Do you know of any other affiliate links that they are trying to target? I mean like amazon.com affiliate links. This is troubling news. Can you redirect your links to your own blogs or do you have to completely remove them.

If not, this really blows!

Of course they do. They need to build themselves up by attracting users first (otherwise they have nothing much to play with in the game) and then keep on the right side of Google so they can flourish and expand (and try to win the game).

We've "been here before" (more or less) with Squidoo, haven't we?

That's exactly what they do. Why wouldn't they?

And it's exactly I'd do if I owned a Web 2.0 business like that.

They run their own businesses to satsify their own needs and to make their own profits, and they make all their management decisions in accordance with their own (sometimes changing, but sometimes very predictably) perceptions of their own self-interest.

Just I like I do with my business, in other words. (Don't we all?). :confused:

This is absolutely fundamental. And it's part of the reason why, with absolutely no offense at all intended to anyone, the whole idea of putting your business's affiliate links on websites that belong to other people, which you can't control yourself has always been (to put it very mildly indeed) highly "questionable". In the virtual real estate income-producing game, you need to own your own money-sites, for heaven's sake. Is this a surprise?

If they are making you money, why not update them to your own site and while you're at it, add an opt in page to collect email addresses.

Hubs has tightened enforcement of the "no overly promotional" rules since the google update.

What was the actual reason given for the problem - the CB links, or too many links, or "overly promotional?" Were you told "no CB links allowed?" I'd be surprised if that is the case.

Squidoo always allowed promotion - hubpages ALWAYS has said it is an editorial type site. Unique content, limited promotional links or site links are nothing new at hubs. Enforcement has been spotty at times but recently there is more enforcement due to the google changes. That's not surprising.

Hubs is good still for routing traffic to your sites - but never has been great for promoting a product directly.

kay

You took the words right out of my keyboard.

The OP is a prime example on people should focus on building their own traffic networks which consist of websites and blogs that they OWN. It's easy enough to do. There are probably 4 or 5 WSOs that I can think of right now that teaches people how to do this.

It's okay to use EZA, Hubpages, etc. but In My Humble Opinion, this shouldn't be more than 25% of your traffic efforts (I have a paid advertising bias so it's not more than 5% of my own traffic efforts).

There are also creative ways to obtain traffic such as creating an app or a game or some software that people can and will use.

RoD

Hi,

Just to say Alexa, thanks, you are dead right and I have seen this been warned about all over the web in the past, never use properties you do not own to build a business model on, you are looking to be robbed.

Clive.

We are customers we keep them in business it is supposed to be a win win situation for all of us. If no-one posted a hub they would be out of business.... So we are technically there customers we keep them going get it? We give their site publicity, which in turn makes them money. We pay them with our valuable time which is worth a lot more than money at least it is in my case.

The hubs I published were over a period of years only a few are within the last 6 months...... As far as the comment goes I have numerous successful blogs and I learned that a long time ago all my content goes on my blogs first. But I still think its kind of ****ty what they are doing.

This post was a warning for people using Clickbank links so they do not waste their time that is all it is intended for. Read my original post before you make comments please and it is all clickbank links according to my email from hubpages. This is why my postings are limited lately because of the silly remarks.

To Alexa: how many posts on here do you have? 8,762 as of now I pray for your sake nothing ever happens to the Warriorforum. I like this forum too but aren't you doing the same thing you preach against? Building someone else's business? Need to spend more time on your sites and less time shooting peoples posts down.

Here is part of the email read it for yourself:

Links To Prohibited Affiliate or Commerce SitesThe following published Hubs include links to affiliate or commerce sites which are prohibited under the updated HubPages rules. The most common cause of this is the use of the ClickBank affiliate program. Please review these Hubs and remove any violating links; uncorrected Hubs will begin to be unpublished starting in about 2 weeks.

