Wehavekids traffic has dive bombed over the last 3 or 4 months and I'm interested to know if HP has a plan to revive the site?
Can get some info from staff please?
I'm very much hoping Hubpages will do what other health sites (such as healthline) have done and employ medical reviewers to raise the credibility of the site.
It's a simple solution that works.
I invested in it from the beginning on my pregnancy site and doesn't have to cost outrageous amounts of money.
They indicated an intention to employ medically qualified editors/reviewers a while ago for healdove and its derivatives.
Nothing seems to have happened.
I was impressed by pregged dot com, by the way. Congrats.
They did say something like that.
I think they gave it a little try at one point but instead of simply reviewing articles HP got them to write a paragraph at the bottom explaining what they agreed an disagreed with the author about. It was a disaster.
Oh thanks! I decided to put my HP earnings to good use.
What I've said to my reviewers is to highlight any medical inaccuracies and give suggestions for improvements. They rarely have to though because I make sure the info is accurate to being with.
We've had a few little wrangles on the odd point but nothing major. Once they're happy with the info, I add that it's been reviewed at the top of the page with a link to the about page which contains their bio/qualifications.
For them it's a very quick and easy way to earn money. I'd guess each page takes 5, maybe 10 minutes to review.
That sounds like a fine idea, as long as it is not just someone giving their opinion on why they disagree. If some reviewer wants to come along and tell readers that my article is wrong becuase it does not follow the party line, however, I would not want to publish here anymore.
Who's screening an expert for qualifications? What if someone doesn't like my flavor of college education? i.e. Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill? That would be the biggest problem. Experts are not always objective and would I have the right to call that "expert" out on errors? Why should my work be penalized without me having an option to tell the expert to go fly a kite.
I'm pretty sure most people here could find a way to deal with differences of opinion. Seems to me that if you have respect for the subject matter, respect for your readers, confidence in your abilities and a basic capacity to interact with your peers, there should be a way through any difficulties.
Nonetheless, bias exists and it impacts websites as well as printed materials. I would not assume that everyone has the capacity to work through bias and be objective - otherwise, the phrase "fake news" would not have resonated with so many. The mental tools to apply critical thinking is not a universal given.
I am not obligated to give anyone that pass. You may if you prefer, but we cannot speak for the totality of a reading population.
That's your opinion. You cut to my point exactly. Now, are you going to tell me bias is an opinion too?
In fact, I stated, the concept of "fake news" resonated, meaning it was obvious that some things were inaccurate to the public, but some people accepted those things as real. I think you misread my post and missed the heart of what I wrote.
There are problems with experts and I completely agree that you can find qualified experts who promote polar opposite opinions. Just look at all the contradictory dietary advice out there for instance.
The thing is Google needs a way to determine if info is trustworthy and expert endorsement is about the best way they have.
There used to be an extremely popular article here that purported to have the cure for cancer. It may or may not have been useful to the people that read it, but those are the kinds of topics which have the potential to harm.
Google needs ways to assess credibility and reliability of information. That's the way the internet is evolving and as publishers we have to evolve with it if we want our work to be found in google search.
Agreed. In some ways it's going that way, but not in every way. Google needs reliability and validity; That's business.
my question is who will check the expert to make sure he is accurate and without prejudicial views. Perhaps, a panel as opposed to one person giving the review would balance out some of the potential for bias. Quite frankly, some of us here are experts in our field. Should we give reviews of others' articles on a topic relevant to that field? We have that right, of course. We are probably encouraged to do so, but oh yes, that might be interpreted as bias for or against.
In any case, we must feed the mighty beast. Here I mean writing as "the beast," whether on HP or another site.
Not sure that I would trust many panels out there. I think that whole "expert review" is not of much use unless we can make a comment on that review.
And I do agree that sometimes it is just a Duke vs UNC type of thing. There is no easy way to work around that.
The most recent pronouncement was in a blog post about HealthProAdvice.
https://blog.hubpages.com/2018/11/14/ma … emindbody/
Quote: Curated to contain articles written and/or reviewed by real medical professionals, this site will become a valuable resource that will also *hopefully* result in higher, more sustainable traffic.
Sounds good, but it hasn't happened yet. Glad you decided to give them another nudge.
Incidentally, how did you find your experts?
Ah thanks. I completely missed that post. So fingers crossed HP will decide to either move the pregnancy hubs over to healthproadvice or have them medically reviewed onsite.
I found them on Upwork and LinkedIn and I've made sure to see their certification.
I could check out your website, but thought I'd just ask you here. Do you have just one expert looking at a piece or are you sending the same article to two or more experts?
