Whether To Give Results From Other Articles in Your Hub?

1. 0

   SonQuioey10posted 13 years ago

   You're giving your advice. It's no doubt from your experience and what you've learned to be the solution.
   
   For some, it's all about the research they've provided from some other article on the web. Yet you want readers to know you're a professional, and you know what you're talking about. You've experienced what you've written and know the solution.
   
   I wonder if anyone thinks it's a good idea to reference another article that provides the same type of data in your article, because yours could loose traffic.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cre8torposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see a problem with making reference to "other sites also" (vague and general reference) but I never get specific. I try to only link or make direct reference to a site or other source if it backs up what I'm saying in a paraphrase but never the hub. i.e. "You need an EPA license to do this type of work." and then insert a hyperlink to the EPA site on licensing procedure but not a link or reference to what howtobuyairconditioning.com says. That does seem like a bad idea seeing that this is MY hub's topic.
      
      I'm curious to what others think.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         SonQuioey10posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         As am I.
         
         I feel that it effects your hub or articles traffic.
         
         There's your article stating what you should do and why. Then you refer data off another one stating some statistics and why. Now why you think they should do something is being ignored because you listed another site that's providing statistics along with the reasons why.
         
         They provided more professional looking information than you because they have a Pie Chart etc...
         
         Do you see what I mean? I just think it's a risky thing to do.

         replyreport
2. 55

   Dame Scribeposted 13 years ago

   I would prefer to use links that can offer further in-depth information or support. I read somewhere in one of the many SE and content tips, that 'G' likes 'authoritative' links I use them since they can verify my own information and offer further sources of help.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      SonQuioey10posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think we're on the same page.
      
      I use things like also. Mostly to verify definitions, not to plagiarize Wikipedia's or some other website that can give a clearer description.
      
      For example, when I was talking about psychosomatic behavior and disorders, I discussed my topic with this. However, I had to refer the reader to a website that could give a more professional definition of psychosomatic so they would know what I'm talking about.

      replyreport
3. 83

   Marcy Goodfleischposted 13 years ago

   I think there's a difference between giving advice based on personal experience (in which case it should be labeled so), and writing an article that draws conclusions based on real data and research.  The first example would be subjective and the second would be objective.  Both are acceptable ways to write, but it's important to inform the reader if the background is mostly personal opinion or experience compared to documented research or statistics.  One way to link to a site that has contradictory information is to openly acknowledge that you disagree, or your experience is different to what it says on XYZ site.

   replyreport
4. 78

   Greekgeekposted 13 years ago

   Google and humans favor articles that link out to trustworthy, relevant sites which reinforce the points made in your article.
   
   For example:
   
   A random article on arthritis written on hubpages by who-knows-who could be a pack of baloney,
   
   An easy-to-read article on arthritis that links to relevant facts and data on webMD.com, A.I. Dupont's research institute on juveline rheumatoid arthritis, and peer-tested studies on the effectiveness and limitations of steroid injections, NSAIDs, glocusamine condroitin, and homeopathic remedies -- taking info from all these sites and distilling them down into a readable, comprehensible article for Jane Q. public -- will have a LOT more clout. It shows the author has studied the topic thoroughly. It would help someone who's just been diagnosed sift through the mountains of medical gobbledygook.
   
   That's why what you link TO is one of the factors Google uses to determine how relevant/authoritative your page is o a topic. But of course, the first question is, "does it help readers?" Links to more in-depth, detailed content do indeed help; they keep your article from getting too long to read, while providing readers with more info if they want it.
   
   A side benefit of links out is that they convert readers from passive readers to active participants in your page. Yes, a few don't come back. But people who have started clicking links are more disposed to click OTHER links -- like ads! -- before they leave a page for good.

   replyreport
5. 63

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   Here and on several other sites I always cite other authoritative sources.  I want my readers to know that I am there to help them not just exploit their attention. They can check specific facts in the primary sources I link to, but they come back because I give a clear overview of the entire subject in one place--saving them time and effort. I think this pays off in the long run.

   replyreport