How to Avoid a Panda Mauling

Jump to Last Post 1-38 of 38 discussions (173 posts)

88
Will Apseposted 11 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 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?

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot. … ality.html

The obvious drive is find content that is comprehensive and insightful. In-depth articles on professionally edited sites with big brand names are going to be favored.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Doesn't work. Google propaganda. I create some of the most authoritative articles around, and some of them got "panda-ized," despite being the most authoritative piece on the Internet. What you fail to understand is that Google is a business and as such, their primary concern is making money for their shareholders and mostly this money comes from selling google adwords advertising.
  
  Why would a company use adwords? Because they have trouble getting organic traffic, because wikipedia rules the search results, because google wants adwords buyers, because that is what makes them the money, and SEO companies are competitors of Google.
  
  You need to understand that the Internet is going through a consolidation phase that involves the big boys eating the little boys. The best way of combating this is to emulate the big boys - which is hard to do for some and particular given the fact that Google is deliberately targeting certain niches and markets for their own profits.
  
  Or - to find the gaps in the wall where there can be no "authority." There is still room in many niches, but don't expect that to include Computer reviews.
  
  Remember there have been a couple of other Google changes recently as well.
  
  1. Removal of specific search results from logged-in google users in analytics (all analytics). In some cases, this has resulted in a drop of over 50% of search terms being available.
  
  2. Refusal to be specific with adwords buyers as to search terms used by incoming traffic.
  
  Combine this with the recent algo changes and you are looking at massive data loss for many SEO firms.
  
  Unless you want to invest $250,000 pa on a premium analytics account?
  
  http://www.google.com/analytics/premium/
  
  But thanks for the regurgitated advice.
  
  You are great at regurgitating stuff.
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, this.
  
  Given the facts that you've stated above, it totally amazes me that people still carry on taking those Google propaganda articles as gospel.
  reply report
  80
  David 470posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Listening to the above may help, however, in the end Google is in control.
  reply report
  61
  heleineomanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Google is really cool! they turned the Internet up side down. It's survival of the fittest
  reply report
  96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, there's a lot of corporate politics going on in the background. Google has become so big that only major legal action from corporate competitiors, or action by the US gov/EU can have any effect on its future direction (and makeup).
  
  Google is happy to work with corporations like Amazon, because they don't really encroach on Google's business territory, but there is a ruthlessness towards companies that Google sees as rivals.
  
  Sometimes you feel like a pawn in someone else's war.
  reply report
  59
  Eric Graudinsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Mark:
  re your conversation with Will Ar se:
  "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of your time, and it only annoys the pig."
  reply report
2. 73
  brakel2posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Will for giving us this information. I have never seen it written out in that form. I will take any information that I get and that anyone on the site takes the time to provide. I understand the frustration of those who have lost a great deal of money. Hopefully, things will get better. I do believe that the money from asking questions has helped to some extent.
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 11 years ago
Isn't this what Hub Pages has always emphasized?
reply report
1. 88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  A lot of people who complain about traffic loss have failed to heed these guidelines. So posting them at regular intervals is no bad thing.
  reply report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So you're saying I, Sally's Trove, AndyOz, Paul Goodman etc etc all write cr@p.
  
  Gee thanks.
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, we're all "HubPages haters" for even daring to suggest that factors outside our control might be at least partially responsible for a loss in traffic, as opposed to just the "wooden" quality of our writing
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  This is why so many people here will never get past the obstacle of Panda. Emotionalism is always so much easier than honest self appraisal.
  
  If you want to do well, play the odds.
  
  The odds are that Google will get its way.
  
  So you fall in line with the quality demands and hope Google really does get its algo right. Or you throw your lot in with the floundering SEO Google gamers.
  
  Which do you think is more rational?
  reply report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Will, that is a disgraceful statement. Many of the Hubbers hit by the recent Panda/Penguin updates produce terrific quality work. Look at Marye Audet - are you seriously saying she can't write? She could blow you out of the water.
  
  Google likes to claim Panda is all about quality, but at the end of the day,a dumb algorithm cannot judge the quality of anyone's writing accurately. Google can penalize things like spelling, keyword stuffing, excessive advertising, questionable linking etc - not quality.
  reply report
  96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I think the Google list is "aspirational" (or maybe "PR"?) rather than practically achievable for them. They test pages/sites out with humans, then try to identify patterns in the pages/websites that people liked/disliked, but they are still limited by technology - the algo is a complex and a beautiful piece of work, but still a blunt instrument compared with a human brain.
  
  Some of my "crap" articles do better than my better quality ones to be honest. I've given up worrying about it and just go with the flow. (I'm a great believer in empiricism).
  reply report
81
Mark Ewbieposted 11 years ago
Thanks Will - it does no harm to re-read that occasionally.

For my stuff I could be slammed or not slammed by an algo or person. Luck of the draw, for me, I think.

I try to give the searcher what they were expecting from their visit, but it's a challenge when spoofing things.
reply report
88
Will Apseposted 11 years ago
I reckon people don't realize how specific some of these guidelines are.

Someone recently took a big tumble traffic-wise after including the keyword phrase 'houseplant care' in something like a dozen article titles. Taking note of this could have saved him some pain: 'Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?'

This is one I am trying to fix in my own account: 'Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?' When I am careless I am very careless. Someone is doing a very good job of proof reading all my articles right now. Some of the mistakes are truly horrible, lol.

I reckon the most common reason for traffic loss is this one: Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results? Too many people are writing in saturated topics. You can't produce a page titled 'removing red wine stains' and expect a good result anymore.
reply report
96
incomeguruposted 11 years ago
Getting someone from oDesk or other similar sites to write content for you, and get it published, is not going to bring any good when it comes to search engine traffic.

Reason is this, those guys at odesk are mass producing those content to different clients, all they'll do is just adjusting the same content to make it looks original. And which google will quickly penalized.
reply report
54
janderson99posted 11 years ago
Hey you forgot one!

How does the copy sound when you read it out loud?

How could the dumb googlebot possibly assess all that stuff.
Sorry I don't believe it.
None of its assessed. Its just general advice.
reply report
56
Dame Scribeposted 11 years ago
I don't think it isn't just about quality writing that should be the focus. Step into the shoes of the advertiser, that 'G' has attracted. Now, what does 'G' have to offer for delivering advertisements ? If our writing lands in a good category, and there's amazing traffic, then a deal is successful. It's that area where we fall in and HP itself provides the platform, therefore a good partner. We, the writers, just got to deliver. Least, that's how I'm imagining how it works but I could be wrong
reply report
1. 83
  Rusticlivingposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I would have to agree with you Dame Scribe. I admit whole-heartedly that I am not an accomplished writer by far compared to you and others who have written amazing work. But I do think of how I would feel as the consumer who would look at an article and ask the important question, does this article deliver what I am looking for? Can I trust it? How does it apply to me? "G" has to offer the advertiser and consumer a quality AND a needed subject. HP has offered us a great way to perfect our writing skills, use our imaginations, and make money as well. We need to exercise our talents and keep writing! Afterall, we are doing what we love, right?
  reply report
2. 75
  Barbara Kayposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Has anyone tried the free $100 worth of advertising that Google offers? I tried it for my website and got so little traffic for that amount that if it was cash out of my pocket, it would have made me feel a sick.
  
  Facebook has become a huge competitor to Google for both ads and traffic. Google is grabbing at straws to get back to where they were. They'll try many things before it is all finished. Hopefully that means a return to Hubpage traffic.
  reply report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And here was I thinking I was the only lucky one! Actually for me, it was $75. I think there's a real learning curve to using Adwords effectively, so I'm not sure if the lack of result was really lack of effectiveness or my inexperience. I'm just on my last $7 so will be turning it all off tomorrow.
  reply report
78
MyWebsposted 11 years ago
A listing of changes to the Google Algorithm in April from Matt Cutts. (Google Engineer)
Search Quality Highlights 53 Changes
reply report
1. 54
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There's some good stuff there
  
  No freshness boost for low-quality content. [launch codename “NoRot”, project codename “Freshness”] We have modified a classifier we use to promote fresh content to exclude fresh content identified as particularly low-quality. ===> sounds like they are targeting generic brands.
  reply report
88
Will Apseposted 11 years ago
Just another little point from Amit Sighal:

"Writing an algorithm to assess page or site quality... (rather than writing the wish list, quoted)... 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."

