A suggested improvement.....

1. 0

   ryankettposted 13 years ago

   May I suggest a new operational feature?
   
   I propose that unpublished content, in other words URLs that have been grabbed and stored for future use, should have to be used (in other words, published on) within 6 months of being taken.
   
   If somebody holds a URL for 6 months it should be taken and put back into the pool for selection, the original holder of that URL should not be able to register that URL for 90 days after losing it, if it still hasn't been built on they can claim it back.
   
   And I am saying that as somebody with a couple of URLs which I myself have held for more than 6 months.
   
   I say this because there have been hundreds of occassions where I have sought to use a URL, only for that content to not exist, and to still not exist months afterwards.
   
   An even better feature (although maybe a little too ambitious) would be for those URLs to be displayed in list format (perhaps even searchable) on a page, which can be accessed via the account screen by anybody with a Hubberscore above 75, in order to provide inspiration for topics. I bet that there are some gems out there. Just like the ideabank, only this effectively pools the ideas of people who have been too slow to use them themselves.
   
   A little like the domain dropping system, via GoDaddy auctions, anybody can pick up recently dropped domains for a few dollars; I have seen one word dictionary domains in that system before.
   
   Good idea? This would ultimately benefit Hubpages, they aren't earning money from undeveloped pages, whilst it would benefit all of us who place value in keyword laden URLs to compliment our title selections.
   
   EDIT: Maybe this is better as a compromise:
   
   "As a kinda half-way agreement, why don't we ask Hubpages to implement a scheme whereby hubbers with no activity for 6 months or more, have to release their saved urls. Something along that idea would go a long way towards freeing up unused urls while keeping the hubbers who are actively using this site happy." - IzzyM

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Maddie Ruudposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Your argument makes perfect sense.  I'll submit this to the rest of the team for discussion.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Awesome, let me know what they say if you remember

         replyreport
         1. 61

            thetvgeekposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I would say 6 months is too generous.
            
            30 days after claiming the URL would be fair! No need to be greedy and grab all the good URLs for yourself!

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I would argue that 30 days is a little too short, some like to produce numerous articles one the same niche in a capstone style and publish them all at once (this makes interlinking easier), whilst others may start on their Xmas hubs in August and unleash them all in early October, etc.
               
               I agree that 6 months is a long time though, so maybe 90 days is generous enough to those people? I can't see how anybody would need more than 90 days to complete any Hubpage or series of Hubpages...

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Perhaps HP could warn the hubber that they plan to reclaim and if  the hubber could show that they are actively working on it, they could get an extension? It could be shorter if that were in place.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     That sounds fair.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        thetvgeekposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        yeah 90 days sounds fair to me, surprised they dont already implement something like this.

                        replyreport
                  2. 0

                     ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes, just like domain renewal, maybe a 30 day reminder....
                     
                     If people don't want their keyword research benefitting others by heading into a pool then they simply need to keep their treasured title on a word document instead of hogging a URL.
                     
                     It would be easy for me to spend all day tomorrow on Market Samurai and create 2000 hub titles on unpublished hubs, that is my only real response for anybody who doesn't feel that this move is fair, I have almost 100 already. I wouldn't want to take 2000 though, because ultimately that isn't fair, I have had 200 before though, and a lot of them sat there for a long time and were then unused.
                     
                     Alternatively, how about just having a cap to the number of unpublished hubs that one can have? How about 100? There will be Hubpages accounts on this current system with unpublished hubs, never to be released into the system, never regulated, potentially created in 2006 and which will still exist in 2016. That is my real concern.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        People could die, too.  Does HP have any policy to reclaim unpublished hubs after some period of inactivity? 
                        
                        I think the warn, extend plan is fair.