This is new publishing policy HubPages Blog » Blog Archive » An Overview of New Publishing Standards. no longer allow Hubs to link (directly or through redirects) to affiliate or commerce sites which are prohibited under the HubPages rules (e.g. Clickbank and sites that sell eBooks, promote dubious offers, contain a lead capture form, redirect users to unwanted websites, or contain pop-ups, pop-unders, or other features that interfere with sight navigation)

It's because of the inherent search engine authority that top tier Web 2.0 sites provide. Pre-Panda, they had developed quite a bit of this authority--which means that people could publish, and have content near instantaneously indexed and found high in Google.

No, you can't say that HubPages is "going down" soon.

While many perceive restrictions as an attack on IM'ers, they DO run a business, and when the Panda update chips away a huge portion of their business (traffic being down/etc), they do have an obligation to themselves, and to writers, to determine what the problem was. EVERYONE's content/businesses suffer if they can't get to the bottom of it.

It seems to be because they certainly don't value quality! You can have a mediocre post with spelling and grammar mistakes about puppies and flowers on there, but not a quality article if it has a link to any of their "link prohibitive sites."

You can't even link to your own blog if it has an opt-in form on it - REGARDLESS of the quality of the blog. I don't see the value with them anymore - I make like pennies on there and I have 72 articles there!! What's the point?

I am not sure why you would write there when you can write whatever you want on your own site or publish a guest post on sites that value content - even if your blog has an opt-in.

Building up your own site seems to be the best option these days with all the paranoid rules brought on by the Panda monster.

You'd be better off reading Bloggers TOS.

Blogger have a special Amazon plugin so I can't see this being a problem, Hubpages have changed the way they do things, not Blogger.

They'll probably change everything they do tomorrow though.

Well, maybe it'll encourage people to build their own assets as opposed to someone else's.

I would have thought that'd make pretty good business sense anyway.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Allen.

The users that would push the limits of TOS, and exploit them, are the very one's that caused them to get hammered by Google in the first place. I believe the issue is two sided....we can't expect (unfortunately, as evidenced by this post) or even require IM'ers to understand the BIG picture, especially when everyone is so concerned with maximizing their own revenue (the me, me, me mentality). On the other hand, I do believe that the site's themselves have an obligation to themselves, and to their broader user base, to safeguard their own businesses through tightening up TOS and quality control processes.

Unfortunately, their approach to search engines has been largely "reactionary". Google makes a change = it impacts them = they scramble to find a solution to get into their good graces.

People will argue to no end whether you should use a Web 2.0 property or not. Some absolutely shun it. I use them in conjunction with other properties....the search engine authority I gain from publishing on these sites is absolutely tremendous, and I have hundreds of thousands of article views to prove it (not to be boastful).

One reason why I've never published a piece of content on HubPages (even though I feel it is one of the better sites out there), is because it HAD very loose TOS. When a site has very loose TOS, I see my content as being directly impacted by the collective mentality to just exploit and use a platform--which actually devalues my content in the long run and short run. There are some people who did absolutely nothing wrong, however, their traffic was also hammered hard simply because of the actions of a few.

The good thing about Squidoo is that you only share commissions if you use Squidoo's own modules. In many ways, it's just like having your site, especially if people click on your own affiliate links/banners, and purchase...you would ultimately gain the SAME as you would. The only thing that would be missing would be somekind of brand recognition, if that is something you are looking to achieve, when someone lands on your Squidoo lens, as compared to a branded website.

I totally understand, co2.

The general thought, when it comes to ownership of Web 2.0 sites, is that there "should be" a mutual benefit principle at play. Whenever an owner does anything....adjusts ad placement, changes site layout and functionality, etc...the "idea" is that they are ultimately working in their own best interest by working in a users best interest. This is why I do particularly like the revenue sharing concept.

To reinforce your point, there HAVE been occasions, that I'm well aware, that I site ownership has done some very shifty things to users. eHow is just one example (I could rant about that to no end). In a perfect world, owners would ALWAYS work in the best interest of users.

Personally, and this is just for me, I won't even contribute to a site unless I exchange frequent emails with the ownership directly. I know, I can't expect everyone to do this....it would be unrealistic and unexpected. In my own business, I can justify this risk, though, and I go to great lengths to ensure that I am confident that my content is safe.

