I just read a Hubpage in which a fellow hubber described a process in which he describes a process in which he:
1) Writes a hubpage
2) Uses an article spinner to rewrite the article 50 times
3) Uses software to submit each of the spun articles to 50 different "auto-approve" article directories and link to the Hubpage from each.
4) Every article that lands on Google is then put through an automatic backlink builder which submits to 1592 directories.
He then has up to 50 spun articles, each with 1592 backlinks, each pointing to one Hubpage.
This just sounds so damn wrong to me? Isn't this the type of stuff that got us into this mess? You tell me, if that is acceptable I will back down and give the bloke some credit, as things go I just can't get my head around this practice and can only see precisely why Google has dropped sites like Hubpages now.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Online-Hubpage- … Make-Money
I don't know about right or wrong - but I am certain that this is not what got us into this mess.
You really think I could screw up your site by doing this to you if I was a competitor?
I'm not sure, do you want to take one of my domains and see if you can screw it up?
Excerptz.com, its a content farm, why don't we see?
No - I already know I could not do any damage to your site by building low quality links to it.
I could understand, to a small degree, if somebody used a directory submitter to promote a primary domain. But it just seems too excessive to create such a large footprint to one Hubpage.
I am not the new PCunix, in that he seems to be at the other extreme, and I do backlink, I just can't get over the article spinning stuff.
Not because there are websites out there with an open doors policy that are clearly set up to accept spun articles, but because it makes me wonder how much of that crap we have on Hubpages now as a result
Blame google. They are the ones that decide what works - and this works. This is going to be more prevalent with the latest changes because the small fry (me and you) now need to work harder to rank against the big guys.
I do blame Google
For failing over a period of 13 years to outsmart the man on the street, that is a Google failure, I do agree with you there
They are not trying to outsmart any one. They are trying to make money. Despite wot Mr Unix sez - this is their primary goal. They just bowed down to Rupert Murdoch and adjusted their algorithm to suit "sites you would give your credit card number to" or "trust to give you children's health advice."
You know - like the London Times and Fox News. Trusted Authorities.
This is looking like a game changer to me.
Despite what I say?
That is EXACTLY what I say. Google wants to make money and to do that, they need to remain the King of Search.
For far too long, black hat SEO has been gaming SERP. Google is constantly at war with that because it artificially changes SERP and bad SERP can affect their bottom line.
Perhaps if you actually UNDERSTOOD what I say instead of making things up..
Here we go again.
I understand you just fine. I do not do black hat SEO. They need to be just good enough to dominate - that is all. And that is what they do. LOLOL Google created "Black Hat SEO" when they became the only game in town.
Yeah, "Dear me" - the lunatic clown is raving again.
Fine. Keep believing it. You are small potatoes, so right now Google probably doesn't even notice your " just good enough to dominate ".
But that doesn't mean they never will, does it?
Of course I am small potatoes. The big potatoes just made google do what they wanted.
Trust me - I have tried it your way. And you are full of it. Please - go attack one of my sites by building links to it. Pretty please.
Yes - you are raving again. Not sure why - or even what your raving has to do with the thread.
I'm full of it?
And Matt Cutts and that Forbes article are "full of it" too?
Yeah. I'm sure you are right.
Prove it to me. Go on - destroy one of my sites by building links to it - I dare you. Matt Cutts? Forbes? No - no vested interests there I am sure. Gospel. Trusted Authorities.
I wonder if Forbes benefited from the recent changes. What do you think?
Dear me - you are as bad as the religionists.
Good article that discusses all of this and more:
Mark won't read it - he knows it's all lies - but those of you with a genuine interest in the reality of Google search penalties might learn a lot.
I never said links cannot be devalued - of course they can. You say you can damage one of my sites by building links to it.
Prove it. Stop repeating the party line and supporting the Robber Barons and show me.
More denial and changing the subject. You sure you are not religious?
No, Mark, stop putting words in my mouth.
I said Google can apply a penalty because of spammy links.
It's you and Misha and a few others who continually say that can't be true because if it were, a competitor could damage you. Well the fact is that a competitor CAN damage you, but Google apparently is aware of that and is ready to fix it if they do.
However, if YOU create those links and Google penalizes, there it is.
This has nothing to do with party lines and robber barons. It's just fact.
I am not changing the subject and I am not off-topic. You and Misha are simply wrong.
This is not a penalty for spammy links. This is devaluing a certain kind of link. I have tried it your way. It does not work. Case in point - here on hubpages. I did not do a lot of backlinking - I wrote good, solid content and relied on organic search and the quality of the site.
Now - I am looking at a substantial loss in traffic and income because I followed the course you are suggesting. Because it worked thanks to the internal linking strength of hubpages. Whether that will come back - I simply do not know and am waiting to find out.
I now have a choice - accept a 90% loss of income - or do some promotion to the hubs I deem worth promoting.
What would you do?
I can send you a list of hubs for you to show me how badly you can damage them by building links to them if you like.
How many pages do I need to link to before you'll understand that Google can and does penalize sites that engage in spammy link building?
Why is it so necessary for you to build this big wall of denial?
Anybody can go google "Google Bowling" and learn what is FACT rather than demeaning and condescending comments by wannabe SEO gurus.
Fact, Mark. Not opinion. Fact.
You have no idea. Of course you can be manually penalized. Of course a certain type of link can be devalued.
But - if you did not do the link building in the first place - there would be nothing to penalize or devalue, because you would not be getting any traffic. Fact PcUnix, Fact, Not Opinion. What don't you understand about that?
Shall I send you a list of hubs I want damaged with spammy links?
I get traffic without spammy links.
Funny - almost every article you can find on the web about Big Panda or Farmer talks about how spammy link building might be part of the reason for the sites have lost traffic.
But you can go on implying that I am a lunatic..
Keep on playing Google games, Mark. You know that smart SEO is now warning people like you to quit that stuff and just concentrate on quality, but never mind them - what do THEY know? They must be fools, too, right?
Shall I send you links to the hubpages I need spammy links to?
I did what you are suggesting. I write quality content. Check out some of my stuff if you don't believe me.
<snipped Hub links>
I did not run a link building campaign on most of it. I did not do black hat SEO.
I am looking at a substantial drop in traffic and an almost total loss of income here. Stop spouting nonsense. You are making the religious people look good.
Deny, deny, deny.
Fact: sufficient quantities of spammy incoming links and even sufficient quantity of lazy anchor tags (reusing the same tags is a Google trigger) CAN cause a site wide penalty.
Your traffic loss may well be partially caused by other people's enthusiastic link building.
Go educate yourself, Mark: you've spent far too long believing the fibs of the black hats.
Dear me. You really are making the religious people look good.
Look at my content - then tell me it is not quality - which always rises to the top according to you. I used to think the same way.
http://hubpages.com/hub/How-I-got-my-hu … first-page
My traffic loss is caused by hubpages not policing their site well enough and being labeled "content farm," and the fact that I did not bother linking to my pages because hubpages internal links were so strong. Grow up.
I'm quite grown, Mark, and have been doing this stuff a lot longer than most.
Neither you nor I know why HP has been penalized, but spammy linking might very well be part of it and almost every serious SEO article I have read about Big Panda has suggested that could be true.
A site wide penalty affects ALL content, good and bad. It's possible that individual content may be affected even more if its link profile shows signs of fakery - I don't know that, but it is a reasonable assumption.
Stop trying to drag that red herring of quality, Mark: nothing stops anyone from making bad links to good quality. But Google may be adjusting its algorithms to penalize that more than they have in the past, even for the little ankle biters.
