Since the changes I've had 20 hubs taken down because of pixaled photos. It doesnt matter how many sources I use it's still the same result. For these hubs I've taken the photos off will this hurt the traffic or not really?
I'm brand new to this (been here a week and published one hub) so feel free to ignore this.
The original version of my hub had one youtube video and no pictures, the first (and to date only 2) comments from long term hubbers suggested adding screen shots of the subject.
I did, in my opinion it's made a difference and the feedback I've got since has suggested the same. Apologies if this sounds like I'm just trying to promote my own work, but what I think I'm saying is that a well placed relevant picture is worth a thousand words.
I would argue that having good photos is beneficial because 1- it catches the reader's eye (usually on hubpages, not necessarily search engines) and 2- it helps to break up the text, making the article easier to read. Or, in the case of a how-to, it gives people a visual to follow in addition to the text. Personally I use a combination of stock photos and photoshop created images for my articles. Very rarely will I take a picture found elsewhere online. The chances of someone getting mad are just too high. If you're not sure where to get stock photos, you can do a search for sites that sell them. And, if you don't want to purchase any, you can often collect free ones that show up from week to week. (I've been collecting free stock photos for years now and have a pretty descent catalog to pull from each time I write a hub.) Also, if you don't want to do any of that, I've seen other hubbers creating original artwork in programs as simple as MS paint. As long as it gets the point across, then it's okay to use.
What I do is I put pictures in at full width at first to see how they look. If they don't look whole then I go down to half and then quarter width if necessary. The important thing is is that they look whole.
Hubs look better with photos, and the images give you an extra way to be noticed by search engines, if you use captions. Images are also good to break up the text and make it more readable. So yes, Hubs are better with photos.
If all your photos look pixelated, it's probably because you're trying to use photos you're not allowed to.
ALL photos on the internet are copyright UNLESS there's a statement to say otherwise. Many websites use watermarks or keep their images low quality so others can't steal them - those might be the ones you're trying to use.
A lot of people try to get photos from stock photo websites and think "royalty free" means free. It doesn't - the photo you can copy is pixelated, you have to pay for the real photo.
Get your photos from Flickr, but make sure you only use photos that are legal to copy (use the Advanced Search and click "Creative Commons" and "for commercial use" to get the ones you're allowed to use). I wrote a Hub on how to do it, if you need more help.
For organic search results, the presence of photos may not have much effect. But when a visitor reads a content, relevant photos will have a positive effect. It is better to limit the number of photos and concentrate on the quality of the verbal content.
I usually limit mine to 4-5 photos.. It is common knowledge that people are favouring visual and video content on the web because it is easier than reading. If you have these on your hub people will be captivated by them and want to read more, your keywording will bring organic traffic
I think hubs are much better if they have images. I find hubs with large amounts of text and no images difficult to read.
I also think that images might keep a reader more interested in the hub. The longer viewers stick around on a hub the better the chances are they will click an ad.
Adding some good photos that enhance the reader’s visit will entice the reader that much closer to clicking the Like button. That is a good thing.
I love pictures on articles I read, specially if the article is long. So I also add pictures to my hubs and it seems to work for me. My readers often leave me a comment saying they enjoyed reading my hub and loved the pictures, too. So, that is a good sign, isn't it? If the problem is pixelated photos, just used half width or quarter width to show your photos. I hope this helps.
I prefer to see articles that are broken up. Too many words in one 'lump' can be difficult to read.
Using photographs to do this is doubly good ~ provided the photos are of good quality, of course.
Quality photos enhance hubs in many ways ~ and are attractive in their own right.
Pixilated photos, however, do not enhance an article ~ rather, they irritate the reader.
Making pictures smaller can often help.
I prefer to watch a vedio because it is more attrative and vivid. So something relevant to images is better!
It all depends on the topic you write about. For some topics quality verbal content with minimum, relevant and illustrative images will be most appropriate.
I try to find a picture for each hub, because I understand that is what one is supposed to do.
For myself, pictures are mostly totally irrelevant. Yes, I want to see a picture if, for example, I am reading about a place I might want to visit, or a painter, or subjects along those lines.
Otherwise, I find words much more useful in conveying information. Whenever I get a manual or other instruction sheet that relies heavily on diagrams, I throw it away immediately, as I can never relate what is in front of me to the diagram.
As for videos, I HATE webinars and other teaching videos. Again, I want words, so that I can go backwards and forwards through the material as I wish and at my own pace.
Yes, WriteAngled, that's what I have said. The topic, the purpose and the expected audience: these are the deciding factors about the medium of the communication.
There are visual people and there are verbal people.
Unfortunately, verbal people seem to be a minority and their preferences are currently being swept away in deference to preferences of the visual people.
I agree to some extent.
But I consider myself a verbal person too (mostly) and yet, if a writer's words don't do a good job of conveying an image, a visual image can supplement or even explain to me what the words were intended to mean. IMO that is a problem with that specific writer's craft. There are some writers who just don't do well at describing a visual image. And too, there are some visuals that are simply more difficult to describe in words.
But the bottom line for me is that we don't know which type our readers are - verbal or visual? And so, if we want to appeal to both and provide content that speaks to both, it is more helpful to have images as well as clear, specific, well-chosen words.
What I meant was that verbal, not very visual, people are becoming less and less catered for.
For example, someone does a webinar, but will not provide a written transcript for those who are happier with that format. It gets me incandescent with rage, especially when the webinar simply consists of a video of someone's face talking at the camera, or, even worse, reading out text that is showing on the screen - about 10 times as slowly as I would read it myself! Aaaaarrrgghhhhhh!
Or my other bugbear: a printer manual with pictures on how to change a cartridge, for example. No words. I don't even know where in the printer I should be looking, and the fact that some tab or other should be pulled away is lost on me (until someone else tells me) because I don't recognise that is being portrayed somewhere in the pictures.
And the use of blasted icons on switches, instead of simple-to-understand descriptions like "on", "off", "pause" etc. I can never remember which icon does what, especially since I tend only to use gadgets every few weeks or less frequently. As a result, I tend to give up on most of them, because I can no longer remember how to operate them, and nothing on the device itself helps me with that.
Well, I can't read, so need pictures to tell me what the hub is about
Photos can bring traffic just on their own.
Photos break up the words and make it more interesting for the readers.
People who are searching for facts and information (say, students, professionals, and those who are interested in knowledge or want to gather factual information) would prefer verbal-based informative content, supported by relevant and illustrative images.
Those who are primarily interested in entertainment, rather than facts, would prefer more exciting images, videos, et al.
These are two types of viewers. What one likes, the other may not, because their needs are different.
by Anagha V Mahishi4 years ago
Is anybody using pictures from pixabay or using own images? What is better?
by Marie Gail Stratford2 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...
by Rochelle Frank9 years ago
A lot of people have complained about the girlie photos and other questionable subjects. I think we can help the overall quality of HubPages by only selecting fans-- and giving thumbs up-- to the hubs that we find to be...
by Eric Dockett4 weeks ago
My outdoor photography isn't awful, but I feel like I really struggle taking product photos indoors. I don't know if its my cameras or my understanding of lighting or what, but I think I need to do some research so I...
by Jean Bakula11 months ago
When our hubs were once chosen, we had a way to see what was supposed to be fixed before it appeared on a niche site. Now I don't see anything like that. It could be me, but there was a way to see what they wanted added...
by Amanda Littlejohn12 months ago
Hi,My hub: http://hubpages.com/education/Amazing-F … ut-Spiders has been provisionally accepted for Owlcation, but requires revisions. Here is the advice the curator offered me:"The Curator who reviewed your...
Copyright © 2017 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.