For those who want to keep their accounts safe, this list is worth taking on-board.
reply report
1. 84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  TRY is the operative word here - notice they admit assessing page quality is a "much harder task".
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, Marisa. Try. Harder. These are all important words.
  
  The fact is though, the criteria in Singhals wish list is the criteria that they are writing the algorithms to. If you want to game the algo, take note of the list. Or just write good stuff.
  
  And before we go back to what is good and bad... My view is you let the reader decide and many other people now believe that Google makes some use of user metrics. So keep an eye on view duration.
  
  If readers spend plenty of time on a page it is probably good enough and Google will decide the same thing.
  reply report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Who said anything about gaming the algo? You seem to think I'm some kind of black hatter. Do you really think I'd be writing about dance if I was out to make money at all costs?
  
  Of course we should all be trying to write quality, that's a given. I'm objecting to your clear implication - that if you've been hit by Panda, you must be writing poor quality rubbish. And if people like Marye Audet and Sally's Trove are not deeply insulted by that, then they should be, because they do NOT write rubbish. I don't think I write rubbish either.
  reply report
81
Mark Ewbieposted 11 years ago
My guess would be that they can make a stab at guessing 'bad' content more easily than 'good'. Keyword stuffing, dodgy linking - that kind of thing.

I'm not saying anyone does that, etc., blah blah.

They also may be taking notice of the neighborhood. So those links that HP put on our pages to others people's content... I don't really like that. No control.
reply report
0
EmpressFelicityposted 11 years ago
I notice with amusement but not much surprise that many people on this thread have ignored Mark's post about Google propaganda, and are taking said propaganda literally, as if it actually means something real. (This is strikingly similar to what goes on in the political forums.)

I have a nice drink that you all might be interested in... would you like to join my cult?

reply report
1. 88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There is a grain of truth in what Mark says. We are only going to pick up the crumbs here. This site will never have the authority of the big specialized blogs.
  
  But if you can spot the gaps left by the big boys, you can still make money. As long as you don't blow it by coming across as a spammer. Or being a spammer.
  
  That list gives you most of the clues you need to avoid that fate.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Regurgitating what Mark said now huh?
  
  That list you posted is a list of reasons not to write here.
  
  That is the problem with simply regurgitating things you don't understand and have not tested. Bit like writing product reviews of products you have never touched.
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I am concerned with Hubpages and how to do well here. You are not, apparently. According to your own reports, you are a heavy hitter who is here to chat to your friends. Nothing wrong with that, of course.
  
  Frankly, what I see is someone who spins all his thoughts through a self pitying 'its the big guy beating on the little guy' distortion machine.
  
  So Google becomes evil for preferring a well established blog or site with
  editorial staff, solid writers who can be fired for messing up and codes of practice that ensure their stuff is reliable.
  
  And we go-it-aloners are the sad victims of Google's discrimination.
  
  Not really.
  
  As I have said dozens of times, if you can learn to use Hubpages for what is it good at, you can still make money. Just avoid the grandiose delusions and focus on the realities.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry you didn't understand. Give out some more regurgitated advice. Please.
  
  What makes you think I don't still make money here?
  
  Producing webspam such as you produce is not likely to make you any real money, and I would prefer it of you stopped lying about me. I never said anything about being a heavy hitter. I am here to chat though. Sorry it bothers you that I understand more than you do because regurgitating wot google sed and producing nothing but webspam is not convincing me you have the best interests of this site our your fellow hubbers in mind. You just seem to want to be another guruwanker.
  
  Clearly your articles go against the list you just posted, and - honestly - I think spammers such as yourself are part of the problem this site is currently facing.
  
  Now - don't go getting all emotional. It is not your fault you cannot afford to buy the products you lie about testing. Neither is your poor command of English. But - I am sure now you are paying $3 an article to have your "work," edited, your fortunes will turn around.
  
  But - hub hating and giving a list of reasons not to write here and then claiming to be concerned with hubpages don't gel together.
  
  Self pitying? Yes - that about sums you up. Write a few more "5 best amazon wotsits" and then tell us how little traffic you are getting. And then regurgitate some more advice you have not understood.
  
  Frankly all I see is a little man incapable of understanding the new reality and having trouble adapting. But thanks for regurgitating what I said.
  
  At least that is useful advice. Honestly - I know what I am talking about, and attacking what I say because you don't understand it is not doing yourself or your fellow hubbers any good at all.
  reply report
  76
  Kangaroo_Jaseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Will,
  
  Apart from blogger.com, wordpress.com and blogspot.com there is no 'big specialized blogs' ranked higher than HubPages at the moment.
  
  Even if one loosely looks at Quantcast.
  
  And forums unless it is is a forum on a site I have a lot of faith and trust in regards to SEO. I will never look at forums on HubPages for SEO information. Too many so called 'experts'.
  
  On a final note, search engines help , but they are not the ONLY source of traffic.
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If you think you can outrank CNET, Mashable, Gizmodo or ZDNet in tech with a Hubpage, please go ahead and try.
  
  The same story with the big fashion blogs etc.
  
  Hubpages is a Web 2.0 content farm and ranks as well as any other Web 2.0 content farm but that is all.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Weird. I outrank Mashable and ZDNet and am 3rd after CNET and Gizmodo for a tech hubpage. And you are saying this is impossible? Odd. You obviouslyknow some stuff I don't know. What is your secret?
  
  Other than the self pity thing? Probably getting persecuted as well huh?
  
  And you say you are not religious....
  reply report
  76
  Kangaroo_Jaseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Will,
  
  I don't understand your continued undervaluing of this site. You seem convinced that HubPages is a content farm and thats it, no other function outside of that.
  
  You also seem to believe that people are operating instead a specified box of operation (writing content, particular SEO) and are unable to expand, deviate or thrive outside of that box.
  
  You also seem to persist with a difference of opinion and argument when its been made clear you are often incorrect yet choose not to indulge otherwise.
  
  Even if I am wrong about this Will, I still do not understand your basis for these understandings.
  reply report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Jase, Will is talking about large blogs, not large blogging platforms. So is Mark. And Will is right in this case - it's becoming increasingly difficult to outrank the big, established websites and blogs on most subjects.
  
  Google has been favouring "authority sites" for some time (an authority site is a substantial website or blog which offers expertise in a particular field). Although HubPages is a substantial website, it can never be an authority site because it doesn't specialize in any one topic. That's why some people were saying the sub-domains should've been topic-based, not author-based, after Panda - so each sub-domain stood a chance of being seen as an authority site.
  
  However, up till now HubPages seems to have bucked the trend, and some Hubbers are still getting good traffic in spite of writing on a variety of subjects. I think that may be changing now,though, as Google continues to "refine" Panda. I notice, for instance, that when I Google a health topic, the top results are always from the big medical sites, even though they may be less relevant than some of the results from smaller sites which appear further down the SERPS.
  reply report
  96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Playing Devil's Advocate. From Google's point of view, a big medical or health organization has more to lose by providing incorrect information than an anonymous writer on a free writing platform. Let's give the independent writer the nickname of "Flopsy Bunny". "Flopsy Bunny" might actually be providing more relevant and accurate info in his/her article than the big medical organization, but the safer bet for Google is always to put the big medical organization top of the search results.
  reply report
81
Mark Ewbieposted 11 years ago
The thing is, Mark Knowles is an internet expert. He is on a different level to people like me.

All I can do is take notice of what Google says, and try to produce content that people search for, and use when they get there.

I have no other game plan or skill set.

So for me, the list of what Google claims it is interested in - while it may not be the truth - is at least some sort of guide.
reply report
1. 0
  EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Mark, thank you for at least replying and giving a credible answer.
  
  I am in the same position as you, really. It just annoys me when people seem to really buy into this "Google wants quality" stuff, and spend *hours* examining their own and other people's navel fluff. Hours that could have been spent doing something productive.
  
  Which reminds me, I need to put my tomatoes outside so they can harden off.
  reply report
  81
  Mark Ewbieposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Lol @ tomatoes - that makes a fair point.
  
  I am still learning, and I have a lot to learn. For me, revising what I have done, who is visiting, how long they stay, what the competition is, keywords (why didn't I do any research FIRST - doh!) - and, and, and.
  
  I do take the Google pronouncements with a pinch of salt, as I do ANY pronouncements on the web on how to play the game.
  
  It just all slowly forms a big picture... which may still not work.
  
