Log into InfoBarrel
Forgot your password?
Need an account?

Improving our overall content library *PLEASE READ*

1 2 3 ... 5
2,162 posts
Member since Jun 11, 2008

Hey everybody,

As you all know, keeping quality high is one of our highest priorities on InfoBarrel.  We want to keep InfoBarrel the best place to write for writers, and not the best place to be a marketer.

As a result, we are taking some measures to ensure that we only feed Google content that meets a certain criteria.

We are throwing around the idea of requiring an article to have a yellow score of 41 in order to be indexed by Google.  This is a really easy number to achieve, and should eliminate a lot of thin content that was only designed to help marketers build links to their web sites.

We would not be unpublishing the content, just telling Google not to index it.  Simlpy adding a little bit more content, or a few more elements to an article will often times put it over this number.

The last thing we want to do is perform any sort of e-how style sweeps. So we would like some feedback.  

Keep in mind, we aren't trying to punish anybody, just increase how we are seen from the outside looking in.  The better we look as a whole, the better we all do.

Thanks!

412 posts
Member since Jan 8, 2013

Sounds just fine to me...Smile

981 posts
Member since Mar 23, 2009

I have no issues with this, except as follows:

There are a few 2.0 properties (i.e., Hubpages) that currently does this.  My belief is that once Google is told not to look at something, it takes a miracle to get the bots back active on that page.  (I've done some testing on this theory and, while not 100% accurate, it is concerning.)  In other words, once an article is "de-indexed," it is worthless and might as well be unpublished.

As such, if you are leaning towards this method -- and it seems like you are -- it would be prudent to give an extended time to let the authors try to up their scores.  Squidoo's 7 day turn around mandate resulted in their loss of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of pages. 

2,162 posts
Member since Jun 11, 2008
thehigherstandard said:

I have no issues with this, except as follows:

There are a few 2.0 properties (i.e., Hubpages) that currently does this.  My belief is that once Google is told not to look at something, it takes a miracle to get the bots back active on that page.  (I've done some testing on this theory and, while not 100% accurate, it is concerning.)  In other words, once an article is "de-indexed," it is worthless and might as well be unpublished.

As such, if you are leaning towards this method -- and it seems like you are -- it would be prudent to give an extended time to let the authors try to up their scores.  Squidoo's 7 day turn around mandate resulted in their loss of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of pages. 

While I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure if you remember the accidental de-indexing of the entire site a couple years ago. It definitely does come back.  Plus, we would also be re-including the corrected articles in our Google Sitemap, letting the spiders know they need to go back. 

In regards to giving authors an opportunity to fix there content, we are definitely going to be doing this.  Chances are these low scoring articles aren't seeing much search volume to start out with. The last thing we want to do is burn any bridges with writers. 

We've watched the level of quality go up significantly since the launch of the scoring system.  It is by no means perfect, and there will be times when it is wrong.  We are always willing to help somebody fix an article they can't get out of the red zone by giving them pointers.  The whole idea behind what we are doing is trying to switch the outside perspective of InfoBarrel.  We want to be seen more as a croud sourced online magazine then an article marketing haven.

Thanks

Ryan

70 posts
Member since Apr 1, 2013

I completely support this to improve the quality of IB. Articles are very easy to get above 41 so I wouldn't see any issue. I agree with higherstandard that some time for writers that do have low score articles to edit them would be prudent and helpful.

134 posts
Member since Sep 5, 2009

This is already a project I've been working on since last Monday. I think that giving everyone a reasonable time frame would be appreciated. Smile

106 posts
Member since Oct 8, 2010

This seems like a good idea. Whatever keeps the quality high and IB competitive works for me.  

De-indexing is good also because alot of authors have their articles interlinked and even if the article is not indexed, at least, if someone clicks on the interlink they will be taken to an actual page.

I think de-indexing is good while we work to make those article complaint..which may take time for some people depending on how many articles we have to bring into compliance.

981 posts
Member since Mar 23, 2009
admin said:
thehigherstandard said:

I have no issues with this, except as follows:

There are a few 2.0 properties (i.e., Hubpages) that currently does this.  My belief is that once Google is told not to look at something, it takes a miracle to get the bots back active on that page.  (I've done some testing on this theory and, while not 100% accurate, it is concerning.)  In other words, once an article is "de-indexed," it is worthless and might as well be unpublished.

As such, if you are leaning towards this method -- and it seems like you are -- it would be prudent to give an extended time to let the authors try to up their scores.  Squidoo's 7 day turn around mandate resulted in their loss of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of pages. 

