First Article Republish

1. 95

   eugbugposted 18 months ago

   I'm going to do a test republish of one article that used to get 1500 views peak for several months, settling to 200 to 300 depending on term time. Now it gets about 10 views per day.
   
   This is the tutorial.
   https://owlcation.com/stem/How-to-Conve … to-Decimal
   
   Google only likes new stuff, there's no such thing as evergreen articles anymore and they only want the latest, freshest content as far as I can see, so I'll give them something new.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      jansharesposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Eugene, do you mean delete and rewrite the article, with a new URL but generally the same content with edits/additions? And a new title?

      replyreport
      1. 95

         eugbugposted 18 months agoin reply to this

         Something like that. It's only getting about a dozen views a day compared to 1500 views  per day peak (and that was after a few months). I've nothing to lose really. The content will be exactly the same, but I'll have to reword the title slightly different to generate a different URL.

         replyreport
         1. 93

            jansharesposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Got it. Interesting way to test the Google. Might the content ("exactly the same") generate a copyright ding? If it does, I guess you could ignore it since it's your content.

            replyreport
         2. STAFF

            HubPagesposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            URLs can (and often should) be modified when you initially create an article.
            
            
            
            Something to keep in mind if you do decide to delete and then republish this article.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               eugbugposted 17 months agoin reply to this

               I did unpublish and republish it on 16th June with a different title so it had a different URL. Then I reverted the title to what it was previously.

               replyreport
            2. 100

               chef-de-jourposted 17 months agoin reply to this

               Will HP take action to halt the rapid decline in traffic across all niche sites due to TAG's ad and text layout which is undermining article status with each Google update?

               replyreport
      2. 73

         Miebakagh57posted 18 months agoin reply to this

         janshares, I'm thinking the same way as you're.

         replyreport
         1. 93

            jansharesposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            +1

            replyreport
   2. 66

      OldRosesposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Have you tried updating the article?  I update all of my articles every January and have maintained my views.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         eugbugposted 18 months agoin reply to this

         I have over the years, but it's like an article for peeling an orange, there's only so much you can add. Similarly for a recipe article. You can't keep adding to it or it becomes a cookbook. My article just describes numbers and how to convert between bases. Trying to add more content would be like creating another topic around the subject, losing the simplicity of the tutorial and should really go into a new article.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            OldRosesposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            By update, I mean rephrasing things for clarity or elegance, checking for spelling and grammatical errors, etc.  Even small changes make Google happy.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               eugbugposted 17 months agoin reply to this

               I do that nearly every day for articles.  (and still find typos that the editors missed)

               replyreport
   3. 84

      Solarasposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      4 months ago I would have agreed with this, "Google only likes new stuff, there's no such thing as evergreen articles anymore and they only want the latest, freshest content as far as I can see."
      
      Since the editors went through many PetHelpful articles and updated the main photo, while pushing the original lead photo down in the article where appropriate, I have seen a boost in views and income.  I went through and updated some of the content, and those articles have risen to the top of the list for highest views.
      
      I have also noticed that The Spruce Pets is not as prominent in SERPs.  So I am guessing that the latest Google update has made some sort of a change in how it determines the value of an article.  Perhaps age and updates are in the running again.  IDK.
      
      I will be interested to see how your experiment goes.

      replyreport
   4. 73

      Miebakagh57posted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Let us know the result of the test. Thanks.

      replyreport
   5. 93

      Kenna McHughposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      It doesn't hurt to try.

      replyreport
   6. 84

      Jan Stepanposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I am very much looking forward to your updates about this.

      replyreport
   7. 57

      shamelabboushposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      It gave me error when I clicked the link: 404 Error. anyway, this is true. in the beginning i get thousands of views but slowly it fades out. So I just keep updating the content once a while. Like today I did a full refurbishment.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         theraggededgeposted 16 months agoin reply to this

         Don't use Chat GPT for your refurbishments... people are getting banned for using it.

         replyreport
2. 96

   Rupert Taylorposted 18 months ago

   I've done this a few times to mixed results. After deleting I let articles lie fallow for a few weeks to ensure they are de-indexed and don't trigger a plagiarism warning.

   replyreport
3. 95

   eugbugposted 17 months ago

   I might republish this one too. Several high traffic articles have lost up to 80% traffic this year.
   