Okay, I thought it was just me. Thanks for asking the question.
Going by what people are saying the non-health sites are doing well but the health ones aren't. Plus some pages on owlcation in the YMYL space are also seeing declines.
(I think that's an accurate description of what's going on, but I'm definitely open to correction on that).
Have you got much health content?
HP have launched the new health sites so there is hope (not sure they're classing pregnancy hubs as health yet - doesn't look like it). It's going to take a good while for the new sites to build up trust and traffic though.
I have seen posts also on other websites where people discuss Owlcation and the lack of peer review.
Wikihow have co-authoring/expert review on some articles. Authors there don't get paid for the articles they contribute or participate in an affiliate scheme, but there are ads on articles, so there's probably money available to pay reviewers (or maybe they do it for nothing).
That's interesting. My hub on owlcation is holding up but it's not a topic that would need verification from an expert. Do you know how the site is doing as a whole?
Wikihow must be paying writers if there's no revenue share. The coauthoring/expert review thing is so important now and wikihow are doing well. HP needs to implement it on the pages that need it if it wants to keep up. There's no getting out of it.
I've contributed a page to wikihow and edited a few, as far as I know there are no payments made to people. It's pretty much the same process as wikipedia. People contribute for karma of sorts.
Oh wow. No payment! That's not good. Can you get in a sneaky link lol?
Not a hope! Well it wouldn't last long. Articles are "patrolled" as they call it, all the time (Reminds me of a dystopian society!) What annoys me is that once you create an article, you can't delete it. I wrote a gardening article once and it has been changed so much that it bears no resemblance to the original. Plus it has six times the traffic of the same article I wrote on Dengarden that it was based on. They also deleted my backlink from the references and wouldn't put it back.
Wikihow have zero SEO BS, high authority on the basis that they are the amateur everyday experts without ulterior motives and consequently get good traffic.
Not a model for anyone wanting to make a living, but why should Google care about anyone else making a living?
As an aside:
https://luxedb.com/google-cofounder-lar … ion-yacht/
My labour helped pay for some of those things, lol.
I guess for the site owners it's a great model, the producers not so much. Why pay for content when you can get it for free?!
Getting all that traffic to an article I couldn't get any benefit from would really annoy me!
Yeah, it definitely makes sense to have just one review it. Also, your niche is not something that's opinion based so one expert should be more than sufficient.
Regarding links, yes, I got a few from wikipedia and wikihow. They are no-follow, but they do bring in some traffic each month. Over the months it is worth the effort of heavily editing and adding to an article/page to get a link in there.
I think it would extremely wise to add forums to WeHaveKids just like BabyCenter, WhatToExpect, etc. Those are the things that show up first in the search engines when it comes to mommy-health-advice.
They do show up a lot. Do you think they're still active forums? Most people are in Facebook groups instead now.
Babycenter has a lot of active forums, but it really depends on what you are looking for. There are some specialized topics (hypothyroidism, pregnancy, & finance) that have experts and give quality advice. The boards obviously have terms that state you cannot give expert (legal or medical for example) advice, and that the boards do not take the place of seeing a doctor, lawyer, or other professional. However, you can tell that some group owners are indeed very knowledgeable about their topics and that's why they are still very popular today.
There is a very popular baby names forum that is very active, as well as a few financial boards that have daily discussions. BargainHunters (seems to be a mash of a lot of different topics/debates/discussions. I don't use this board) and birth boards are also still very popular and have daily activity.
Some of the more specialized topics (charting for example) do not have many active forums any more. It really depends on if the "group owner" is still around maintaining the board. I've noticed if the "group owner" disappears, regular members do not tend to stick around and the board dies off. You will get a few people who ask questions, but for the most part the boards/forums become stagnant and disappear.
I still use BabyCenter quite a bit and there is always something new to read or discuss. I cannot speak for WhatToExpect or TheBump as I do not use them personally.
We are working on improving the traffic to all of our sites, including WeHaveKids. We have done two tests on AxleAddict and TatRing making improvements on all of the articles on the site. We have seen good traffic growth to both of these sites since these tests. What this tells us is that authors need to be editing and updating all of their articles on a consistent basis to improve reader experience. We have tried to communicate with authors over the years to improve and edit their articles, and this is evidence that it can improve traffic.
The goal is to create the best resource on the web for the topic. When editing your articles, I suggest looking at the results that Google gives you for your main keyword. Add content from the People Also Ask section and the related searches. These are queries that Google knows that readers want, so we should include them in our articles. If you notice a Featured Snippet for your topic, add that content in the same format that is shown, e.g., if the FS is in bullet form, add your answer to the query in bullets.
