their archieves 48 pages deep, for example.
Put your best foot forward? If this isn't the place to share ideas let me know. If I have offended you personally let me know. I'm the new one here.
I disagree with this: Google just doesn't care about domains, they care about pages, and you can optimize the results of your pages by carefully considering the link structure you choose for them
If that were the case why don't you try taking a page of the niche site and putting it up on a new domain where you have the best link structure. It won't rank the same unless your new domain has some good domain authority. What I'm trying to say is Google DOES care about domains.
The new domain is not yet linked to from the outside while the existing domain likely is, which is what makes it stronger. That page you said would sink has a lot less powerful pages pointing to it on that new domain, for example.
Look at it this way. If you own an established site and you pull any article from page 48 of an archive and create a small paragraph that makes sense about it and link to it from the index... what do you think will happen to it's ranking? Or if you move it from page 48 of the category archive to page 1?
Try it out. Don't change the content, change the locations of where/how it's connected to your overall network. Once you've mastered that then forget about "my domain" and just look at all your content as needing to be interlinked properly regardless of location.
I see this is an advanced topic not yet discussed here?
This obviously makes sense. That is why I always interlink all my hubs on related topics. If it links well HP keeps it even if it's cross domain. I got hubs from dengarden linking to owlcation for example.
That's interesting, I was sure I'd seen a post from Robin asking us not to do it.
A good read - https://yoast.com/seo-basics-site-structure/
The ideas however can be stretched to encompass all content from every domain or site you have content on. Most webmasters don't realize they have many articles competing against each other too. By being aware of which pages are being given additional strength by the link structure and their position within you can avoid this self competition and actually have one less important page support another more important page.
I'll admit, it's not the easiest of concepts to grasp well enough to benefit from. I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing, I encourage others to look it up however. Online it's called "internal link structure" but in reality all of your content, regardless of domain, can be managed as one link structure.
Tip: If you do plan to learn more about the power your link structure has over your results check out your Google Search Console and sort the results to see which of your pages hover in the 4-10 range. These are your "almost" pages that should not need to much adjustment to rise a spot or three. Good luck.
A bit tough to digest but also a good read https://searchengineland.com/improve-in … k-r-246883
I've personally moved pages that did not rank top 50 to top 3 many times but more often than not I find myself doing the opposite, which is beating down a page that I don't consider a money page to stop it competing with my money pages and start supporting instead.
I don't need you to explain link building, thank you. All I am saying is that what you're suggesting is not "internal linking". If you can find an internet authority who says it IS internal linking, then I'd love to hear it.
Most people reading your posts here are Hubbers, not bloggers. Reading your post they could easily think you're recommending linking within HubPages, and then find their Hubs getting unpublished or snipped.
You obviously know a lot about link building, SEO etc, so you should know better than to use jargon loosely and incorrectly, which only confuses newbies.
I didn't ask what you needed Marisa so I don't know why you're being rude, but you're still not grasping what I'm saying. I'm not talking about link building. I'm not talking about doing anything shady or breaking any rules. I'm well aware of the rules you're quoting at me etc.
If how you connect all of your pages together(or don't) is not about linking internally between your own content in your mind then that's fine too. Since Google does this I've taken the idea of "internal link structure" and stretched it to encompass the link structure between all of a webmasters content across every domain they own or use. How they are interlinked matters, can be used to great advantage, and I'm not talking about artificially sculpting or suggesting anything shady.
Please, if someone else has a hard time understanding what I say, or is simply interested in learning more, I'll gladly explain it to them. It's not your job to give me lashes for a word you don't like, please stop.
Peace? If someone's pages are suffering performance loss over time it is likely not the content but the result of the constantly in flux nature of how the web is inter-linked. Pages gain visibility, quickly when first published in fact, but that slows down over time. Adjusting Link-structure is one tool to remedy that which I'm found extremely powerful.
