We all want hubpages to be full of hubs that are informative, containing facts, well-researched observations, or personal insights in various areas.
Yet some of the most popular hubs are, frankly, JUNK, IMHO.
Here's one, again, IMHO:
Since iPhone 5 doesn't exist (yet), this clearly contains zero facts, and the title is a lie. The speculations are cribbed from various tech sites and are horribly OBVIOUS. Yet, it is one of the more popular hubs on Hubpages (before the "farm weeding" started) Just look at the number of "likes" on the hub! 957 rating of "useful"? WTF?!?!
Yet it is certainly making Hubpages $$$ (at last before the "farm weeding")
IMHO, Google is trying to weed this sort of junk from their search engine results. It provides NO useful info, but have bazillion proper keywords and somehow captures eyeballs.
So HP basically have two choices: bypass Google, or join Google.
Bypass Google: figure out what sort of algorithm is Google using, and figure out some way around them. Seems every sort of content farm is trying something like that, but Google have more engineers.
Join Google: help Google improve the quality of their search results by NOT spamming the hubs with keywords, and maybe editing them before presenting them to be searched, much like Wikipedia.
So, which will it be?
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Good and "bad" are subjective.
Make that 958 from me.
Yes, iPhone 5 isn't out yet and average hubbers would probably need a press pass to be the first few to know.
I also thought the hub was funny. "I NEED ATTENTION" clearly was a joke. I also enjoyed the clever use of "Apple fangirls"(hubber's a girl) and the light-hearted poll option.
Obviously I didn't take the hub seriously but at least it wasn't flat-out spam like most of the "Buy a X Product Online" hubs.
I don't think you can put speculations in the same realm as spam, violent content, or porn which is officially defined by Google.
Google's not dumb. Sure, the hub is #1 for the term "iPhone 5 Review" but it can't compete when Engadget and Cnet gets their hands on the iPhone 5. Don't like it? Compete. Rest assure, competition will ensue.
TLDR: Lighten up.
gotta add "20 gigawatt gazillion megapixel already in the iPhone 4 wasn't enough..."
Machines[for now] only see this as a lie. Humans see this as a joke. Google is trying to cater towards humans. Because iPhone 5 isn't out yet, people wouldn't normally take it seriously. [Smart] People wouldn't get so upset. Yeah, it's misleading but it's fun. Should I not be allowed to write about a Sony PS5. How about a review on the Gillete Mach 20 Hyper Turbo NAWZ Edition?
"I don't think you can put speculations in the same realm as spam, violent content, or porn which is officially defined by Google."
Yes, good point. All that comes first.
I think it is a great hub. I think you are just exposing what is weak with Google, the inability to actually assess good content.
I gave it a plus just before I noticed that over 37,000 people voted in the poll. Guess only about 1850 of us really hate the iPhone.
If nothing else, this type of hub is actually forced due to the way Google does rankings. I see it as grabbing an emergent keyword before it is too late. For all we know, this hub may be completely rewritten when the product is released. For now, at least it is funny.
I did worse with an emergent keyword. Wrote a lousy hub to grab a spot on Google, rewrote the hub when the product was released, and now I have a good hub that is on the top page on a Google search for a bunch of terms related to that product.
I did learn something from reading that hub. Maybe next time that I am grabbing an emergent keyword with a future product, I will try and make a funny hub instead of a dry speculative hub.
I read the hub and it is clearly about a product not released yet. The hubber uses phrases like "is expected" and "will be" when talking about the Iphone 5.
I write hubs about video games and some of them are about games not yet released. The game makers leak out facts and rumours I gather together in one article, so readers don't have to look up ten different sites for the info.
The title is misleading though. It should be changed to Iphone 5 Preview or Rumours.
Google doesn't think this hub is junk --- Google lists it in the SERPs as the #1 result. If you want to deal with Google's changes, find a hub that's been knocked back 10 or 15 pages and analyze that one.
The entire basis of this thread is wrong --
And that's the sad part about Google's algorithm... it's NOT weeding out the junk!
Actual NEWS websites with real iPhone 5 rumors, like MSNBC, is relegated to 3rd place!
Clearly Google is basing some of the ratings on the comments and ratings and such, but how much?
I mean.. come on: "Right now it looks like the new iPhone 5 will be running on a 4G network (instead of the usual 3G). That means that some of the most likely network carriers to get a plan under are Sprint, T-Mobile, and maybe AT&T and Verizon. "
Gee, "some of the most likely network carriers" is a list of major carrier in the US! What a completely ****ing obvious statement! And where did this rumor came from? No ****ing idea.
