# Plunges and Surges Survey

1. 61
Fiction Tellerposted 11 years ago

Hi guys,

Will you take the survey below?

Explanation:

I'm trying to compare stories of people who have plunged or surged, or both. The problem is, it's hard to figure out what's really going on without a sense of scale. Some accounts are shrinking; others are growing; but what this means in terms of Google "approval" is confusing, since the accounts whose traffic is growing could very well be experiencing the same traffic per article as those whose traffic has decreased.

Just as an example of what I'm saying is Hope Alexander, whose traffic diminished greatly - but Hope's traffic from Google, as last reported, is still many thousands of views per day. Contrast that with somebody who might have been getting a two views per article increasing to four per article. Hope's views decreased, while the other author's views increased, but Hope still has more "Google approval" than the other account, if you see what I mean...

Another example: Some accounts could have only five hubs in them, while others could have 500. Because of the difference in scale, their surging or plunging could involve different things going on.

Basically, it's hard to compare the significance behind surging and plunging if all else is not equal.

To get a little bit of a better sense about what kind of scale we're dealing with, would anyone be willing to answer the questions below?

You'd answer for your hub account with the largest number of hubs - it doesn't have the be the account from which you post your response. And don't worry about whether or not the traffic is coming from Google, although you might mention if you know your traffic just surged from a Facebook link or something.

SURVEY

How many hubs are in the account?

1) 1-20
2) 21-50
3) 51-100
4) 101-300
5) 301-500
6) 501-700
7) 701-1,000
8) greater than 1,000

Which best describes your average daily traffic NOW in the account?

1) Traffic is between 1-5 views per article per day
2) Traffic is between 6-10 views per article per day
3) Traffic is between 11-20 views per article per day
4) Traffic is between 21-40 views per article per day
5) Traffic is between 41-100 views per article per day
6) Traffic is greater than 100 views per article per day

In the last month (August 6 to today), has your search engine traffic experienced a large change? You can answer both 2 and 3, if applicable.

1) No
2) Yes, it surged at least once
3) Yes, it plunged at least once

If your traffic recently surged or plunged, what is the most RECENT change?

1) Surged
2) Plunged

Which best describes the average daily traffic to the account BEFORE the most recent change (if applicable), but AFTER the account moved to a subdomain?

1) Traffic was between 1-5 views per article per day
2) Traffic was between 6-10 views per article per day
3) Traffic was between 11-20 views per article per day
4) Traffic was between 21-40 views per article per day
5) Traffic was between 41-100 views per article per day
6) Traffic was greater than 100 views per article per day

Is the traffic in the account mostly due to one or two articles? As in, do one or two articles get at least 80% of the views?

1) Yes. 1-2 articles account for at least 80% of the traffic.
2) No. More than 2 articles account for at least 80% of the traffic.

Any other comments on your traffic? (Try to be as concise as possible.)

1. 61
Fiction Tellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

I can start it...

SURVEY

How many hubs are in the account?

4) 101-300

Which best describes your average daily traffic NOW in the account?

1) Traffic is between 1-5 views per article per day

In the last month (August 6 to today), has your search engine traffic experienced a large change? You can answer both 2 and 3, if applicable.

2) Yes, it surged at least once
3) Yes, it plunged at least once

If your traffic recently surged or plunged, what is the most RECENT change?

2) Plunged

Which best describes the average daily traffic to the account BEFORE the most recent change (if applicable), but AFTER the account moved to a subdomain?

4) Traffic was between 21-40 views per article per day

Is the traffic in the account mostly due to one or two articles? As in, do one or two articles get at least 80% of the views?

2) No. More than 2 articles account for at least 80% of the traffic.

2. 60
Lisa HWposted 11 years ago

Are you averaging number of views per number of Hubs?  (Because if you're not there's a whole other scenario that is being overlooked here:  There's the situation where, say, 200/300 Hubs could have substantial imbalance when it comes to daily/monthly traffic, but the imbalance couldn't be as substantial as the 1/2 Hubs/80% thing in your survey.  6 or 20 (or whatever) Hubs could combine to make up 80% of the traffic (or 60% - or whatever), leaving the smaller percentage of traffic to the Hubs don't perform as well (or at all).

