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 sidewide. Every hub is considered in its universe and its uniquness, backlinks etc.
I have some hubs which was not affected at all in US traffic and these are the ones heavily backlinked. (A mix of PRless profile, bookmark, comment backlinks and Google PR 3,4 links)
So, if your unique quality hubs lost traffic, try to build backlinks by time. Here is the support to my argument:
http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/us … amp;bwmo=d
These backlinks are why the iPhone 5 review is ranked in top 3 although the keyphrase is rather competitive and there are top domains which take advantage of these exact keywords.
We are still in the same backlinks wars game )
I will increase backlinks for a few months and let you know the results.
This is BS, backlinks and selling hubs do not help this site al all, it is bringing it down. If you want to see Hubpages DIE keep on doing what you are doing.
They haven't devalued internal links, it is just the value of hubpages and many of it's inner pages have lost value, so tehy appear to have less value!
I should use English better to express my ideas. Devaluation is the wrong term indeed from my side. A decrease in importance of internal linking, I should be saying.
To ease the situation, we should get backlinks I don't mean spammy ones surely which you can achieve with some black hat tools.
It is about finding links where these bad guys didn't reach
I have got a list of nearly 10,000 blogs which autoapprove everything you write in comments. (by a program which I will not mention the name) Guess what ! Each blog post on these blogs have several hundred spam comments. Once upon a time, they had PR value, now almost all were devaluated by Google.
This is the short range tactics of backlink spammers. Once a mini site earns enough and shot by G, they continue with the next one as a cycle.
Matches my experience, but I doubt many people here will take your advice seriously. Going on a flagging spree looks much more fun than undertaking a backlink building project. Be prepared to be flamed, too - though you might get lucky and avoid it.
LOL This actually reminded me of the old joke:
A guy is walking along the dark street, makes a turn and sees a single working street light there. Under the light he sees another guy, who is crawling in circles obviously looking for something.
Hey, what are you looking for? - asks the first guy.
I lost the keys - answers another.
The first guy goes down and joins the second one in his search. After some time he asks - And where did you lose them?
Over there, around the corner - comes the answer.
What!? Why are we searching here then?!!
It is lighter here!
Misha...is he saying Inner Links such as we are asked to do in Hubpages now is hurting us possibly? We should only be more concerned with backlinks from outside Hubpages?
No, links can't hurt. They just don't provide as much value as they did before - hence the need in extra, external links.
OK, thanks. Loved the story you shared!
Yes, this is absolutely what I say. Inner links surely will not hurt but the most important thing is incoming links from outside (both in numbers and quality).
This is actually true for even one page websites.
I have only one thing to say to you, Mr. Misha (stolen from Habee) -- nanny nanny boo boo.
I believe you on the backlinking thing and am doing some testing myself. I hadn't fully jumped on that bandwagon because I'm a total numbers geek, and my analyses don't back up the theory at all. But then again, I don't have the sample size to go off of that you do.
Yes. The Google smack devalued the internal links that used to hold a higher importance. But why? I do believe that was due to what I can only call "quality" factors. Those links certainly weren't devalued on all sites from what I can see.
Boo boo Lisa
Here is my hubpages traffic:
Do you see any smackdown? I don't. This is enough proof for me that what I was doing is the right course of action so far, by and large. Surely making your own tests and research never hurts either.
As for why google devalued internal links, and did it hand-picked sites to do this surgery on or not - I am not a mind reader. What they say publicly and what they actually do, and why they do it - those are very different things, as we both know.
Point taken. I take back the "nanny nanny boo boo" thing. But I still insist that if this site was cleaned up, backlinks wouldn't be as big of an issue as they evidently may be.
Come on, why? I like the sound of it, really. Or does it have any negative connotations?
As for content quality, I do think that it is highly overvalued here in relation to how search engines perceive it. They really have no way of judging the quality directly as human mind does (and then no two human beings judge identically LOL).
I still take back the "nanny nanny boo boo" thing, but here's a "neener neener" just for you.
No -- the bots or spiders or whatever they are can't judge "quality" content like a human can. But they can judge other factors that go along with it -- like bounce rate, time on page, etc.
Backlinking does figure into that equation (eg organic links = popularity and usefulness), but I guess I'm just having a hard time coming to grips with Google putting so much emphasis on something that's so easily gamed. Not saying it isn't so, I'm just trying to wrap my head around it.
Collecting and computing those measurements is quite a logistical and computational challenge, which to the best of my knowledge no search engine was able to meet yet. Backlinks, which are essentially votes for a particular page in search engine eyes, prolly is the next best approximation - but exactly like votes, they can be bought. Still, the vast majority of the world population thinks votes is the way to go and trusts them when choosing their rulers.