By Google standards, which from their announcement, means "original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on", that hub ain't it. No research, no report, no analysis.
(source of Google quote: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/ … es-in.html )
Very popular hub and I was all fired up to criticise but I actually found it entertaining and humourous. Arguably worth a read.
This is the problem with critiquing pages. Some are obviously rubbish, others less so.
As a spoof, con artist, humorist - call me what you will - myself - I don't really want the web to only contain dry factual information.
I want to be surprised, delighted, amused, entertained and perhaps most of all - distracted from the boring mundane nature of everyday life.
Which is why I am slightly concerned about the definition of useful or informative pages. If everything is a serious answer or sales piece there is no room for me. Except the humour ghetto - but where's the fun in that?
Mark, humor is one of the most useful things I can think of! I doubt you need to worry about not being useful.
Honestly if the site were nothing but sales hubs and how to hubs the site overall would not have the reputation for supporting all sorts of good writing. It would wind up with the reputation of a commercial, you are the yang to the commercial yin of HP.
Ah, but that's the question... You know when you go to the Onion, you KNOW you're getting satire and such.
But what sort of place does Hubpages want to be? A portal for facts, or a portal for facts mixed with satire, with no way of telling which is which?
While I find the hub mildly entertaining, it provides ZERO useful information, and is certain NOT a review.
I have no problem with poetry, satire, humor and such on Hubpages, but finding them mixed in with the factual hubs and USEFUL hubs is, IMHO, what's gotten "content farms" the bad rap.
I appreciate your point and understand it. I hope you might see mine.
A JOKE book or a SATIRE book does not have the same impact as the stumbling upon something in a less obvious setting. I like jokes and satire, but would not choose to spend my day reading essentially the same rehashed satirical comment from the Onion, Daily Mash etc. Bit boring.
Conversely, looking through the web for anything is tedious and mind numbing. Is it OK to surprise someone with some humour to make a change from the cringe making amateur and professional comment?
But I don't know what HP wants. Maybe they'll boot me out.
Now THAT would be quite funny.
I'll leave you with a little something from arguably the greatest ever satirist - Peter Cook. He used to occasionally ring up the late radio show shipping forecast and pretend to be a trawlerman in the North Sea. There was no money, no fame in this... and perhaps no point. But as a contribution to the world we live in?
Unbeateable imo. And worth a thousand Wiki style pages.
Oh, I understand, but if I am actually looking for "iPhone 5 Review", I would want REAL information, not this sort of "junk info".
If it was CLEARLY MARKED as humor, great. But this is NOT humor, but a clear attempt at keyword spam junk content, IMHO.
We are collateral damage of this sort of content.
That's fair enough. I already have one argument on the go.
You're missing one thing.
Google robots can't read.
There is NO WAY the Google algorithm could be looking at this content and critiquing it. This is not the stuff Google is after. Get over it, please.
Take a look - as others have said, there is plenty of genuinely bad stuff without picking on someone whose sense of humour you don't get.
If I want humor I'd be reading a humor column, or a comic, not reading hubpages.
I would argue that it is precisely the stuff Google's trying to get rid of, and the rest of us on hubpages are collateral damage.
You can argue the "value" of humor in hubpages, but that's rather besides the point. The point is would killing MISLEADING hubs be better or worse for Hubpages, and I vote for better.
o.O I used to come to hubpages specifically to read funny stuff I couldn't find elsewhere.
Humor isn't junk, it's a type of art. Once the iphone 5 comes out and people can't figure out that it's humor, then it's junk.
kschang, you're missing my point.
How do the Google robots judge the Hub in question? There is no way Google could design an automated algorithm to judge the "quality" of a Hub like that. They can check for duplicated content, adult words etc - but they have no way to assess whether something is misleading.
So your point is, we should let Hubpages mixed the stuff in, even though Google seem to be trying to weed them out?
Or as you saying that Google has no sense of humor, so we should not be using Google (despite it is the biggest source of incoming traffic)?
I guess I see your point, but I don't quite see the RELEVANCE.
You really are a straight shooter. Do you get this upset when you get Rick-Rolled?
It's like seeing a video with Rick Astley on the preview and getting mad because you felt mislead.
You know the iPhone 5 isn't out yet so why so upset?
