It's what you write about that is important

1. 60

   TessSchlesingerposted 4 years ago

   I still come back to the fact (I think it's a fact) that a lot more emphasis should be put on what one writes about than how one writes about it.
   
   There are a lot of well written hubs on hubpages that don't rank simply because they're written about a topic that doesn't do well - religion, poitics, environment, and more.
   
   There are topics that do well, and there are topics that don't do well.
   
   Some of this has to do with the fact that there are other sites on the web that cover these topics much more thoroughly - simply a result that they have been around for a lot longer. Other times it's just that they have more authoritive voices.
   
   Another factor is that finding a topic that people google but hasn't been written about a lot is more luck than skill.
   
   I've just deleted about ??? hubs because they are about politics, religion, and the environment. I can see from the hub score and the numbers that anything written about these topics just aren't welcome.
   
   Our hands are more or less tied when it comes to writing about products, i.e. one has to have used them. And unless we are complete spendthrifts, there's no ways that we could have used as many products as one would write about.
   
   I think one of the things that would help hubpages tremendously is getting an app so that people can read through hubpages as a feed.
   
   Basically, we are now only as good as our articles are according to what Google wants.
   
   So why does Hp not give us clues as to what is write about? After all, they have the SEO tools to give us some solid leadership.
   
   Numbers count in SEO. The more activity there is on a site, higher the ranking. So Hubpages is quite content to allow people to write whatever they like. It helps hp to rank.
   
   You can see what is important by the hubscore. I'm pretty sure that hubpage have a list of keywords and that goes someway towards ranking something.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      AHrehaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So true! I feel like the great and powerful Google just does not love me. But I have nearly 10k monthly views on Pinterest and since most of what little traffic I have comes from there anyway, I’ve been focusing more on that that Google SEO.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         There has to be a way...

         replyreport
      2. 60

         paradigmsearchposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I used to get buried in Pinterest traffic. Then some HP curator/editor came along and destroyed it. I will never forget that. Cut my earnings here by about half. It's tough enough fighting the internet, but when one has to deal with HP disasters like that; it pretty much makes it impossible to publish here; especially with the other HP factors one has to deal with. Sorry for the negative post about HP, but that particular disaster really hurt.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            HP isn't perfect, but it is the best there is. And it's got a stable of outstanding writers. That's rare.

            replyreport
   2. 89

      Pcunixposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I don’t disagree with you at all about content.
      
      I write for my own pleasure, but part of that pleasure certainly is being read. I may not care about how much money writing gives me, but I don’t get any reward from publishing something that very few people will care about. Therefore, I am picking my subjects more carefully.

      replyreport
2. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

   The internet is indeed a tough town for article writers these days. And it is going to keep getting worse. I even wrote a doom & gloom article on the subject (published elsewhere, don't bother looking for it). It's time to find the next Big Thing, but darned if I've been able.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yea, I was just talking to a potential client today about that. I was explaining to him why his site didn't rank, and how all the competing elements worked. I honestly didn't have any solutions.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         paradigmsearchposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         These days, when I think of something to write, I generally check first to see what is already out there. 9.99 out of 10 times, one look and I abandon the project.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Yup. That was what I was trying to explain. I have exactly the same thing. I first do a keyword check, then I check how many articles are written with that phrase. Then I go check the traffic of the sites that have the first few articles. Lots of work.
            
            And it's still hit and miss

            replyreport
3. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

   Rants are still fun, but I never expect traffic.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You just made me laugh!

      replyreport
4. 94

   DrMark1961posted 4 years ago

   I agree with your premise, but as far as HP telling people that they should not write on a certain subject? I am not sure that is a good idea.
   When you are ready to go out and see a new movie, do you go to Reelrundown and find the review? I doubt anyone does. However, a writer on that site has figured out a way to title and write his articles so that he is getting decent traffic. He just went over 10M last month or so.
   How many people look on the internet for poetry? This might be one of the categories HP would warn people not to write about, but recently a writer who does almost all poetry reviews went over 10M views.
   Maybe the politics and religion will be able to get views too. Your comment about using Kuora (sorry my letter kew is on the fritz again) to establish a "brand name" is probably a great idea, and will most likely drive some traffic to those articles.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yup, I am getting traffic here from Quora - not a lot, but I've now started linking articles to it. I'm checking which questions I'm answering and providing links that answer those questions. I still find facebook and pinterest provide a lot of traffic, but I'm not posting my articles there. Other people are.
      
      I prefer to take the easy way out - find topics that autoatically find traffic.

      replyreport
5. 93

   EricFarmer8xposted 4 years ago

   About five of my articles get the most views for my account. Over half my articles, I would describe as duds.
   
   They don't get enough traffic to really matter, but they get views. So I don't want to delete them. Some of my hubs get less than one view a day on average.
   