As for WHK, a few months ago we had our entire editing team work on the high-traffic pregnancy articles and added resources and expert quotes to the articles. I wish we had more resources to do more articles, but it was a good start. I would suggest authors do a similar thing!
How often do you recommend a refresh per article?
Improving pages will always help, but we are swimming against the tide when "regressive SEO" brings down the wrath of Google.
The niche sites seem pretty good to me, good enough to prosper without anyone needing to supercharge them with forced interlinking and excessive, inappropriate monetization.
Also, the kind of (apparently) inexpensive expert review system Susana recommends has to be the bare minimum for EAT on YMYL sites.
Anyway, many thanks for your reply, it is advice I will try to follow.
I still say take that away. With the frequency of questions being asked each day on the few hubs I have, I can only imagine the number across a niche site and the temporary links going live while we test the waters to see if the new pages are Google-worthy.
I'm absolutely with you on that. Thousands of low value pages are either already harming the site or are going to be in the future.
Since Google Panda everyone else in the publishing world has been amalgamating low quality posts into long, indepth posts or deleting them.
We know this approach works to boost sites in the search results because there are plenty of case studies showing it to be the case!
But HP decides to go against the flow and create lots of low value pages instead. Nuts.
There are tests that have been done and I recovered a clients website that was hit with the EAT penalty, it was more of an On-Page thing. Interlinking helped, taking off unnecessary pages from the index too.
Traffic recovered and overshot what it was before the hit. Others who are really good at SEO are seeing no real correlations between expert reviews and sites being hit. But Google did specifically say this is what they are looking for, so this is something to work on for the future.
Their algorithm is still not good enough to realize when you have expert approval. It soon may be.
Thanks for responding Robin.
Updating hubs and making sure they are the best page for the title is always good, but I think with wehavekids other things are going on that are not within the author's control. Because of the niche (health) I don't think it's comparable to tatring or axleaddict.
I know Google's algorithms are constantly being updated, but the site showed the hallmarks of an alogorithm hit at the very end of September. Traffic went down by at least 25% overnight and has been on a slow decline since.
What results have you seen on WHK after the edits?
Are there any other plans apart from editing for the site?
Yup, that's good advice Also, something that I've pointed out in my HubPages SEO hub. The writers here can do so much more to get traffic to their existing articles. I see some related hubs on Dengarden and I feel like telling the writer to actually provide helpful info, some are just a few paragraphs and don't really help people. There are hundreds of other pages with better info. If you want to rank, the first step is making sure you have the best resource.
Robin, I have to be honest, the articles of mine that are on WHK that were edited by your team are the ones that saw a nosedive in traffic over the holidays and they've never recovered. The articles are beautiful but they seem to be overburdened with images and I'm wondering if that's making them take longer to load. Could that be possible?
I had some misgivings from the start about health niches. Bad health advice can be harmful - that makes it a very different beast from some of the other topics. I mean, Soapboxie is pretty much all essentially personal opinions. Not saying that Susana's hub advice is bad of course, I'm sure it's high quality, but maybe all it takes is a few people posting bad hubs to lower the credibility of the niche. The HP editors can't be expected to pick up on issues either, because they don't have the depth of expertise necessary.
The issues of hubs with bad grammar, layout, thin content, copied content, over-commercial content etc. were solved with automated systems, the MTurk peer review, and the introduction of an editorial team. Checking the veracity of the content seems a much tougher nut to crack, given the depth and scope of the expertise necessary. I mean, for some niches you would need many, many experts to cover all the subtopics.
Loads of good points here.
I agree some poor advice could drag down other content on the site. With health content the whole site needs to be trustworthy.
HP editors are mostly good but their lack of knowledge can actually make things worse. I had to take out a whole section written by an editor in one of my pregnancy hubs because the info was out and out wrong.
I don't think the issue of thin content has really been addressed. Well it was addressed and now with the Q & A it's been introduced it again.
Q & A creates tonnes of thin content.
This is one set of recommended content from a wehavekids page:
This kind of thing just does not help.
A niche site is supposed to be niche site. Linking to auto repair from a fashion page, or men in lingerie from an absent fathers page, etc etc is weird.
Secondary content should not be a self-serving exercise in aggressive SEO. It should offer the reader something related.
I must admit, HP seem to have dialed back the ultra-aggressive ad regime, which might account for the drop in CPM.
For the purposes of EAT, linking to hubpages.com is not a good idea. It has to be seen as an untrusted site for anything YMYL related.
All niche sites look like that now. There were several posts about it a few months back.