   
   

   replyreport
4. 95

   eugbugposted 17 months ago

   OK, it's done. I unpublished the other one so I don't know what going to happen regarding duplicate content but I 'm not worrying about it. I asked Hubpages can they redirect traffic from external backlinks. If they can't, I'll contact websites and try to get them to edit links. The old version had half a million views, let's see how this performs.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      jansharesposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Good luck!

      replyreport
      1. 95

         eugbugposted 17 months agoin reply to this

         Thanks! I think it's worth the experiment. There's some plagiarised versions out there that I'm trying to get removed, so I might have to resort to the Wayback Machine for the original publishing dates. However, I'll use the new version first and they mightn't notice the date.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Miebakagh57posted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Okay. Let's see how it goes.

            replyreport
5. 95

   eugbugposted 17 months ago

   Hubpages have moved the new version of the article to Owlcation and the link seems to have been indexed already by Google. Matt says they can't reroute traffic coming in to the old version, so I have to contact sites to get them to change backlinks.

   replyreport
   1. 100

      chef-de-jourposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I wish you well but I'm a bit skew-wobbled - do you now have two different versions of the same article indexed? Or is the old one defunct, gone, and the new one taking charge? Just how many backlinks will you have to reactivate?
      
      I'm guessing you'd like the new (longer? better?) version to climb higher in the rankings?
      If it performs well you're thinking about a gradual update of all your quality articles?
      What if it climbs high initially then drops off?
      In one sense you're crossing the border into Googleland again, this time as a new citizen with a slightly altered passport, with lots of attractive traits that the border guards (Al Gorhythm & Cor Update) wave you straight through.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         eugbugposted 17 months agoin reply to this

         I unpublished the old version, but I don't know how long it takes Google to deindex it. When I search for the URL, it doesn't appear in the SERPS.
         I can't find any backlinks, maybe the ones I remember were to a different base conversion article. I don't know about republishing all articles, maybe another few that previously had high traffic. I don't know how much theses high traffic articles were earning. They fall into the STEM category and Paul Goodman said that it's not a lucrative area as regards earning. I'll bribe Al and Cor if I've any problems.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Miebakagh57posted 17 months agoin reply to this

            The de-indexing usually took place after 24 hours period I suppose.                                 But as to the wobbles you're facing, I'm a dumb-ass to them...I'm not even computer savvy with such issues. THanks.

            replyreport
6. 95

   eugbugposted 17 months ago

   Is this something new? On another related article, the article is turning up in a slide show of Owlcation articles in the title video at the top of the article.

   replyreport
7. 95

   eugbugposted 17 months ago

   I'm going to revert the title to what it was originally too. I had to add in the word "number" temporarily to change the URL. Possibly it would be of benefit as a keyword but I don't think people add "number" to a base when they search.

   replyreport
8. 95

   eugbugposted 17 months ago

   So it's ranking in 86th place in SERPS, compared to 1st place and then 0th place as a featured snippet shortly after the original version was first published. Maybe it'll rise or it's just that the reputation of Owlcation is so bad that Google won't place it higher at the moment.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Jan Stepanposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I wonder how the ranking is determined. The niche sites like Owlcation and others may not be the most reader-friendly, but, in many cases, they are still better than some of the other sites you see on page one in ranking.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         eugbugposted 17 months agoin reply to this

         Ranking is based on lots of factors including quality of content, "user experience" and the number of backlinks from other reputable sites. The algorithm from what I can make out is still pretty much useless at determining quality and that's why it still surfaces thin content to the top of SERPS, often just because it's on websites belonging to "reputable" companies. The fact that they've brought out a new feedback form to report spammy, low quality or deceptive sites suggests that either the algorithm can't detect these attributes or they're outsourcing the work to us.
         