Fact: spammy linkbuilding and excessive linkbuilding can trigger a Google penalty and it can be site wide and it is NOT necessarily manual.
You really are making the religious people look good. If you can damage a website by building links to it - I will be getting a job damaging websites for people tomorrow.
Yeah - grow up - stop listening to the church of Google. LOLOL
You keep pretending this isn't true.
But it is. That Forbes article gives examples and anyone can turn up many more by searching for "Google Bowling".
But if you want to believe Misha instead of real SEO authorities, that's your business.
This isn't the church of Google - I'm getting mighty sick of your condescending and ridiculing responses.
This is reality. Google has always disliked manufactured links and it IS possible to do damage - though Google says they don't want that to happen, which strongly implies that they would work with you to fix any such issue.
But if YOU created the links and got caught at it, whether by code or being reported manually, you can get penalized. You don't just lose the value of those links, as Misha wrongly keeps saying: you can get real penalties.
This is FACT, Mark. Not my opinion, not what appears to be wishful thinking by many here, but FACT.
Yup - you have got religion real bad. Praise be to Google! LOLOL
Now prove it to me instead of ranting about it. Go - damage one of my hubs by building links to it. I will bet you the money it made last year that you cannot do a thing to it.
It is currently number 6 for "forex trading."
Get it penalized by building links to it. Go on - I dare ya.
Why would I want to do that, Mark?
That's not the issue, anyway: Google has already implied that they have safeguards to help prevent damage by competitors.
The issue is that if YOU build spammy links to your own content, Google CAN punish you. Not just ignore the crap links, but actually penalize your page or your whole site.
That's fact, Mark and is well documented for anyone ambitious enough to go read. But keep telling yourself it isn't true: like Misha, you have "religion".
To demonstrate the veracity of your irrational beliefs. Go on - I dare ya.
You are still failing to read what I wrote. Is that willful or simply carelessness?
The question at hand is NOT about a competitor's ability to do damage.
It's about YOU building those links and suffering a Google penalty. Try paying better attention, Mark: you could save a lot of digital ink.
Aww. You think google watches everything you do and punishes you for not believing? And they know what you did? Sounds familiar.
Search "Google bowling".
Read the Forbes article I linked to earlier.
Read what Matt Cutts has to say.
Read what Griz says.
Read the SEO forums.
But I guess when FACTS interfere with your religious beliefs, the facts always lose.
Stop telling me wot god sed and prove it. Go on - I dare ya. Actually demonstrate this majik juju of which you speak.
Why would I want to risk damaging my site, Mark?
Again, the proof is easy to find on the web - your snide attempts to make me look foolish aren't going to change the fact that anyone can go research this and quickly learn that you and Misha are not wrong and that I am right.
FACTS, Mark. Not the opinions of those who DO fake linking.
And look at his list - all points are "read". Nothing about "try" or "do" or "test". All his "knowledge" is "academical", nothing hands-on. Total parroting
You can denigrate me all you want, Misha, burt the facts speak for themselves.
You are wrong about the harm that bad link building can cause. It's that simple: your "religion" blinds you to reality.
Do you get away with it? Apparently so, though people who really do know what they are talking about suggest that is only because you are too small and unimportant to be noticed. Your day may come though, which is why I have told you before to invest your money wisely.
HP's day may be upon us now, and if your activities were part of what caused the penalty, will you be apologizing to the nice folks who had their income destroyed?
Whether you believe that or not, Google says that spammy links CAN affect you negatively.
They also say that a competitor should NOT be able to do that to you, so you are apparently "half right".
Now, I know that you and Misha and a few others still cling to the thought that what I've been telling you for months is ridiculous, but I choose to believe well known SEO pros and Matt Cutts over you guys - no offense.
The only real question is what it takes to swing Google's attention your way. Right now, it seems to take someone (probably a competitor) reporting your antics manually, but there is no guarantee that Google will not start picking this stuff up algorithmically. It's even possible that Big Panda has some of that in it.
You can keep denying it, but you are wrong.
And, once again, you are wrong.
http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/28/negati … 28seo.html
Pretty sound approach to promotion. This is one of the people we have to thank for the success hubpages enjoyed so far.
Misha, please explain why we have to "thank" TerryGI for the success of Hubpages, as far as I can see he has yet to achieve his 100k traffic accolade.
I have rather easily managed 8 million hits without using spinners or automated backlink tools.
Any incoming external link pointing to any hub brings some "link juice" with it. In turn this hub shares part of this "link juice" with the whole site through internal linking, thus benefiting everybody.
Actually this is why it is possible to post on hubpages and enjoy external traffic pretty soon - without any backlinking.
In a sense, all those who do not do backlinks enjoy a free ride on those that do, and some of them like our famous clown even are silly enough to bark at those who are responsible for their success.
More false statements from Misha.
Those who want the truth can determine it easily enough from respected SEO forums and from Google itself.
Spammy incoming links can not only be ignored but, in sufficient quantity, can also cause a site wide penalty to be imposed.
These are facts that Misha doesn't want you to believe.
I look forward to seeing TerryGI thanking me for my hundreds of completely natural and organic PR5, PR6 and PR7 incoming links then. SlickSubmitter isn't going to find any of those.
I am certainly thanking you. If Terry will read your post, they will probably thank you, too.
I doubt it Misha, he is not my biggest fan. At least he got a backlink out me though right
LOL I don't know if they are he or she, and I also had some clashes with them in the past - but then we clashed with you not once, too. It's all OK until you start making a religion out of it.
Nice word, "religion".
I'd say that one reason to call something a "religion" is when you blindly stick to a preset idea in spite of evidence that says you are wrong.
Like you and your belief that spammy link building can never hurt you. There is mountains of evidence that show you to be wrong, but you keep coming back with that same comment time after time.
So who is it that has religion, Misha? I'd say it is you.
My main website doesn't benefit from HubPages, does it?
And - by the way - it still enjoys the same high serp positions for the same keywords it always did. No traffic loss for me.
People with REAL SEO reputation are warning against the kind of activity that you insist is good for us. Google has been warning for years that they don't like this game, and now that they are actually starting to do things about it, the chickens are coming home to roost.
Keep telling people there's no problem, Misha. Every single time you do, I am going to post the truth right after that.
Hubpages got google slapped because they do not know what the H they are doing. These selling hubs, and telling people to use backlinks is what is getting them into trouble, plus the fact that most of the stuff on here is garbage I can read right on the internet. It's a wonder they are still kicking.The New google Algorithm will smack it down every time.
I think if we adopt some guidelines like Squidoo has it may help to improve quality over here are Hubpages.
Many a Squidoo Lensmaster has complained at how tight things are here at HubPages as far as rules are concerned.
I make that 79651 web pages, produced to promote one hubpage.
We're not brawling
As it happens, like I said, I'm not the cleanest guy in the world. But this just seems like a huge footprint for one mere Hubpage.
I can understand why people would use software to build up a couple of thousand backlinks to a primary domain, with the intention of building up authority which is passed on to the contents within, that essentially is pretty standard stuff.
But 105 hubpages x 79561 = potentially more than 8 million web pages. That can never be considered natural.
This is a good question. I would think Google would have a way of weeding this kind of thing out. Ideally, any url with over a certain number of backlinks pointing to it should be manually reviewed. I'm not sure if Google currently does that, but I think that's something they should try. If a page has 10,000 or more backlinks pointing to it, chances are it will be very easy to tell if it's really great content or just the product of pseudo-black hat SEO methods. It seems to me like Google could even farm out this work for real cheap and it would have a tremendous impact on the quality of their search results.