A few years ago, I was at the public library and an elderly lady made a scene because a pop-up ad told her "she won!!"
Was she mislead? Yes. But people expect these ads to be ads.
The computer lab tech explained to her that it was not real. Many people are saying the same thing to you.
Of course you know it's not real but it's also not that big of a deal you're making it out to be.
I think you're missing the point. Google's search algorithm don't have a sense of humor. I'm sure YOU can debate the ethical side and what is the cost of eliminating humor and "speculation" and all that, while our income takes a nose dive due to this sort of junk content.
The choice is clear: either we get rid of junk content (as define by Google), or we somehow find a way to get through the Google filters. It sounds like you don't want to do the former. Guess that leaves us with the latter.
No, sadly, it is you who are missing the point.
That's not junk. It WILL be junk eventually, but it is not now.
So what exactly is useful about that hub that makes it "not" junk?
I think at least 3 or 4 people have explained it, haven't they?
They said it was "humor". I guess I fail to see how that can be construed as "useful".
Humor makes people happy
Happiness makes you want to live.
Hapiness is useful.
Therefore humor is useful.
Well that's a real problem. You should seek help for that, it's a serious condition that will severely affect your quality of living and no doubt end in an early unhappy demise.
You said it yourself: "The speculations are cribbed from various tech sites".
Cribbed speculation, wrapped in humor. It's fine, though not evergreen.
Cribbed speculation, and misleading title, does NOT make it "junk"?
or perhaps are you just saying it's junk, but it's not the worst junk there is?
No, I don't agree that it is junk. As I said, it is speculation thinly wrapped in humor.
I agree that it will BECOME junk once the new iPhone arrives.
Google's definition says it's junk NOW, but it has survived the filter thus far.
"original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on"
source: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/ … es-in.html
You're arguing a position I don't hold. A straw man. I'm not debating ethics. And I don't promote "getting through Google filters".
What you consider bad content and junk is opinion and it was rather unprofessional dumping the URL here.
I understand your little point fine. The definition of "junk" was my argument. Not ethics or blackhat SEO.
Many people here have no objections to the hub you used as an example.
You are also drawing a conclusion prematurely. The choice is clear? LOL
I know Google's algorithms don't have a sense of humor. That just means the hub was written for people.
You are behaving like a school bully picking on that hubber who is not here to defend herself. If you have a problem with the hub, contact a staff or better yet, the hubber.
Your ultimatum is poor and hasty. My suggestion is to relax and wait. We can't assess the situation if we don't even know the whole story. Let the dust settle before we start burning [innocent] hubbers at the stake.
You have a hasty generalization there: that many hubbers seem to have no problem with the hub. Many hubbers who choose to comment here seem to have no problem with it. That doesn't mean they are necessarily a representative sample of all hubbers.
Furthermore, isn't the whole thing about what GOOGLE thinks of the content, instead of what fellow hubbers think about it? Do what we think about it matter at all?
You got me on that bit of strawman and false dilemma. Touche.
As for posting that hub URL here, is there really another choice when I was trying to make a specific point? or was I supposed to let you Google it?
This is NOT a vendetta against that one hub. I just happen to use it as an example of what I consider junk content... because it is NOT what it says it is, and it's clearly NOT parody or satire. If you consider it humor, fine. But what does Google think it is? Is that one of the hubs that got weeded after the algorithm change? Or did the weeding affect it at all?
That we would not know.
Another straw man. I said "many", not "all". I never claim all hubbers were ok with it. This is the problem when you try to impose your definition of "junk" onto others.
"was I supposed to let you Google it? "
So the serious Kschang has a sense of humor after all. Situational irony or a snipe?
You are asking questions neither you or I have answers to.
Read the last sentence of that top post again.
and one more thing.
"...due to this sort of junk content."
Stop insinuating that the hub is "junk." That's your opinion. Many people here didn't mind it at all.
Find it have "humor" value is not the same as it having any INFORMATIONAL value.
Informationally it is junk.
You are moving the goalpost. Another fallacy.
You are redefining "junk" to include "informational value."
Have it your way. But lets see what else fits in YOUR definition besides humor.
You should just stop.
I would say it's all the OTHER people who's redefining the term. Quoting myself:
"We all want hubpages to be full of hubs that are informative, containing facts, well-researched observations, or personal insights in various areas. "
It's NOT a moving goalpost at all. it's MISINTERPRETED goalpost. I see hubpages as an information portal. And that's what I've said all along. If you don't see it that way, that is entirely up to you.
