High CPM

1. 39

   Khanmaria12posted 2 months ago

   Hello. In two years I have noticed a highest CPM of $3 but still earning is not increased.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      theraggededgeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      You still need people to read your articles. So low views = low earnings even if your CPM is high.
      
      I suggest you remove the quote marks from your titles. It's not necessary or correct. And it might affect how they appear in search results. You'd only use quotes around titles if referring to them elsewhere such as the forum

      replyreport
      1. 39

         Khanmaria12posted 2 months agoin reply to this

         Okay:).. I will

         replyreport
   2. 83

      Kenna McHughposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      My CPMs are up this month. However, other factors with HP are frustrating, like lack of transparency.

      replyreport
2. 68

   PaulGoodman67posted 2 months ago

   The way that the CPM is calculated is complicated and varies from writer to writer, depending on what topics they write about (each topic has its own CPM) and how many views they have for each article.
   
   I have multiple accounts and each has its own CPM and they vary considerably from each other.
   
   CPM can also change seasonally, it tends to increase at this time of year following the post-Christmas slump.
   
   Because of all the variables, it's difficult to assess CPM trends over short periods. There's no doubt, though, that it's generally substantially lower nowadays.
   
   However, as Bev says, the main trouble at HP is extremely low views. My CPM ratings could double and I'd still be earning peanuts compared to what I used to.

   replyreport
3. 84

   Rupert Taylorposted 2 months ago

   Thanks Paul. This confirms my belief that CPM stands for Confusing People's Minds. Or should that be Confusing Peoples' Minds. I'm confused.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      PaulGoodman67posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Search Engines use keywords and the keywords have different values to advertisers. That's the basis of it.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         JerryFisherposted 2 months agoin reply to this

         I use Chrome as my search engine and now you'll never be at the top of the ranking as no matter what question you ask, Google AI dominates the top answer. Although I intentionally try to avoid reading that answer knowing that all AI is, is a bunch of combined stolen answers from human writers, assembled into a sole answer, most people wouldn't go further down the page.
         
         For that reason I just can't see any point in spending any time again writing another article for HP. Not really HP's fault at all as every media organisation is in the same boat - but Google must be shooting themselves in both feet regarding advertising, as if nobody except themselves can rank number one, what point would there be for someone paying for advertising when it's going to have so few views ranking further down the page?

         replyreport
         1. 68

            PaulGoodman67posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            Yes, there's no future for content creation. Those people who think Paul E is going to step in and save HP don't seem to understand the dynamics.
            
            The original problem with the HP business model was that it was completely dependent on Google and Google proved to be unreliable. That problem didn't go away but now there's AI which will quickly make traditional search into history.
            
            Google haven't shot themselves in the foot. They will make less from traditional search but will make an astonishing amount of money from AI.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               OldRosesposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

               I have to respectfully disagree with your view that AI will destroy traditional searches.  When researching technical topics, readers go with authoritative sources, not AI.  In my area of expertise, gardening, gardeners looking for reliable advice ignore the AI results and go with trusted sources such as universities, Master Gardener programs, and experienced garden writers such as myself.  AI isn't my competition.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  eugbugposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                  ...and I don't think AI can give the detail I have in my lawn mower troubleshooting guide and others, with step by step photos of real world stuff showing how to do things. It just spouts general stuff. It reminds me of the articles on Wikihow and the illustrations they concoct. Unfortunately many readers don't bother looking for detail.

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     PaulGoodman67posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                     I was using the future tense, you're using the present.
                     
                     I completely agree with you. AI needs a lot of improvement but I believe it's coming and it will be quick.

                     replyreport
               2. 68

                  PaulGoodman67posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                  People used that argument when I worked in libraries for maintaining large collections of reference books in general libraries. They (rightly) saw the early search engines as flawed, but (wrongly) concluded that people would therefore always use reference books (dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.) rather than Google.
                  
                  The reality was that most people eventually switched to searching for reference material online using sites like Google (which were constantly improving). They got used to it and large reference sections became too expensive for libraries to maintain.
                  
                  Some specialist material will likely be kept out of AI. But then some specialist material is kept out of general search through things like paywalls.
                  
                  I agree with you that there's plenty of room for improvement as far as AI goes but I believe that it's coming and very quickly. In fact, it's already happening.

                  replyreport
            2. 83

               Kenna McHughposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

               Google AI is a brief explanation. It's valid for defining phrases, words, or people. Even then, it's not accurate.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Gregory DeVictorposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Kenna, I have discovered some really inaccurate, but hilarious, information generated by Google A1 about my former stomping grounds of Philadelphia.
                  
                  The most inaccurate, but hilarious, comment about Philly was that "North Broad Street" is geographically located in "South Philly." Hardly.
                  
                  North Broad Street is north of Philadelphia City Hall and Market Street, and "South Philly" is south of City Hall and Market Street.
                  
                  Somewhere else Google AI stated that the "Society Hill" section of Philly is a suburb. Not at all. Society Hill is a neighborhood in the eastern part of Center City Philadelphia.
                  
                  For someone who is not familiar with Philadelphia's layout, all of this could be confusing.

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     PaulGoodman67posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                     I think the images are the worst. I've seen many people with seven fingers and animals with two heads.
                     
                     What's incredible to me, though, is how quickly the AI technology has improved over just the past year.
                     
                     It took years or decades for most previous technologies to advance but AI is moving at an incredible rate. The music and video generation sites only started recently but improve on a weekly/monthly basis.

                     replyreport
                     1. 69

                        eugbugposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                        This is about the level of intelligence of Bing Image Creator at the moment.
                        
                        

                        replyreport
                  2. 83

                     Kenna McHughposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Gregory, Good example.

                     replyreport
               2. 68

                  PaulGoodman67posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Yes, but the rate of improvement is phenomenal and that's what matters when you're looking at what is likely to happen in the near future.

                  replyreport
4. 68

   PaulGoodman67posted 8 weeks ago

   I'm still here in order to squeeze out every last dollar and dime of earnings but I have no illusions about where this is all heading. HP hit the iceberg some time ago.
   
   Google Search used to be terribly unreliable and full of crap. Many people in the libraries where I worked said we'd still always be consulting reference books to check or discover information.
   
   But after they got used to the idea, the vast majority of the public started going online to get their information because Google is quick, convenient, cheap, and the reliability improved over the years.
   
   AI will take over like Google did. You can talk about all its current flaws, examples of which can be easily found, but the point is that it will improve and people will get used to it.
   
   I wish I were wrong and that all the people who say they don't feel threatened by AI had justification to believe what they do.
   
   I don't necessarily like the new world we're entering but it's here nonetheless.

   replyreport