Hey Ryan, you are complaining about the method this person has used, however, by you posting a link to the hub, haven't you given them another backlink to their article?
So, you're not hurting them, but actually helping them. I realize you've a problem with them many things happening, but to give them any assistance whatsoever, you are in essence giving them what they want.
Last time I checked, things like this should be flagged for whatever reasons you've decided to flag it and move on to the next one you see. If you have to flag 50 articles, then please do so. But, complaining about it, isn't likely to amount to any action, except to show yourself as a complainer.
You seem to misunderstood Cagsil, there are not 50 articles to flag, the 50 articles are posted in article directories and point to a Hubpage. Yes I have given them another backlink, not one of any value now though, and not what which will give them any additional value whatsoever.
Actually I am asking whether this is acceptable or not, so what's your answer? I'm not flagging something if it's the norm. I will happily be considered a complainer, just as you are complaining about this thread
Hey, I have a question for you. I'm about to self publish one of my older novels that I'm tired of sending out to publishers who don't have time to actually read it. I have a friend who is Mr. Fancypants SEO guy, who wants to be an affiliate for me, and has all kinds of plans of spinning and doing that kind of stuff. I told him I'd think about it. I do want to generate sales, but that is such an icky approach to life. Nonetheless, if I do decide to let him be an affiliate, will his doing all that make my book website look dirty? It will be HIS page somewhere doing it, right? Won't have anything to do with me, even though he's pointing at my page? Or at his page, that points at mine?
Why not put your book on Amazon, if he wants to promote it via the Amazon associates program he can
The cookie life will result in you making more money, unless he is a really good friend, in which case you can always double the standard Amazon commission for him.
Ultimately, it is going to be easier to rank an Amazon listing than your website, getting your Amazon listing to the top for a few search terms is the way to go. People trust it too.
To be honest, I just don't really know, according to Mark Knowles it won't effect you, according to PCunix it could.
I am somewhere in the middle, hence the reason I am inviting this debate in the first place
Hey Ryan, I'm not complaining about your thread. I was only pointing out what your actions appear as.
Do I find it acceptable? Again, this has nothing to do with me, even as a hubber. If the hubber gets slapped by Google, then so be it. If not, so be it too.
Spun articles are against Hubpages rules and if you see a hub that is spun, the best thing to do is flag the article. If they are using "auto" backlinking tools, which at this time, I do not remember if against Hubpages rules or not, but if not, then your actions here mean nothing. If it is, then I'll repeat- flag the article and move on.
That's the problem though isn't it Cagsil, it's not just individual hubbers who are affected, it is site wide.
Now - it is too early to say what factors caused this.
But, let's say that some of it was caused by thousands of auto generated backlinks to hubs. If that were true (IF, please remember) than HP and every other article site is going to act to take down those hubs.
But.. that raises other problems. Those hubs bring in money. They bring in money because they have big SERP. If the article site cans them, can it make enough money to survive?
Tough questions and is likely why HP is stalling and not jumping at changes as some sites have done.
I seem to remember a forum thread from a hubber that had a hub unpublished, presumably because of the way they built links to it. There was a lot of controversy on the thread. I think Maddie even intervened at one point, explaining that they're watching how we build links. Not the numbers, but the methods. I would think something like this would trip that particular filter.
Article spinning looks bad in the eyes of most people, Google included, but those top marketers do swear by it all the time!
A general rule of thumb is if it looks and sounds too easy then it's a complete waste of time in the end all I know is I wouldn't do that because most of the times easy ways to do something usually turns out looking lazy and bone idle in the eyes of everyone watching!
If there is money to be had, there will always be people figuring out how to work the system. Those people always ruin it for the rest of us who delude ourselves into believing that a search engine will yield actually valuable results, a doctor will prescribe what you really need not what he gets the best kickbacks on, and a bank won't try to hose you at every turn. Those are the same people who get pissed when, for the rare moments, the "good guys" find a way to slow them down for a week or six. Humans suck.
Oh for crying out loud - google says, google says. It's all spin. And anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that.
I told my children santa was coming. I told them about the damn tooth fairy. Stop with the 'well google says' it's just bloody hogwash!
It's all about MONEY. Theirs, not yours, mine or anyone elses. And towing the line to the bigger fish, because there are always bigger fish!
If that guy has 75000 or whatever backlinks to his hub and its still active, well then that amazes me cause when I tried to give one of my hubs 100 social bookmarks, I got flagged by the admin and they were removed from the index. That stopped me from any backlinking after that, but I think I might start boosting some low performing hubs with it again. If they get removed, it doesn't mater I guess.
Blackhat SEO tactics weren't developed to manipulate google, they were designed to actually give a person a chance to make some money at this game - and it is a game, not a business.
No, not directly to his hub.
Only 50 spun articles pointing to the Hub, which each in turn have thousands of backlinks pointing to them.
I wasn't referring to the behaviour of the hubber, I was referring to the persistant 'but ... but ... google says'. I'm sick of hearing it.
My mom told everyone who'd listen how much she loved me. Behind closed doors she was knocking hell out of me and reminding me how much she hated me. So you know, google says and all that.
Like anything as big as google, it's all spin, utterings to keep folks quite/happy/whatever. Said, and done - two different things.
'Blackhat SEO tactics weren't developed to manipulate google, they were designed to actually give a person a chance to make some money at this game - and it is a game, not a business.'
The problem is, that you get the likes of Pcunix, who tell everybody that they've been in this game from the start, and who preach to others about doing the 'right' thing. Which sounds great. Until they list their earnings. Which as I recall, (and I mean no disrespect), after so long working online, aren't overly impressive.
And then you get the likes of Misha, who can make $100 from a single hub, in a single day.
Making it seem very much like the only reward for doing things the 'right' way, is a smug self-satisfied feeling inside. Which as we all know, won't pay the bills.
No, it's not that at all.
Look - you want to be Mr. Black Hat, go ahead. But it is POSSIBLE that the antics of these people has hurt HubPages with Google.
You can worship Misha for his gamesmanship. Will you still worship him if it turns out that his techniques are part of what caused this penalty?
I'm not saying that is part of the cause - but it might be.
It is also FACT that Misha and Mark misinform about the possibility of being penalized for spammy linking.
As to what I earn, it's a heck of a lot more than most people do and - more important - Adsense is only PART of the money I get from my site. But so what? If I only made $100 a month, I'm still telling you the truth - and they are not.
I think Pot Pie Girl may be onto something with her post here:
http://www.potpiegirl.com/2011/03/my-th … go-change/
Let's weed out certain search terms which are just plain crappy/spammy.
This takes the focus away from backlinks and more into what may possibly be causing the google slap for hubpages, imo.
I agree. I think she is onto something as well with the droves of content being published around key phrases.
Along with the fact that maybe ( and I did not know this until this article *if it is correct*) I did not realize that HP was or does have a 'no follow' to many links. It is not without reason that the weighing of the balance of links coming to HP and maybe a lack of showing they trusted to in return follow these sites could be a factor..
I've always felt that HP created certain topics for challenges in part to beef up content on certain subjects...
-maybe to much too soon is not good?
-maybe some key phrases should just be stopped from further publishing..?
-maybe having a *no follow* attribute is really evil.. ? (I have not ever heard that there was such a nofollow with HP..
With the policy HP has regarding backlinking, I just do not see that being the issue... (especially with what I have been reading, BUT understandably there is much I do not understand)
Just on the subject of people losing adsense accounts as a direct result of using spammy backlinks this recent article by 'SEO expert' Grizz makes interesting reading.
http://makemoneyonlinegrizzly.com/make- … y-example/
A couple of years ago he and his kind used to boast of creating thousands (literally) of links to rank a site in a competitive niche. He doesn't do that any more having been slapped by Google.