  Oh, and as a relative newbie, I don't really have much history or axes to grind. Plus I don't care too much who agrees with who - it's all part of that larger picture.
  reply report
  96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I think your approach is a good one, Mark. I find the forums debates on here interesting (well, maybe not always, but certainly sometimes). The ego battles can get a little wearisome, however, and I am always impressed by your ability to stay aloof from them - I can feel myself getting sucked into them sometimes... must resist!
  reply report
  81
  Mark Ewbieposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks Paul. Before I came here I was a forum junkie, always keen to have some fun and banter. I'm here for a reason, and that is to learn to write and make some money - if possible.
  
  Selfishly, there is no benefit to me of getting involved, so I try not to. As you say though, it is hard to just stay quiet sometimes.
  reply report
  84
  TIMETRAVELER2posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I have been here for 4 months and have had dismal numbers. I also have had great responses from readers, some so good that they have blown me away. I don't understand much of the tech stuff, but I have tried to write original, well structured and informative articles. I have revised plenty, and yet my numbers 3 days ago dropped basically to zero. While I know not all of my articles are great, I've produced 92 of them...can they ALL be THAT bad? So bad that the money has totally stopped, the reading has totally stopped and I'm frozen in time? This is getting tiresome and is very discouraging.
  reply report
  84
  psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It seems to me that making quality content is exactly how we should be spending our time.
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No argument with that at all - I suppose I should have been a bit clearer.
  
  What gets to me is (a) the way that people trustingly believe that what Google's spokespropagandists *say* Google wants is exactly equivalent to what Google *does* want, and (b) the hours they spend talking about it.
  
  Google wants profits. That's their main aim. You might be able to help them make a profit by writing quality content, but quality content is not Google's prime raison d'etre, otherwise you wouldn't have complete crap getting to the top of the SERPs as it does at present.
  reply report
88
IzzyMposted 11 years ago
You know, I am tired of the same voices coming out with the same old rubbish here - that when we lose traffic it must be because either out writing is poor or because we use suspect SEO techniques.

I am so glad I have different subdomains of my own, to make some comparisons.

Up until now, we may have thought our poorer hubs were the 'fluff' ones that we may have written, the ones we sat down and wrote in under half an hour, and that our 'good' hubs are the ones we labored over, put the effort into, and ended up with a highly readable article that we can be more or less proud of.

But, I am seeing a pattern emerge where fluff hubs are holding up, even on slapped subdomains, where the 'good' hubs are falling.

I am seeing 500 word articles take off (on unslapped s.domains) while 2,000 word ones, complete with videos, photos, polls etc, flounder.

Maybe too early to tell, but all of this is weird.

I think Google's *new improved* algorithm is far worse than the previous version, the one they had before Panda.

I don't think it has anything to do with 'quality'. They have been feeding us propaganda.

We cannot dance to their tune, unless we want to be constantly editing hubs.

I cannot see the 'pattern' in what they want, and I strongly suspect no-one else can, either.

I think we should carry on as we are, and eventually everything will settle down as Google shuffle and re-shuffle its own results.

And I think we, as in ALL OF US, should be less derogatory towards other hubbers, and show a little less of the "I'm all right, Jack" mentality.

As Marisa says, when people like Marye Audet, herself and Sally's Trove get hit, we KNOW writing standards are not being judged.

It's something else entirely, and probably to do with the commercial aspect of Google.
reply report
1. 54
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  My mini-subs always do worse that my mother-sub and so its very hard to tell - follow ABBA's advice:
  On and On and On, Keep in Write'n Baby till the Night is Gone!
  All that re-writing stuff has no basis in fact, it just wastes time (no body knows) - just write more and more and more - some will succeed, some won't, but enjoy it!
  Cheers,
  reply report
0
Arlene V. Pomaposted 11 years ago
Y-A-W-N. Where have I heard all this advice before? Oh! It's been already written and published! Excuse me while I return to my writing . . .
reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 11 years ago
My personal fave:
"Does the article describe both sides of a story?"

And here I've been bemoaning the demise of objective journalism.
Thank you, almighty Google, for bringing it back.
(Ha ha ha ha ha)!
reply report
0
Arlene V. Pomaposted 11 years ago
"Would you trust the information presented in this article?"

Gimme a break.
reply report
88
Will Apseposted 11 years ago
Sigh...

Maybe a few people looked at that list and realized how useful it is if you want to avoid Panda. But maybe the whole thing is just a lost cause. A lot of people just want to believe there is nothing more than randomness at work.

Should I care? Frankly, I wish I didn't. But there you are.
reply report
1. 84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Really? I doubt anyone thinks the effects of Panda or Penguin are down to randomness.
  
  Some people think the effects are down to a far-from-perfect algorithm. Others subscribe to theories about Google favouring its corporate mates. Neither theory has anything to do with randomness.
  reply report
2. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  *Even bigger sigh*
  
  Have you tested it? No - you have not. I have tested it and the list you gave does not work. I have spent the last year testing. You on the other hand - as you do with your "work" here - are simply regurgitating other people's words.
  
  Should I care that you are handing out advice that you have not tested and do not understand? Frankly - I wish I didn't, but - there you are.
  
  Simple fact is - you don't know how to avoid a Panda mauling - you just seem to want to have your ego stroked.
  
  Hubpages don't know how to avoid a Panda mauling. Just look at the quantcast figures.
  
  Your constant need to hand out regurgitated information is rather annoying, because if some one did follow your advice - how many hours would they have wasted to discover it does not work?
  
  Still - you don't care about that do you?
  
  If you had actually tested this list and had some results to share, I could respect you. But - by your own admission - you are only now starting to have your own pages edited. So - you have no results. You are guessing. That list you posted is over a year old. Have you spent the last year testing? No - you have spent the last year pontificating.
  
  There is nothing random about the recent changes. I have explained why but you choose to ignore it.
  
  *really big sigh*
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps you should tell us how someone who has been hit by Panda should react.
  
  Should they just give up?
  
  Is there a way forward?
  
  If so what is it?
  
  Also, are there any factors that predispose a site or sub-domain to a Panda mauling?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  
  I already posted a list of suggestions that were ignored and buried under your deluge of regurgitated Google propaganda.
  
  No, but they may well have to write off a bunch of previously published work - as I have done.
  
  Yes. Find gaps the the wall that are not being crushed by the Google machine.
  
  Follow the advice I gave on the last thread you started, but editing and bringing "up to quality," stuff that has dropped for no apparent reason is not going to help.
  
  Certain niches are now what I consider to be impossible to rank in. As far as HP goes - I would monitor closely the competitions run and take a look at niches they are encouraging people to write about.
  
  Look at the pages you have that have not been adversely affected and do more like that. If all your pages have been adversely affected and you consider the quality to be good - try a different approach.
  
  I am not certain I have enough data to answer that accurately, but a broad range of niches does not seem to be a good thing unless you bury a money making page within a large amount of non-money makers. Neither does a large amount of product review pages with affiliate links in do very well.
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If we are staying on topic and talking about Panda...
  
  I have been through this whole thread and the only specific points that I can pull out are that you think affiliate links and shallow micro-niche sites are problematic.
  
  Hard to disagree there.
  
  I don't recall starting a thread in months, apart from this one, so I can't refer back any further.
  
  What I was hoping was that you would have some more specific advice for people on Hubpages.
  
  Many people get hit here. Do you ever look at their accounts to see if you can see the problem?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Last time I gave specific advice, the site immediately filled up with "5 best amazon wotsits" hubs from people such as your self.
  
  Not sure I can be more specific, but I will try. Sorry you did not understand the specific instructions I just gave you, so I will repeat some of them and add a few more without spelling it out for you.
  
  1. Don't write product reviews about products you have clearly never touched.
  2. Follow HP's advice as to what niches to write in - i.e. - competitions etc.
  3. Get into video. I see you already took my advice on that one, so you must remember the thread I told you to do that. It may not have been your own thread, you were just telling us wot google sed on it.
  4. Look at what is still working for you and repeat that format/niche/approach.
  5. Write off the hubs that have been hard hit that you cannot see a problem with, and do not try and fix them.
  6. Avoid certain over-saturated niches which require authority such as medicine, finance, loans etc.
  7. Spread yourself out and write in many different places.
  8. If you are setting up your own sites, keep the quality high, the niche tight and emulate the bigger sites or appear to be a seller not an affiliate.
  9. Look for niches that have no authority that you can still thrive in.
  