Of that smaller percentage, only x percent of those of Hubs may consistently tend to get a similar number of those "low-traffic" views (some more than others) per day; and at the end of any month some "willy-nilly" percentage of that smaller percentage can be made up by a different "cast of characters" each month.

I don't mean to second-guess the kind of information you're hoping to get from the survey you have designed (or to suggest that you don't know exactly the kind of information you hope to get from it and what questions will get it); but as a potential "survey-answerer", I know I'm one whose traffic doesn't fit into either of the scenarios in the survey (whether that's pre-subdomain or post-subdomain).

I can understand that you may be trying to eliminate the vast range of middle ground "imbalanced traffic scenarios" to make "whatever" differences there are between the two extremes (in traffic imbalances) more obvious (and I'm not at all second-guessing your approach or aims in the design of your questionnaire).  My problem with even trying to reply to your survey is that my own traffic scenario/imbalance isn't included in it (unless, of course, you're averaging traffic views with number of Hubs).

Maybe you specifically intended that your survey not apply to "middle-grounders", but my own impression, based on my own "middle-grounded and kind of peculiar" mix of Hubs (at least in some ways) is that it's in that more murkey middle ground where the most difficult to figure out ("subtle") differences between individual Hubs tend to be.  This is pure guessing (based only on my own experience with my own stuff), but I'm not even sure I think it's correct for authors who have been called "plungers" at one time or another to assume that ALL plunging is a matter of a subdomain slap, rather than a matter of "zillions" of little "slap-worthy" things across a collection of Hubs, that add up (in number and/or varying degrees of importance) to, perhaps, result in an overall plunging that may not have anything in particular related to the "plunging" Hubber at the time.

I've made my own observations/guesses and could share them here if you want (but I don't want to go yet farther away from your survey, or even longer in my reply here, than I already have).  One reason I think things may appear less murky (at least less murky enough for me to presume to have guesses about some things) is that I've never SEO'd up my stuff.   So what traffic I get is made up of very close to all search engine traffic (minus a very small percentage).  That's how it was pre-Panda.  It's how it still is.  As far as my HubPages traffic goes, I get more of my HP traffic from Google than any other search-engine traffic (by far), and I've always assumed there's a good chance that could be because of something HubPages does with regard to bringing traffic. Then again, I do have some stuff on other sites that gets some traffic; but what gets traffic elsewhere and what gets more traffic here (of my own Hubs/articles) seem to be similar to me as far as the absence or presence of "traits" goes).

I would start my own thread, or write a Hub, about my own observations; but as someone who doesn't quite into either the stereotypical "money-hubber" Hubber category OR the "writing-only Hubber" category, I've never felt "expert" enough to either post a thread or write a Hub about my own observations/guesses about anything other than my own set of Hubs.

I don't get the kind of traffic you mentioned that Hope Alexander gets.  Before subdomains (and even before Panda) mine tended to average in the low 1000's.  As of right now, it's in the 5000's and appears to (maybe, and at least for now) be climbing.  Subdomains resulted in a substantial increase in traffic for me.  A some point (in mid-August I think) I had a fairly dramatic drop for a couple/few days, although it never got to as low as pre-subdomain averages.  It was a consistent drop by "about x number of views" as each hour went on.  Then it turned around again.  Post-subdomain highs were at the highest at the peak of that dramatic increase (for me) when so many other people saw dramatic increases.  I've had two substantial drops on two weekends.  Today it's up past my post-subdomain/post-dramatic-increase "all-time high", with a new "all-time high".  (Some of the ones that are doing better earnings-wise would surprise a lot of people, by the way.)

1. 61
Fiction Tellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Hi Lisa,

I'm asking for views per article per day, average. So if you have 100 hubs and 500 views a day, you average 5 views per hub a day. (The average is views divided by number of hubs, or 500/100, or, reduced, 5.)