I don't know who I'm talking to yet, so I was sharing... I have no beef with you Marisa but don't need to be scolded or dismissed either for using a term you don't find accurate enough, ya know?
Have a great Wednesday.
"I've taken the idea of "internal link structure" and stretched it to encompass the link structure between all of a webmasters content across every domain they own or use."
Yes, I get that. It makes sense. I'm making the point that once it's been "stretched", it's no longer "internal linking", is it?
It seems like you're keen to educate Hubbers in the wider world of writing online - and that's great, but that makes it even MORE important that you use terminology in a way that's transferable. Otherwise a Hubber will read your definition of "internal linking" and then get completely baffled when they go to some other website where "internal linking" has the traditional definition, won't they?
Why not think up a new name for your link structure instead?
Marisa was just trying to say that this info is not really going to help the OP fix the problem because it's not lost traffic due to lost internal links.
It's not lost internal links that would be the problem, it the overall "power" of his profile page which needs to be maintained. ie: if you add 10 outbound links to your profile page the power of the links pointing to your articles is lessened.
Look at his profile page, loads of great content. Lots of the links above the titles of each of his entries points internally to hubpages but a good many(most?) now point to the other network sites... and he's up to what, 131 entries on his profile page now? It's a lot. The way our profile pages are set up each is a glorified category page but with a lot of outgoing links.
It's not lost internal links in his case, his profile page is the strongest page supporting his articles on hubpages but it's going to be linking out more and more with each new article leaving it with less punch for his articles.
Structure matters. I'd have to see what other content he has on his own sites or social profiles to suggest how he can balance that draining effect. I don't know which of his articles he considers "money" pages or his most important either... I was only trying to describe an effect most webmasters aren't aware of for why his stuff feels like it's no longer performing. He may have lost key backlinks or be facing new competition... mine was one suggestion not mentioned, that's all.
At any rate he's made changes, my best advice would be to wait at least a week or two for those changes to take effect before making more changes. I'm not here to argue with anyone either, I hope he figures it out.
This is not an argument, everyone can learn something new from anyone out there. Right now I want to know why you're saying the profile page is the strongest page he has? I never link out to my profile page from any of my articles and HP has my articles showing as recommended and popular from other pages, not my profile page. The only links to my profile page are from the forum posts and the list of Hubbers page. Would this mean, that the more I post on the forums the more links I have and that they all add up? I would disagree but would like to know your thoughts on this.
The profile pages on hubpages are designed to act like category pages do. Almost every action you perform publicly on hubpages leaves a link pointing to your profile too, including the comment you made here. Some(perhaps most) do not help but some do, especially in the Q&A section which are heavily featured in hubpages category pages.
A link to your profile is also in every article you write. In terms of the link structure of your content that profile page is like your index page.
There used to be an old program I'd link to people trying to understand how the position of a page within it's link structure helped or detracted from their efforts but I'm not seeing it online anymore. There are several similar programs under "pagerank simulation" but none of the same quality. If I find it I'll link it here. What it did was allow people to map their site, including links between pages, and it would calculate the value of any given page. You could really see the power of what I'm talking about when you made even small changes, you'd see one article increase while another page weakened with every small change.
That tool was golden, until it became overly abused by people who "pagerank sculpted" using the nofollow meta tag on their own links. Google essentially banned the use of nofollow using this method(nofollow) but at the same time said the practice was not against their terms if you did not abuse nofollow, and in fact was helpful to users if you weren't peddling spam or affiliate stuff(he states this in one of his videos especially).
That article is from 2009 - while the article makes clear that abusing nofollow tags on your own content will not help it doesn't deny that the link structure pages does favor some pages over others. You can achieve the same results without nofollow by virtue of not having links at all in some places. ie: Perhaps a similar content section ONLY pulls similar articles to show from your money pages which are all in one category and thus your support articles will link to them but never vice versa.