  I have looked at a lot of accounts. The problem is mostly external - as I already explained and - you then accused me of self pity, so I won't bother trying to explain it to you again.
  reply report
  76
  Kangaroo_Jaseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It surprises me Mark that you have just outlined some excellent points worth their weight in gold.
  
  I'm surprised as most people should be invoiced for this advice.
  reply report
  95
  viryaboposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Mainly posting to bump this post to the end where people will see it - but also, could you expand on why you say (no. 5) there's no point "fixing" Hubs that have been hard hit?
  
  My (former) biggest earners are now at the bottom of the pile, so I'm guessing they would fall into that category - it seems like a big step to kiss them bye-bye after they've earned me hundreds of dollars over the past few years!
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What I actually said was "5. Write off the hubs that have been hard hit that you cannot see a problem with, and do not try and fix them.
  
  So - if you cannot see a problem, chances are the issue is external. In that case - go find some high quality incoming links, get a few social bookmarks going, and see if that helps. If you don't know what the problem is - how can you fix it? That is why the list Mr Apse posted is a waste of time. It is too vague, and doesn't go to the core of the problem. The people who are most frustrated are people who produce high quality work and don't see why they have been penalized. In which case - it must be external.
  
  You also have to remember that the Internet is not a vacuum. You may have written a piece that hits all the "quality" markers, but - there could be 30 other pieces out there that are "better," than yours. (According to the algo).
  reply report
  96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The list seems like a useful reminder of what hubbers need to focus on. I was maybe hoping for more new ideas that you or others have not covered previously, but that is quite possibly an unrealistic expectation on my behalf. Maybe it's more of a question of diligently employing what we already know, rather looking for a magic wand.
  reply report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That makes absolute sense, thanks Mark. As Paul says, we're all looking for magic solutions but what you've said is more realistic.
  
  I think I'm seeing that in my own work. The Hubs (and other stuff elsewhere) which have been hit are on popular subjects like fashion, beauty, fitness etc. They were ranking highly and getting lots of natural backlinks and now they're in the toilet. But let's face it, those fields are heavily targeted by online writers, and there's so much new stuff constantly being churned out, they probably had to fall off their perch sooner or later.
  
  Whereas my stuff on dance - which ranks pretty well but makes very little money (because there's no point being #1 if only 3 people are searching for it) hasn't been affected, because it doesn't offer high value keywords or much in the way of affiliate companies, so there's not as much competition.
  reply report
  83
  CMHypnoposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Market saturation is a topic that rarely gets discussed here for some reason, but I have to agree with you Marissa. When I first started writing here some of the topics I wrote on ranked highly and brought in good traffic. But they are and were popular things to write about, and now there are lots more articles on the same subject on HP itself, and thousands of more writing sites and articles out there, making it so much harder to rank them.
  reply report
  85
  rebekahELLEposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I definitely think market saturation is an issue on HP, and will continue to be as long as writers continue going for high traffic topics, basically spamming the internet with nothing new or unique. Hubs may be written well, but with all of the competition and saturation, why not focus on something less saturated that may be easier to rank well for.
  reply report
87
Bill Yovinoposted 11 years ago
"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?"

This, I believe, is the crux of the problem. "Mass-Produced", "Large number of Creators". I think this is an indictment of Hubpages as a whole, and not of individual hubbers.

The majority of hubbers who are commenting on these forums, produce unique, high-quality, informative articles, and don't fall into the categories of abuse shown on that laundry list. However, a large number of poor quality hubs are published every day by people who are not as serious about offering up good content. I think that this is what's bringing down the overall site ratings.

What's the solution? I don't know...Maybe there should be a probation period for new hubbers, where everything they produce is reviewed before being published. Not all hubbers or hubs should make the cut.

Maybe Hubpages should have separate sites for informative articles and creative writing.

Just my 2 cents.
reply report
80
David 470posted 11 years ago
I think I am going to try writing on my other account. It's been along time since I used my other account for writing hubs(in fact I barely use it).

These Google Algorithms are extremely frustrating to me. Last year in the later months, I was quite happy how I was doing here. However, since that dreadful panda that occurred in feb. 2011, I knew another one would inevitably hit me once again.

We can all blame the stupid spammers who end up affecting legit writers!!

Too many people sign up to HubPages just to post 1,000,000 articles that are either copied content, spam, or are extremely "self-promoting." Or they are hubs that just focus on keywords and do not have any real information.

It's good to have keywords when writing hubs, however, if the article is solely based on getting traffic from the search engines, then it's probably useless to the readers. You need a balance between keywords and information etc..
reply report
88
mistyhorizon2003posted 11 years ago
To anyone still quite new to this site who doesn't know who they should ever listen to for advice here, I highly recommend three hubbers whose information is in a league of its own. These people make their full time living online and are too modest to say it, but they are the 'creme de la creme' and would normally charge for their services elsewhere. Those three members are Mark Knowles, Sunforged (Josh) and Eric Graudins. If they hand out any gems of advice on forums here it is wise to listen and follow it
reply report
1. 92
  Rochelle Frankposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I agree, and would add relache.
  reply report
2. 84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report
80
Les Trois Chenesposted 11 years ago
Assuming my content is good, should I simply give up and republish my articles elsewhere? How long should we wait?
reply report
1. 80
  David 470posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I would not republish every single article elsewhere.
  reply report
88
Will Apseposted 11 years ago
Mark has certainly caught the mood on Hubpages. Which is sad for Hubpages.

He has moved from a person who was happy to game Google and pretty pleased with Google and himself. To someone who realizes it is now so risky to game Google you might as well not try.

Unfortunately, that has added Google to the long list of things that Mark hates (Mark is moved to this emotion easily).

The consequence is a not especially rational commentator given to conspiracy theories and lashing out at anybody who offers even mild disagreement.

He was wrong last year, repeatedly, saying Google will never punish spammy backlinks etc or get on top of the gamers. And he will continue to be wrong because he cannot think outside his own narrow interests. Google isn't rewarding him anymore, so Google is broken.

Anyway. I can honestly say I have only seen 2 accounts hit by Panda here that obviously had not violated the guidelines in that list. Those accounts bounced back, fortunately.

Bear in mind, it is not the number of good pages you have it is the number of bad pages. Plenty of people hit by Panda have a lot of great pages but persist in keeping pages that press all the spam buttons. So they get hit.

As a further note, Mark's style is so unpleasant I will not be getting involved in any further attempt to have a civil discourse.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  This sort of emotional outburst is typical of the mood Mr Apse brings to hubpages. People with no real knowledge or understanding pushing advice they do not understand and have not tested.
  
  I don't hate Google so I wish he would stop lying about me. I know he doesn't understand what I said, and do not understand the reasons I said them, but - I suspect he will go away and follow my suggestions and has already started to incorporate them into his "advice."
  
  He was happy to game google with faux product reviews, now that has stopped working he fails to understand how to adapt. Rather than see the wisdom in my advice, he prefers to rant and rave about other people's quality and does not understand that these condescending, passive-aggressive attacks on others are the reason I adopt a certain tone with him.
  
  I will not bother responding any further to these types of threads unless I see Mr Apse giving out more poor advice which he has not tested.
  
  I never said Google will never punish spammy backlinks, but Mr Aspe prefers to lie in order to look like he knows what he is talking about when he doesn't.
  
  Sadly, these sort of backhanded personal attacks are typical. Peopel tend to be far, far braver when there is no likelihood of meeting the other person. See religion and politics forums.
  
  As usual - all these sort of diatribes from Mr Aspe do, is detract from the actual good advice given out, and suggest trolling rather than a genuine interest.
  reply report
2. 84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  In that case, please do post a couple of examples of which of my Hubs violate the guidelines, I'm always interested to learn.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  He is making it up. Go take a look at the success stories page and click the "keep reading" buttons.
  
  Then you will see the traffic graphs of some writers I consider to not be breaking his mythical guidelines. Seriously - on top of those, I have access to about a dozen other accounts analytics, plus I can extrapolate all my referrals and the referrals of those dozen accounts. He is full of it.
  
  http://hubpages.com/success/
  
  I think he got religion.
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Have you been hit by Panda? Or are you seeing a steady slide in views which is probably something else?
  reply report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I was hit by Panda. Overnight loss of 75% of traffic.
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I am sorry to hear that. You know all the usual advice. Try deleting all the poorly performing pages of any age. Make sure you have no amazon ads that are not absolutely relevant to the content. Check that all links are relevant to visitors(including within your own sub domain). I would especially check that one
  
  Most of the points in the list that I pointed out will be represented in your data:
  
  Is the page detailed, insightful offering something more than other pages? etc etc is something you don't need to make any judgement on yourself. The views you get and the time spent on the page are the judgements that have already been made. By readers and search engines alike.
  