I remember Samantha saying that a new algo had been selecting inappropriate recommended content but it had been tamed. I don't reckon it has. The stuff from Maven has disappeared but there are still links back to HP, multiple mismatches and adult content in unfortunate locations..
She did, but I also remember her saying something about then trying to make those sections more engaging so that they would get more clicks or something like that. Which is why they were changing the algo in the first place.
Not a fan. Like you said it's especially bad for YMYL sites. Owlcation is also used quite frequently by schools/students, but that won't be the case anymore if the cross site links are not prevented.
Doesn't appear HP is worried about it though sadly.
One of my hubs on Owlcation used to receive traffic every Wednesday from a certain kidsrex or so search engine. I reckoned it was a school teacher telling the kids to open that page. But after these sidebar things, that's gone to zero. Could be that the course only happens in the summer? But I would rather blame those sidebar pubic hair ads.
I think you have to separate the YMYL issues from the SEO issues, even though there are obviously connections.
For the YMYL issue, the only solution is to have expert reviews and amendments to incorrect pages.
Would you trust a page about health issues here? Not sure I would at present. I would certainly want a second opinion, lol.
For me, there is no SEO solution to EAT. The YMYL sites need to be genuinely accurate and authoritative.
Fixing obvious SEO problems seems to me easier though at present. HP needs to get a grip on ts linking practices.
First up for me would be cutting all links from the niche sites to hubpages. com. Hubpages. com is on nobody's list of reliable and authoritative sites.
If I was a search algo I would be thinking "these are not bad little sites, shame they were only set up to send link juice to that deplorable hubpages, com".
Having had an algo coffee and an algo cake I would then regretfully crush the niche sites one after the other.
I think it's hard to do that, when WHK & Owlcation are not strictly YMYL sites. I can't speak for other sites as I'm not on them. Even if the YMYL articles had expert reviews, I would wonder about the articles that don't need them. As a reader would they trust those articles that don't have the reviews? I honestly don't know. But I can say I wouldn't trust most health articles here either as things stand.
I have very little knowledge about SEO in general. I'm trying to learn, but it's a slow process.
One thing that I notice about the adult content pages that people complain about appearing in their side bars, is that almost all of them are on hubpages, com. In other words, no editor wants them on a niche site, so why link to them?
I noticed that has well. There are a few exceptions with some of them being on paired life, but that's what you might expect going to that specific site. You don't expect that stuff on Owlcation or Pethelpful for example. At least the worst of it from Maven appears to have disappeared from the niche sites.
It's really not good for business and I for one have stopped browsing the niche sites. If I Google something and happen upon a niche site sometimes I click sometimes I scroll and see what else there is. I know I'm not the only one who writes here and does this.
The sidebars have really deterred me from wanting to read here. I don't need that kind of content constantly put in my face so to speak. Lately it has become bad again and there are more questionable content suggested than not.
Actually most of my recommendations this past month lately have all been articles I've clicked on previously for one reason or another. Why would I read them again? If the sidebar was redone to improve click through and traffic across the whole network recommending articles I've already "read" is not the way to do it.
I too am repeatedly seeing articles on adult content listed under "Recommended" on the sidebar of my articles. These articles are not at all related to the content in my articles, so why are they recommended to my readers? It's unprofessional, cause the niche sites to lose credibility, and can ultimately result in lower earnings for writers and for HP.
These concerns have been brought to the table in previous threads. It would be good to get a response from HP staff as to how this problem is being addressed.
It is a poor system for getting more page views, poor for visitor experience and poor for SEO (although I doubt HP would so silly as to make the links dofollow).
I think HP could again learn from healthline and how they do things.
All the promoted related pages are very tightly interconnected on there. People are much more likely to read another page related to their current question than another random topic.
Seems to be more than just a YMYL thing. Dengarden and Levelup were both hit.
I remember many years ago, HP panicking over the issue of unrelated content in the recommended section. Now it is happy to fill the sidebars with anything that gets a click.
The great traffic disaster seems to go back to the intro of the new linking algo. I am guessing it was responsible for the 'millions of low quality profiles' that Paul held responsible for the traffic downturn (though only guessing).
They fixed that issue with some kind of workaround but the traffic has not returned. Brandon suggested that they had failed to fix the real problem. Hard to disagree.
Maybe turn the damn thing off. Get a nice, simple algo that just links internally on each niche.
Am I the only one who got a significant boost in Amazon clicks from the February Google updates? Went up by 30% and has stayed up for the past few weeks.
I think HP might be unwise to do anything major in this current turbulence. Apparently there were more updates at start of March, according to Search Engine Round Table.