It's a complicated topic to grasp I'll admit but once it clicks... you'll be re-organizing your pages so that 90% of your content stands behind the 10% you want traffic for most, elevates the ranking of the 10% etc.
Some take it too far. I had a customer in 2010 who was driven to push things so hard he had dozens of excel sheets linked to his webmaster tools account to monitor rank of pages hourly. Some of your articles might only need a small push to reach top 3 while others might need a monumental effort and so he had every url, ever page mapped out against their rank and was trying to achieve maximum effect.... don't do this, you'll go insane.
Please don't go changing anything until you've read a lot about, and understand, how and why page equity can be controlled and directed. You CAN do as much harm as good! It's not a simple topic, and as someone pointed out it might not be for hubbers that don't run websites on their own domains as well.
This isn't an SEO forum, I appologize if I've just confused anyone more than helped.
I work on On-Site SEO for many clients and my own sites. I've been doing this for 7 years now. I do know about page sculpting etc. You did explain it really well though. It's definitely going to help someone here.
But what I don't agree with you about is that here on HP the profile page is strong. It definitely isn't. Your hubs do not link back to your profile page. There is a script that does it, it's not an HTML link. It was completely different when we had subdomains and the articles linked back with an HTML link, my subdomain had a PR of 3 back then (when PR was still being updated). I had backlinks registered to my profile when I checked on Majestic. But now nothing. There are no links pointing to my profile page unless I go ahead and create them myself. But my individual pages on the niche sites do have backlinks coming at them and my profile page (which is of no real value, I believe) also links to my articles with an HTML link.
Go to your profile page, view it's source and search(ctrl+f) for "@lobobrandon" without quotes. It's there without nofollow so I had no reason to suspect it wasn't a typical setup that rewards the profile pages of more active hubbers, which in turn helps their articles rise a little more in search. Alas you're right, log out and all traces of a link to your profile page, or to you, are thoroughly scrubbed from the articles. The author pages are meaningless to Google which makes each article even more of an Island.
My hunch was right, our articles sink deeper and deeper over time, but we do not have the ability to use the profile page in any type of inter-link of on site content with our own off site content. Linking to our profile pages from anywhere online will not help them rank.
I haven't performed a full audit of hubpages and their SEO tactics as I had no intention of using it to promote myself etc due to the rules, but it does seem the site does not allow a nofollow free link from anywhere and does not allow self-promotion anyway.
The methods I described will still work, if you have a "money page" here on hubpages it can be boosted easily, but hubpages cannot become supporting pages of your off site content. It's a one-way street with this setup, which is fine, it's their site.
For me it basicaly means post and forget where I prefer post and monitor, adjust what links where, and improve a few spots in Google to get more traffic... now that is fun when it works, and a learning experience when it doesn't.
Yup it's fun when it works and a learning experience when it doesn't. Just for your information, I do have external links pointing to a site and they are not just nofollow links but dofollow links. So it does pass on some juice which is an added bonus.
I guess that's why I was getting a little antsy with your comments (sorry), because I worried that Hubbers could end up trying to implement strategies that wouldn't work for the average Hubber. It's been an issue ever since I can remember - advice that works for blogging and websites doesn't work in HubPages' different structure.
You may have noticed your post hasn't attracted much comment other than myself and Lobobrandon, and the reason is that many Hubbers don't even have websites. HubPages tends to attract people who don't want to run their own site. I spend (waste?) a lot of my time trying to persuade Hubbers, especially ones with strong expertise in a single subject, that they could do much better building their own site - but a very common reaction is that they find the technical side overwhelming and they "just want to write". So when offering advice, always bear in mind that the number of experienced bloggers or website owners here is low.
Thanks for that Marisa - I just want to be helpful but not overwhelm. I type extremely quickly and tend to write too much as a result, even this idea is probably 10x more complicated than I've written here so... I'll try to make my suggestions simpler(and shorter) in future threads.