Never once have I expressed my stance on what I think HubPages is or should be.
If you think HubPages is an "information portal", then that's your prerogative. Irrelevant to me.
You are also drawing a false dilemma again.
You didn't say it, but you are arguing there is a place for non-information content, did you not? Or is there some equivocation in that declaration?
(BTW, I'm enjoying this exchange. )
Google's definition of "good links"
original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on
The only one that matters. Right?
Since when were we (you and me) talking about Google?
I suggest you actually keep track of your own thread.
Since you're such a big fan of jokes and emoticons, I will HUMOR you.
Can you please explain to me what that "and so on" part means?
Like I suggested earlier, just stop. Wait for the dust to settle before recklessly quoting Google as if you know what's going on.
the hub provided me with some useful informative values.
For example: The iPhone 5 will likely be better than the iPhone 4.
Also, the poll provides some informative marketing data. Apparently, over 70% of user that participate in the poll will buy an iPhone 5.
Yes, I am reaching but so are you. Care to try again?
KS, I think you're one of those folks who are born crying so loud that it traumatizes them to become incapable of thinking subtleties the rest of their lives. For that, I will hold vigil for your unborn acumen this week. Good luck, and good night.
Come on, who actually searching for "iPhone 5 review" would NOT even hazard a GUESS that iPhone 5 will likely be better than iPhone 4? Doh!
If you consider that "useful" I guess you can write a hub "Sun Review: Sun will likely come out of the east tomorrow" (yes, that's a joke)
If a hub's information is based on the poll it provides, it's not really offering information in itself, is it?
it's marketing data. Would you also claim that Google trends is not really offering information in itself?
Again, you are reaching and moving the goalpost. You can call it misinterpreting the goalpost if that helps you defend your position.
You defined "junk" as having no "useful information." That, in and of itself is still subjective.
Some people may not know where the sun will rise. Who are you to to speak for hubbers as to say what is or isn't junk?
You asked me to provide you with the useful information but then say it's not good enough. I've satisfied the conditions but you change the rules. That is moving the goalpost.
"Moving the goalpost"? We can not even agree on where the goalpost is!
I think we can agree that your definition of "useful" is different from mine. But accusing me of "moving the goalpost"... Nah. We need to define "useful" first.
that's your fault.
First, you said the hub is junk.
Then, you said junk is no useful information.
When I satisfy the conditions, you say our definition is different.
Not moving the goalpost? LOL Okay buddy.
You have committed a number of fallacies including straw man, false delemma, and moving the goalpost.
"We" don't need to define anything. Your argument is flawed. Not mine.
(Have to reply to that previous one as we've ran out of levels)
I would say you redefined useful as including humor, when I've always said useful was referring to information-wise useful.
Wouldn't that be YOU that moved the goalpost, by mentioning humor and such?
You are lying.
I have NEVER redefined anything.
Saying that the hub is funny does not mean I've defined or redefining anything.
That post is, once again, a straw man. You are arguing a position I don't hold.
Maybe perhaps you've mistaken me for Rising Caren?
Please clean up you reply if you want further discussions. That means no more fallacies.
Oh, there you go again. Dancing sideways. You're not holding ANY position. All you're doing is criticizing my position.
Every attempt to pin you down results in a counter-accusation of either "you're lying" or "I didn't say that".
So what exactly ARE you arguing?
It seems your the one dancing sideways. You quote a Google blog post and when I asked you to define "and so on", you dodge the question.
If you were to check all of my post, my "counter-accusations" are anything but since they are true. When I say "you're lying" and "I NEVER said that", it's true.
I am arguing and criticizing your position.
You are defining junk based on your opinion and presented a false dilemma on the first post of this thread.
See for yourself:
"So HP basically have two choices: bypass Google, or join Google."
I don't need to present an alternative argument if the basis of your own thread is inherently flawed.
If your argument was strong, you wouldn't need to "pin" me down. It would hold itself. But hey, whatever turns you on.
I like how this guy talks about value judgments as if they were absolutes woven in the fabric of reality. Let me get my popcorn, please continue.
The ultimate judge here is Google's algorithm. What you and I think are irrelevant. The question is... is Google algorithm closer to what I think or closer to what YOU think? Hmmm...
Unless someone managed to hack the stats of that hub, I doubt what this thread thinks have any relevance to that question.