His present advice for Google manipulaters is not to rank too high in the SERPS or you will risk a manual review from Google. If you have used dubious methods you will be history.
It is a typically long and tedious read of the kind 'SEO experts like to write (a deliberate plot for the adsense and one he used to cheerfully admit to). Here are a couple of quotes:
'take into account the fact that G will likely review a successful site at some point and make sure you are comfortable having it critically evaluated'
'you may make coin from some of the long tails you rank well for but don’t pursue page 1 ranking for the main keywords. You will get destroyed if you ever succeed and all your work will be lost.
Some times you are better off hovering close to but not attaining the top positions – best to stay under the radar and reap what you can for months and years rather than make payday that will be short lived'
If this is all he can offer these days it is time he retired.
As a total amateur and naive newbie I cannot comment intelligently or knowledgeably on this subject - and furthermore I really don't want to hack anyone off.
But for my writing and ability to make a little bit of money this is all very depressing. I write one thing, very few people if anyone visits, and I might make a dollar.
Oh by the way - without bragging - it's witty, intelligent and original comment... sometimes. Sort of generally better than a lot of the utter crap on the web.
Meanwhile there are spinners and SEOers and linkers who can outgun me on every front.
So unless I join in with the gaming I have no chance. The recent Google Slap seems the final insult really - lump me in with all the other garbage because all that matters is the ability to churn out 500 copies and backlink the hell out of it.
I will repeat. I am not having a go at anyone - it's the game. And I am no good at playing it.
Lol, I guess the answer to my question is that nobody can agree on an answer, and on that note the thread is an unconclusive one.
I don’t think the backlinking TO Hubpages was the problem. I think the problem was maybe more likely that Hubpages and some of the other sites were being used as the backlink farms.
It was even part of Ezinearticles’ official training guide thing on how to rewrite the same article 5 different ways. You could watch the new article feed at Infobarrel and see blocks of 5 articles at a time coming in on the same topic by the same author, all linking to the same site.
I think one of the issues was that too many people were using these places as backlink farms and that harmed their reputation as content sites.
Quite possible. However, Cutts says that a penalty of outbound linking only affects a sites authority, not its SERP. So while those linked to might suffer, the site itself doesn't - assuming that's the only issue, of course.
But that was before Panda. Things could be different now.
Thats the kind of content which is lowering Hubpages domain authority, and harming us all.
While I have experimented with duplicate and spun content I have always done it on my own domains because I pretty much knew how that was going to go down, and I definitely did not want to harm other autthors in the process.
well to go slightly off topic, why doesn't Google shut down sites that will pay writers to re-write articles..i know that is "spinning".
I refuse to take on such assignments but there are many gigs on many sites that ask for this
Well look at this way, playing by google's last set of rules didn't spare Hubpages, so why should they and us bend over backwards to now give them something new according to a new set. Thats the kind of things that make people say screw it, time to blackhat this rigged game.
In essence, thats sort of what Hubpages has said to google with their new ad program which will rely less on adsense and more on other advertisers. Now if they let some leeway on backlinking, I don't need the SERPs anymore, I'll get my traffic out of Digg, Stumbleon and the like.
HP's advertising providers don't change Google search traffic.
Nor has HP been "playing by the rules". Many of the hubbers here have openly and disdainfully flouted Googles guidelines for years.
I've read all the contributions to this thread so far. I'm new in this field and want to make money from this profession for the long haul. I've noticed a few things since I joined HP which I'm pointing out below:
1. You're telling constantly that "the cream will rise" since I joined HP... about five months. It seems you're most genuine than anyone else here at HP, at least in my eyes, especially right now when Google has changed its algorithms for not compromising for quality.
2. Misha has written only 21 hubs and earned big and still counting... and that has made him a legend. Don't know how many days this could be tolerated by someone who is looking for quality! Using my analytical mind I tend to infer that those kind of people are mainly responsible for the 'holy' mess. 'Holy' because it may eventually be the game changer.
3. Mark is somewhat in between you and Misha... looking a bit confused! Just like Ryan.
Now from my aforesaid observations it seems to me that the days of SEO and back linking are nearing end. What I would ask you as a student in this field of e-commerce is:
Should I stop learning SEO? Is there a chance that SEO would become a thing of past in the coming days? Or should I maintain a stand in between... that is quality with some (not a lot) promotion using SEO techniques and a bit of back linking?
Or should I concentrate only on quality? Or there are other legal ways of promotion apart from SEO (the way Misha & Co. do it... I never liked Misha's way... simply because it always seems manipulation to me despite HP's attempt to use Misha to draw attention of prospective Hubbers)?
It's your choice.
Gaming Google apparently still works if you are not sloppy and careless. Obviously Google wants to change that. They NEED to, but whether they can is up in the air.
You want money now? Follow Misha.
You want to be immune to Google algo changes? Follow my lead.
Are you talking about quantity or quality? Please make up your mind, this sounds quite confusing, especially considering Pcunix's almost 300 hubs
Writing quality hubs in large quantity (e.g., 200 in a year, that's possible for me without spending much time for promotion by way of SEO and stuff like that ). I never felt your hubs lack quality... but the kind of promotion you do seems manipulation to me. Thanks!
Are you implying I write junk, Misha?
Let me ask you a question. I think you are aware that it is now against HP policy to use the sort of automated back linking that you have used to promote your hubs. My understanding is that this is now cause for unplublishing and perhaps other sanctions, but that people like you are grandfathered.
Given that, would you say that HP is "worshipping at the altar of Google? Would you say that they are being foolish in having such a policy because (in your minority opinion) no harm can cone to the hubber or HP from that?
Nah, I don't have a habit of judging what I have not read. I am just laughing at silly post of aidycool.
No doubt he is laughing at your refusal to answer the other question I asked.
I did answer this question million times already, your memory is rather short.
You have no idea what methods I use, and your judging invasive attitude is really disgusting. Grow up and get life.
This is the last time I am replying to you in the nearest future at least, ciao.
I do know what you use: you bragged about them in your HP Blog interview, remember?
But that wasn't the question. The question was about your opinion of HP not allowing that sort of linking going forward. Are they "fools", Misha? If I am, it seems they must be too, at least in your jaundiced view.
So now you will run away, of course. Typical.
@ andycool, "...stop learning SEO?" Seems to me like you're saying SEO is really all Blackhat.
No, he asked what SEO he can do that is not.
I think you can find all the answers you need right at Google's Webmaster Guidelinss and by following Cutts blog.
I'm sure one of our resident hat models will chastise me for "worshiping Google", of course.
But,if you want to learn the way of the White, that's where to start.
I've read quite a few of TerryGI's hubs and he does seem to know his stuff on article directories, I don't see a problem with the backlinking but using article spinning software that produce low quality and often illegible content is not good.
Ive been digging into the Panda Update info at webmaster forums and other various places I follow.
One thing I dug up was an actual paper written by Panda, if the paper had any effect on this update then the majority of the conflict here is moot - it would suggest that the entire algo is rewritten and learning. The data from the manual reviewers was used to make a new set of rules.
It wasnt just a tweak of what we have known about for years - but the paper is above my comprehension at this time and obviously will never be admitted as having major effects.
- you will see its the home page of a google engineer -http://www.bayardo.org/papers.html
- the guy who complained in this thread about getting cut from HP for social bookmarks is missing the point that he made 200 backlinks that are outside the intention of the sites used. The article marketer/spinner is using the sites as they are made for , thats a big difference, none of those sites will react by contacting HP or banning HP from their service, social bookmarks will.