I'm not trying to eliminate middle ground. I'm assuming that imbalanced traffic scenarios are normal.  Very normal. I'm trying to control for Google's recent and unusual stop-start/plunge-surge behavior with certain subdomain accounts. Normal, "imbalanced" as you call it, traffic fluctuations include those occurring after subdomain switches and with daily and seasonal fluctuations and small algo fluctuations will affect all of us depending on the size of our library and our general historical traffic trends.

So one thing I'm trying to do is separate out the plunger and surger accounts caused by Google's recent spastic behavior from those accounts affected only by normal traffic surges. Sounds like you'd fall into the category of normal fluctuations...?

I'm also trying to get a sense of scale of the different accounts. If you tell me your traffic doubled, then halved, then doubled again, it means something different depending on the scale of the traffic in question and how the earnings are distributed amongst the hubs.

For example, if you get 50 views a day from 50 hubs, with those views spread out in a normal distribution (a pattern observed by a lot of rev share writers is a few may get much of the traffic, while the rest added up get the rest in a neat little distribution curve) that means something different, statistically, than if you tell me you get 10,000 views a day from mostly TWO hubs out of 100, and that means something different statistically than if you tell me you get 10,000 views a day from 1,000 hubs with traffic spread out pretty evenly across hubs. Does that make better sense?

1. 60
Lisa HWposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Fiction Teller, my "burned-out-ness" kicks in when I try to digest things like statistics and patterns of distribution).  Unlike you, I have grown kids, which brings its own kind of "burned-out-ness" sometimes.

My own traffic didn't look like normal ups and downs.  Depending on whether I was measuring against earlier (pre-Panda and/or pre-subdomain "average-highs" or "average-lows"), that big spike in traffic that happened a few weeks ago resulted at first in my traffic pretty much doubling, and as time went on, tripling.  It even approached (and, again, depending on what I was measuring it against) being 4 times more.  Then it pretty much (pretty much) stayed around the same but had minor drops here and there (if I recall correctly).  Not too long after, close to the weekend, but not on, I think, Thursday night) my traffic began to drop from about 50 to 100-plus views with each hour/hour and a half (as far as I was noticing).  So, although it wasn't a massive drop "to nothing" overnight, it was going down, down, down over the course of that Thursday night and most of the weekend. It looked like it was heading more to about halfway point between the new high and the previous high (or average), and just before it did, that's when it started going up (and went up to a new all-time high).  Someone had said that could have been a weekend drop, but I wasn't sure.

The following weekend something similar happened, and again (I think on Sunday) things started to climb up and reached another, newer, all-time higher (not a whole lot higher than the most recent one - but definitely higher).  So, day to day, there haven't really been ups and downs over the course of a few days.  There has been "either up" or "either down" (and always fairly substantial changes but never the shockingly rapid ones some others have described.  Ups and downs haven't fluctuated from one day, or time or day, to another.  It's been rare that it seems to settle into a more normal "ups and downs in roughly a similar area" type of thing.  The change between the end of an "up cycle" and the end of a "down cycle" is far too dramatic, I think.  (Thousands of views/day with only the same, barely changed, 300 or so Hubs.)  Before Panda (and with only a slightly different number of Hubs) my traffic was pretty much stayed in the 1100 to 1300 (maybe 1400) area.  After subdomains it was more in the 1800/2000 area (occasionally 1600; occasionally more like 2200 or so).

It's been since that big, dramatic, traffic increase that took place a couple of weeks ago for so many people that I've had what I've described going on.  If it goes as it has been going, I wouldn't be surprised if between now and tomorrow morning sometimes it doesn't get to 6000 before it starts the down cycle again.

The timing with at least one of those drops (the first one) was around the time people were talking about a Panda "run" that had been done within the two days (maybe day-and-a-half) prior.  That time, if that "down cycle" had continued another two or three hours I would have been returned to my pre-Panda high of 1300/1500 views a day.  1500/1600 would have been within some range of the 50% range from some of the pre-Panda/pre-subdomain "average high's".  I kind of thought, within the almost site-wide, dramatic, increase; and considering my modest number of Hubs and the type of Hubs they tend to be, a 50% increase seemed right.