         https://hubpages.com/community/forum/35 … dback-form

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Jan Stepanposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            It very much seems like they are outsourcing the work to us. That's why I am not much impressed with this feedback form. It's not our task to determine what's high or low-quality content. The algorithm should be "clever" enough to prevent low-quality content from ranking high.

            replyreport
9. 95

   eugbugposted 17 months ago

   It seems to be have been removed from SERPS today for the same search term.

   replyreport
10. 95

    eugbugposted 17 months ago

    Only 3 organic search results so far, and I think they're referral spam because the time on site was zero. Not very promising, but it's early days. For some reason I've never understood, it takes time for traffic to ramp up for new articles. It's as though Google does some sort of timesharing indexing thing with keywords on the billions of webpages on the Net.

    replyreport
    1. 93

       jansharesposted 17 months agoin reply to this

       Overall, good try, Eugene. I admire your hutzpah in standing up to Google. I'll start calling you "David."

       replyreport
       1. 95

          eugbugposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Ha Ha, they keep chipping bits off us, so I'll keep pelting them with stones.

          replyreport
          1. 93

             jansharesposted 17 months agoin reply to this

             Exactly.

             replyreport
          2. 84

             Jan Stepanposted 17 months agoin reply to this

             I am afraid we will need more than stones.

             replyreport
             1. 95

                eugbugposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Probably at the rate that traffic is falling.

                replyreport
11. 95

    eugbugposted 17 months ago

    Still only 3 organic results. The original version took around 8 days to start getting organic views which rose to 1500 per day a year later.
    
    
    

    replyreport
    1. 73

       Miebakagh57posted 17 months agoin reply to this

       Good.

       replyreport
12. 95

    eugbugposted 17 months ago

    They seem to have downranked it now and the only way it shows up is if the whole title is searched for.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Jan Stepanposted 17 months agoin reply to this

       So I guess the lesson learned is that republishing isn't the best strategy. At least not now.

       replyreport
       1. 73

          Miebakagh57posted 17 months agoin reply to this

          That may be. But the long time results can varied.

          replyreport
          1. 84

             Jan Stepanposted 17 months agoin reply to this

             Yes, that's true.

             replyreport
13. 95

    eugbugposted 17 months ago

    2 to 3 organic search results per day so far after 10 days.
    
    
    
    
    
    This is the trend for the original article.
    
    
    

    replyreport
14. 95

    eugbugposted 17 months ago

    The full title of this article has now been totally removed from SERPS whatever that means.

    replyreport
    1. 73

       Miebakagh57posted 17 months agoin reply to this

       Whatever that means?                                   Google, is terrible these days. Some here will not agree.

       replyreport
       1. 84

          Jan Stepanposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          I agree with the fact that Google is a mess nowadays.

          replyreport
15. 95

    eugbugposted 17 months ago

    Looks like this is almost dead for the moment.
    
    
    

    replyreport
    1. 100

       chef-de-jourposted 17 months agoin reply to this

       oh eck, ecky thump.
       
       Something not right here. Each article is being vampirised slowly but surely. Killed by bad ads and split text.
       
       What to do? There is zero communication from staff. Nothing. What sort of people are running the show? They hide, they edit at random, they keep schtum.
       
       Remember the days of Samantha Cubbison and her lengthy messages to us all? Two years ago we were told bold and brave new things. Now look at the stats. Something rotten in the state of Denmark....
       
       Recall the days when the odd article could get thousands of views overnight, and hundreds guaranteed daily for some?
       
       And the earnings!! My God. We worked hard for good money. That one day in autumn 2019 when everything peaked and I reached a three figure sum. Will we ever return to the good old days? Perhaps not.
       
       But as authors we surely have a right to know officially what TAG plans for the future? Why don't they come clean? It's just plain nuts. The lifeblood is draining yet there's no reaction, no action, no remedy.
       
       And the madness is I've just published a new article!! And now want to start another. I enjoy writing. I love what I do. We're still getting paid but for how much longer?
       