                        replyreport
2. 67

   Michael Willisposted 13 years ago

   I think your idea sounds great!

   replyreport
3. 44

   Mikeydoesposted 13 years ago

   If this was Facebook I'd hit the like button.

   replyreport
4. 86

   IzzyMposted 13 years ago

   I'm against it. I've got well over 100 urls saved that I found while undertaking keyword research, and there is no way I can write that many that quickly, not if I want quality.
   I found them. They're mine!!
   Every now and then I get a batch of them written, then I find new ones...
   I suffered the frustration early on here of finding urls I wanted to use already taken, or even worse, used badly. It seems sensible to save them as you find them, and write them when you get round to it.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      lrohnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      This. I totally agree with Izzy.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      But surely the problem that you encountered when first joining is caused by your response to that problem?
      
      I understand where you are coming from with the keyword research bit, I do mine hundreds at a time too. But do you diversify your platforms? You could, for example, save those keyword titles to a word document. If it is taken by the time you get around to writing it, you can simply use it on another platform? Seeing as it would be unwise to use the same title on InfoBarrel and Hubpages (competing against yourself), this could open up whole new income streams for you?
      
      Ultimately though, I suspect that if this change is easy enough to implement then Hubpages could now see the benefits of implementing it (sorry).

      replyreport
   3. 71

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed!

      replyreport
   4. 39

      WordofMouseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed. I don't want to sound like I am saying "Neener neener, finder's keepers," but I did the hard work of keyword research and I want to write QUALITY hubs, so it does take time to write them properly. I absolutely hate when a URL is taken by someone who can barely write. It makes the site look bad even though we have many great writers.

      replyreport
5. 0

   Nelle Hoxieposted 13 years ago

   I agree with Ryan on this. Thank you Maddie for jumping in. I think 60 days is plenty. It is frustrating that people are tying up entire niches ahead of time for months on end. Of couse I just stick a buy or something on the end of any used url and continue on - so it doesn't stop me at all.

   replyreport
6. 60

   Jane@CMposted 13 years ago

   I don't agree.  If I have a subject & I grab the URL its mine.  I have several URLs that are part of a series - so those should be removed because I haven't gotten to them yet.  Some of us do not write each and every day - I'm at about once a month right now. 
   
   I thought of the idea and already have an outline for the hub - why should it be taken away?
   
   Domain renewal is different, we have to pay for a domain.
   
   I don't want to argue - this is only my opinion. 

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't neccessarily begrudge people their chosen topics, maybe a solution would be a cap on the number of unpublished hubs one can have at any one time? Say 50 or 100?
      
      I didn't really mean to upset established hubbers with this proposal, and hope that they don't hold it against me, my major concern is the number of people who use the site for a while and then dissapear forever (the majority, it seems). There are potentially thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of URLs being sat on by people who NEVER have the intention of publishing on them.
      
      Just as an example, I can remember a Hubber named Helen Cater who got into her keyword research and learnt a fair bit, published 46 hubs, and then dissapeared to pursue other things around a year ago http://hubpages.com/profile/Helen+Cater
      
      What's the betting that she never deleted the unpublished hubs which were the result of her new found keyword research skills? And will these remain in her pot until this site ceases to exist? Under the current system they would.
      
      So I hope that Hubbers can see that I am not attempting to declare war on anybody or targetting anybody in particular, just identifying a problem which can grow in line with the increased scarcity of topics and saturation of markets (2200 hubs published a day apparently).

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The Helen Cater is an excellent example.
         
         I have no stake in this - I don't care a bit about using the perfect URL.  However, I know some of you do, so this does make sense.
         
         When I find the URL I want is taken, I just stick "pcunix-" ahead of it.  Works for me.. And my bet is it works just as well for Google.

         replyreport
7. 71

   sunforgedposted 13 years ago

   Its not a bad idea - I tend to care less about the specific URL anymore.
   
   But there are so many things that would be great to see happen first, I hope this is a quite low priority.
   
   Still would love to see a kontera replacement, better management on the backend for viewing lots of hubs (which seems to be in the works) , more, always more integrated monetization opportunities, much of this has been discussed and mentioned over the years and would be great to see happen sooner rather than later.
   
   How about mobile ads? mobile is the future and I want my hubs to make money in that venue also - I think I saw some stats that showed a distressing number of mobile viewers to the hubs platform.
   