   I am starting to become a lot pickier when deciding to write about for HubPages now. Some topics I thought would be great to write about were not good choices to get views from Google Search.

   replyreport
6. 95

   Rupert Taylorposted 4 years ago

   Who are we puny mortals to think we can outfox the Big G? I simply write about what interests me and let the microchips fall where they may. There might be a tiny number of people here who make what can be called a living by writing about how to change a compression washer on a mezmaglobber. "Unpopular" topics such as politics and the environment have to be written about otherwise ignorant megalomaniacs will get away with it.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yup. I think I've finally given up about saying anything about the environment. We'll be extinct in 80 years anyway. Why am I killing myself talking about something that group think has avoided for the 50 odd years I've been talking about this?
      
      I'm trying to find an inane topic to write about that fascinates people. Kardashians, anyone?

      replyreport
      1. 93

         EricFarmer8xposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I think the world is making progress. Even if the USA could be making more of it.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Now there's a fascinating statement. We are 10 years away from tipping point and 80 years away from human beings becoming extinct. How is the world making progress?

            replyreport
            1. 88

               lobobrandonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               We are not anywhere close to humans being extinct. What makes you think that?

               replyreport
      2. 95

         Madeleine Claysposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         "Kardashians, anyone?"
         
         please, no

         replyreport
7. 60

   TessSchlesingerposted 4 years ago

   Let’s see…
   The fact that all the world’s leading scientists have reached the same conclusion that I and many others have?
   The fact that we are in the middle of the 6th mass extinction with 100 species going extinct per day?
   The fact that the permafrost is melting, releasing methane into the air, and we can’t breathe methane?
   The fact that as the last of the primal forests are going, we have no more CO2 being created by trees (insufficient trees) plus cattle farming and numerous other factors increasingly producing methane, and, um, we can’t breathe methane.
   Increasing viruses jumping from animals to human as a result of intensive stock farming, and as every biological lab in first world countries has indicated, it’s not a matter of if – it’s when. We face massive pandemics that will wipe out a great number of us.
   The fact that the South Pole is melting faster than scientists thought, and it’s cracking up. When that ice falls into the sea, it affects various currents, and those currents affect weather streams. Forget about the fact that the sea rising that quickly (a couple of metres) will immediately wipe out enormous number of people.
   The degree of anger at the increasing disparity of wealth that is making people more and more poor The anger is driving people to acts of terrorism. Biological bombs, dirty bombs are within rich. Set off an EMP bomb and we cripple all computer systems. It takes two days for nuclear power stations to be without water, etc. and then they go into melt down.
   Within 20 years, the number of people who are going to start dying as a result of water shortages, food shortages, devastating climate events, etc. is going to be responsible for many millions of deaths.
   That’s just a start.
   I think I have sufficient knowledge and intelligence to say that I agree with the conclusions of the scientists.
   
   However, let me give you some links so you can check what I’m saying.
   
   QUOTE; PhysOrg.com) -- Eminent Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change.
   https://phys.org/news/2010-06-humans-ex … ntist.html
   QUOTE: According to leading experts, the end of the human race and the world as we know it, has been steadily put into motion and could take place within the next three generations. Within approximately 75 years we could see almost half of all living species on the planet vanish into the history books as more and more creatures become extinct. Animals are now disappearing 100 times faster than they did before the 1900s.
   https://www.shortlist.com/news/humans-c … extinction
   
   QUOTE: We are facing a human extinction crisis. The IPBES  global assessment is another stark reminder that the time to act is now, we must work together to pushback against the fossil fuel industry fuelling the climate crisis and for long lasting and meaningful change
   https://350.org/we-are-facing-a-human-e … on-crisis/
   
   QUOTE: According to the paper, climate change poses a "near- to mid-term existential threat to human civilization," and there's a good chance society could collapse as soon as 2050 if serious mitigation actions aren't taken in the next decade.
   https://www.livescience.com/65633-clima … -2050.html
   
   QUOTE We may be about to find out. Climate change is melting permafrost soils that have been frozen for thousands of years, and as the soils melt they are releasing ancient viruses and bacteria that, having lain dormant, are springing back to life.
   http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170504 … waking-up?
   
   QUOTE: Permafrost at outposts in the Canadian Arctic is thawing 70 years earlier than predicted, an expedition has discovered, in the latest sign that the global climate crisis is accelerating even faster than scientists had feared.
   https://www.theguardian.com/environment … ate-crisis
   
   QUOTE: It's frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We're currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at up to 1,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].
   https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/pro … on_crisis/
   
   QUOTE; One million animal and plant species are at imminent risk of extinction due to humankind’s relentless pursuit of economic growth, scientists said on Monday in a landmark report on the devastating impact of modern civilization on the natural world.
   https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-e … SKCN1SC0PJ
   