       I have a fantasy: TAG will invite Matt Wells and his editor team to buy back HP and that Matt Wells will then offer crowdfunding to all the authors for a complete revamp of the niche sites. This is our only hope?

       replyreport
16. 95

    eugbugposted 17 months ago

    I have a theory that Google ranks webpages on the amount of CO2 they generate and the amount of power they require to display. Network site articles are the only webpages that I've come across that seriously overwork my machine because of all the ads, bringing the temperature of the processors up to 80 degrees and the cooling fans go mad. Another likelihood is that since there are so many ads, and images don't display until the ads are finished, readers are just backing out because they can't take the whitespace. I cant read network site articles anymore on my phone because they take so long to load. A minute to load is way over people's attention span.

    replyreport
    1. 100

       chef-de-jourposted 17 months agoin reply to this

       I hope someone from TAG with business sense reads your lines Eugene although I rather suspect that we're two lone voices in a long dark ethereal echo chamber.

       replyreport
       1. 84

          Jan Stepanposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          I also want a change. Even though I've not been here for as long as you guys, I still put in a lot of effort and free time to make this happen, yet the traffic never really picks up, and when it does, it's a random spike that disappears into the void.

          replyreport
          1. 73

             Miebakagh57posted 17 months agoin reply to this

             Your experience is common to many, even the old 'guys' here.

             replyreport
    2. 93

       Justine Guiaoposted 17 months agoin reply to this

       I tried to read one of my articles and the ads are overwhelming. The article is about local words translated to English so the article itself is not heavy on paragraphs or sentences hence, the article looked messy
       
       The ads are driving me crazy as a reader.

       replyreport
17. 95

    eugbugposted 17 months ago

    The latest twist in the saga is that when I search for text from the article, Google doesn't show it. However they show a result in the SERPs for the version on Medium. However I set a canonical link to the newly published version on Owlcation.

    replyreport
18. 95

    eugbugposted 17 months ago

    Still hardly any traffic, three views on Monday, none on Tuesday. something tells me Google is penalising it for some reason. It doesn't turn up in Bing or Google for fragments of the title.
    
    
    

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Jan Stepanposted 17 months agoin reply to this

       Did you use the same images in the republished version as in the initial one, or have you changed them? I think that could have something to do with it, but it's a plain guess from my side.

       replyreport
       1. 95

          eugbugposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          It's exactly the same. The old version doesn't appear in searches. The URL is returning a 404 and it's not cached.

          replyreport
          1. 73

             Miebakagh57posted 17 months agoin reply to this

             Oh my God?

             replyreport
19. 95

    eugbugposted 17 months ago

    After a month still no organic views. There are some reported by GA, but the time on page is zero, so they're likely referral spam.
    
    
    

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Jan Stepanposted 17 months agoin reply to this

       I suppose that's it for that particular article. So editing without republishing still seems the way to go, even though it doesn't give much better results.

       replyreport
20. 95

    eugbugposted 17 months ago

    I've posed the question about low search traffic on the Google support forum and it was suggested by someone that the reason it's not performing well is because the "site lacks the topical authority in the niche (computer science) that article falls into". This raises the question again of the network sites being too general as regards the collection of topics they group together on each site and whether some of them need to be broken up again into new sites with less topics to improve authority. This article I republished is about number bases, so I think of it as math. I wonder should I get it moved to Turbofuture?

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Jan Stepanposted 17 months agoin reply to this

       Most sites are too general these days, and it's a sad trend. Many niche sites and magazines have either died out or remain in hibernation, with no awakening in sight.
       
       I highly doubt we will get more niche sites. It would require more editors, and companies nowadays kick out more people than they hire, especially these days.

       replyreport
21. 95

    eugbugposted 17 months ago

    Owlcation is a large site. Maybe it could be split up into a site for the arts and one for the sciences or maybe another for education. Dengarden could be split up into a site for gardening and another for home improvement. It's probably more of an IT job, splitting sites, rather than work for editors.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Jan Stepanposted 17 months agoin reply to this

       True, Owlcation would benefit from splitting up. It's also one of the sites that seems to struggle the most currently.

       replyreport
22. 95

    eugbugposted 17 months ago

    Whatever about the ads, it's probably lack of EEAT that's responsible for the big drop-off in traffic over the last couple of years.

    replyreport
    1. 95

       PaulGoodman67posted 17 months agoin reply to this

       Yes, although Google's EEAT is a (deliberately) vague concept open to wide interpretation.
       