Branching off from the adult content topic - I have been receiving notices from Google that they're going to limit the ads placed on my articles because of "adult content." The articles don't have "adult content" attached to them besides the suggested articles. I was able to reverse this by having Google review the articles but it's frustrating nonetheless.
I really want to hear clearer answers from the HubPages team on how we're going to recover from the Medic Fix which is when my traffic plummeted. I gave it the full 6 months believing it would rebound but it's only gotten worse for me no matter how much content I add and how much updating I do. It's the niche sites as a whole that are dragging down my content, not the content itself from what I can tell (because it's also my HubPro articles that are suffering).
The reason I suggest adding forums to the sites is that any time I Google a question anymore I'm getting results from Reddit, BabyCenter, etc. (these are forums). Adding forums has the potential to drive traffic in two new ways - first, by helping our articles be seen through the forum traffic showing up in Google and second, forum users themselves driving traffic to niche articles.
Also, I know that social media traffic isn't everything and we try to appeal most to Google but we're really missing a big chunk of traffic by neglecting social media profiles for the niche sites. Look at content sites like Bustle - they get a lot of traffic from Facebook.
"I have been receiving notices from Google that they're going to limit the ads placed on my articles because of "adult content." The articles don't have "adult content" attached to them besides the suggested articles."
That is direct evidence that algo filters (or possibly, reader complaints) are at work and harming the niche sites. Staff should take it seriously.
https://www.facebook.com/search/str/weh … SEARCH_BOX
Not sure how successful it is. I do get some hits from the FB pethelpful page that HP started.
You can promote your articles on FB too. I do not do so since most of my friends do not speak English but people share my articles and from time to time I get a few thousand page views. (I just looked and I have 91,000 page views from FB. I am sure you could have a lot more if you have friends interested in your articles and you share there.)
Could it just be words like breast, vagina etc that Google is picking up on as adult content?
Totally agree with your social media traffic point. A site like WHK could be be getting millions of page views a month from Pinterest for example.
Susana, is each hubber not responsible for promoting their own articles? Why do you think WHK would get more traffic if is was promoted from HP and not from the individual author?
Yes we're all responsible for promotion but most of us don't know how to promote properly on social media.
Very few seem to do well at it.
I've learned Pinterest so I know the potential there, but the other platforms like facebook and twitter I don't promote on because I don't know how to do it.
Or I should say, I don't know how to do it effectively like an expert would. I think that's what makes the difference.
HP could hire a Pinterest manager for WHK to promote the content alongside hubbers efforts. The increased traffic would easily cover the costs, plus increase profits.
To my mind any activity that can improve the bottom line has got to be worth the investment.
I do not know what the numbers are but I am not sure it would be financially worthwhile from HPs standpoint. It is a good suggestion though, and I really think you need to send and email to the Paul so that he thinks about having one less editor and one person dedicated to social media.
If I were you I would send an email. You have enough traffic and are respected enough that it would be noticed and may be acted upon. Do not count on him getting the message from this thread.
Agreed. Having the right to respond is a great way to balance any negative reviews.
by Paul Edmondson 2 years ago
In a very limited release (2 articles, that will expand to dozens in the next month or so) we are testing a new feature and process called Expert Reviews. Our strategy is to satisfy Google and readers with high-quality content. Part of Google's webmaster guidelines discusses E(xpertise)...
by Kate Daily 12 months ago
Just curious, but does anyone have experience with this? How'd you do it? Did you tell Google the article moved somehow or do anything else fancy? Or did you just copy, paste, delete from HubPages, and wait for Google to catch up?Im guessing there might be some duplicate content penalties from...
by sirama 2 years ago
When a article is posted in Hubpages, it initially goes to Hubpages. Then, it will undergo QAP and based on the result may become Featured. Then, these featured articles goes to Niche when an editor sees potential in it. The article staying in Hubpages will not get much traffic because of googles...
by Don Bobbitt 5 years ago
I've been an active user of HP for over 6 years. Over that time, my income would increase until, suddenly, my "reads" would take a hit and my (modest) income would take a drop.This has happened a number of times, as you all know.And, I dutifully went through my articles and modified,...
by Dina Sostarec 9 months ago
Hi,Do more experienced Hubbers have any useful tips for getting your article moved to a niche site? I kept seeing advice that goes something like "make sure you write a high-quality article" but it just seems so vague to me. I have 9 articles now and the only one that was moved to a niche...
by Katherine Tyrrell 5 years ago
A very interesting article - with ramifications for anybody who has ever provided a fake review http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 … -reviewers"Online retailer files lawsuit in US against people whose names it says it does not know, claiming they offer reviews for sale"Let's...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|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.|