I dont think the content of an seo article and any methodology explained had any effect on the sites trust - thats an article of interest to a small percentage of viewers .
To me, A bigger problem would be the thousands of health and finance articles written b non-professionals on a site that doesnt have a "look" that would suggest trust in those fields. Considering the questions that have been revealed, those are two topics that would get more scrutiny in my eyes.
All of my sites that I have been working on for the past year, always start with branding, they get designed in a way to look and be authentic. The MFA sites that followed the be ugly so they click method are not showing up in my searches, but plenty of MFA sites that took the time to be "real" sites within their niche are showing up nice and high, as in sites that the average viewer would never recognize as MFA - I have no idea how google could code that, but im seeing that.
Nevermind HubPages, Ive made $100 in a day off a xomba bookmark! 100 words, 100 dollars! ..without backlinks. Just plain trending and phrasing. Making money doesnt require advanced techniques but it seem building long term sustainable income def does.
As for "black hat" - just head over to any of the known forums and sites and you will see that most were unaffected. If you want to prove that linkbuilding as described would damage something or not anymore do a friggin test, pick an innocuous term like "fresh baby alligator fries" you can rank in a week, see if you can do anything to kill it by to much backlinking - it wont happen.
Even sites that get cut down into supplementary index, will rise right back to the top after a waiting period if the linkbuilding campaigns continue
but thats under the old algo - this one has new rules.
Thank you for that SF. The voice of reason. As for xomba, I never connected adsense to it.
the point of the branding part was that, anything (of mine)off hubpages that was branded has in no way changed either way. I barely use adsense though. Only my hubs that relied solely on long tails and/or site authority for their rankings were hurt.
I do design work and wordpress tweaking on the side - one of my recent clients had 10 sites all built on wp-robot, they are all performing as they were pre-algo. I would credit that to him being willing to pay people like me over the years to make hi site functional and visually authentic.
I mentioned the adsense because I believe that's the only affiliation on Xomba. I got you about the branding part.
I hear you about the wp stuff too. I have a few things going on and I'm aware of the fact that setting the site up professionally cannot be anything other than a positive move on the site owners part.
I was checking blog comments of xomba and found owner nick posted this-
"If we can build an active and interesting community, then need to rely on Google becomes less and less. It can be done. Three sites that have accomplished this are Etsy, Reddit and Twitter. I'm not saying we're going to be like those sites or that we're moving away from Google. All I am saying is that if you build it, then the people will come. Building a successful community goes far beyond SEO."
Secret of surviving slap ? lol.
Stupid question: how does a company like Xomba propose to rely on its own community of writers to generate income if said income depends on people clicking Adsense ads?
I don't want to interrupt this thrilling discussion on spammy backlinks, but is that the real problem?
Whilst Hubpages doesn't exactly condone it, there is no stipulation that Hubs cant be spun content, or for that matter that they cant be straight copies - as long as you own the original content.
These kind of hubs in my mind are far more spammy than any backlinking strategy. Do they add anything to the internet? absolutely not. Maybe there is some value in spun articles - I don't believe so - but as for straight copies, surely that devalues the site more than anything else. They add absolutely nothing of value.
It should be the responsibility of Hubpages to prevent duplicate content from being accepted. If everything is original, it adds value, even if it is a rewrite of other content on the internet.
Anyway, that's my two cents - Please carry on as you were!
No ,we don't know what factors matter.
But what HP allows is not the issue. It's whatever caused Google to punish HP that matters.
Hubpages are no longer accepting ANY duplicate content, whether you wrote it or not.
As for spun content, I flag it anyway if it doesn't read well. As writers there is no reason for us to be publishing anything that doesn't read properly, spun or not.
I have just spent about 3 hours hub hopping and I think that is where our problems lie. Spun, translated, plagiarised, duplicated and just plain badly written, useless content is what the majority of site users here are publishing, along with short spammy articles written only for backlinks to other sites, whose links will always remain nofollow because their authors can't raise their scores above 75.
Well done, although I cant imagine how tedious that must have been for you.
Funny, as that's what I thought a couple of day ago when I criticised someone for releasing plain copies from stuff he had previously published elsewhere. I was duly reprimanded by Misha for not having understood the rules on hubpages, and that duplicate content was accepted. Just goes to show, you cant believe everything you read on the forums.
That would be a very recent TOS change and HP did not alert the publishers at this site via email or forum notice if that is true.
The new TOS changes I see:
"February 24, 2011: We added new information to Section 9 and Section 22 covering the HubPages Ad Program. We added a definition of Author Services and a reference to Author Services in Section 2. We updated Section 1 to reflect the current company name, HubPages, Inc."
Thanks Sun - they are accepted and rely on self policing by hubbers to flag substandard and copied hubs then?
It really is rubbish I'm afraid. My wife who is less 'fond' of Hubpages than me, she just searches for stufff on the net sometimes, has listened to my moaning about traffic and said that she would ignore anything from this site because "it's all rubbish".
Now that may sound unfair, and there are some excellent writers here of course, and great articles, and blah di blah. But there is also a sea of garbage.
What annoys me is the way the whole site has dropped - So all writers have been penalised regardless of content.
Unless of course the good stuff is still OK and I have ended up in the rubbish pile.
Tell your wife, HubPages isn't all rubbish. There's this really funny fellow, Mr Ewbie, and even though he looks like a stick figure he produces some really good content. I even read a piece from a serious side and thought that was pretty good writing too!
Izzy, sheesh, I need to spend some time hopping some hubs. I used to.. Thank you for spending that time.
Thank you for clearifying the nofollow aspect. It has been a while since I've spent much time writing on my accounts here and reading an article regarding a theory for the HP slap, stated mabybe a mixture of overly saturated low rated key phrases and possibly the "nofollow" aspect. Maybe there could be implimented from HP that if your profile is below 75 for too long that they delete the account all together. My fist account here has only 2 articles written 2 years ago which still maintain good scores and that profile has an average of 88-92 author score continuously.... so it soes not mean you have to be active to not go below a certain standard..
anyway, great insight.
Thats kind of funny .. i know for years twitter didnt make any money! I know they are desperately trying to come up with ways, but thats a pretty poor example.
Using the great google alternative quora
http://www.quora.com/How-does-Twitter-make-money i found some interesting plans - not sure if any of worked yet.
etsy has a great community - http://www.etsy.com/listing/37064411/cu … -board-pcb
many sellers are buyers too - but thats not really relevant to xomba, lol
^-- thats what im saying - but if Im not being critical because Ive always hated that site... the community of writers are self promoters and as a result not 100% google search dependent. they are probably quaking in their boots since they just got some investment and reworked the site and then this happened ..
I would love to hear some feedback on the panda paper I posted and the whole manual element that may changed the algo - anybody been pondering along those lines or capable of comprehending the learning tree algorithm info?
I got very slow connection here so have to wait till tomorrow to download that paper (still living in 2G world)
By the way, you said that sites with brand managed to survive or are recovering if that's the case then what strategy content farms will adopt ? building dedicated communities or communities with marketers dropping their diversified eggs ? or quality moderation for the sake of slap ?
If it were me ,I would brand by category across hubpages - some ad screen real estate in the headers would be removed in favor of some art that evokes trust and has the information that the manual review questionnaire revealed. Something that would show every visitor regardless of how they got there , where the info stems from etc and would be visually brainwashing to evoke trust in the subject area.
sorry ... brandwashing
Possibly realestate.hubpages.com, health.hubpages.com, sports.hubpages.com, quotations.hubpages.com, careers.hubpages.com, gadgets.hubpages.com?