This isn't just about web 2.0 rev share sites, though. The same could be said of a site like Ezine articles. If we learn anything, if we are to use these sites, I do think it's important to have your own property, as well. Right now, I have close to 400 highly SEO'd articles, many with thousands of views being sucked in by the authority of the site itself, diverting traffic to my own properties.

I just believe the benefit is still very great, even in a post-Panda world.

This was bound to happen sooner or later. But i guess for money people they were not ready for this.

Just another reason to make sure you do not have one streamlined way to make money online. Alot of people are going to get whacked with this...

WHY?

this is the online income they have...now they are in trouble.

You have to have your eggs in more than one basket. that is how you will win this game in the end.

You know...

HubPages is obviously tightening up its reigns here because people have taken advantage of the site...which impacts the site, as a company, as well as, the collective endeavors of thousands of other people who have content hosted there.

Yet, you want to "get around" their TOS?

This is exactly why IM'ers exploit the heck out of sites until they perish into oblivion. Sad.

As long as YOU make money, right?

The thing is...when they protect themselves, they are also trying to protect the collective userbase. Exploiting a platform, for short term gain, may earn you (whoever) a few quick bucks, but, is it really worth it to see the platform itself annihilated? So, then, you just move onto something else to destroy?

The tighter a site's TOS, the better. Live with it, or go elsewhere.

True...but I wouldn't be surprised, nor would I mind, if they soon disallow squeeze pages or form pages as well.

I believe they are looking at things from a Google-type perspective, meaning that they want to send their users to a quality website so that the user will come back in the future instead of blocking them and spreading a bad rep.

Oneal

dlawhh,

Unfortunately, I think it may not be all too inaccurate to guesstimate that 'probably' 75-90% of users don't even read the TOS. Those sites have attracted tens of thousands of registered users. Maybe it's the users fault? Maybe the site should do a better job at ensuring that there is a clickable link to those TOS right where they would sign-up to register? I don't know...some people, I would hope, may avoid certain sites like they plague if they read their TOS (and, fully understood them...cough...like eHow's TOS).... (that may be why they AREN'T typically nudge along by site's ownership to read them...many people probably wouldn't even join)...

"...you cheat the system the system will always come back to get you."

Unfortunately, I don't most IM'ers realize (or care, for that matter), that what they do directly impacts the livlihood of others. When Squidoo was abused, it was slapped to the point where the collective userbase--even those that consistently try to do the right thing and work diligently--were affected by overall loss in authority and favor.

What's "adverts" disguised as hubpages"?

Do you have a link/example?

Every ad there, as far as I know, should be subject to a user revenue share....

The only people doing the blaming are in threads like this one (from last spring). Hubpages took action after the google update - and they did it to preserve THEIR platform.

Hubs has never intended their pages to be used for selling stuff. It was launched as an "editorial content" platform and they have routinely removed overly promotional hubs. I don't care how good your writing is - if you are only writing to get people to click and buy your CB affiliate product....it's a sale page.

You can call it "review" or "look what I found" or whatever you want - the minute you add an affiliate link you have a sales page.

Hubs is a free platform and my hubs (no sales links) have done well in bring traffic to my sites. IMers seem to think every free platform online owes them space for their "promotions". Not so.

Hubpages has perhaps gone farther than any similar site in responding to the update in a way that will preserve the integrity and value of the hubs now allowed.

kay

Who else here has had a Hub deleted AND was given the rationale for its deletion as being related to the occurrence of Clickbank affiliate links? Is this actually now in HubPages' TOS?...

If it's in their TOS, I wouldn't play with fire, even if some have hubs, with clickbank links, that haven't been affected yet...at least make sure the text of those hubs are saved to an external word document.

btw...love or hate these changes, the 'strictness' is a GOOD thing, and HubPages is bouncing back quite nicely....that will correlate to increased earnings for everyone who plays by the rules.