  So you know where the weak pages are.
  
  Best of luck. Assuming it is Panda, a lot of people bounce back.
  reply report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, from what I read, an awful lot of people never bounce back from Panda. In fact it's so hard to do, the standard advice (if you have your own blog) is just to transfer all your content to a new domain and start again.
  
  My experience has been weird, but almost exactly parallel with Paul Goodman. I lost nearly all my traffic late last year in a Panda slap. I made a few changes - not what you suggest, though. I changed the layout on all my Hubs to prevent an ad appearing in the top right-hand corner (because Google doesn't like too many ads 'above the fold' now) and unpublished a few Hubs.
  
  Then I celebrated, as the recent Panda update brought all my traffic roaring back overnight.
  
  Then in early May, it disappeared overnight again. That date in May has never been announced as any kind of update, and I can only assume Google made some kind of minor tweak which undid the benefit I got from the Panda update.
  
  My only consolation is that my blogs were not affected. Their traffic is down slightly, but that's because they're not getting referral traffic from HubPages now - plus links from places like HubPages, Wizzley etc have probably been devalued. That's why I don't take your concerns about Amazon ads seriously - every single post on my belly dance site has two Amazon links and three eBay ads in it, and its traffic has actually gone up.
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I wouldn't give up too quickly. People like Hope Alexander and Max Dalton came back. And you do have a lot of pages that you could try getting rid of that you probably wouldn't miss.
  reply report
  96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Paul Edmonton is advising that experienced hubbers with older hubs that have been hit should hold on and wait, as HubPages may well have identified the problem now. The problem is more likely to relate to a Google glitch, rather than anything to do with the quality of individual hubs or subdomains. Waiting for HubPages and Google to resolve a technical issue would appear to be Melisa's (and my) best course of action IMHO - but I am sure that she is capable of making her own mind up.
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That might bring some traffic back (we are all praying) but it won't cure the underlying problems so many people have in their content.
  
  A lot of the pages I see in Panda hit accounts are the next best thing to suicidal.
  
  Then people fall into some kind of fatalistic trance and don't even think about dealing with the issues.
  
  Izzy, for example, still has 2 pages trying to sell UGG boots! And things like 'buy a cuckoo clock online'. 'Buy a greenhouse online' etc etc
  
  This is just crazy. Single product review pages were one of the most notable casualties of Panda. The 'buy online' tag is considered deceptive for affiliate pages. And of course, the products Izzy has tried to sell are in some of the most saturated and spammy areas that you could imagine.
  
  It is especially sad to see Izzy do this to herself because she is a nice person and has produced a lot of interesting pages.
  
  How many other people are determined to take the same route?
  reply report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It may surprise you to know that I agree with you on this. One of the items in the list you quoted was:
  
  "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?"
  
  It would be interesting to know how Google are judging that - but we know they've identified certain subjects as being associated with spam, so one easy measure would be the number of such subjects in a sub-domain. That could mean even people who've written serious Hubs on those subjects would be in trouble.
  
  I also agree with you about the "Buy...Online" wording. Every affiliate marketer was being told that was THE headline to use - along with using their keyword in the URL, title, every heading and sub-heading and photo caption (not really something you'd do naturally). If Google wasn't aware of those practices - which they could've discovered by sending staff to frequent any affiliate forum - they're dumber than I thought!
  reply report
  80
  Les Trois Chenesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You're doing something weird when you post, Trois Chenes, because your posts always end up inside quotes, as if you're quoting yourself! You've doubled up on the "quote" formatting - are you manually adding extra ones yourself? You don't have to.
  
  I'm not sure what Will has against Ugg boots, or even against selling one particular product. I think he's just using that Hub as an example of how not to do it (in his opinion) under the new Google guidelines.
  
  Although he and I often disagree (as you may have noticed), we're probably in agreement on this one. First, it has the "Buy .... Online" title (which some people say is being penalized now). Second, it has a high keyword density (7% to 8% for Ugg and boots) but not a lot of meaningful information.
  
  That type of Hub (or lens) was hugely successful pre-Panda, but seems to be on the nose with Google now. And the trouble is, Panda will penalize your whole sub-domain if you have even a few Hubs Google doesn't like.
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Going by the spam comments on my hubs, I reckon Ugg boots were probably one of the hottest spam topics last year.
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That is interesting. When you say Squidoo, who exactly do you mean? Is it someone on the staff?
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It's like HubPages, but with a giant squid:
  
  http://www.squidoo.com/
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, I have a few pages on Squidoo. I was wondering where the advice came from.
  report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, right - got you. Someone on the Squidoo staff. Carry on
  report
  80
  Les Trois Chenesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  yes
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't suppose you have a reference?
  report
  80
  Les Trois Chenesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That advice is sort of custom made for your account, Les Trois Chenes.
  
  'If your lens is about garden gnomes don’t include sprinklers'
  
  Everything on a page should be relevant to a searchers interests. Painting courses stand out on plumbing page and so on.
  
  This is not about single product reviews, it is about relevance.
  report
  88
  IzzyMposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You might be right. I don't especially like writing "Buy..Online" as I think such titles are crass, but they did work!
  
  'Did' being the operative word, of course.
  
  About a fifth of my hubs have the same title. I tried changing a few, but it made no difference at all.
  
  It's not as if Google hates them completely, as they do still work on some topics, but maybe I have too many and have pushed my own subdomain over the edge.
  
  The other hubbers who have lost traffic for as long as me did not have such titles so it's not that alone.
  
  I think I may have figured out what is wrong, but I need to make many changes and then wait until the next Panda run to test out my theories.
  reply report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That's the whole point, really. The advice did work, far too well - once everyone started using that title, using keywords in a particular pattern etc, Google realized what was happening and reacted against it. You're unlucky you didn't catch the wave earlier!
  
  Well, as you know, Panda will give a lower score to your whole domain if you have even a few "bad apples", so you'd have to change the lot before you'd know whether it made any difference.
  
  Good luck - let us know if you come to any conclusions!
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  'The other hubbers who have lost traffic for as long as me did not have such titles so it's not that alone.'
  
  Panda will pick up on anything spammy. There are a lot of things that can look spammy or be spammy.
  
  It doesn't have to be 'buy online' single topic review pages.
  
  Other people will have sunk for other reasons.
  
  Over-saturated topics, short pages with little content, etc etc
  reply report
  88
  IzzyMposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That will be why Yahoo Answers have risen to the top of many searches?
  
  It is important to remember that Google can't read, and look at other factors.
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You have so many reasons for not trying to get out from under Panda.
  
  How about finding a reason for trying?
  
  Don't you think that your genuinely wonderful pages deserve some readers?
  report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps it might be helpful to look at overall trends.
  
  The trend seems to be for the very top search results to consist more and more of "big" sites like Yahoo Answers and Wikipedia. Plus, in the case of items for sale, retail sites - most notably Amazon but also any site that specialises in whatever item is being searched for. That cuckoo clock example that Sunforged gave was a case in point - most of the top twenty hits were online cuckoo clock shops from various countries. It was only at position no. 19 that you got a content farm result (a HubPages "Buy a cuckoo clock online" hub).
  
  So you have two things going on here:
  
  1. For all types of search query, the bigger sites are becoming more dominant.
  2. For retail-based searches, sites that actually sell the item are becoming more prominent, at the expense of content farm articles.
  
  This surely must be why so many of us are experiencing a gradual decline in views. Even if we haven't been completely sandboxed or "Pandalised", our hubs are gradually slipping down the SERPs because more and more, the top spots are being taken over by "big name" sites. Again, this is an overall trend rather than a hard and fast rule, but it surely must account for the general reduction in traffic here.
  
  I think this trend is going to get stronger, and more and more people with blogs and small niche sites are going to find that they have to buy Adwords in order to get traffic. Result? More income for Google, of course!
  report
  69
  lrohnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Perfect post, Empress. I think a lot of hubbers are spending too much time trying to figure out what they did wrong, when it could just be a case of other sites doing the right things better or simply having different credentials. Google is determined to cut out the middleman, so to speak -- particularly in the retail arena.
  