With RSS subscription for each, top hubbers list for each category, etc? Like that? Sounds like a plan to me.
You mean citation like this will help ?
http://hubpages.com/hub/Human-Informati … nformation
that only works on smart/savvy people.
I would suggest a visual element - the top header, would have finance branding first - hubpages branding second.
My first impression of an author called "girly girl" and an ad on braingames would not be conducive to me reading to the bottom to see citations and realizing that the author is intelligent and thorough.
http://financialplan.about.com/od/perso … Crisis.htm
about has a basic skeleton of this concept - each subject has relevance in the header and and footer suggestive of finance not "general" knowledge - I personally would be heavier on visual language- as it works.
I looked at the paper but it's totally above my head - I'm no further forward in understanding anything, other than the fact that "Panda" refers to a developer's name, rather than a large bamboo-eating Chinese mammal
I was doing work on fuzzy learning trees in 2003, in fact it was my masters research topic before I got too ill to continue with it. But before I comment I need to start reading the back research...
I'm going to say this, the techniques are really interesting, but I don't think what is in this document is the key to understanding the algorithm change. It details how you could do what google already does on a much larger scale.
But how useful it will be for us to adapt to the change? Not sure.
In fact, if they are implementing these techniques, even the engineers who are making the search engine won't actually understand the algorithm, because like most pattern matching techniques, the algorithm will be a black box...
The key to understanding this is knowing what new variables they are going to use.
In 2003 there was a massive change in google algorithm, with radical results... and it came down to one new factor: text anchor links.
Now, I've said on this forum where I think the new factor in this algorithm is. Google introduced a few months ago a facility to order the SERPs by reading level.
Think about that.
If you have an expert question on health... then you are sure to want something written at a harder reading level than if you want to buy purple spotted widgets.
So... add a new vector into the search... both as a page and site indicator... and you have a solution that if they are NOT implementing, they damn well should be.
Because it is such an elegant solution to the quality problem... if you cut out the badly written articles, at least that is a part of the solution.
I've done the search on google.com... every single page on the internet has been categorized by reading level.
And, frankly, I think that is a slam dunk... I am convinced, while I have no proof, that this is the smoking gun.
The ideas you stated are very interesting. I am wonderin also if google attempted to match serp results with personal information taken from searchers... Such as statistics of age, sex, education level of the searcher, how many children they have, married, single, divorced, etc.... just as you can find on alexa. That would certainly affect the SERPS for everyone. They could have included variables to match their manual testers which where used to implement this change.
I have not gone into testing changes of results, yet I read on this forum that their is now an "option button on google search for reading level. As it is now with living in the uk I always need to convert back to google .com to check my serps for correct targeted ranking.
My point being maybe the goal is very personalised to individual which seems a huge task to impliment and manipulate appropriatly.
Well, I think I'll be adding my certs to my tech pages - can't hurt, I guess.
I'm bothered by the reading level idea. I think it might be appropriate for some subjects, but a lot of my content has been built around the idea of trying to help people get started with difficult subjects. It is very deliberately written NOT to be highly technical and hard to read.
But - as I said, I haven't lost traffic or SERP, so I'm not panicking yet. Maybe next month..
I agree. I have as well went about mostly tryig to connect with approaching topics for easy readability and unserstanding. BUT, as information comes forth with these theories, it is better to understand how DS was not affected by this change. They are very strict regarding articles needing to be of an authoritive voice along with stating reference on there articles.
Also, the variable of having TOO much content focused upon any given search term or topic. From my understanding, both ehow and DS are rather regimented on what the titles are that can be chosen from, so there is a greater sense of control as to not go overboard in any given area.
I am beginning to think seriously that the challenges on focised topics have been a factor of what has happened to HP. Though, it also sounds as though duplicate content and just crap quality is a great issue to.
I will be approaching my writing differently as well.
@ sunforged... thank you for sharing so many great insights and ideas. very refreshing.
Here's how I think it would work. Google would use click stream data to try to work out the average reading level of someone who types in a similar question, Then it would produce a range of good results at that reading age, with some above it and below it.
In addition, it would also try to personalize the results if it has prior search data on you.
So if you write at a reading level approximately the same as the average searcher for the topic... you are more likely to appear in the SERPs. If you write too far above it, or too far below, their average reading age, you are not going to show up high in the SERPs except for unusual people.
Now... is that unreasonable? If you write at a comfortable reading level for your audience, this change should help you.
No, that sounds like the right way to do it.
I say right on my home page that my site is not for gurus or newbies - I write for a narrow band in the middle. If Google can help shape my traffic, it is all the better for me.
you guys may appreciate this then:
Read the exact same thoughts last night:
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2011/02/23/wh … ew-google/
If David Knowles had not left his comment, I would have said something similar, though less kindly.
People who know nothing about technology shouldn't try to second guess it.
I should explain: Watson had the leisure to answer ONE question. If there were only two or three searchers in every 5 minute block, Google could give incredibly wonderful results. Given what they have to do and the response tine expected, that Tech Crunch guy is a fool.
? - He is showing his wishes as a user. Google works awesome right now, IMO - but I know search operators and occasional use the sidebar filters. His essay is good insight into a what users expectations may be.
"I want input from fellow Punjabis — they know their tikka masalas and saag paneers better than anyone else does. If I am looking for health-related advice, I want to know what doctors say. If I am shopping for a gift for my wife, I want input from women who share her tastes. This isn’t rocket science."
isnt that what Google is trying to do anyway? w/o requiring that a searcher "know how to search"
I think the difference between what I am saying and he is saying, is that Google has already solved most of the reading level problem... they already demonstrate that in their search engine. Each page has already been ranked by basic, intermediate and advanced reading level and you can already filter the results by reading level.
So... what I am saying has already been 99% completed.
Whereas, what he is saying is much wider, and while I would love everything he says to come true... it would really enrich my life... it's not going to happen for many years.
Look, we still haven't solved the travelling salesman problem, and if the problems he is describing are NP-Hard or NP-complete, I would be surprised.
I will totally admit an incredibly limited understanding of any of these google papers and patents, but i do read lots of them and often find them via articles that attempt to explain them a bit. Over the past two years, I see lots of research into scaling up of completely new algorithms and learning algorithms - I was making an assumption that the new data created by manual review was encoded and applied to the recent update rather than just some simple tweaking of the existing algo.
Er... I can't remember where I read it, but there was an interview with one of the google engineers recently where they said the manual reviews were used to test the result of the algorithm.
Of course, he/she might not have been telling the full truth...
I've read the "Panda" paper, and while the math was way over my head, the concepts were not, and it led me down some interesting paths.
Disclaimer!! I am only assuming that this paper is in any way related to what Google has done in their new algorithm. There is no hard evidence that this is related to the recent algo change, other than the fact that the guy who wrote it works for Google and used Google search to test his ideas. So keep that in mind...
The general idea of the paper is to present a new method of "computer learning" that is faster and uses fewer resources than previous models. If you saw the recent PBS special about the Watson computer that won on Jeopardy, you will have some idea of what computer learning is, and I'm not going to try and explain it in depth! Basically, computer learning is a means of making a computer figure out the best answer is to a question. This is dramatically different from creating a mathematical formula to find an answer. Computer learning involves creating logical pathways that would be incredibly difficult and complex to program with a set of hard-coded "rules", and as a result it can be much more flexible and sophisticated than any rules-based logic.
