|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.|
Google are claiming that their Panda change has been done to ensure quality is listed top of search engine rankings.
Now id I search for Long Tail in Google I get a Squidoo site ranked 10 in the results. This is nothing more than a list of links and has no quality or detail within it.
My own personal article on Long Tail on Hubpages which has over 1800 words and I feel is 'quality' doesn't appear in the first ten pages.
Even when I narrow it down to Long Tail Phrases my hub only appears on page 6 - now I know there's a lot of competition BUT:
My Blog entry on Blogspot that is a feeder entry into my Hubpage ranks on page one for both searches.
My Squidoo Lens - created after my Hubpage - ranks on page one when searching for Long Tail Phrase.
So Hubpages are getting slapped as a content farm while Blogger and Squidoo are not.....
Your article may be fine. Probably is. But the slap applies partly because of the whole content picture at HP. Too much spam, thin and copied content across too many categories. Something like that.
So Google takes a picture of all of us and even though there's a few pretty ones at the back it's the ugly monsters all around that we're judged by.
I think you've hit the nail on the head, Mark. Although I don't really understand just why squidoo hasn't been hit hard as well - maybe they've done a better job over the years of limiting the junk.
Whatever it is, it seems that HP has a massive job of cleanup and that it will probably take a long time after it is cleaned up to actually see any results from the effort.
I agree - the point is though that SQuidoo has just as much junk as does Blogger - but they are still ranking highly - seems to me that it's one rule for HP and one rule for others...
Have no doubt...Panda has nothing to do with quality. Panda has to do with what every other algorithm change has been for in the last few years...advertising dollars. Adsense advertisers were getting sick of having to pay for clicks from people who didn't buy anything...millions of clicks a day from "friends of friends of friends" of article writers. Have you seen any of the adsense advertisers complaining about Panda? He!! no, because they are happy. They only get real visitors now who are more likely to purchase a product.
Google doesn't give a rat's behind about quality as long as it's making them money. Having all their advertisers threaten to pull out is what made Panda happen. Remember, Google makes most of its money off of adsense advertisers, so any and all changes to search are because of that, not quality or anything else.
To a point I agree with you. Advertisers are certainly important to Google and play a large part in any decision.
At the same time, though, if searchers can't find what they want with Google they'll end up in time using Bing or something else. Google must also take care that that doesn't happen and that means quality. Although small at this point, google does have competition and doesn't want to lose market share.
Now, I really don't like this reply because it has more than a ring of truth about it.
If this is the way the internet is going, we may as well take up knitting, or hope that some advertiser will read our stuff and see the potential...but that ain't going to happen.
When someone needs a writer, they employ a professional.
And YET, I still think there is a place for us out there. People love reading how other people cope with situations, what other people think of products, or they just like looking at Indian aunties!
There has got to be room for us too - else why do so many individual sites continue to do well, just because they have their keyword in their URL and title?
Some sites on the front page of Google are nothing short of a disgrace.
Blogger doesn't really have the centralized management to count as a site, it is a host. As for who has more crap, Squidoo or Hubpages--I don't know. Possibly Google is right.
I don't know about anyone else, but I am seeing the hubs that held up pretty well after Panda slipping further down the SERPS now, so it looks like whatever HP are doing to clean up the site is not working.
I've seen a slow but progressive slide in traffic ever since panda. An occasional day or week that blips up, but it always resumes the slide. In addition, as you say, my top hubs are slowly falling in the SERPs.
Yes its as you say, a very gentle decline overall. I am feeling very sad for Hubpages. Obviously I am feeling sad for all of us, but this is just one platform out there, and I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't yet taken full advantage of the others. I just wish their method of implementing the new standards hadn't pissed off so many of the good hubbers this site had. And it seems they are continuing to do so. Come on staffers, cut us a bit of slack. We are all suffering.
yup- the slide hasn't stopped for me either. Income continues to drop as well. I don't see anything changing for HP.
Composite copying is still prevalent, although ~400 hubs from one copier have been unpublished - OUT OF 2,400 -
Thin content with insincere website "review" hubs are still out there. Funny, as the HP staff even acknowledged that most of these were "lame" - but they added the magical word "review" to the title, which appears to make lame content ok to be published.
My older hubs have held up better - my more recent ones have not.
Something's got to give! I know I am not publishing nearly as much as I used to, and judging by my morning emails, not many other people are either.
I hope they have done enough to get out of the google doghouse, and they can attract new authors.
I do not understand their mentality, really. The hubs we all find offensive, which the public finds offensive, which damages the site's reputation overall, are allowed to stay by simply adding the word 'review'.
What really bugs me about this, is that the readers who thought those were genuine sites were obviously the intellectually challenged amongst us, or perhaps not native English speakers.
I live in foreign language speaking country. I know how easy it is to become confused with a language that isn't your first.
If I desperately needed to contact the Embassy or someone, and all the writing was in Spanish and I am struggling, am I going to notice the word 'review' at the end of the title?
I will see comments from others and think I have arrived at the right place.
I am failing to see why they have come down with a heavy hand on the genuine writers of this site, and continue to do so, while leaving this 'fluff' intact.
I would like to continue publishing, but am finding it harder day by day to get motivated.
Ditto, Izzy. I had set a goal of 2 hubs per week this year, and was doing OK until Panda. I haven't done any since then and doubt I will. I just can't see putting the time and effort in it to see them languish in the "lost hubs of googleville" section.
I did put a few hundred backlinks out there, but they don't seem to have done anything and they, too, are slipping in the SERPs. I've thought of flooding the 'net with a backlinking tool, but it goes against the grain to me. No one wants that kind of junk on their site - they'll just see their own work turn into another HP.
Izzy, you are spot on. There is no qualification for "deceptive" hubs. The rule doesn't specify whether they are intentionally or unintentionally deceptive...simply "deceptive."
If the comments on those hubs don't support the fact that these "lame" hubs ARE, in fact, deceptive, I don't know what will. When readers ask "customer support" to contact them, or give account numbers in the comments, it should be indicative that these types of hubs are, by their very design, deceiving people.
These authors were given a blueprint on how to keep this content published by adding "review" or "information" - but it still doesn't make it right.
by Ellen6 years ago
I keep up with Google news fairly regularly to see what's coming down the pipe. I still feel vague self-righteousness over raising the pre-Panda alarm, only to be scoffed at for suggesting that Google might start...
by Katherine Tyrrell2 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...
by TTGReviews3 years ago
Yes, there was a Panda update yesterday, but this topic will be focused on things we could see far in advance of this update.As someone who has written extensively on both HubPages and Squidoo perhaps I can offer a...
by riotgrrrl9 years ago
I have joined stumble upon, and i really love it!!But, how do i add my hubs to the site, so other people can stumble upon them?
by Juliette Kando FI Chor3 years ago
Only one person(easylearningweb) responded positively to this previously published entry two months ago under the forum thread entitled The Future of HubPages which was full of negativity. So here it is again...
by Steve Andrews5 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...
Copyright © 2018 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.