I jus finished rading this article and thought to share it with you :
http://www.seo-theory.com/2011/05/06/ch … algorithm/
It say that this Panda technology is the foundation of the new internet search, and it is still upgadind and it was aimed to separate information on the web..
And is not over!
I don't like to hear they are still going to get harder on what they call "content farms". They've hit hubpages hard enough already and what about eHow. I'm sick of finding their poor articles when I do a search. Some of these appear not to know anything about the subject and didn't do any research either.
If its content farms, then why eHow is doing so well in the search engines?
PBS had a series of articles about content farms...last summer. Here is one of them
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/07/d … ms207.html
Good read, although in journalistic style of writing it is easily spun, reworded and scraped. You just need to answer the basic qs like who what, when and where then you have a news. Bad or good news still a news.
I like opinion columns and editorials, they can't spun or scrape it, only if they like to, LOL
eHow escaped the first round - but it also got hit in the second round of Panda.
The Postscipt in this article from Webcentral Blog (6th May) is very informative
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot. … ality.html
It includes a list of Google 'quality' crieria. [its long but worth quoting here]
Below are some questions that one could use to assess the "quality" of a page or an article. These are the kinds of questions we ask ourselves as we write algorithms that attempt to assess site quality. Think of it as our take at encoding what we think our users want.
Of course, we aren't disclosing the actual ranking signals used in our algorithms because we don't want folks to game our search results; but if you want to step into Google's mindset, the questions below provide some guidance on how we've been looking at the issue:
# Would you trust the information presented in this article?
# Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
# Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
# Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
# Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
# Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
# Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
# Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
# How much quality control is done on content?
# Does the article describe both sides of a story?
# Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
# Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
# Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
# For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
# Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
# Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
# Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
# Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
# Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
# Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
# Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
# Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
# Would users complain when they see pages from this site?
Writing an algorithm to assess page or site quality is a much harder task, but we hope the questions above give some insight into how we try to write algorithms that distinguish higher-quality sites from lower-quality sites.
One other specific piece of guidance we've offered is that low-quality content on some parts of a website can impact the whole site’s rankings, and thus removing low quality pages, merging or improving the content of individual shallow pages into more useful pages, or moving low quality pages to a different domain could eventually help the rankings of your higher-quality content.
We all should print this page and stick it to our computer screens
"Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?"
I think Hubpages made a mistake when they had one subject where everyone wrote a hub. I tried not to get involved in that. It seemed like overkill and the time, and apparently it is killing Hubpages. Yet they are still doing hub topics and getting a gazillion hubs published at the same time on one topic. I don't get it.
"Does the article describe both sides of a story?"
This is ridiculous.
those qualitative indicators mentioned are difficult to measure, even with well designed algorithm, it needs human checking it. Imagine that even HP can't cope or catch up with moderation of so much hubs being flagged, how much more Google with gazzillion of pages in the Internet.
these are all qualitative/subjective measures. Some qs can be answered by yes or no, it means it is us who will evaluate the pages through user interface. This will be forever tweaking.
@KiaKitori, thanks for posting this. Very informative.
@janderson99, thanks for the helpful quote of Google 'quality' crieria. Good to know.
In that case, reading those, I'd say hubpages is dead as a money earner though still has value as a community of writers.
There are one or two things in there especially worrying .. for eg .. would you give your credit card info to a site.
Well .. I'd give mine to a major company but not to joe bloggs blog however good his articles .... It looks very much to me that they really have gone the corporate route.
Time to Bing I think
I think they are in for a very long run unless something else happens in the mean time. The article states that it will be hard to recover after a panda hit.
See http://hubpages.com/hub/Possible-Busine … r-Hubpages
Perhaps the way to go is to have Hubpages as a community of writers with internal articles as the default, and to set rules and editorial scrutiny for those who want their articles out there in the www
My earnings were just picking up, they doubled over the weekend..I wouldn't say Hubpages is done and I think everyone is being a bit hasty
Richie, I'm very glad for you. I don't think HP is done either. But i can't stop reading articles about this Panda thing. I'm very curious to see where it goes.
martinez's article that I first linked is the first one I read that says the Panda is the fundation of a new techology or something similar.
I hope its true. Thanks for the link though.
The site you quoted is not an authority...
Here are a couple of comments from the article:
"eShite still ranks on millions of long tail queries, often with multiple listings."
"No, they’re not tracking traffic but the whole world is watching for some sign of eHow’s impending doom.
I don’t see it. In fact, I suspect now may be a good time to buy some eHow stock."
I read various articles - they have gone down 40% in the last few weeks according to some reports.
Demand media admit to a 20% decline
http://www.googlelivesearch.com/web-new … -to-panda/
There is a giant leap in the pecking order between "Authority sites" and "Communities". Authority sites like Encyclopedias and Wikis are revered for total fact and no third rate spammy spun gossip styled information. Now compare that with most communities, even like Facebook, or take Hub Pages. Primarily they are both communities. They are not schools of quite the same "wisdom". So there will be a "perceived" lesser value on the information provided. That is just how it is...so Panda hits Article sites more, sorry to say.
Unless 100% of all participants of Hub Pages are University educated experts in their chosen field, and write accordingly, we are a "Community", although we are a very popular one and with plenty of readers and views. There is no avoiding that. But we can all only do our best. Unless somebody has a grand idea to "upskill" Hubbers everywhere, it is up to us to write entertaining, informative and topical content. Otherwise, what would it take to raise our game?
by Will Apse 6 years ago
There is a lot of SEO related stuff about Panda in these forums, so here is something about quality and the kinds of content Google is trying to find and offer to searchers:It comes from Amit Singhal, Google Fellow and High Priest of search.Would you trust the information presented in this...
by SuperheroSales 5 years ago
I just read a Hub that said that the author was going to go to the freelance website and pay people to write articles for him that he would put on HubPages to make himself money from. That can't be okay with the HubPages site, is it? A couple of people commented, including an author that I have...
by Ellen 7 years ago
1. Relevance to search query2. Quality of content3. User experience4. Relevance to search query5. Authority of author (I hope Hubpages gets rel="me" working.)6. Relevance to search query7. Who's linking to you8. Relevance to search queryBut BESIDES that. Here's some useful stuff.READ...
by J Sunhawk 7 years ago
Since the Google dreadnought steamed through, capsizing and sinking various affiliates and businesses, I still don't see any decent returns on simple search queries.For example, when I type into the search box "pizza" + "name of my town" I get back garbage. It's directories,...
by Steve Andrews 6 years ago
When it was first introduced I was annoyed by it but made an effort to tweak my hubs to get them out of Idle status. Now, a whole load have got zzs against them again and many of them are hubs that at one point were very successful and even now still have scores above 70 or higher.One of the hubs...
by Ben Aidoo 3 years ago
Is it true that Google is inundated by billions of articles that it's suffering from a system overload, and unable to give quality attention to new and better written articles? Just imagine, the poor Google crawler had to sift through 14 million articles to come up with 10 results on page 1 for a...
Copyright © 2019 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 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.|