If (and this is a big If) Google is using computer learning as part of a new algorithm, then a lot of the strange aspects of this change seem to make sense. For a computer to learn the right answer to a question, it first must learn what a wrong answer is. That means lots and lots of test questions and answers - the more often the computer asks a question and has its answer rated as "right" or "wrong", the better it gets at finding the right answers.
The need for a massive test dataset explains why Google rolled out the algo change in their largest market - the US - first. For a purely rules-based algorithm, a small rollout is best - just like HubPages has done with the new Ad program. It's more reliable to test such a change among a small group of users when shaking out the bugs, because the impact of any problems is much smaller with a smaller user base. But computer learning needs a large starting base, and the US is Google's largest user base.
The computer needs to learn what a wrong answer is. That could explain why there are so many low quality results at the top of the SERPs. In the "Panda" paper, the test case that was used involved determining the quality of landing pages for Google search ads. In Section 7, the author describes the data they used to determine quality of landing pages based on bounce rate:
"A click on an sponsored
search advertisement is called a bounce if the click is imme-
diately followed by the user returning to the search engine.
Ads with high bounce rates are indicative of poor user expe-
rience and provide a strong signal of advertisement quality.
"A wide variety of features are considered for each click. These in-
clude the search query for the click, advertiser chosen key-
word, advertisement text, estimated clickthrough rate of the
ad clicked, a numeric similarity score between the ad and
the landing page, and whether the advertiser keyword pre-
cisely matched the query."
By presenting low quality results and using metrics like the ones quoted, Google can learn - from us searchers! - which pages provide value and which are crap.
The computer learning process is much more sophisticated - and in the long run much more reliable - than any rules-based algorithm could ever be, and it will take a good deal of time for the computer to "get it right". This help to explain why the change is taking a long time to shake out the bugs and remove the low-quality results from the top of the SERPs. Google would be relying on a sort of "backdoor" user input to teach the computer how to return useful results by first learning which results are "bad"! Each time a user searches and clicks back to the search engine because the result was no good, the computer learns a bit more, and eventually it will get better at matching queries to users' needs.
All of this, again, assumes that Google is actually using computer learning, and this is complete speculation on my part! But it does answer some of the weirder parts of the change. A combination of a new computer learning algorithm in conjunction with Google's previous algos could very well explain what is going on.
In the long run, it could be a great boon for writers who rely on "quality" content (however that comes to be defined) versus the strategy up til now of reverse engineering what Google algorithms do (which is basically what SEO has been for the past decade).
Just a thought - I could be completely wrong...
One of the reasons that I keep going back to the reading comprehension idea is that I don't think this change can affect the entire algorithm. If they were making such a large change to the search engine, we would have woken up with another 2003 scale event.... it would have been carnage, because google would have completely different results.
Don't get me wrong, this is a big change, but a change on the order you are describing would basically amount to an entirely new algorithm.
Wow Ed - your explanation of the possibility of a new learning system for search & serps really resonated with me after many days of feeling very confused! It makes sense of all the strangeness....
You could well be right!
Interesting. Certainly something to ponder about. Thanks, Ed!
at least i dont feel dumb, as that is how I was interpreting it also.
Glad some of you know what they were on about. I looked at the paper and my mind just sort of glazed over...
Great insight sunforged!
You guys have got to write an article about this....
Wow, that is impressive! It does not sound strange to me... quite amazing should it be true. AND how great would it be to have the liberty to focus on pure quality without the sidetracking of so much promotion stuffs as a writer and webmaster?
One man quality is another man garbage. I am afraid you may be up for a rude awakening when you will see what kind of garbage most people will vote for. Just take a look at TV or newspapers...
All of this of course assuming that algo has changed by SF/EW scenario
yes, I very much agree, Misha. As I was typing that last bit, it felt as if I were eating those words...
I am very intrigued now, for sure!
I slept on the statement you made, Misha! And I see your point... thank you! Off I get to promotion land
This does sound quite reasonable. I'm pretty ignorant in the field, but understand the concept - I designed an extremely simple learning software decades ago that actually worked.
If G has indeed taken this approach what we are seeing makes very good sense, and could well indicate that there is a great future in store for good HP writers as individual hubs could end up being rated on their own accord rather than leaning so heavily on HP value.
I am liking you more and more. This is certainly a plausible explanation which should result (hopefully) in some sort of return of numbers as the learning curve progresses.
But - I hope you are wrong. I already had to sell out to a large extent in order to make money, but if this is the plan and I need to dumb myself down to the American general public - I am in all sorts of trouble. No offense to my American friends.
What we will see if this is the case is simply reverse engineering of what a typical Internet user considers "quality."
Judging from what is popular in the USA - this will turn out be the Internet equivalent of Evangelical Christianity, McDonalds, WalMart, the Dollar store, WWF and Jerry Springer all rolled into one.
thats a possible organizational structure - but I was referring to increasing first impression/trust authority for every page , first impression =Huge , it should be topical and powerful.
Currently, hubpages is branded as hubpages - makes sense, why wouldnt it be. But a searcher has to click away to see any info about the site and that info is rather blue collar - home page focuses on author success/money not on authority of the authors or credentials.
I would make the categories branded by category "Hubpages On Health" "HubPages on Finance" etc. nice trust inducing relevant graphic etc.
also as many of us have always complained - the question section and forum question section does not belong on each hubpage - that is the dregs of this site and is mostly idiotic topics and questions. Both should be hidden away in the dungeon.
Of course its really easy for me to say and ponder, much harder to implement and would be costly and could be for naught. But "branding" has always been important in business, online and off and "hubpages" doesnt mean a thing to a searcher and doesnt add any credibility to the content on page.
In that case they need to go for major design/usability change.
and individual authors need to be more professional and understanding in their personal branding and approach.
There are many examples of authors who do make the effort to create layouts and include sections on every page that would influence trust. It can be done.
But .. really, it could mean nothing at all in the end, just my observation as a searcher and designer. Visual language is huge, people are easily influenced and turned off by the "look" just as much as the content.
True. Even if we get the layout right there is a chance of users getting turned off with ads. Many SE users are complaining against ads like Kontera/Flash/Video ads.
I don't know if i'm thinking correctly here but i think PPC ads on site is like locking on particular platform (G/FB/MSN) and if we move to CPM ads then it needs loads of traffic to convert. I can see myself hitting a deadlock with this line of thought so have to think on professional/branding approach of sites. Writing "anonymous/set-n-forget" type of approach may not work in future i guess.
Some good ideas, SF - That type of branding is a common 'real world' marketing practice that works, so I can see how it would be useful here
I noticed that on some sites, there is a little author resource box underneath the photo, where you can include a generic blurb or change it on an article by article basis. That is a good place to put any credentials and show that you know what you are talking about.
Casual surfers are unlikely to follow the links to your profile page and they are not going to be impressed by your followers, number of Hubs, or how long you have been on the site, only that you have the knowledge
I dont think the new ad program is cPM - they just have combined ad buys from single advertisers and a few networks each with their own structure, so for reporting ease they are doing eCpm reporting.
I would be screwed by cPM ads and would have to change my entire approach. Currently, my visitors are targeted and convert for my offers - so adsense is probably getting high quality traffic . I sacrifice easy popular traffic in favor of getting the right traffic that actually converts. cPM is ok for social media/astrology/politics/entertainment , the stuff that doesnt do very well in actual conversion.
If this is a true cPm structure than be ready for Indian Aunties 2.0 , lol
I thought this program was media placement buying or something like that. But you're right this looks like YB ad implementation for HP users.
lol@indian aunties 2.0. By the way how come members here are not taking objection against "celeb/auntie/uncle/hot" type of content ? This type of content is likely to hurt reputation of HP atleast from now on.