  If you're going to write about broad diabetes topics, for example, expect to be outranked by Joslin, Mayo, NYU, NIH, etc. There's probably very little you can do about it right now. If you're going to write about fleece jackets, expect to be outranked by NorthFace and Amazon.
  
  A lot of my hubs have lost their #1 spot in Google, and rightfully so, TBH. I'm simply resetting my sights on certain topics/keywords to get to the first page rather than the first position in the SERPs -- at least until there's been a lot more testing done post-Penguin/Panda by knowledgeable people. Once that dust has settled, then we can all move forward with a bit more clarity.
  report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you
  
  It just seems like common sense, really.
  
  That's why all this obsessing about the minute tweaking of hubs is bollocks. The problem lies deeper.
  
  We might have to face up to the fact that long-term, the "write content, stick loads of Adsense and affiliate links on it and rake in the cash" model might ultimately be doomed. Or at least a lot harder to achieve.
  
  report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  ..... 'I think a lot of hubbers are spending too much time trying to figure out what they did wrong, when it could just be a case of other sites doing the right things better or simply having different credentials.'....
  
  Content farms have certainly lost out to pro sites but there is plenty of room for people with a good eye for the gaps left by the big boys.
  
  First things first, though. You have to know how to avoid Panda before you have any kind of chance. And, as far as I am concerned, we have more than enough data to know what Panda is about. It is about any content on a site that rates as spam in the eyes of the algorithm.
  
  Frankly, if you get hit, take that as a sign you need to take some action and change your ways.
  
  Penguin, I will worry about as the info comes out.
  report
  69
  lrohnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If I had a site with, say, 100 organic backlinks that boosted me in the SERPs and 50 of those linking sites got hit by Panda, chances are that my site will lose its ranking despite the fact that I've done nothing wrong.
  
  So if by "taking some action" and "changing your ways" you mean building some quality backlinks using varied anchor text to regain my rankings, then I agree with you.
  
  report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There is a huge difference between getting hit by Panda and losing views for the kinds of reasons you are talking about.
  
  A Panda hit is a site wide ranking factor demerit that will cost you up to 90 per cent of your views overnight. It is handed down by the Panda algorithm that is run periodically to detect thin or spammy content.
  
  It follows a surge in views and is unmistakable.
  
  If you are collateral damage,(affected by other sites being punished)it is impossible to imagine such dramatic declines in a single day.
  
  No amount of links, will save you from Panda incidentally. It is looking at content and nothing else.
  report
  69
  lrohnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If I'm not mistaken, it was Panda 3.1? or 3.2? or 3.3? (Feb/Mar timeframe) that added something new to the mix in terms of evaluating backlinks. Did you miss that one?
  
  And whether it happens in a single day or over the course of a week, and whether it is your site that has been hit or the sites linking to you, the outcome is the same. Let's not get hung up on semantics.
  report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It is essential to distinguish between your site being hit and other sites giving you link juice being hit. If you don't, whatever measures you take will be way off target.
  
  I have never heard Google say that links are a factor in Panda but I would be interested in any refs.
  report
  69
  lrohnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, not your beck-and-call girl, Will. I do believe that you are capable of looking the info up all on your own. I'm sort of surprised that you didn't hear about the algorithm update that killed sites like BMR and SEO Nitro?
  
  And...when did Wisegeek and Suite 101 start rising from the dead? Must've been fairly recent.
  report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  As far as I am concerned, if you make an unlikely assertion, it is up to you to back it up. lol.
  
  As for wisegeek etc, you need to watch Paul Edmondson's vid.
  report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Links were a factor in Penguin. However links can also be a factor in Panda.
  
  For instance, I have links to my websites from HubPages. When my HP account was doing well, real people were clicking on those links which gave my sites good traffic, and of course the links also counted with Google. Now that my HP account has dropped out of the SERPS, I've lost all that referral traffic to my sites, and the loss of link juice will affect Google's assessment of my sites. So Panda can have an indirect effect as well as a direct effect.
  
  However, I'm wondering if Panda is my problem. I posted about a curious discovery here:
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/97840
  report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly, and Google has actually told us that. They are now giving strong preference to "authority sites" - sites that offer a large amount of information on a single subject. Not dilettantes who write all over the place.
  
  That's a fact. I've always wondered how some HubPages sub-domains were doing well in spite of that. Greekgeek had a theory that it had to do with HubPages' interlinked structure, whereby even if I wrote only one Hub on hair (for instance), it would be interlinked with hundreds of other Hubbers' articles on hair, which gives an appearance of "authority". Who knows, but (up till recently) it seemed to work.
  
  So for me, this thread isn't about finding reasons for a general loss of traffic, which is to be expected - it's trying to work out why some of us have been absolutely crucified while others are going up.
  report
  83
  CMHypnoposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Izzy, I changed all my 'buy' and 'online' titles and have tried to weed out words like 'buy' from the text, but it hasn't changed anything, and unfortunately you can't change the url.
  
  I have also deleted a lot of these hubs, and posted them elsewhere where they still get traffic?
  
  Trouble is, while there is probably some truth in all of the suggestions made, all of us are still speculating really. One hub that I think that the big G should hate is still bringing in some traffic in and has a high hub score, while some other 'worthier' hubs are doing squat diddly
  reply report
  96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh crap. Sorry to hear about that, Marisa! This latest panda attack seems to be gradually working its way through hubbers like a flu virus!
  reply report
3. 0
  EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If I came along and said "Will Apse is an amateur psychologist and wind-up merchant, who likes pushing people's buttons just to get a reaction", you'd probably object, wouldn't you?
  
  Here's a suggestion: why not stick to the subject of the thread instead of making these ad hominem attacks.
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The first post from Mark in this thread (about Panda) bemoans the fact that Google is limiting the search data that SEO companies need to game Google. Is that relevant?
  
  I try really hard to actually get him on-topic and address Panda and what triggers a hit. I get a list of tips for getting traffic. Plus the usual jibe about product comparison pages which Mark seems to think do badly now (they don't).
  
  I have to wonder if he even understands what Panda is.
  
  On top of sneers about regurgitated lists and being an idiot for putting more faith in Amit Singhal (head designer of Google's most important algorithms) and Mark Masters (self described heavy hitter who 'tests things')I have to look at all those idiotic smilies.
  
  lol.
  
  Enough is enough. I have better things to do.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Instead of lying about me to others - please quote me self describing myself as a heavy hitter.
  
  Is the only answer to your passive aggressive attacks.
  
  I have given some genuine advice here - which you choose to ignore in favor of appearing as though you know what you are talking about.
  
  Whether you and I like it or not - hubpages had the lowest number of visitors since last August on the 12th of this month.
  
  http://www.quantcast.com/hubpages.com
  
  And that has nothing to do with anything you have posted - or the regurgitated advice that you have not followed.
  
  reply report
  96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The site as a whole is being hit, for sure. The statistical evidence is overwhelming. Hubbers who write well, who succeed on other sites, and who couldn't be described as being excessively commerical are being hit, as well as the crasser and more commerically-minded ones. The stats aren't the "falling off the edge of a cliff" variety like with the Feb 2011 hit, they generally show a more of a subtle picture of the blood being drained from HP slowly over a period of months. There is a limit to what individual hubbers can do in this scenario, methinks.
  reply report
80
Les Trois Chenesposted 11 years ago
OK, so what is wrong with this article? (I hope it's ok to post link, have read rules and doesn't say not to - for info and not spamming etc) http://les-trois-chenes.hubpages.com/hu … horpe-York

Was on page 2 of a Google search "Bishopthorpe York", now only appears if you add "HubPages".

Not a subject flooded out on internet, not a selling or affiliate lens. Only one little Amazon, only one link (re my painting courses) not about York or Bishopthorpe, think spelling etc ok, reasonable amount of text, own pictures. Too many links?
reply report
1. 88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  How many pages do you have that mention Les Trois Chenes, link to Les Trois Chenes pages (without any apparent relevance), or to your Les Trois Chenes website? Could Google consider these gateway pages? I don't know without looking at your entire account but the first batch of pages roused a few suspicions.
  reply report
  80
  Les Trois Chenesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I think it might be a problem. You should try to keep your links relevant or Google's semantic analysis might decide that you are only writing the pages for the sake of the links and that you are a spammer.
  