       If ads were the primary culprit, all the niches would be equally affected. Some niches are doing okay, even if most are in the soup.
       
       HP have been forced to completely rethink their linking strategy but interlinking articles will take forever, even with editors working hard on it.

       replyreport
23. 95

    eugbugposted 16 months ago

    I've requested that this article be moved to Turbofuture. If they move it and it does better, I'll get another one that very similar moved too. Traffic is still only a couple of views a day. One organic view registered a time on page, so maybe that's a start.
    
    
    

    replyreport
24. 95

    eugbugposted 16 months ago

    Could the fact that my new article has the same title as my old article and the new title is the same as the text at the end of the old article's URL be why this isn't getting any traffic?
    
    
    

    replyreport
25. 95

    eugbugposted 16 months ago

    I asked for some help on the Google Support forum and this was the reply. One person suggested that what I did has confused search engines because they remember the content, but it's no longer associated with the same URL, which now 404s.
    
    https://support.google.com/webmasters/t … 225536072#
    
    Someone else suggests redirecting traffic from the old URL to the new one, but Matt says this isn't possible.

    replyreport
26. 95

    eugbugposted 16 months ago

    The forum suggests Owlcation has poor crawlability. Another complaint is that it has lots of links pointing to pages that have been deleted.

    replyreport
    1. 93

       Kenna McHughposted 16 months agoin reply to this

       Interestingly, this means Owlcation is not reliable.

       replyreport
27. 95

    eugbugposted 16 months ago

    

    replyreport
    1. 100

       chef-de-jourposted 16 months agoin reply to this

       This issue is right up Matt Wells street is it not?

       replyreport
    2. 93

       Justine Guiaoposted 16 months agoin reply to this

       I confess that I'm not a techy person, but considering this information, will a sort of "clean up" (it that's even a thing) help the site's ranking, and traffic subsequently?
       
       I agree with Kenna. This give an impression that the site is not reliable.
       
       (I'm speculating on this) No matter how many  credible sources we use on our articles, it might not matter if the site itself is being viewed as not credible due to such broken links.

       replyreport
       1. 95

          eugbugposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          I've no idea. I don't know whether 281 broken outbound links and 1000 inbound links is "bad". Also I have no idea whether the guy on the Google Search forum knows what he's talking about. He could be just a know-all.

          replyreport
    3. 84

       Jan Stepanposted 16 months agoin reply to this

       Why can't the edit team delete them? They should be notified about those, right? I struggle to understand why this isn't dealt with already.

       replyreport
28. 57

    shamelabboushposted 16 months ago

    Are you referring to me? Actually all links and ads were broken. Images also needed some work due to size incompatibility. Also added few lines here and there to increase word count. Some few touches that’s all. And ah I deleted some of the outdated topics.

    replyreport
    1. 87

       theraggededgeposted 16 months agoin reply to this

       As long as you don't add AI-generated text, you'll be fine. HubPages is using an AI filter now.
       
       If you aren't seeing replies direct to your posts, go to the top of the page and click 'chronological'.
       
       Hope that helps.

       replyreport
29. 95

    eugbugposted 16 months ago

    I just checked and this article is in eight place when the whole ten word title is searched for. That's bad isn't it?

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Jan Stepanposted 16 months agoin reply to this

       It's far from ideal, that's for sure. I hope there's work behind the scenes to ensure our articles rank better.

       replyreport
30. 95

    eugbugposted 16 months ago

    When I search for a string of text from the article, Google lists the Medium version (which has a canonical link, so that wasn't much use and I deleted the article). It also lists a malicious site. It doesn't show my tutorial I select the option to show "entries very similar to the 2 already displayed".
    
    
    

    replyreport
31. 95

    PaulGoodman67posted 16 months ago

    I believe what you're demonstrating here is that republishing doesn't work.

    replyreport
    1. 95

       eugbugposted 16 months agoin reply to this

       Maybe, but I'm not giving up quite yet.

       replyreport
       1. 95

          PaulGoodman67posted 16 months agoin reply to this

          If it were shown that republishing worked, the consequences would be enormous. It would be in the interests of writers and publishers everywhere to regularly delete and republish their articles in order to gain favor with Google.
          