Or may be they're the only one fetching more traffic than rest of us ? lol
@ the autie hubs.. there was HUGE protest about them 2 years ago when I started here. The protest went on for a looong while. I guess people just either
A) tired of complaining
B) created new accounts and jumped aboard!
So it's about quality. Well written content, over all the other hoo-ha? They can crawl a page and work that out?
This looks like more of area of personalized search. They'll roll it out soon (atleast after 4-5 years) and people will hook to it. They'll capture more patterns of users and based on that they'll display results/ads. It's not hard for them to do now but it's hard to maintain on quality side, for example - blippy.com shows results of recent amazon purchase from facebook friends(including one liner reviews). Similarly about.com can hire doctors to show small snippets of tips and google can collect all this in one page as result for particular query. They did experiment with it like this with tweets but that was fail because same issue of authority/brand tweets against any random tweet.
Re US Roll out: Except that it has affected us equally in Australia too !
The following are comparisons between the three reading levels offered by Google for the same search term. I don't believe I'm wrong in saying that the advanced article is poorly placed. It is highly likely spun content, or written by someone who's first language is not English.
Basic: Am I pregnant? When you want to know if you are pregnant it can seem like a sea of possibilities. When do you listen to your body? When should you take a pregnancy test? Do you need to see a doctor or midwife right away? Here are some answers to your biggest questions about signs of pregnancy, being pregnant and taking the pregnancy test.
Intermediate: The signs of being pregnant will vary from woman to woman. Many women find themselves asking 'could I be pregnant?' simply because the early signs of pregnancy are many and tend to differ from woman to woman. No two women will exhibit the same pregnant symptoms and some can actually pass into the second trimester before any physical indicators present themselves.
Advanced: Pregnancy brings relatively many changes within a woman’s body. It is easy for a pregnant lady to understand the symptoms or signs of being pregnant, where others can be confused these signs with illness. The most common symptom of being pregnant is the morning sickness, missing periods, vomiting and many more. Enlisted below are the signs and symptoms of being pregnant.
Edweirdo - that's an awesome supposition, thank you
The advanced article snippet is crap Wondering which website it came from?
here: ht tp://mwolk.com/blog/signs-being-pregnant/
Thanks (and empress) edit: and Frog
A pretty crappy blog in my estimation and nothing there which would indicate an advanced level of knowledge.
I hope google "learns" that this is not an advanced article!
http:// mwolk.com /blog/signs-being-pregnant/
This one is the first result for advanced readers/reading:
Although a lot of women experience pregnancy symptoms, and find signs of being pregnant, other's don't "feel" pregnant. Certain signs and symptoms of being pregnant can be confused with other illnesses. The following list are some telltale symptoms of pregnancy. Morning sickness is one of the most common signs of being pregnant, but you also might be one of the lucky ones who never experience this pregnancy symptom. Missing a period is another sign and symptom of being pregnant. We'll go into greater detail below, and you can read below. - site: disabled world dot com It offers the authors credentials at the base of the page.
The previous one was from http://mwolk dot com/blog/signs-being-pregnant/
Well, I think you are confusing reading level with quality level... the advanced reading level snippet is crappy quality, but it is written at a higher reading level.
It's just like the fact having the most backlinks doesn't mean your article is the best one on the internet on the subject.
You do need a higher reading level for the advanced article but only because it reads so poorly! I would expect the advanced article to contain much more in terms of medical information, possibly some bona fide research on the varying rates of pregnancy symptoms in women or something like that.
Just tried reading this thread and realized that my language and experience skills in this arena are sooooo lacking - made my brain start to stutter - so what I came away with is because I lack this information and skill set I probably will never be able to compete or make money. Plus the only people who will ever be able to find my articles will be my closest friends and a few lucky folks who stumble across my postings. Hmmmm, very interesting. Oh well, the rest of you forge on - I will continue to enjoy stumbling across my landscapes. Best to you all
LOL, I'm always in chrono view - threaded view makes my brain hurt.
I would expect the advanced reading level to contain some medical research on the various symptoms of pregnancy myself, not something that is so poorly written you need a higher reading level to comprehend it.
From what i managed to understand from the paper, it'll be completely new algorithm if they implement something like that in one-shot and so @ThomasE's point holds here about change in SE like 2003 update . I'm not sure if they rolled-out these changes in modules to test things but if it is then this gibberishness in search engine is the result of this short update.
If HP is only focusing on these contests considering google traffic in mind then sure it sounds like a game. If it's not about google traffic then we can do whatever we want inside this community. I mean we can't even organize contest in fear of sh*ty search engines ranking ?
I understand your point. I was only sharing a thought regarding a theory that there are certain key phrases to limit in large quantities (HP would be able to see more of these stats). And "possibly" that too much content along the same lines - when figuring maybe thousands of articles being indexed within a few days may hit some *new* algorithm of poor quality to to the mass amount that *may* be too similiar.
Have a look at potpiegirls theory and stats.. You will find that "other" sites that were slapped had some major volumes of certain phrases.. whereas HP was not so high but listed in the sites targeted.
here is the link. (you may have read this already)
http://www.potpiegirl.com/2011/03/my-th … go-change/
I am feeling that Sunforged and Edweirdo's insights are highly intriguing though..
I checked that article and if we go by her theory then these small updates are rolled-out way before feb. I think edweirdo's reply on this new algorithm is interesting but it's hard (for me) to accept that this update implemented completely with current algorithm. This update looks like a small tweak testing of panda/bayaro theory.
Yes, I agree with you. I am just wondering if there was a tweek in the changes to snuff out large bands of content focused on the same key phrase ( in some prime key phrases) large amounts all in a lump some may seem like spam, just as someone trying to do a 200 bookmarking spree ( which I read about on the forums) maybe? ... whatever they are. none of my serps have been affected like others have, so my thoughts were just adding to the theory.
I have to say tho, a couple of my micro niche sites have been overridden with google products pages up front on top of serps. They have quick links to purchase these products (through them) from 27 to 76 different top retailers (this just appeared today). So this deff affects affiliate sales.
This thread has really shifted my thinking and approach as far as where to go from here. Thank you for the insights.
by Paul Goodman 8 years ago
Article for discussion. I know that this recent development has already been mentioned by some hubbers in forums. But I am now wondering if this might be the main reason why we are seeing the current traffic plunges for many hubbers? See link...
by Shadaan Alam 4 years ago
Lately i have been hearing a lot about these two sister sites, but just wished to know are they worth writing for in terms of revenue? I am sure some of you might be on these two sites, what is your opinion?
by Jerry Fisher 3 weeks ago
Hi thereI've had a couple of hubs that for the last few years had been getting a steady 250 plus views per day. Over the last few months I've watched them slide to what seems a bottoming out at around 100 views per day. In one hub about ten days ago I got stuck in and added another 2000 words of...
by Dr Mark 52 minutes ago
A few days this subject came up on another thread and only a few people commented on it. Is it better to publish the old articles that were not successful, to see it they are able to gain readership on Google, or just edit them as previously suggested.(Sometimes after editing an article of mine...
by Marie Gail Stratford 5 years ago
When I first started at HubPages, I wrote several Hubs of around 800 to 900 words. Now the goals for creating quality Hubs include 1250 or more words of content. I've noticed that some Hubbers seem to be padding their Hubs with irrelevant or superfluous content to hit these goals, and I admit it...
by alternativeto 5 years ago
Hey guys, i think HubPages is losing it's rank on Google, i have multiple accounts here and all are experiencing decreased traffic by 50% !!! . Anyone experiencing similar problems? Or did Google introduce any new algorithms?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|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.|