  In fact with 170 pages, it seems inevitable.
  reply report
  80
  Les Trois Chenesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  69
  lrohnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I looked at just a few of your hubs, and the content is great and the links I saw were perfectly relevant. You blended them in very, very well. Whether there are too many of them from one domain, well, that would be the question, and I don't know the answer. Perhaps you should reach out to someone who knows what he's talking about, like Mark Knowles.
  reply report
  80
  Les Trois Chenesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  He has a page on plumbing. Then an invitation to his Painting Class at Les Trois Chenes. He has a page on fruit. Then an invitation to his Painting Class at Les Trois Chenes. He has a page on the historic city of York. Then an invitation to his Painting Class at Les Trois Chenes. He has a page on stone. Then an invitation to his Painting Class at Les Trois Chenes.
  
  I could write this 170 times, apparently. And you don't think this might be a problem?
  
  I mean, yes, they are nice pages but that is not the thing the Googlebot will notice.
  reply report
  69
  lrohnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Did you read my response? The part where I started out with: "I looked at just a few of your hubs...." You may have the time to look at 170 of his hubs. I don't.
  
  There are two issues here. The first is whether that many links to his site will actually help, and the answer is probably no. Google tends to discard repetitious incoming links from the same domain after a certain number. That could be one or it could be 10 -- I don't know.
  
  The second question is whether these links are hurting his HP subdomain. I don't know whether it will from a Google standpoint and neither do you. But HP could call it overly promotional, I suppose, and unpublish the whole lot.
  reply report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No, they won't, because they changed the overly promotional rule to remove that bit.
  
  The only limit now is two links per Hub. You can have a link to the same domain on every single Hub if you want, now (provided it's relevant to the Hub of course).
  reply report
76
Kangaroo_Jaseposted 11 years ago
I think the this thread has reached its conclusion now? No?
reply report
95
viryaboposted 11 years ago
This indeed is a very insightful thread from which i must say i am learning a lot, believe it or not.
reply report
56
Dame Scribeposted 11 years ago
Wow, that's a fall indeed, Marisa sorry to hear that. I don't really have any offers of good advice though maybe try a new social site, one that's related but not competing? just a thought.
reply report
0
Marye Audetposted 11 years ago
Marisa, thank you for the compliment to my writing abilities. I think I have a long way to go. I have unpublished the hubs that didn't get traffic or I felt would do better on a blog.. I seem to have stabilized at around 2200 per day on weekdays and 1900 per day on the weekends. Quite a drop from 14000 per day last fall and 9000 per day this past winter. The hubs I have left up have low bounce rates and page view times of 5 minutes or more. Nothing seems to have made a difference so, while it is always a good idea to analyze your work and try to do better of course(!) I wouldn't kick yourself too much about it. Seems to be out of our hands. Good news is that eventually we will have created other sources of income, the hub traffic will come back and we will all have more money that before. Or I like to think so. Have a great day everyone.
Also, you know, if you have a lot of hubs on one subject you might want to create short e-books for Lulu or kindle and sell them for 99cents to 2.99 each. Just a thought.
reply report
1. 96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Good news is that eventually we will have created other sources of income, the hub traffic will come back and we will all have more money that before."
  
  I certainly hope so, Marye!
  reply report
96
PaulGoodman67posted 11 years ago
Something like this is far more likely to be the culprit for many of the traffic losses, rather than what Will is suggesting.

http://pauledmondson.hubpages.com/hub/G … ch-Results

(Janderson found it and posted it in another thread)
reply report
81
Mark Ewbieposted 11 years ago
The site as a whole is NOT being hit. My traffic is improving. Each time Panda or Penguin knocks another load backwards, my traffic gets better.

So I think you can discount a site wide penalty.

To be honest, I hope Google doesn't 'fix it' because then I'm back to being outranked by spam copies of crap again.

As for the Mark and Will show. Underneath their opposing angles the same message.

GAME OVER.

The game, which it took me a while to realise, is that SEO rehashed Wiki and Amazon thing, repeated over and over and over again. The same, or very similar content, on a million pages.

So I think they are both right.

And Panda and Penguin get my vote.

Sorry about that.
reply report
1. 54
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Look out! The clock is ticking...............
  reply report
  81
  Mark Ewbieposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, I tempted fate. So be it. Worrying about the algorithm has occupied far too much of my time. Worrying about my content offering would be a better idea.
  reply report
  54
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Here Here! Keeping on Writing Baby, till the night is Gone!
  Its all a dance really.
  
  By the way have you seen this
  
  Put Your Rage Into a Cartoon and Exit Laughing (we could all do with some of this)
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/techn … wanted=all
  
  "The best way to understand rage comics is to read a couple of dozen of them. The best place to do that is a section of Reddit, known as “f7u12.” (just Google it).
  reply report
  81
  Mark Ewbieposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Lol. I'm wincing slightly...
  reply report
  96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Mark. Both Marisa and I had a period of raised traffic levels, before we suffered a sudden and inexplicable crash. Just sayin'.
  reply report
2. 74
  WriteAngledposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The only thing is, Mark, you cannot predict how long the high ride will last...
  reply report
0
Arlene V. Pomaposted 11 years ago
Yesterday, as soon as my HubPages account showed me the money, I have been growing red Christmas trees since. My page views have more than doubled, but my page views are nothing to write home about--compared to the authors who have the years in. But, I did make payout.

All this time, I was not slapped by the black and white bear or the bird. I'll be a year on HubPages next month. My only theory is that ignorance is bliss. I don't feel the need to analyze Google or the decisions of HubPages administration because most of it I don't understand in the first place. After my earlier pissing and moaning at the beginning of all this, I decided that I'm not wasting time on what I can't control.

Business as usual. I took a break, but now I continue to plan and write my Hubs.

Thank you, Mark Knowles, for sharing your excellent tips. I found them very valuable, and have posted them as a daily reminder. Oddly enough, I've been following them all along without knowing it, but I really need to concentrate on #7. Many, many thanks!
reply report
71
sunforgedposted 11 years ago
SOmeone has to rank for "Buy a ______ online"

https://www.google.com/search?q=buy+a+c … annel=fflb

Looking at the results (my personalized) can show you how things are changing - there is a Hub in the top 20 for my results, sadly not Izzy's though.

Ad ad ad ad
AD ad ad ad
AD
YAHOO SHOPPING
AMAZON
Shopping Results
pic pic pic pic pic
____FOLD________

exact match domain
exact match domain
partial EMD
EMD
Crap Article Directory with Massive ABove The Fold Ads
Fodors Forum
EMD

Kind of makes a good argument for the "crap listings equal more adwords purchase" argument

200 words or so it looks like!
reply report
1. 88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't see a single affiliate site there. Am I wrong?
  
  I see places where you can actually buy a clock. That is the point. If you say 'buy online' you need to be selling the item.
  
  Or at the very least you need to process the order on site.
  
  People don't like being shunted around.
  reply report
  71
  sunforgedposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  We must see differently.
  
  I see brands, saturation of paid ad and EMD's
  
  Two poor results "quality" wise but on aged, popular locations and this gem.
  
  It really is a gem: http://www.cuckoo-palace.com/coo-coo-cl … 10950.html
  
  (really! A must read ..)
  
  Total keyword madlibbing.
  reply report
  71
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That's ridiculous.
  reply report
  88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I am not saying that the issues you raise are not important but I don't think they are entirely relevant to Panda and Hubpages.
  
  The cuckoo palace site looks like a classic example of spun content that has somehow slipped through the full array of Google's spam filters but it is a high risk strategy these days.
  reply report
85
rebekahELLEposted 11 years ago
This was one of the criterions addressed in the Google rater's document that was posted online last fall.
reply report
1. 88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, for that. I remember when Panda first hit there were a lot of reliable reports here on that issue. I also vaguely remember the official Google announcements but I forgot about that leaked raters report.
  reply report
68
waynetposted 11 years ago
Oh....I was trying to find out how to avoid a Panda mauling? no matter, they are nearly extinct anyways!
reply report
75
jacharlessposted 11 years ago
Panda (the collective numbers), Penguin, etc only effect you if your using Google.
Nearly 150 base algorithm changes in 5.5 months. By the time "ordinary" folks figure out how-to follow their "guidelines" it will be too late. The Panda-monium is not over, not by a long shot. They have plans for even more changes in the next three months.

