Earnings potential

1. 84

   Cheryl E Prestonposted 4 years ago

   Can someone answer for me how Maven is benefiting us as writers. I have noticed  a slight but no significant upswing in page views. Also if we need to update old articles instead of writing new ones, dos this not indicate that we are jumping through hoops for google? Please give  your answers without being sarcastic or negative. I’m seeking understanding of the total situation and this is not about my personal articles. I ask these questions for all of us who hub. Thank you.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      OldRosesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Supposedly the merger with Maven was supposed to increase CPMs and therefore earnings, as well as increase traffic.  Many authors here are complaining that the opposite is happening, that both CPMs and traffic are down.  My own experience is that CPMs are down but my traffic has increased significantly so my earnings have increased but not as much as they would have if CPMs were as high as they were last year.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Cheryl E Prestonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks for sharing

         replyreport
   2. 89

      NateB11posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, we are trying to please Google. Unfortunately, they are the main source for traffic on the Web. They seem to like updated articles, I guess.
      
      As far as the advantage of Maven, I'm not sure. I think it's a bigger site with more resources that can network the niche sites in a beneficial way. This is my understanding. Though, it's pretty vague in my mind. Would be interesting to have it clarified, I suppose.
      
      What I do know is that there are ups and downs in terms of traffic, but I make a relatively steady income which I'm okay with at the moment. Hopefully it stays that way or gets better, knock on wood.

      replyreport
2. 96

   CYong74posted 4 years ago

   I experienced both an increase in CPM and traffic after the Maven merger. HOWEVER, I can't say for sure both were due to the merger, that was also the period when I worked really hard to understand how SEO, online writing, etc, works. The increases could be partly due to the improved quality of my hubs.
   
   I also do not think updating articles is pandering to Google. This is part and parcel of online writing, as far as I know. For the bulk of my hubs, it is also crucial because information could be outdated, and I always still FIND MISTAKES no matter how careful I previously was.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Cheryl E Prestonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I write for other sites and this is the first time I’ve been told that updating makes a difference. Other sites don’t even have a way to edit once an article has been published. Thank you for responding.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      Cheryl E Prestonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes I find mistakes too

      replyreport
      1. 96

         CYong74posted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I think it's not the act of updating itself, but what you change that matters.
         
         SEO keywords change regularly. Their monetary worth and ranking, and traffic volume, change too. Secondary information might also, because of certain events, become more important. If you update your articles to adapt to these, you improve your ranking. (Or theoretically, it would)
         
         For some topics, viewers might be turned off if they see your article is a few years old, and immediately surf away. This affects your bounce rate negatively and will sink your ranking.

         replyreport
3. 95

   Solarasposted 4 years ago

   The pitch in Whistler was that Google and Facebook had too much arbitrary influence over our views and earnings. They cited as an example "Little Things" which after Facebook made some updates, put them out of business within 2 months.  Traffic went to near zero for them. It sent a shockwave through the online/blogging community.
   
   Maven and HP along with a third site, which escapes me, were going to have enough content to compete with information leaders like The New York Times.  We would generate our own orbit with the gravitational pull created by the sheer volume of good information in this union.  People would seek out Maven articles, without need of going to Google. Maven would be the go to; you would bring up Maven, instead of Google to get your information; much in the same way that people go straight to Amazon, when they want to buy something, bypassing a Google search.
   
   I don't think that has happened or is on the near horizon.  In order for that to happen, many of the bloggers being "rushed" in Whistler would have had to joined Maven. I have no idea how successful they were in wooing these bloggers. The Sports Illustrated acquisition fits that model, by being a popular and well respected automatic go to for people wanting sports info.
   
   There was another person I spoke to who was working on creating content for local markets.  Let's say a local pet channel, with info on events, meetups, health etc...  With so many local papers closing down, there could be room for something like this, but at these earnings it would have to be a cardboard box shanty town of writers clustered under a cell tower, to survive.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Cheryl E Prestonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for explaining how it was supposed to work. I sure hope it does soon for all our sakes.

      replyreport
4. 78

   hard sunposted 4 years ago

   That's certainly interesting and seems would be great if it could work out.  But, it seems like they would have to have a better centralized search system, similar to Amazon's comprehensive search at the top of the page where you can choose to search all, or a certain Maven. Maybe I'm missing something, but I've been frustrated with the functionality of Hubpages and now the Maven search system.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Cheryl E Prestonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes very true

      replyreport
   2. 84

      Cheryl E Prestonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes that sounds reasonable

      replyreport
5. 78

   OGUNDARE OLUSEGUNposted 4 years ago

   Thanks Cheryl E Preston for bringing this up. I am still learning by all standards on this site, maybe it is because of my location, Nigeria. Trusting that those who understand how things work here would educate me the more.
   I write because I love to write, I have flair for writing, it has always been my dream to be an author, having published books in Nigeria, and accidentally stumbled on this site that promises remunerations for articles I jumped at it. I am still learning, and I hope I would soon know more about everything here.
   Thanks.

   replyreport
6. 84

   Cheryl E Prestonposted 4 years ago

   I would love honest answers because I don’t understand how updating content improves page views. No one will see the content unless they click on the article

   replyreport
   1. 95

      Solarasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Generally speaking, Google prefers the newest articles, as they might have the latest information.  Having said that, they also like older articles that have received positive indicators from the visitors (visitors stay on the page a long time, click over to another article by that author or at least on the same site etc.).
      
      So, if you have an article you posted 5 years ago, but update it with fresh content every six months to year, you can satisfy both of Google's desires, fresh content and longevity.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Cheryl E Prestonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Wow thanks for the info.

         replyreport
   2. 98

      theraggededgeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It's because articles will appear higher up in the search results. Supposedly. I don't think it works that way for everything.

      replyreport
7. 84

   Cheryl E Prestonposted 4 years ago

   Thank you.

   replyreport
8. 84

   Cheryl E Prestonposted 4 years ago

   Thank you this explanation makes a lot of sense.

   replyreport
9. 96

   PaulGoodman67posted 4 years ago

   Editing/updating has long been a way of increasing views, not just on HP, but with internet articles generally. The fact that Hubpages are currently strongly advising it may indicate that recent changes in the Google algorithm have shifted the balance even more favorably towards recently updated articles.
   
   The Maven thing is still ongoing and essentially a mystery, as far as I am aware. We are told there are exciting plans, but not what they are. So we wait and see. To be fair, I can appreciate that it can take time for major change. I've learned to think in terms of months, rather than days when it comes to the passive income thing.

   replyreport
10. 84

    Cheryl E Prestonposted 4 years ago

    Thank you for replying. It would be nice to know where Maven is placing our articles

    replyreport
11. 89

    Nell Roseposted 4 years ago

    Doesn't help when you add an appropriate amazon link to your article, and Hubstaff takes it off!  I just wrote one that mentioned something that I have indeed bought, yet it has now gone. Sigh.

    replyreport