          I just don't see Google as seeing that scenario as desirable, and I don't think they're incompetent enough to do it accidentally.
          
          While I try to maintain an open mind, republishing just seems like a simple solution that's too good to be true.
          
          I think that "newness" is just one factor that the Google algorithm considers out of many and it's almost certainly not as important as quality backlinks.
          
          I'm talking about general articles here. With news, Google takes a different approach, as there's intrinsic value in news articles being current.

          replyreport
          1. 95

             eugbugposted 16 months agoin reply to this

             I don't understand why they list a sex site in SERPs and ignore the proper article where the text came from.

             replyreport
32. 84

    Solarasposted 16 months ago

    I think there has been an adjustment to the "newness" criteria. Adding fresh images to old content seems to have worked for a couple of months, so far.  The effect may be tapering off already.

    replyreport
    1. 99

       DrMark1961posted 16 months agoin reply to this

       I tried an experiment last week and tweaked the title of an article of mine that had been copied several times. It no longer looked any different than the rest of the things out there but still was on the front page. Anyway, when I changed the title a little to make it stand out from the others it moved back up to over 1000 page views a day on Sunday.
       
       Not sure it is going to last, just like changing those images you mention. I am going to try and alter a few more this week and see if the changes have any effect,  or if that was just an outlier.

       replyreport
       1. 84

          Jan Stepanposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          So basically, changing the title could mean that the search engine perceives it as a whole new article.

          replyreport
          1. 84

             Solarasposted 16 months agoin reply to this

             I don't think that it perceives as a whole new article, but if Google is respecting age on evergreen articles again, and you make a change, it may refresh it over the competition. Until they make a perceptible change and Google pushes you down.

             replyreport
          2. 99

             DrMark1961posted 16 months agoin reply to this

             I dont think so, as it still has the same backlinks and other things that identifies it as an article. I just changed it to make it stand out a little from the paraprhased copies, some of which had my exact same (old) title.

             replyreport
       2. 93

          Kenna McHughposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          I recently made title changes on a few articles and have noticed a rise in views.

          replyreport
       3. 84

          Solarasposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          That's terrific.  Sometimes I change titles and lose views lol.

          replyreport
          1. 93

             Kenna McHughposted 16 months agoin reply to this

             Yup!

             replyreport
          2. 99

             DrMark1961posted 16 months agoin reply to this

             This one was already on the front page and I do not think it changed page rank. (Spruce pets and one other site is ranked above it.) I was hoping it would not lose page rank, which would make it lose views.

             replyreport
33. 84

    Solarasposted 16 months ago

    I saw something strange today; I don't think I have seen before. I have an old article on Greek Myth dog names.  Another user has posted Greek Dog names.
    
    In the SERPS his is listed around #4 and mine is indented beneath his, as though it were a subset of his article.  Has anyone seen that before? 
    
    Needless to say it is no longer one of my best performing articles.  Not for a long time.

    replyreport
    1. 99

       DrMark1961posted 16 months agoin reply to this

       I have seen that when I search Pethelpful articles and find two on the same subject. Was that a paraphrased copy of your original Greek Myth dog names article?

       replyreport
    2. 98

       Shesabutterflyposted 16 months agoin reply to this

       I've seen it a few different times over the last year. Google does this for sites that have two or more articles with relevant material, where the other pages do not rank on the first page. In most instances I've personally seen, the pages are related, but they answer slightly different questions. I doubt Google has specific rules for how indented results work, but I think interlinking between pages helps.

       replyreport
       1. 84

          Solarasposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, slightly different questions answered- One is Greek names and mine is Greek God names. So myth vs. Greek common names.
          
          Edit: Apparently Google views Greek as synonymous with Greek Myth, which I think is sort of weird.  A specific search for Greek God or Greek Myth brings up Greek in the #2 spot.

          replyreport
34. 95

    PaulGoodman67posted 16 months ago

    One thing that occurred to me was that nowadays I have way more articles that get very low or zero views, far more than in the past.
    