   As Nelle said, stick a word on the end or beginning and move on and let the staff work on truly beneficial projects.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I am in agreement with regards to a Kontera replacement or other affiliate options, but that debate is a well trodden path and the stuff being displayed on Hubpages share of impressions recently suggests that they are already busy exploring other options in that area.
      
      A more mobile friendly site, which is subsequently monetized, would also get support from me. But Hubpages had 7 staff 18 months ago, 23 now and looking to rise, I suspect that they can pursue multiple improvements.

      replyreport
8. 0

   Nelle Hoxieposted 13 years ago

   While I do think it should be dealt with - especially with the increasing number of hubbers - it really isn't protecting niches and KW research the way people seem to think it is.
   
   I'm with Sunforged that I don't believe the exact url is as important as some think it is. When I see the keyword phrases that are leading people to my hubs, I'm not stressing about them as much as I used to.
   
   Rarely do I rank for the 2 word seed phrase. It's more likely a 4 or 5 word phrase.

   replyreport
9. 71

   sunforgedposted 13 years ago

   lol - im just saying I dont like suggestions anymore , the chitika tests and other such stuff are old news and already integrated into yieldbuild .. It looks like the big interactive ads didnt work out and iM sure they will keep giving other adnetworks opportunities to be profitable .. the rub, is which networks will be willing to work out smaller relationships with individual hubbers. That takes some manpower on hubs end.
   
   Your good at suggestions that make sense, but if they get to many of them - it looks like we end up with cosmetic changes and not nice big changes - you should still be flogging the amazon uk suggestion!
   
   thats lost money! .. adding a digit to your URL is really nothing in the scheme of things

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The one and only suggestion which I did decide to pitch once again, albeit briefly, to Paul Deeds (and Paul Edmondson in the street) at Hubpages HQ was the Amazon.co.uk one (at risk of being slapped)
      
      It feels inappropriate to reveal a private answer on a public platform, other to confirm that I am confident they have taken on board that suggestion.
      
      An alternative to eBay would be nice, if only there was another major online auction room hey? If anybody ever did decide to challenge the dominance of eBay, there would be no shortage of affiliates from Hubpages willing to grow their business.

      replyreport
10. 86

    IzzyMposted 13 years ago

    As a kinda half-way agreement, why don't we ask Hubpages to implement a scheme whereby hubbers with no activity for 6 months or more, have to release their saved urls. Something along that idea would go a long way towards freeing up unused urls while keeping the hubbers who are actively using this site happy.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       That would seem a decent enough solution, which nobody would have a right to feel aggrevied with, and thus saving me from potentially becoming a figure of hate
       
       It would be nice if those URLs still went into a pot, maybe as a once a month thing because the quantity may not be great, for us to pick through like a jumble sale. Maybe we could take a maximum of 5 a month or something.

       replyreport
       1. 89

          Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Maybe they should auction them as so many of you think they have real value.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I believe that the URL does have importance when it comes to SERPS, yes. Not as much as the title, but some importance nonetheless, and seeing that you have chosen to display titles in the permalinks of your own website it appears that you do too. If you didn't, you would have post numbers or something.

             replyreport
             1. 89

                Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Seriously - you think
                
                Shaggy-dog-breeding-tips is better than
                
                Ryankett-Shaggy-dog-breeding-tips
                
                for SERP?
                
                I'm not arguing that it isn't - I just can't think it can be very important.

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Probably not overly important, as demonstrated by the URL for the top result when searching for 'Dog Breeding Tips' which is:
                   
                   http://www.emaxhealth.com/117/6723.html
                   
                   But aesthetically, I would much rather not use my username. It is probably more important with search engines other than Google, seeing as Google allow you to rank for synonyms which aren't even mentioned in a page of content.

                   replyreport
                   1. 71

                      sunforgedposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      hey your search turns up something cool -
                      
                      in my us search, i get the same top return - but look at number 3
                      
                      http://hubpages.com/hub/Practical-Dog-B … g-Breeders
                      
                      
                      url is relevant to discussion - but more interestingly (I edited a bunch out to be nice)

                      replyreport
11. 59

    paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago

    I just snagged the URL "Snooki".
    