I assumed most Hubbers probably had their own blogs but I see now that's not the case Heh, they probably know more about Hubpages than I do too... again, new and trying to be helpfull... sorry for overstepping!
Not at all. I have to admit I'm a bit surprised to see you here. From my observations there are two main types of Hubber. One joins HP, finds an online home and never feels the need to move on (or tries out blogging and decides they don't need the stress). The other joins HP, learns the basics of online writing, then graduates to their own sites (and keeps HP as a social network and to host stuff that doesn't fit on their sites). It's unusual to see an experienced website owner coming back the other way, because the conversion rate here is generally lower than on your own site (that's been my experience, anyway). I think you said it's the Maven takeover that has brought you here, do you think that is going to change things?
I'm here to post the content I want without the overhead or maintenance aspect on subjects that I don't own a site about. I think 2017 was a year of change to be honest. Google's voice technology is providing answers to android users, for example, which ultimately means less web traffic to my sites moving forward. Google owns no content but is providing a way for people to get answers without typing using what it learns from our content, that's a game changer. Well, as soon as they figure out how to monetize voice it is anyway.
Maven joining Hubpages will expose Hubbers to more earning opportunities, a wider network etc. I've noticed Hubpage results creeping upwards in search results over the past couple of years too which is a good sign. Some people will reject "personal assistants" built into their phones and instead continue to want to look at quality websites, at least for a while longer
That makes sense. I'm on the periphery of online writing myself. A few years ago I realised that I'm not suited to sitting at home alone all day. I need to have people around me, and therefore it's much healthier for me to have a real-world job than an online one. So I switched my focus, and blogging/writing became a hobby rather than a serious occupation.
Even so, I've noticed the change in fortunes online. I have two websites and up till last year, they continued to jog along paying me a nice sum every single month, even though I rarely added new content. Nowadays they're down to half the income and dropping. By contrast, HubPages has been improving (from a low base) since the niche sites were launched.
Were these sites of yours losing traffic (revenue) because of drops in rankings or would you say this was because of voice search and google answering queries without the person having to go to your website anymore?
Like I said, I've been neglecting my sites and my Hubs for a long time, and that includes not monitoring my stats! However, I feel it's more likely related to Google answering queries.
I should amplify that, because you're probably thinking my neglect is the whole reason for the decline - but that's the surprising thing.
I've neglected those sites for years, doing no more than keeping the theme/plugins updated and approving/answering comments. Once in a blue moon I might write new material or update a post. And for a long time, the money just kept rolling in month after month. They had a large amount of content already and that seemed to be enough to keep them going.
Maybe something changed in the algorithm last year regarding freshness, so my lack of new material suddenly mattered? Who knows.
Or the competition just increased. Hard to say.
DrMark, there are a few reasons I do not want all of my articles competing for #1. A side effect of years of studying how search works, how rankings work etc has left me knowing some things that once learned affect your overall expectations and methods.
Example(hypothetical): You posted that awesome article last month loaded with amazing content, images etc. Now that was a true "rockstar" high-quality piece! Sure enough it skyrocketed in search as other hubbers loved it too, congratulations!
But... you had those other 8 articles about a different aspect of the same topic already posted. One of them had that solid ranking too and you'd earn $5-$10 a day from the offer you put in there mid-page. That's gone now, what happened?
A rockstar happened! That new rockstar article just became more important to Google so it's not going to feature your older article anymore, it likes the new one better and it's prominence on your site is canibalizing your older stuff. While it's a good thing you have an amazing article and it's top-ranked and all, suddenly your bottom line from your efforts just fell $5-$10 a day. See how that works?
In that scenario you want to keep your money page(doesn't have to be money, maybe it's a key page in promoting yourself or your brand etc) AND have the new rockstar shine so you would need to better control the exposure you provide to one over the other. It's very possible to have that new rockstar support the original page if your link-structure is properly set up.