   QUOTE: Deforestation of the Amazon is about to reach a threshold beyond which the region's tropical rainforest may undergo irreversible changes that transform the landscape into degraded savanna with sparse, shrubby plant cover and low biodiversity. This warning derives from an editorial published in the journal Science Advances co-authored by Thomas Lovejoy, a professor at George Mason University in the United States, and Carlos Nobre, chair of Brazil's National Institute of Science & Technology (INCT) for Climate Change.
   https://m.phys.org/news/2018-03-amazon- … ation.html
   
   QUOTE; The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.
   
   https://www.theguardian.com/environment … -un-report
   
   QUOTE; A “biological annihilation” of wildlife in recent decades means a sixth mass extinction in Earth’s history is under way and is more severe than previously feared, according to research.
   https://www.theguardian.com/environment … tists-warn
   
   I’m a bit surprised that you don’t know this. It’s pretty much common knowledge.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      lobobrandonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I am a part of that scientific community in a sense and I do know about the threat of climate change. I do know and as pointed out in many of the links you've set out, there are threats to the human species. But, the threats are societal collapses and the deaths of millions and not the death of every single breathing human being.
      
      The threat of biological warfare, etc. has nothing to do with natural effects but man being stupid and that can happen at any time and so can nuclear warfare. Humans could go extinct in a year from now if someone in power does something stupid. Natural diseases would also spread a lot quicker as we've seen in the past due to the way the world is connected and this is a danger, but there would be quarantine zones for the healthy in worst cases.
      
      In my original response, I am referring to climate change because that is what you were referring to in your 10 year tipping point. Humans will not go extinct due to climate change alone, but the society set up as we know it is in danger and could and most likely would collapse due to it. But there would be pockets of humans in different parts of the globe surviving if not thriving.
      
      Other than climate change, the death of insects is what is more alarming. We may stop climate change, but without pollinators, the 6th mass extinction that we are already in would be even more devestating.
      
      I argue for climate change and set my whole career in this path if you've ever seen the topical forums, but I argue with facts and what data supports along with possible outcomes under the current state of affairs. There have been a few people in the past who were in power and made "predictions" that never came true because they were going by worst case scenarios and they are the reason many people believe the oil lobbyists and skeptics who blur out facts and spur new ones in place. I might add that these people who made false predictions were not scientists and I support the conclusions being made by present scientists who work with climate data and models.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Pcunixposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Well, if we destroy our food supply..
         
         The real question is who survives? If we collapse through war, water and food shortages and so on, how many of us have the necessary survival skills to rebuild humanity?
         
         Most of us are very specialized now. We are not generalists, not jack of all trades.  I suppose I might be able to hack together some sort of hunting bow, but it would be crude and likely very ineffective.  I’d probably starve to death very quickly.
         
         I’d say we CAN survive, but we might not.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Well, yes. We can survive. We have the tools to build a great world.
            
            But not with Donald Trump in power. And not with corporations putting profits before planet.
            
            So, yes, I would agree with that statement, "We can survive, but we might not."
            
            Also, brevity is necessary in a forum. As you know, most people won't read through a lot.
            
            So my initial statement said nothing about climate change. I was just fascinated that someone thought things on planet earth were improving when the doomsday clock is now permanently on two minutes to midnight.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               lobobrandonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I thought the highest was 14 minutes, but it apparently was 17 minutes at a specific point.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Ah. I didn't know that. I read a report about 6 months ago that it has been permamently set to two minutes to midnight.

                  replyreport
            2. 93

               EricFarmer8xposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Because I do think the world is getting better overall. I never said things were prefect or that there wasn't issues. But some countries are making great progress towards being more environmentally sustainable.
               
               I mean most recently there is the the Paris Agreement.
               
               Notably the USA withdrew from this agreement. So yeah this current USA Executive Branch is not helping with environmentally sustainability but Trump won't be president forever.
               
               If we factor in things not related to the environment almost every country is better off now than in the past. For the most part anyway. Of course there are going to be some exceptions.
               
               Even some of the articles you linked to state that things can change for the better if we start making progress now. That is what I think as well.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, things can definitely change for the better. However, over all, people don't want to give up their standard of living in order to do that, and so it won't.
                  
                  The changes agreed to at the Paris summit are far too limited to make any dent in climate change. We need to be on a war-time footing, shut down 50% of production (business), ban all personal ownership of cars, institute a unversal basic income, and more. These are radical changes, and if they are not made, well, we will just slowly burn ourselves out.
                  
                  I wasn't actually referring only to climate change. There are many other factors that contribute to this.
                  
                  As I have lived in many countries, I'm not sure what you mean by many countries are better off. They actually aren't. That's why there is such a movement to the far left and the far right.
                  
                  Some people in each country are better off. The masses aren't.

                  replyreport
         2. 88

            lobobrandonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            There's a difference between building humanity and surviving as a species.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               Pcunixposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Not much difference in a poisoned world.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  TessSchlesingerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  True.

                  replyreport