Right now, I'm fewer than 40 views away from 5500, which would be more than twice my post subdomain high's and approaching three times those.    It would also amount to more like 5 times my pre-Panda/post-Panda but pre-subdomain "frequent lows".  Immediately post-Panda I saw at least a couple of days when the views showed as in the 600's and 800's.  That was fleeting.  1300 tends to stick in my mind most as far as pre-subdomain averages go.  That's pretty dismal for a lot of the SEO-focused Hubbers, I know; but I was getting my few/several hundred dollars a month doing things my own way (here and elsewhere but with most of the earnings coming from here) and didn't have the "mental energy", time, or inclination to turn my HubPages writing into a second job.

SInce Panda, my better performers aren't doing as well as they once did, although they seem to be improving.  A lot of the no-/low-performers seem to have started to pick up (but then some of those had picked up a little before Panda, only to have that all wiped out when Panda hit).  Since subdomains I've seen some that had once started to pick up (even if only a little but consistently) have been among the first to start to pick up again, and some others have started picking up as well.  Hubs that did well for me pre-Panda are again among those that do best among my other Hubs (so SOME of what worked well before still works well).  The speed at which some of the slower performers seems to be picking up is a lot faster than they were doing pre-Panda.

If I take my better performers out of the equation, combined they don't even make up half of my traffic (again, as of recent times).  I have a bunch of different Hubs that get from as little as in the 20's a day to as much as in the hundreds (often low-ish hundreds).  I still have a bunch that get 0 per day.  I'd say, right now, that the biggest part of my present traffic comes from a bunch of non-spectacular Hubs that bring in between, maybe, 50 to  low hundreds of views.

(I've asked myself if putting such details out in public is the wisest thing, but I'm beyond worrying about the kind of stuff at this point.  I figure, if it gets anyone a reading on what kind of stuff brings in whatever kind of modest traffic it may (but that adds up) maybe there's some kind of light to be shed in one way or another.  To be honest, ever since Panda I've been doing the exact opposite of what a lot of other people have been trying to do, which is "pull my writing efforts" more inward and away from "the whole Internet climate/thinking", rather than trying to figure out new ways to "get it out there" post-Panda.  I'm staying away from social sites for the most part and being very careful about what gets associated with anything I have anywhere.  I've put emphasis on who/what I am, as a writer, to the point where I'm pretty uncomfortable and embarrassed by it; but if my whole "pulling-inward" approach fails then I'll do the next thing (because we have no control over some things anyway).  If it succeeds then I'll have done it by doing things the way I've always wanted to do them in the first place (but didn't quite entirely do them because I've always kept trying to "sort of partially do things" the way "everyone says" they ought to be done.

Something I've noticed:  When I get into one of my moods of thinking what crap my half-baked/under-developed blogs are, and put the settings all on "private", I seem to notice "bad Google days".  Apparently, dramatic changes in one's overall bunch of stuff doesn't always sit well with Google.  My new plan is to leave that stuff I've not satisfied with, and that I'm self-conscious about, where it is; but put it more in the distant background by adding better, more professional, stuff in the foreground (of my online efforts) and making that other stuff lower profile.  (If the search engines find it, great.  Other than that, I'm not calling attention to it - but I'm not going to take it down either, unless I completely replace it with better stuff  at the same address, or else a completely new one, altogether.)

3. 70
bgamallposted 11 years ago

I had two surges and two wipeouts since the initial crash. I think that this is getting to be a real joke. I hate Google more and more everyday. The people who run google are content thieves. I wish the company would fail and another big search engine come to take it's place.

1. 56
janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Great Idea!
BUT
Why not do this in a Hub using several Poll capsules - that way everyone can see the results.
I would add a poll regarding number of backlinks to the pages - one for major links and one for Social page links.

1. 60
Lisa HWposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Another factor related to backlinks (I'd think) might be whether they come from someone's own sites (like blogs) or other sites.  Also, maybe, whether either type of site may be "primarily writing" (like another writing site with members who write there), "all purpose subjects" or specific niche/subject-focused.