    Meantime, HP are moving articles with low views out of niches and into Discover.
    
    One wonders where that's all going to lead. Presumably, fewer and fewer articles in the niches.
    
    I mean, some moves I agree with and I understand the importance of editing. But there are times when I feel like it's just a very crude approach.
    
    Rank or die seems to be the modern motto.

    replyreport
    1. 93

       Kenna McHughposted 16 months agoin reply to this

       I agree. Ideally, and more diplomatically, the procedure would be a warning with suggestions for keeping the articles in the niches.
       
       Currently, I am asking an editor questions about two demoted articles. I figure, why not ask and get HP editors to do a little work instead of a form letter that talks about typos and grammar, which has nothing to do with either of the demotions?

       replyreport
       1. 73

          Miebakagh57posted 16 months agoin reply to this

          This is very disturbing.

          replyreport
          1. 95

             PaulGoodman67posted 16 months agoin reply to this

             To be fair, most of their decisions regarding moves seem reasonable, given the wider context of falling traffic overall. And if the article is easily saveable, they will often tell you what you need to do.
             
             However, with, say, Rupert's work, I'm unconvinced that a niche suffers in any way due to the quality of the article. It's likely getting low traffic due to the subject matter or lack of SEO promotion. That's not the same as Google punishing the niche.
             
             Anyway, I don't have any great solutions. It just means that we have to get lots of traffic for everything. That necessarily constricts what you can write about and how you write it.

             replyreport
             1. 93

                Kenna McHughposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                They offer a quick sentence after the form letter: Kenna if you... I do make the corrections. Before demotion, they should tell us what is "saveable" about the article. If editors helped more in this fashion, I speculate that traffic overall would be better. I've worked in this industry for decades. Editors and writers need to work as a team. It pays in dividends.

                replyreport
                1. 84

                   Jan Stepanposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                   I agree with you!

                   replyreport
                   1. 93

                      Kenna McHughposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                      HP could establish a probation period for the writer to fix the article based on the editor's solid suggestions. If the changes aren't met, then demotion. It just seems backward or disheartening to demote the article first. Then, tell the writer we've moved your article (it sucks) and good luck trying to get it back to the niche.

                      replyreport
35. 95

    eugbugposted 15 months ago

    Still nothing much happening with this. One or two views per day or zero some days.
    
    

    replyreport
36. 95

    eugbugposted 15 months ago

    Maybe it's early days yet. It took quite a while for the original to reach 1200 peak daily views.
    
    
    

    replyreport
37. 95

    eugbugposted 15 months ago

    I'm still only getting one or two views per day after republishing. Should it take this long for Google to understand that the original no longer exists? It was unpublished and disappeared from search months ago.
    
    
    

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Jan Stepanposted 15 months agoin reply to this

       It seems as if some articles can get views from Google right away, while some take weeks or even months. It's an utter mystery for me.

       replyreport
       1. 95

          eugbugposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          This is why it's such a gamble writing stuff. Only a small fraction of articles might be successful.  So it's like mud slinging and some sticks.

          replyreport
          1. 84

             Jan Stepanposted 15 months agoin reply to this

             Yep, I agree with you.

             replyreport
38. 95

    eugbugposted 14 months ago

    I asked the team several times over the last couple of months to move the article to Turbofuture and haven't got a reply, so I'm going to republish it again and suggest Turbofuture as the destination, once it's featured. I want to try breaking the link with Owlcation because obviously the search algorithm has a problem coping with the fact that the original was republished.

    replyreport
39. 95

    eugbugposted 14 months ago

    I'm still only getting one view per day on average to this guide.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Solarasposted 13 months agoin reply to this

       Did it ever get on Turbofuture?

       replyreport
       1. 95

          eugbugposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          No, the team didn't reply although I emailed them twice.

          replyreport
40. 73

    Miebakagh57posted 13 months ago

    It seems to me that the one or two views per day, are manually enginnered?

    replyreport