Just so I understand, before Panda, everyone was saying that backlinks were the be-all and the end-all. We're now post-Panda and I'm hearing the same sad song. So what exactly again is different? Internal links being devalued? And that is caused by what?
Your rationale doesn't make sense to me. There has to be something different. So they have devalued internal links. Why? What factors did they use? You say they can't judge "quality." Okay, so then what?
ETA: Neener, neener.
Oh Lisa, I wish I knew all the answers LOL.
Nothing changed in terms of backlinks, and those people who were saying that backlinks are very important still say that. It is far from everybody though, it is rather closer to a dozen on this site, those who understand what they are talking about.
Then, backlinks is not the be-all and end-all. There were times when they were, though - have fun reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb . Nowadays looks like on-page factors play their role, too - and if you are in a more or less competitive niche you want every bit you can squeeze, including on-page stuff.
Now, what is sad about that song? The fact that you missed the boat? It's not too late, ya know. The boat is always here, whenever you are ready.
Coming to the hypothesis of internal links being devalued. That would be the most tricky thing cause I personally don't know much about it yet, and I doubt others do.
First, it was a known fact that for the last several years google favored web2 sites. Well, not only web2 sites, but this is irrelevant to the topic. It had (and still has) the favorites, and web2 (or UGC, whatever you like better) sites were among them.
How exactly it did it? Nobody have an answer, at best only educated guesses, cause google does not tell this anybody. Most likely they were introducing a coefficient into link weight calculations that gave slightly more weight to web2 sites links. How did (or do) they define web2 sites? How they compute this definition? Only them know.
Now, when those web2 sites annoyed the god, it decided to revoke this coefficient. Or may be there was no coefficient, and they just introduced it on Feb 24, the demoting one. Or may be they changed it from promoting to demoting?
I have no way of knowing it, and neither do you. It's the name of the game.
BTW, I like boo boo better
Well, that's your job. So get on the ball.
I have always understood and defended backlinking. It's just that until now, I really didn't need heavy-duty backlinking strategies. My personal sites seemed to sprout organic backlinks very nicely, and my hubs were doing just fine. But I think that's more because I don't write about mesothelioma, losing weight or how to make money online. Now I view backlinks more as insurance against Google fluctuations.
Perhaps. My personal sites weren't affected, for the most part. I think before I start engaging in anything new here, I'm going to give it a bit more time to see how things settle out.
Oh alright...nanny nanny boo boo.
Ah oh uh well, yeah, but I certainly can't imagine how one can make any serious money on organic search without backlinks. Any niche that has money in it is likely to be quite saturated, so I really don't understand. Organic backlinks are great, but in order to get them (providing you are a genius writer) you need to be seen first... IDK Lisa, you keep me puzzled
And sure, I am not rushing you anywhere, I am just providing what I think are educational materials for everybody. Though I think it would be more wise on my side to follow the wise 6 yo advice from another thread and get out of the way and shut up (don't mean you personally)
All the latest cleanups are aimed to make Hubpages look good in Google's eyes again. If Google sees Hubpages as worthy as before the Panda update -- less spam, no duplicate content, etc -- and algorithms detect the global site changes, it might just give the link juice back.
It's worth a try, and is definitely not as pointless an exercise as you try to portray it.
Conversely, backlinking is less obvious when you have hundreds of hubs. And it might expose the hubs to future updates, when Google decides to devalue some types of links.
Also, what you are suggesting is only a particular solution. Hubpages have taken a hit as a brand, it's now often called a "Content Farm" where only crap is being published. Your content is also affected by this negative view, even if indirectly. People might assume your articles are unworthy based simply on prejudice.
And when the website is cleaned according to new rules, and the brand (hopefully) recovers, your hubs will also enjoy the results in the long term.
In other words, it's not that simple, and I wouldn't dismiss all the common effort done here.
I am not suggesting anything. You do what you want to do, I do what I want to do, and everybody is happy.
Oh, okay. I just got the impression you were suggesting that people who flag spam are wasting their time.
Well, if they specifically engage in a flagging spree in a hope that this will help their earnings - I think they can spend their time more efficiently. Though I certainly flag spam when I stumble across it accidentally.
So... what do you think about the recent cleanup efforts that the Hub team initiated?
Do you suppose people are being overly optimistic/naive counting on them to help Hubpages bounce back?
Okay....I am REALLY wishing HP had a thumbs up thingy on comments.
You really have a developed sense of humor Misha,never noticed that til recently -love it!
I agree. It even figures into the product hubs. They don't pick up organic links, unless they are exceptionally good.
I have to admit I am mildly worried that the top down analysis of HP of factors may not have been specific enough on niche and hub competition.
Many people who were actually making a fair chunk of money here using amazon/aff etc were competing in competitive fields.
The fall they would experience if HP internal linking and domain authority was devalued could look as if the format was the culprit - if a significant amount of research was not done on what was making the replacement sites now outrank the hubs, it would be to bland of an analysis in my book.