4. 83
QuestionMasterposted 11 years ago

Fiction Teller, please post the survey in a hub using poll capsules - I think a lot of people will be interested in taking this test and it will be easier to collate the results!

1. 59
Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

I agree!  Each capsule poll will remove the added work of indicating which question one is answering.    But really, what data can we assess which HP doesn't already have access to?

1. 89
Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Randy, Maddie Ruud just posted in another thread and her reply indicates they're not even aware of this phenomenon.

I think gathering the survey results in a Hub would be a great idea, and I'm on it now.

1. 96
PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this

I agree with Randy.  The survey's an ok idea for a bit of fun.  But HP has all the data at its fingertips when it comes to serious analysis.

1. 89
Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

But if they're not aware of it, they're not going to analyze it. Maddie's comment, telling you it's Stumbleupon, is an indication they're not aware of it.

Think of how many hundreds of Hubbers there are.  HubPages is not going to notice fluctuations in individual accounts, even if they're dramatic.  Right now I suspect they're dismissing these threads about traffic rising and falling as problems being experienced by a minority of keyword-stuffers.

If we can gather together the information in one place to help them with their analysis, surely that has to be a good thing?

1. 60
Lisa HWposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Not to be the "tin-foil hat" sort, but there's also the chance at least some (maybe not all) HP team people are aware of it but, for some reason, just "aren't saying".     Maybe they're aware of the traffic changes but not the reasons for them, though...  Or, maybe they aren't aware of any of it (somehow I tend to doubt that).  And here's a real "tin-foil hat" kind of thinking:  Maybe they're even causing some of it somehow, even if only for something like "adjustment and sorting" purposes??

1. 89
Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Lisa, hoping to catch you - I had to delete your response to the survey because it was too wordy.  I hope you'll post again with just the bare facts, as requested.

1. 60
Lisa HWposted 11 years agoin reply to this

OK.  I'll try (although my own "weird" collection of perfomers is kind of hard to give a simple answer on).      Also, my own dipping situation hasn't really been similar to some people's (and yet it's been consistent enough, even if apparently temporary at least until now).  Anyway, I'll go try to trim the reply.

2. 59
Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

This is even scarier if they aren't aware of the situation.  I think Maddie has been absent from HP for a while, especially from the forums.  But I could be wrong.  I thought I was wrong one time, but I was mistaken.

5. 60
Smart Rookieposted 11 years ago

I took a plunge, unpublished most of my hubs, revised and republished a few after a few days, after which my SE rank for certain keywords was incredible, and now I've plunged off the map.

This all happened in less than two weeks.

6. 61
Fiction Tellerposted 11 years ago

I agree it would be better in a hub, as a poll or a survey, but I don't have the energy to organize it!  However, maybe we could all brainstorm questions we'd like answered, and then an enterprising hubber could assemble them all in a poll.

Sorry I'm too burnt out here to do more than post sporadically. Young kids do that to you...!

1. 56
janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this

I can do it later in the day (8 hours)  if no one else volunteers?

7. 89
Marisa Wrightposted 11 years ago

I'll do it, I'll post a link shortly.

1. 95
wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Won't work, Marisa.  You won't be able to isolate any variations from a poll.

The only way to do that would be to let each hubber download a form, fill it out and email it to you.  You could then post results for each respondent (perhaps one result per column).

You have to be able to, for instance, find out that every hubber with more than 500 hubs is a surger and not a plunger.  Without individual results you can't tell.

1. 56
janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this

It can be done with a little duplication - like a tax form - If answer is A go to 2, if answer is B go to 3 etc. keep it simple.

2. 89
Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

I'm taking a different approach.

8. 89
Marisa Wrightposted 11 years ago

OK here it is.

http://marisawright.hubpages.com/hub/Hu … ges-survey

It would be nice to do a complex "if answer is A go to 2" survey, with polls, but that would take too long and besides, we don't know how widespread the phenomenon is.   If it's only affecting a few of us, it's not going to be worth gathering all that detail.