    It is for sale.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Alas! I have tossed the Snooki url back into the gene pool. It is my understanding that it will be available to whoever wants it in 24 hours.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I don’t believe it! I just did a site search, and there are apparently over 100 Snooki hubs. And not one of them used the Snooki url! I have decided to mull this over and have reclaimed it.

          replyreport
12. 72

    livewithrichardposted 13 years ago

    Personally, I don't have a problem with this suggestion however there may be one problem that needs to be addressed, there is no date stamp on new url's until after they are published so how is it going to be determined the age of unused url's? 
    
    Maybe there should be Learning Center write up on how to optimize URL's until the HP Staff can come up with a solution.

    replyreport
    1. 89

       Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       You don't see a date stamp, but the file has a date stamp that HP can see.

       replyreport
13. 71

    sunforgedposted 13 years ago

    its pretty accepted that keywords in url have relevance, the majority will even suggest that..
    
    www.nuclearantfarm
    
    is better than
    
    www.accessories.com/nuclearantfarm
    
    
    but
    
    www.accessories.com/nuclearantfarm
    
    and
    
    www.accessories.com/nuclear-antfarm
    
    www.accessories.com/nuclear_antfarm
    
    and
    
    www.accessories.com/mynuclearantfarm
    
    and
    
    www.accessories.com/yournuclearantfarm
    
    and
    
    www.accessories.com/anuclearantfarm
    
    and
    
    www.accessories.com/buynuclearantfarm
    
    and
    
    www.accessories.com/ratenuclearantfarm
    
    and
    
    www.accessories.com/nuclearantfarm1
    
    and
    
    www.accessories.com/nuclearantfarm2
    
    
    are all on equal footing in my experience - and it seems to be less and less of a power player w/ G

    replyreport
    1. 89

       Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Oh, of course using the keyword in the domain is better. But we are talking file names here.
       
       HP could solve the whole thing if they filed our hubs under our profile names.

       replyreport
    2. 0

       ryankettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Well my idea has been well and truly ripped to pieces then hasn't it?
       
       I am left only with 'aesthetics', I am happy to concede defeat and move to the nuclear ant farm.

       replyreport
       1. 89

          Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I still think it's a good idea. People shouldn't hoard URL's forever.

          replyreport
       2. 72

          livewithrichardposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I don't think hoarding the url's is a problem. After sleeping on this, I think there may be an easier way to resolve the issue by changing the permalink structure from:
          
          %domain%hub%title% to
          
          %domain%title%author% or even %domain%hub%title%author%
          
          I think this structure would provide a better SEO benefit as well as allow every hubber their choice of url:
          
          http:/hubpages.com/dog-breeding-tips/ryankett  or
          
          http:/hubpages.com/hub/dog-breeding-tips/ryankett
          
          would not be the same as
          
          http:/hubpages.com/hub/dog-breeding-tips/livewithrichard
          
          (just an example, I don't have or want that url)

          replyreport
14. 0

    ryankettposted 13 years ago

    Point taken
    
    It is 11th on mine by the way, but she has done fantastically at 3rd in the US search for a term like that.

    replyreport
15. 82

    CMHypnoposted 13 years ago

    You learn something every day, as I did not know that people stored urls.  I keep my hub topic ideas/keyword stuff on a word document and write the hub first and then get the url - I have 29 pages worth, so maybe I should go on a url creation spree?
    
    As it's not something I have ever done, I'm more inclined to the use it or lose it argument, especially in regards to inactive hubbers

    replyreport
16. 90

    Howard S.posted 13 years ago

    Proposing to amend only a certain part of this discussion:
    
    If there is a max a hubber can reserve, it should depend partly on their production history. For example, "a max of 100 or half of the hubber's published hubs, whichever is smaller." It isn't good for a newbie to become too overextended.

    replyreport