My point is that this thread shows me YOUR thoughts, which don't match what I know.
Specifically, you think that Google only wants "original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on".
If interpreted as you do, that would discard ALL humor, wouldn't it? But I know that isn't true, so obviously these words only matter WHEN THAT"S WHAT THE PAGE SHOULD BE.
Humor doesn't fall under that.
Google's thoughts are pretty clear from their blog post. Maybe you should dig it up and read it.
It doesnt matter what Google says on its blog - it matters what their robots are capable of doing. And their robots have no capacity to judge according to those criteria.
Therefore, whether or not the Hub in question meets those criteria is totally, completely irrelevant - because Google can't judge whether it does or not.
I have people on my facebook whom do not realize the Onion is satire. Not everyone is so keen up there, ya know?
That guy trying to tear Mark Ewbie a new hole isn't made because Mark wrote a satire. He's mad because he didn't get it and we had to explain it to him
Maybe you should get the facts straight first. Mark ain't the author of that hub.
Yeah Bronson, stop aspersioning me. If I had of wrote it I'd of put my name on it unless I was using a plume or summat. Maybe an iPlume. That would be cool.
kschang - hot hubs - page 1 - half way up, or down depending on how you see life - a misleading effort by me. Not plugging it, just curious to see how you would view it?
I can take criticism btw - just not so much the flagging.
It was pretty clear from the beginning that you're writing a satire / parody of a how-to article. That's hardly misleading. I mean, come on... "Three months - which is a lifetime in article writing terms." How was I supposed to take you seriously after that?
I found the hub useful.
When new technology is released, the people who already understand it, including the company's marketing guys very often make the mistake of assuming the end user has the same level of background knowledge that they do.
I googled it like a regular potential customer, this hub came up as top result for iphone 5, I read it. I know now much more about the iPhone 5 and at least now have some background knowledge so if I wanted to buy it I could do more research based on some level of understanding.
Bad is stuff that has been copied from elsewhere...such as Wikipedia, Ehow, etc. Bad is stuff that does not make sense, ie. it was obviously spun and the words do not make sense. Bad is writing full of spelling and grammar mistakes. Bad is one picture and 10 words. Bad is pure spam. Bad is not humour that is well written.
Let's not start posting URLs to people's hubs, this is not a witch hunt. If you find something you think is bad flag it.
I liked the iphone review hub and would never have noticed it if the OP hadn't brought it to my attention.
As someone who is 'out of the loop' so to speak, living in the wilds with no TV, newspapers etc, I had no idea about this phone and found the hub to be well-written, interesting and informative.
So what if the iphone isn't out yet?
Judging by the comments section, plenty of people are interested (that obviously knew something about it before, even if it was only watching an advert).
Anyway, OP, you have just given this hub you were so disparaging about a nice backlink.
Please, no more posting hubs in the forums.
Forget the zero information and misleading title. That article is posted on a gazillion other websites. I exaggerated -- at least 12 other sites.
Not only that, it's even duplicated here!
http://hubpages.com/hub/http-hubpages-c … coming-out
Same hub. Different hubbers.
Sorry, I'm off to do some flagging...
Good catch, Irohner. I hub hopped earlier and caught several duplicates, but it didn't occur to me to check this one.
I never noticed that when I looked at it earlier. Having said the original hub posted here pre-dates all the copies on the web.
I didn't flag it for being duped in other places since HP appears to be okay with that. I flagged it for being duped here on HP between two hubbers. Either one stole from the other, or the same person is duping his/her work. In any case, I know HP doesn't want us duping our hubs here under different titles.
Yes, this is one of the main problems. Even if you do not think that hub is useful kschang, the fact that it is copied is the real problem
(1) Copied Content (By far the worst issue)
(2) Spam (self promotion is almost just as bad)
(3) Not enough words, or English is so poor it is unreadable.
I wonder if that is the same person with multiple accounts, or someone that is simply copying anothers work?
Which is my point: It has the right keywords, but its usefulness to someone actually looking for iPhone 5 review is ZERO.
Google is trying to kill this sort of "spam content" and we are collateral damage. And the best way to fix this is to get rid of spam content.
I just did a hub search on 'http' - I was actually looking for any more hubs that second hubber might have stolen under other names - did anyone notice he had put 'http' in the url?
What I found was simply awful - once you get by the first page or so of results, it is filled with spam by folk who made their site their username, or titled their hub with their site url.