While I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure if you remember the accidental de-indexing of the entire site a couple years ago. It definitely does come back.  Plus, we would also be re-including the corrected articles in our Google Sitemap, letting the spiders know they need to go back. 

Yeah, I guess I had blocked that out of my memory :) 

I'll be fixing/modifying or deleting all of my articles here so it won't necessarily negatively affect me one way or the other.  If sufficient notice is given, I'm sure not even the most stubborn people (like myself), can call "foul." 

46 posts
Member since Dec 17, 2012

I think that this is a great idea. I have only one article that is below 41 and the higher standards will help everyone in the long run.

4,288 posts
Member since Oct 15, 2010

Good looking out. We need to be the best to get the traffic we're all looking for.

71 posts
Member since Mar 15, 2013

Yep, I'm totally there. I have a few yellows, but I know they are not nearly as complete as my 70s.

237 posts
Member since Feb 8, 2013

Fabulous. 

41 is totally easy to get and should only pose difficulties for someone who has hundreds of low scoring articles.  The number of people in this position should be few enough that admin can work with them individually if need be to get everything beefed up.  For all new articles I don't see why anyone would have a problem.

Unless, of course, you have a pen full of adorable baby turkeys in your livingroom cheeping at you for more scrambled egg....

71 posts
Member since Mar 15, 2013

I like my scrambled eggs when I'm writing.

340 posts
Member since Feb 21, 2013

Love the idea!

20 posts
Member since Jul 23, 2012

I fully support this. And that's considering that I have quite a few red scoring articles (it turns out that it really is very easy to get the scores to yellows if you're writing something that's meant to be read by people instead of search engines, and lately most of my new submissions start out green.) It also prevents people from starting out strong in order to get pre-approved status then just pumping out low quality content once they do (they can still do it, but it would be a waste of time on their part as the low scoring articles will be useless.) 

It certainly helps IB for the long term if we build an image of an online magazine instead of an article marketing directory. Online mags that rely on quality content have more staying power and are not as affected by search engine algo updates.

2,392 posts
Member since Apr 14, 2010

I completely agree with this, and I really appreciate the scoring system.  In fact, I love all the improvements you have made lately.  In the past, I never created channels for all my articles in Adsense, so I was completely surprised to discover that my most popular article was not one I would have expected.  I also had lower scores than I realized on some of my other articles.

I am continuing to make improvements and add Adsense modules to my articles.  This action will encourage me to speed things up.

Can I make a suggestion?  I check the Forum almost every day, but I know of InfoBarrel writers who rarely look at the Forum.  Is there a way you can send out a mass e-mail or blog post periodically to let writers know about the changes and improvements you make?   I think it would help the writers to feel more connected to the site and to help them see the benefits of changes you make.  One writer I know recently told me that she never looks at the Forum and wishes that she was just emailed about major changes so she doesn't get caught by surprise.  I thought it was a great idea.  You don't have to do it all the time ... just every month or so, or at least when a major change is made.  Just a suggestion.  Thanks!

69 posts
Member since Mar 30, 2013

Great idea! I would support any effort to keep quality up on InfoBarrel. After all, it's quality that improves the value in the long run, as many have stated here. 

I'm new here since scoring system was introduced, but I've found it more than generous. Out of curiosity, what are the breakpoints between red, yellow and green scores?

170 posts
Member since Apr 24, 2011

This is a good idea and should be implemented. I agree that the score you mentioned is not difficult to achieve at all. I would like to know that future articles I add to InfoBarrel have quality friends, since we will all help each other that way. It is clear in 2013 that quality matters.

I really like the rating boxes and plan to turn the rest all green. Now if we could just pick from 3 or so different ad placements to make the layout work best for images, it would be awesome.

2,116 posts
Member since Sep 17, 2009

I agree with this too.  This new scoring system has given me the kick in the %^& I needed to update my earlier articles.  I know with many of my earlier ones I didn't have pictures, so by adding pictures and a bit more content they jump dramatically. 

We want this site to be the best it can be.  There are some amazing writers here and we want to keep them here!  If everyone goes back and cleans up some lower scores then it will collectively help the site.  I have been here a while now, and it doesn't hurt to go back and update older articles. 

10 posts
Member since Mar 12, 2013

That should be no problem with me. It is just finding things to write about. But also I only write part time. Thanks for the information though, thanks.

1 2 3 ... 5
© Copyright 2008 - 2017 by My Passion Media Inc. Terms of Service Privacy Policy XML Sitemap