Instead, I've kept it very simple and I'm asking people to give their response in a comment.

If you can think of other questions that would add real value to the survey, let me know and I'll add them.

1. 95
wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

You might put in a request for analytics figures, or at least an indication of where they come from.  My adsense traffic figures are crazy and nearly worthless.

1. 60
Lisa HWposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Are people even allowed to share analytics figures?  I didn't think they were.

1. 95
wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

You may not share CPC or eCPM but I thought the rest was OK.  I could be wrong....

1. 60
Lisa HWposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Hmm.  I always thought it was more like "nothing that goes on between you and Google and nobody else" (as in "you can share your overall daily Google earnings because HubPages also knows about them too).   I could be wrong too (and probably am).

(Number 7.   I'm still not entirely certain on some of it.  I guess I settled on my own err-on-the-side-of-caution approach thinking it's safest, even if not entirely necessary).  I guess, maybe, I don't know well enough what Google does or doesn't "make publicly available" that I may not know about.

2. 89
Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

1. 60
Lisa HWposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Ah..  Thanks.  I've always just kind of seen Ad Sense and Analytics as "sister programs" that are tied together (and under pretty much the same kind of policies).

2. 69
Rosie2010posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Just did your survey, Marisa.  Very interesting stats there.  I hope more people  participate.  Cheers!

9. 95
wildernessposted 11 years ago

I see on Marisas hub that Paul E commented that about 4% of top hubbers have seen the plunge and surge.

I did not want to make another comment on that hub, but am curious as to if that means that 4% surged and then plunged?  Did only 4% surge at all?  Or did 4% surge, plunge and then surge again?

Paul?  Can you elaborate?

1. 56
janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Yeah! and who's Serge!

1. 95
wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Now be nice.  I caught that too, but was too polite to mention it.

2. 89
Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

I saw that too, and thought it would be nice if he could be more specific.

10. 95
wildernessposted 11 years ago

I signed up with google webmaster tools last week some time.

As of now, both of my HP accounts are showing impressions, but nothing else.  Everything shows <10 clicks, but that's probably - I doubt I have any individual hub that has gotten 10 clicks since signing up.

However, I am still not showing any linking at all.  No internal (I cross link every hub several times) and no external links.  Only two external links show up and they are both truly organic and have problems anyway.  It has probably been a week - shouldn't I have some links showing up?

And finally, is it possible that this is some kind of glitch on google's part and some of the reason I haven't plunged yet?  According to webmaster I haven't had the enormous almost overnight increase in external links that the rest of us have.

Of course, it would also mean that my own surge isn't related to those same links - why a surge then?

1. 96
PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this

I suspect that the simple and awful truth is that Google just hasn't got around to you yet, Wilderness, but I hope that I'm wrong!

I was concerned even when I was surging, as it definitely seemed wrong  and disturbing that Izzy and Randy G were getting slapped.

1. 95
wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

And I agree with you - I fully expect one day to see near 0 views.

I just wish we could find something, anything to give a "why" to what we see.  That webmaster is showing 0 links is just another little bit of information towards that end.  Maybe when those links suddenly show up I'll drop like a rock.

It seems to me more and more that what little evidence we have is pointing to those 1000's of new backlinks as a very real problem.  Google doesn't like that, they come in big and small lots, they can hurt or help depending on source and quantity, and they come at nearly random intervals.  All of which is exactly what we're seeing.

If I'm right there will be some that never plunge and some that ride an enormous roller coaster.  Eventually the dust of the subdomain switch will all settle out, but it will take time.

1. 59
Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Since I don't backlink other than FB and Twitter, my former backlinks were organic for the most part.  I though this was what G wanted previously, but now I have no idea what they want and don't much care anymore.

1. 96
PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this

@Wild.  I hope that you're right that the dust will settle.  People said that things would even out post-panda, but the vast majority stayed down in the dumps for 4 months and then only got out because HP changed the site and brought in subdomains.  I really don't think Google would care that much if HP went down the plughole.