As usual you point in the right direction.
The total confusion that has descended here is almost beyond belief. The lack of structured and detailed analysis of the situation from Hubpages is deplorable, though I guess they are reluctant to 'pronounce' on any particular aspect where they migh tbe wrong. However, the basic issue is quite clear it would seem to me.
1. Links - any link that basically goes nowhere, like round and round inside Hubpages and out to nowhere sites have been devalued by Google, perhaps even negatively weighted. Lnks to properly related material or correctly indexed registry type sites have been uprated.
2. Content - Duplicate content has clearly been penalised, and that would include the same ten word explanation of a popular Amazon item repeated ad nauseum in countless hubs - which issue impacts some of our 'top' writers more than others.
This would pretty much explain most of what has happended - most of the 'other' stuff is pure speculation and panic.
wtf - of course its not hurting you, but its probably rather pointless
Squidoo ... looks more spammy than hubpages, with many lenses that are 99% affiliate links... many of them have no text at all... no effect.
Are squidoo pages written by better writers? Nope. Do squiddoo pages have less affiliate ads? Nope. Is squidoo a better looking site? Nope.
Everyone in squidoo backlinks. It's the only way they can get SERPs, because the squidoo internal linking has always been worse than hubpages.
Ya know…, there is something that I haven't seen anyone else mention…
Silicon Valley is rife with politics, agendas, cutthroat competition, bad faith, zero ethics, you name it…; just like every place else.
This would explain some otherwise unexplainable discrepancies.
This is an interesting discussion because being on both Squidoo and Hubpages with about the same amount of articles, I get to compare. My niches are similar, and my writing is about the same.
With more and better backlinks, a hubber would be better protected against the entire site being judged less worthy. That is one factor that has to be kept in mind.
If what Misha is saying is right, and it makes sense that it is part of the equation, his backlinks are providing proof that even though his content is on Hubpages which is now being deflated in value on Google, other people from outside the site give it high value. It sort of provides a fence around his content keeping it protected from the devaluation across the entire site.
I believe Squidoo had already been working on cleaning up the platform and has a different type of revenue share system which is why it wasn't hit this time. Not that the content level or content itself is so much better.
Many, including myself, are not great at getting others to backlink to our pages. I guess I could backlink to my own if I had more websites or was a member of more sites like HB, but I do not have enough time for all that.
You know, I bet someone, maybe even some Russian guy, has a hub or two about getting backlinks...just sayin'....
Most of the hubs, blogs and websites about getting them are about using comment sections to put backlinks out there, which I do. I meant getting organic backlinks, aka having such good content others want to link to it. I have not been able to do that often, and suspect others are not as well. They might be starting pages on Ezines, Squido, here, etc and interlinking them all to make it look like they have multiple people linking to them, but that is not really organic, and does require a some more time to do.
I believe one can only wait and see if the taken routes will lead to better success. I will continue to mainly believe as Misha and most others that backlinking has and it will still be a strong factor to determine ones quality from the vote point of view.
With that said I'll focus on working to get these votes from better quality voters, but nevertheless one vote will always be better than no vote at all.
Ok. Check this website please for ipad 2 review keyphrase. I didn't include the link but this co domain (not com) with only one page ranks incredibly high in Google. Why? Have a look at the number of backlinks at Yahoo siteexplorer.
www dot ipad2review dot co
by Paul Goodman 9 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 Kate Daily 7 months ago
Just curious, but does anyone have experience with this? How'd you do it? Did you tell Google the article moved somehow or do anything else fancy? Or did you just copy, paste, delete from HubPages, and wait for Google to catch up?Im guessing there might be some duplicate content penalties from...
by brandonhart100 9 years ago
After reading every post, every article, etc... on the subject matter I thought I'd start a post with arguments against Amazon being the source of the free fall in traffic that many of us experienced last week as I don't believe it is the problem. (I can't say 100% for sure).1.) Many hubbers which...
by Katherine Tyrrell 5 years ago
I don't suppose I'm the only person wondering what happens if the machinations - automated or otherwise - lead to HubPages having a much REDUCED income stream from Amazon.Make no mistake - as Google Adsense income dives (which it has been doing consistently for months) - income from Amazon modules...
by Susana Smith 9 years ago
I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the main thing that has dragged hubpages down in this latest algo change is the amount of crappy content posted on here over the years. I understand the reasoning behind the latest changes regarding ad placement and reduction of amazon and ebay links and I...
by KnowledgeAnywhere 10 years ago
I have been on hubpages for two months. I have read multiple articles on SEO and backlinking. Ninety percent of my hubs do not have backlinking. But I choose for a while to say no backlinking. It was "different" I thought and "original". ...
Copyright © 2021 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.|