Some of it is years old and most of it is lucky to have more than 50 words as content!
Even found one in Spanish, but didn't flag it because he was actually warning Spanish people to stay away form a certain Spanish company that sold him faulty goods, which seemed like a public service more than a TOS violation.
This one has been up for over a year and has ADS!!
I started taking a look at some of the hubs. I was wondering if a hub score combined with time could be used to filter out the bad stuff. Say anything below 50 after a year.
I decided the answer to my question was probably a "no", but in the meantime I noticed some REALLY REALLY bad hubs.
I flagged it, so it will probably be gone soon, but how about:
It isn't even in English. Should I flag it? I can read Spanish half decently and he is basically saying that company engages in fraudulent practices. Personally, I think it is sub-standard, but I am not quick to judge.
Okay, just hit the flag button, saw a "not in English" option. So it is flagged now.
urrrggh.....I see the problem with all the low level content.
Please don't give them backlinks, just flag them and don't post them.
Can't we just go after the real junk?
Just going hopping I saw PLENTY of hubs with stolen/spun content.
I also saw some hubs with errors so frequent, I felt as if I were reading a 2nd grade assignment.
Lastly, I saw some hubs that merely offered an opinion without any kind of backup (or worse. Hubs that asked questions without providing any insight or debate), as if hubpages was a blogging platform.
Instead of deciding whether humor is junk or not, shouldn't we go after the things that are DEFINITELY junk?
Herein lies the problem.
Humor is subjective. Computers and algorithms don't have a sense of humor.
So if Google's trying to filter out humor (it obviously don't index the Onion for "news" even though its presented as news [at least as satire of news]) from factual information then what? Their algorithm will nuke the neighborhood.
AND WE ARE COLLATERAL DAMAGE.
I would argue that this is junk, albeit junk to a somewhat lesser degree than the clones and whatnot.
I see those two hubs are gone. I flagged a bunch of others too. Looks like the powers that be are getting rid of this stuff. Hope it helps.
No. She is saying that there is no way google can judge the quality of content just by crawling it.
Social media, backlinks and some other factors are used to judge it. Just because google weeded out wisegeek doesn't mean it has poor content or low quality content all over.
Exactly. I personally think their content is really good. And no -- I don't write for them and haven't applied to do so.
Wisegeek has great quality information which I don't read because the ads are so intrusive. I think if they merely sorted out the ads, user experience would be so much better, but suspect people don't even read the content... their bounce rate and ctr must be through the roof.
You people have given me a headache,*reaches for the Excedrin Super Intergalactic Strength Skull Transforming Migraine Pills 5,available in stores near you in 2015
by Adopt-a-Dog 12 years ago
Hi, I have been posting a series of hubs on Dog Care and Adoption topics. All my hubs are original and I type each character in it. I also got a decent number of Hubs(21) to begin with all with good content. But google has twice turned down my request for adsense Account. It says-" Thank you...
by DasEngel 5 years ago
I published a hub a about three weeks ago, titled: "Defining My Purpose on HubPages: Aftermath of My Wars on HubPages Forums". I've written and published one more hub after that (it's still undergoing the site's quality assessment process) and I'm planning to write more hubs.I...
by muratos 11 years ago
Hi to everyone and good news for all Lately, I have played a lot with Analytics to determine which of my hubs affected badly in US traffic alongwith Yahoo backlinks count. I have noticed a pattern. It is mostly about backlinks. Google devaluated inner linking value from hubpages. That's it. Nothing...
by Brian Leekley 8 years ago
In their teachings on writing stellar hubs, the HubPages staff has sometimes said that an ideal hub is 1,500 words long and has sometimes said that an ideal hub is 1,150 words long. Numerous hubs by hubbers on hubbing have recommended that a hub should be at least circa 400 to 500 words long, at...
by Ellen 10 years ago
1. Relevance to search query2. Quality of content3. User experience4. Relevance to search query5. Authority of author (I hope Hubpages gets rel="me" working.)6. Relevance to search query7. Who's linking to you8. Relevance to search queryBut BESIDES that. Here's some useful stuff.READ...
by Frank Anok 13 years ago
How can one make his hubs to appear more on search engines? Please if u know u aren't prepared to answer this question as a way of assisting me to grow on HP,just don't post a reply.Plz i need serious minded detailed replies.Thank you.
Copyright © 2022 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.|