@Randy.  HubPages effectively gives us links without asking, Randy.  That's one reason why hubs get relatively high rankings.  Even if you do nothing, you will get lots of links.  But that is maybe a problem at the moment.

2. 95
wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Randy, you are a special case - you don't fit the profile of any of the other posters I've seen.

A high quality writer that doesn't spam the net but that plunged with no surge.  That has not recovered, even for a day or two.  That google says has not been penalized or sandboxed.  I am just 100% baffled - can't think of even a wild theory.

Although I would truly hate to lose either your hubs or interaction in the forums if you haven't seen any positive change when this surge/plunge cycle has settled out it might be time to move on to somewhere else.  A hateful thought, that G could force such a thing for no apparent reason, but something we all live with.

1. 59
Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

My feelings too, Wilderness.  I'm sorta in limbo at the moment with not much hope of anything being stable for long.  Since I've had no sudden surges, like many others after the switch to subdomains, I don't have anyone else to compare like experiences with. I will give it a bit more time here but have no hopes of anything helpful from HP other than more insulting suggestions.

1. 96
PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this

I guess we have to live in hope that it will all be sorted out and have a happy ending.  It may be that google are partway through a major job and things will work out.  The extended panda slap took away some of my confidence though.  Google's warlike tone regarding sorting out "content farms" in 2011 didn't help either.

The only consolation is that we can't do much.  Might aswell concentrate on other projects..

1. 59
Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

True dat, Paul!

2. 56
janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this

Hi Randy,
You are probably were a truly over people making suggestions, but I beg your tolerance to consider something which worked for me.

I suggest removing the text associated with all your related links - leave the title - just delete the description below it.  Google regards this text and text in RSS fees as duplicate content and may be penalising your pages. I did this for my articles and it seemed to work, Google apparently works on a percentage of duplicate material for your sub and applies a penalty - so it pays to have none that you can remove.

Anyway hope traffic rises soon. Cheers!

1. 59
Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

I've been busy removing all RSS and links capsules, but so far no change.  But thanks for the suggestions anyway.

3. 89
Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

Randy, Google may say it wants organic backlinks, but the experience of thousands of webmasters says they can't tell the difference between organic links and other kinds of links.

Google has got to the point of identifying and devaluing some links from spammy copied articles, but they certainly haven't caught all of them.

1. 59
Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

I have less and less respect for Google as time goes by, Marisa.  I hope they eventually slide into obscurity.

11. 93
habeeposted 11 years ago

I believe Randy's hubs will rebound soon. He didn't experience the plunge back when most of us did, so maybe it's his turn now. Maybe G was slow in indexing his hubs after the sub-domain switch. He has good, useful hubs that G should appreciate.

12. 0
Hovalisposted 11 years ago

SURVEY

How many hubs are in the account?

4) 101-300

Which best describes your average daily traffic NOW in the account?

1) Traffic is between 1-5 views per article per day

In the last month (August 6 to today), has your search engine traffic experienced a large change? You can answer both 2 and 3, if applicable.

2) Yes, it surged at least once
3) Yes, it plunged at least once

The plunge lasted roughly 2 weeks; he surge lasted less than a week. Has plunged again to its lowest level yet.

If your traffic recently surged or plunged, what is the most RECENT change?

2) Plunged - two days ago

Which best describes the average daily traffic to the account BEFORE the most recent change (if applicable), but AFTER the account moved to a subdomain?

1) Traffic was between 1-5 views per article per day

Is the traffic in the account mostly due to one or two articles? As in, do one or two articles get at least 80% of the views?

2) No. More than 2 articles account for at least 80% of the traffic.

Any other comments on your traffic? (Try to be as concise as possible.)

The first plunge did not come until about a month after the change to the subdomain. Before that traffic was slowly but steadily rising. Overall, my traffic was roughly 150 hits for 109 articles and rising. (Before Panda it was 450 for the same amount of articles). At the lowest point of the plunge it was 29 hits on 109 articles, the surge took the hits to 600+ for 109, and I'm back at 28 for 109 now.

I will add to this that I am talking about my alternate account, not this one. There were no RSS feeds on any of the articles.

working