This isn't an activity which is easy to master, and it takes time to re-organize a site(many months since you need to let things settle before making more changes). If done right however your visitors will not be able to tell you're doing anything at all but Google will notice, bigtime.
example: Related articles section. If you have a wordpress website and you've identified the 10% money pages and the 90% support pages(numbers aren't fixed but in my experience it's usually a 9-10 to 1 ratio) you can place the 10% in one category and the 90% in another category and make your related articles only display your money pages, never a supporting page. This way supporting pages are always supporting and money pages are never pointing to support pages. I'm not suggesting you have two categories on your site, these are for content management only and will not be seen, and you can put the articles in other categories as well. From a code perspective however there is order, and no trace of it on the page.
There are literally 100's of little things like that which you can do to prop up money pages, all of them whitehat, but you absolutely need a deep understanding of what you're doing and solid data about which are your best pages vs your competitors best etc.
I posted an article a couple of days ago here on hubpages, it's only being propped up by virtue of appearing in one hubpages category on page one right now. If that holds I'll be able to learn how highly ranked Google will allow it to rise(takes months, often goes backwards from the intended final rank, fluctuates even then). When I have that data I can decide how much of my personal content resources(my own domains) to help prop it up with for better search results, if any. It would have to make financial sense to do as I have been self employed via my web properties for well over a decade now. I joined Hubpages due to recent news, a sense that Hubpages is about to flourish and the fact I just don't own a domain about all of the subjects I enjoy writing about.
Aren't you just talking about backlinks? No, while backlinks are awesome this is how I manage my own page values to obtain the same thing that backlinks provide. Backlinks from other webmasters are not under my control, this is. I'm one of those webmasters who stopped spending resources/time trying to obtain backlinks because, in my opinion, creating content with that time and those resources pays me better and is permanent. I have not asked for a backlink in over a decade, 100% natural has worked well for me. I also do not believe in link schemes, link-wheels etc.
Writers are taught "more vs better". Write more or make what you have better. There is a third option, write with purpose and a plan so that the articles play their role and don't fight each other for rank on the same search queries.
I think I'm delving too deep into this for this forum at this point. Hubpages limits the ability to manage pages like this so outside content is required and you really can make one heck of a mess of things if you don't get it right. If I've piqued your interest in the power of link structures then use a small site under your control to test with.
- Your Google search console dashboard to see where individual pages rank on average over time
- (optional) A service that shows which of a competitors pages rank for the same and how important those are to that site in terms of traffic received. Most sites have a handful of pages that bring in the majority of traffic while the rest do little(but support!).
Definitely not delving too deep. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
by Ness 7 years ago
I used to get in the hundreds daily for traffic, now in the last week I have been getting a mere handful. Today is at 5, one day last week was less! Thats overall traffic for all my hubs Ive checked my Google page 1 hubs and they are no longer page 1. I couldnt even find them up to page 5 (didnt...
by Kate Swanson 7 years ago
This topic has been raised a couple of times in other threads, I thought it was worth posting as a separate topic to get more attention. We all know how important backlinks are. Current thinking is that simply exchanging links (site A links to site B and site B links to site A) is a...
by Paul Edmondson 5 years ago
I've been updating and removing hubs. I haven't settled on a plan for good hubs that don't get traffic. Curious what others do. My top 40 hubs are 85% of traffic. I culled the heard and have been focused on my best hubs.Once I'm through them I'll come up with a plan for the rest.
by Steve Andrews 7 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 Seth Tomko 7 days ago
I am uncertain if this same situation has happened to other writers, but I am wondering about why it seems hubpages has become a second-class citizen in its own network. I've written articles here for the last decade and been happy with it for the most part. In the last year or so,...
by Lisa Vollrath 3 weeks ago
So, yesterday, I got an email saying one of my articles had been edited: a recipe that's been posted since 2017. I'm not sure it really needed editing, since most of what was done was superficial. I checked it over, hated about half of the changes, and edited the article to correct some of the...
Copyright © 2020 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.|