So, how to avoid a Panda Mauling? Try this:

Yahoo, Bing, Blekko, Ask, Amazon/Alexa, Lycos (still one of my favorites)... and many more. In truth, there are over 100 search engines out there to utilize for traffic. For those interested, check the search engine "powers" for google & bing, you would be surprised the options available.

James
reply report
96
PaulGoodman67posted 11 years ago
Watched Paul E's vid on the impact of Panda. An interesting overview.

http://pauledmondson.hubpages.com/video … April-2012

I hope he does more. (It looks like opening a new account might be in order if the problems with older hubs being hit can't be resolved soon.)
reply report
1. 88
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The sites like Wisegeek and Suite 101 coming back from the dead might go some way to explaining the gradual decline in views I have seen recently.
  
  One of those graphs (looking at the fate of older content)looks remarkably like mine. The time scale means that it isn't mine but the profile is almost identical.
  
  Google's freshness updates look like the prime suspect and regular content updates look like the only possible cure.
  reply report
  54
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'm experimenting with external RSS for a fresh touch!
  reply report
  96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  After that video, Paul E wrote a hub in which he says that he now believes that the problem lies with a Google bug, at least with some older accounts. If that's the case, then whatever you do, it won't achieve much. It's not always easy accepting that you might be powerless, but I personally am not going to do anything much for the timebeing on here until they've had an opportunity to get an answer from Google regarding the reported bug.
  reply report
75
jacharlessposted 11 years ago
I do not agree about the sub.domain theory.
For one thing, nearly 75% of registered Hubbers have 2 - up to 10 - or more accounts. This means of 50,000 authors, only 15,000 are "organic". Of those accounts, a small few then are responsible for trafficking.

Second, what is the difference between cdn.hubpages.com and mcsilflicks.hubpages.com? Both are still effected by the parent directory itself.

Blogger™ and Wordpress™ do the same thing, essentially using pseudo-classes based on data driven content, hackneyed keywords and synthetic descriptions -like a Yoast™ plugin, versus unique pages.

So, either way, the overall crawl and indexing done as hubpages.com is the root. The collective data being retrieved, coupled with "search engines" objective is reason for such fluctuation.

James
reply report
1. 84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I've never seen that figure - can you clarify where it comes from?
  
  So you think that a Blogger blog isn't completely standalone, and Google judges each individual blog by the quality of the entire site? First time I've heard that theory.
  
  My understanding is that if you author both the domain and the sub-domains, they are treated as one big sites and links between them are internal. If the domain and the sub-domains are authored by different people, they are treated as separate sites and links between them are external. Would love to have that clarified.
  reply report
  75
  jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  From the many, many people I know here and their many, many sock-puppets. If fact, two individuals I have been acquainted with, for almost two years on HP {from my old deleted account and this one} have nearly 30 accounts between them.
  And further, for the CEO to suggest a Hubber open an additional account, leans my logic further toward that assessment.
  
  Blogger™, WordPress™ and HP operate on pseudo-class calls from data driven systems -either by php or ajax. There are no real "pages". Instead includes are used at runtime to pull the data; while permalinks (slugs) and the like are used via sitemap, rss, etc to index. Take special note of the Title Tuner and other tools here and how they resemble Yoast™ plugin, etc. Not necessarily Black Hat, but definitely not White Hat.
  
  And again the LARGEST issue is the exclusivity of just one Major Search Engine, when there are considerably equal -if not better- engines out there. but that means the "relationship" between Big G and HP would be strained greatly. and HP being the original test modal for AdSense would make things even more strenuous.
  
  As for judging individual sites: No sub.domain on HP, Blogger or WP has a Unique IP {is independent} so long as it is the same server. That would cost them 6 figures -or more- if even permitted. Any dedicated Server is allowed 3 IP per container. Anymore than that, and you have to give very good reason to DNS recording as to why. What you have is a shared IP being used which can be split up @ will by adding folders/sub directories. Like Parked Domains, which point to a specific namespace, yet is still under the same protocol. This makes it "appear" to be unique, but is not, which is why most of these sub.domains are/were effected by the many Panda, Penguin -and will continue to be effected. No one can convince me HP privatized 100,000 user names as sub.domain names or that Big G is indexing each user based on their .hubpages address, unless that user is submitting rss or verification themselves. The domain is indexed together.
  
  For WP, the difference is the CMS wrapping/configuration, which often causes issues with indexing, even on a private domain.
  
  James
  reply report
  84
  Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you James. Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge to understand much of what you said.
  
  I think what you're saying is that sub-domains on Blogger, HP etc are all on the same server (no surprise there), but I'm not seeing the point of that.
  
  Google can tell the difference between domains/sub-domains authored by the same person, and domains/sub-domains authored by different people, because they distinguish between them in the way links are handled in Webmaster Tools.
  
  So why wouldn't their search engine algorithm make the same differentiation, regardless of the physical connection? After all, it's not in Google interests to say, "We're not going to judge each Blogger blog on its own merits, we're going to allow all the spam bloggers to ruin it for the good bloggers".
  reply report
  87
  Bill Yovinoposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  @James - You've made excellent points and clearly have expert-level knowledge of the nuances of search engines, CMS, and TCP-IP. We also need to consider that this sudden tempest may be the result of a Google bug. Other CMS sites are constrained by the same issues as Hubpages, yet in many cases those other sites are showing up ahead of Hubs that are more relevant to the searched topic. I know that Hubpages is looking into this, so I am content to wait it out. I don't suggest making any drastic changes to hubs in the meantime.
  reply report
  96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +1 I agree, sometimes it's best to do nothing major and let others work on a solution. Individual tinkering can sometimes do more harm than good in this sort of situation methinks. I am glad that we've got so many great "techies" on here!
  reply report
  54
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  My My, how the advice in this forum has gone full circle.
  reply report
  96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Full circle? I think the opposite is true. Everyone's just stuck to their original positions! :-)
  
  The only things that have changed is that Marisa's traffic crashed and Mark K got bored of arguing with Will.
  reply report
75
jacharlessposted 11 years ago
@Bill @Paul,

Oh gosh, hope I did not come off as an Elitist or anything. Sometimes by technical tongue overlaps my normal self. lol.

But given the nature of my business -Web Development- understanding system infrastructure/architecture, engineering, brick-on-brick, is essential to making sites stable, appealing, realistic and beneficial to the many.

SEO/M are -for the moment- critical elements that keep these cyber spaces "leased" or "time shared". It has long been projected that SEO/M will fade out -as the masses shift from "Ad" Words {keynote} to "Fore" Words. Interim, everyone waits for the market to bounce back. But if it doesn't, it is not a bad idea to have an exit strategy {alternative measures in place}.

James.
reply report
1. 96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  One thing I like about HubPages is that they handle most of the technical stuff and I can just focus pretty much on writing here (even playing around with basic html can frustrate the hell out of me!). Having said that, HP do seem to be cursed by much more by erratic traffic patterns than most places when Google makes a change to the algo (which is frequently nowadays).
  reply report
2. 87
  Bill Yovinoposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  @James - I was sincere in my comment that you show expert level knowledge in this area, which is kind of a black-box to most. I am quite impressed by how many hubbers have a firm grasp on the intricacies SEO, and appreciate the sharing of that information.
  reply report
  87
  Bill Yovinoposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I am happy to report that my hubs are back to normal! Google searches now show my hubs in results again. The test I did that illustrated the problem and later proved the fix is this:
  
  View one of your popular hubs. Click on the "Stats" page, then the "Keywords" page. This will show a list of recent searches that led people to your hub. Click on one of the search strings, preferably one with the most hits. This will execute a search. Your hub should be found in the results and hopefully it will be high up on the page. Before the fix, this test failed to find my hubs, now they succeed.
  
  I don't know the scope of the problem or the scope of the fix, but I do know that it's working for me.
  reply report
  54
  janderson99posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  @Bill It could be related to the fix applied
  see
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/97840
  
  nice little bounce in my traffic
  reply report
  96
  PaulGoodman67posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No bounces for me, as yet. I hope HP and Google can resolve all their technical and political differences.
  reply report
56
Dame Scribeposted 11 years ago
Well, there will be other algo's coming and I sit in dread unless traffic shows otherwise before happy sets in but awesome discussion Hubbers I'm learning things too.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
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.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
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.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
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.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

How to Avoid a Panda Mauling

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

How to Avoid a Panda Mauling

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies