I just posted a blog post http://blog.hubpages.com/2011/06/prepar … ess-panda/ with a recap and a test we will be doing at a larger scale that we are shooting for the end of June due to the complexity.
If you're interested in being part of the test, we may need a few accounts to volunteer. Let us know in a reply to this thread or the blog post if you're interested.
I'll volunteer - will there be an opportunity, if this goes live, to change usernames?
There are two main ‘groups’ of hubbers – The one accommodates the business orientated who regard HP as a source of income and the other group accommodates writers who enjoy the sharing and discussing of ideas and events, whether presented as an article, essay or any kind of fiction.
Does HubPages team reckon members of the latter ‘social’ group qualify for sub-domains? If yes, I am very nervously willing to be part of the test. If the answer is no, I suggest that the team clarifies their vision about this in order for all to move on to a new regime.
I do admire HP’s positive reaction on Panda. After all, every new concept is a threat until it proves itself as a better way to success.
I am excited about the opportunity to be part of the test. Thank You!
I'm willing to take the shot with this account. As you can see it is a purely commercial account. Before Panda I was getting 450 page views across all hubs on the account. This has lowered significantly to around 100-120 per day on average with no improvement. I'd be interested to see if this improves things.
I think I got late here. I will more than happy to become a part of this test. If you think it is worthy of being tested then please go ahead and use my profile.
Can I change the order of my preference for my subdomain names?
I'm not sure if this is possible, but I'll check for you.
What do you want the new order to be? I'll try to change it, but please reply soon.
besure on top. Does alphabet placement matter? I mean will a get you a better placement than z?
Sorry, but the subdomain besure is already taken by somebody else. The choices that you submitted to us before were: ubesure, u-besure, and bsure (in that order). Do you want bsure at the top of the list?
A subdomain starting earlier in the alphabet will give you no advantage over a subdomain starting later in the alphabet.
Fawntia thanks for you quick response. Keep my original choices with bsure being on top!
Well I'm interested in helping and learning yet,I must admit, I'm not sure what this entails.
Sounds like an excellent idea. I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that I need to do the same at my site.
I'm happy to volunteer.
This is interesting and I believe this to be a good idea going forward; however, moving all articles from a specific hubber could be a mistake. Instead this makes sense to me for new accounts going forward or for Hubbers that would like to slowly move their nonperforming hubs over.
Well established hubs that still rank well on the first page of Google, for example, might be a mistake to move simply because of valuable backlinks/trust that could be lost that keep them right where they want to be.
It's also my understanding that if we are given a subdomain that it will need to gain it's own trust and pagerank?
One of the attractions of HP (for me at least) is how a well-written article that is given a 1st page rank on the SERP often says there. How this would affect hubs that are written on a subdomain I'm not sure.
I hope when the change is rolled out (after the test) that we are given flexibility as I believe that would be in the best interest of both the author and HP.
I would be interested in volunteering; however, only on a new account basis.
As part of the test, we will move good and poorly performing Hubs over to subdomains. We've tested this a bit already. With a 301 redirect Hubs regained their rankings when moving within a few days.
Our expectation is some deep links to Hubs won't pass all the link authority through a 301, but a substantial amount will pass. This is one of the tradeoffs as part of the test we are looking at to understand. Once moved, Hubs will be logically grouped by subdomain that will help them be evaluated more independently from all the other content on HubPages.
We've heard over and over that one of the benefits of HP is having a lot of the search engine optimization built into the platform. We will also be testing new accounts with original Hubs to see how they perform as well. There is evidence here that they will rank well for long tail keywords, but we don't have enough data yet, so this will be an important part of the test. In the past, a new hub for a long tail keyword on a good piece of content could quickly rank on the first three pages in the search results and move up over time. We'll be tracking this.
Count me in as a volunteer too. Nothing ventured...nothing gained.
I must admit that this seems a bit confusing, but if you think that it will help the community, then count me in.
Never mind, I'm too confused by this test. Sorry but I renege on volunteering.
I have had a couple of hours to mull this idea over and I must say it's an ingenious idea albeit one that I've seen mentioned as a suggestion (in variations) on the forums from various topics.
I had mentioned in one of those threads the importance of separating content into subdomains much the same way that a site like "toptenreviews.com" would. The problem with my suggestion was still the mix of good articles with poorly written articles.
With this idea, those who have poorly written or spun content will find themselves limited by their own content.
The 301 direct is another crucial point...
As I mentioned above I can't stress the importance of writer choice enough in all of this rather than immediate "sitewide" implementation if tests go well.
I also believe it's attractive to writers if given the opportunity to list which "related hubs" they want listed in their articles whether their own or someone else's. This is especially important with new subdomain options as having control over what content is linked to from your subdomain is crucial.
Subdomain use might also give HP the flexibility to once again allow affiliate links that were once removed.
In summary: Additional affiliate options, control through suggestions for related hubs, and flexibility for writers with subdomains would attract not only new writers, but also bring back some of the old ones... However, a complete "sitewide implementation" brings restriction and potential loss of revenue for those who have worked hard to get their hubs to the top.
I am happy to participate where ever the community needs me Paul. Not certain how valuable I can be, but I offer you my service.
Thanks for ALL of your hard work.
I like the idea of a subdomain, but not using the username I have for the majority of the hubs I have. If there was a way to move all of the hubs of one topic (that I write in), then I would consider volunteering, as long as I was able to have a say on the sub-domain name.
I would want a "new username" if it was to be only by author name so it would be beneficial to the hubs in that sub-domain.
If the sub-domain has to be by "Author name", then HP should allow us a way to set-up new accounts with proper usernames that would fit a group of Hubs and be able to move those hubs to the new username account.
The way it is now, we would have to delete hubs and wait......and then republish under a new username and lose all the links and ranking of hubs if we move them to another username.
A few questions:
Are there certain criteria you are looking for in the accounts you will test?
Are (currently) separate accounts by one author required to be placed in the subdomain for the test, or could just one account (or a few of them) be tested?
When you (Paul E.) wrote in the blog comments that new accounts could be used for the test, did you mean that established authors can start new accounts specifically for the purpose of being part of the test?
I am tentatively interested in participating, depending on the answers and on whether I would qualify.
I only have 5 hubs but if you're looking for a similar account for test, consider mine.
I'll test it out on my Wayne Tully account, but not my waynet account just yet.
Not sure about the whole process, but hey....
if i can help, then count me in. All I ask is that you keep me informed,
Good luck with the test.I support the idea of sub-domain based on author's name, not the topical sub-domains.
CAn anyone explain to me why there is a benefit to being in a hubpage sub domain as opposed yo your own website?
Benefits? Well, there's always that warm, fuzzy feeling you get when you know you've contributed to the teams' paychecks.
I can't see any benefit when structured by author (mark+ewbie.hubpages.com) rather than topic (humor.hubpages.com).
yes- that's the one, the warm fuzzy feelin'
i am quite disappointed as I thought Mark was the guy to write a hub explaining this and the +1 thingummy stuff. I mean I have seen +1 on invites so maybe ?
unless that splits the Panda penalty by subdomain. So if there is sub-par content on your subdomain, then only that subdomain would get penalized? Pure speculation on my part....
Yes, my thinking as well. My content is a mix of rubbish, barely a niche in sight. So authors who stay in a niche might be better? But then my query is - why not just put that content on your own site?
My other query is... what does this mean for the main HP site? That there is no recovery just around the corner? That it is not possible or practical to weed it sufficiently? Or that the content model is finished?
Or non of the above?
Just looking for some straight answers really. Had three months of fluffy there's no problem, it will be all right and the odd Hubber saying "what's the problem".
I have to say I agree with you, Mark. It's basically gonna become Blogger or Wordpress.com, only with tons and tons of rules and less functionality and earning potential than they have.
Now, if they had decided to use topics for subdomains, that wouldn't be a bad idea at all.
That's what I thought a while back. Niche quality sites using the best content from HP. Raises a few questions though.
Anyway, I'm just going to get on with blogging for a while and see how it goes. I've done 140 pages on here in seven months, I can give Blogger a bit of a go too.
Considering I don't make much income from Hubpages, I would be willing to be a part of this experiment. I can take a hit in traffic and it won't make a difference to me. Especially if this test goes on in the very near future (around X-mas time I tend to need HubPages a little more).
I would've preferred this to be done by topic rather than by author name, but I'm willing to give it a try.
And mine. Makes sense to do it by topic like travel, cooking, electronics, etc.
The problem with subdomains-by-topic is that a topic being contributed to by lots of different people might have low-quality content.
That is the same problem with HubPages as a whole in Google's eyes: there is a lot of content it considers low-quality, and the presence of low-quality content is affecting traffic to all Hubs, even the high-quality ones.
If you have a subdomain under which you only have your own Hubs, then you can be sure that all the content is top-notch.
This makes altogether too much sense to me. And it won't be "might" have low quality content; it is "will" have such. We all see that already.
All it needs now is a sub-sub-domain for each topic that each hubber writes on. Say perhaps a cool half million.
With this kind of thinking we could well find authors deleting their own (perceived) lower quality work. To quickly republish it on a new account "just in case".
I don't think having topic-focused subdomains will be necessary. Your Hubs will still be linked to from our Topics pages, and similar Hubs from established Hubbers will be interlinked to each other ("Related Hubs").
Sorry, Jason - that particular comment was not meant to be taken seriously.
This whole thing just makes altogether too much sense to me. If a sub-domain will take my work away to any degree from the junk on HP it would be wonderful. Let it stand or fall on its own accord, not because it is associated with tens of thousands of other good OR bad hubs.
I would expect it to stand well (don't we all!) but if it falls, so be it. It just means I have work to do. Either in learning to write or in learning to write on the internet.
Paul - I don't want to volunteer my primary account, but you can have one of my secondary accounts for the test.
I think I would be happy to give it a try, but would like the opportunity to give a little more thought to the subdomain name..
Will we be able to select hubs to move and split our account?
Is the suggestion to go by author because google want it that way for their own perverse unhelpful (to us) reasons, would there actually be better "seo" benefit by subject/topic?
By all means, use me as a guinea pig. After six months of putting in the effort with my Hubs, the Panda struck. I have been struggling for Google traffic ever since. I'm willing to try anything you might see as beneficial to the site and individual authors.
I'm not ready to gamble with this main profile quite yet but you are welcome to use one of my smaller profiles:
They're both niche sites.
My username is : nanospeck . I would love to be a part of this change and in necessary case am ready to offer any kind of programming assistance that could help the entire process.
Count me in.
I am willing to be part of the test. Before Panda, my hits were growing. Since Panda, my hits are slowly dwindling daily. A change wouldn't hurt me either way.
This username (cocopreme) is fine to use.
I volunteer for this project as well. It sounds like a positive approach to the Panda issue.
I would like to volunteer if you are still looking for test hubs...
I don't know.
I'm so tired of being pandared and battered.
I don't know if i can take anymore chances.
I would like to volunteer for the test, if my hubs are suitable.
Can I bet a guinea pig for this?
Looks like hubpages is recovering though, I see more results on search results than I used to
I would definitely be interested in volunteering, if you would have me!
I would be happy to be your guinea pig.
Would this have an negative impact on my earnings? Would I still benefit from having my articles on HubPages? Would my content be something like:
If so, would there be a redirect?
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 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.|