After a promotional sentence or two, there is an impressive looking line graph.
Impressive – until you find out how the Net Promoter Score works. It only measures respondents to a survey. It doesn't take into account bad word-of-mouth (such as complaints to Consumer Affairs and the FTC) and those not recommending the company it measures.
Furthermore, the y-axis scale on his upward line graph only ranges from 24 to 28.5. As stated in Gert Van Dessel's article Net Promoter Score (NPS®) – Best practice: "..no distinction is made between a 0 and a 6 score..."
A study by Kai Christensen and Jacob Eskildsen in the TQM Journal concluded:
"The NPS® is a very poor predictor of both customer loyalty and customer satisfaction."
So what's a good NPS® score anyways?
According to Erica Douglass's December 2014 article What Is a Net Promoter Score, and Should You Implement It in Your Business, typically, a score between 50 and 80 is considered "good."Okay, Paul tries to show some type of upward trend, what's next?
After reminding us that Squidoo content may have contributed to HubPages "getting whacked hard" during the September 23rd, 2014 Panda update, he tells us that out of 310,000 indexed Hubs, 45,000 are from Squidoo.
That means only 14.5% of the indexed content on HubPages are former Squidoo pages.
I will add that my profile, identity and 277 of my Squidoo articles and those of (at least) four other authors were imported without authors' consent and/or knowledge. And, HubPages is currently collecting any and all of the ad share, Amazon, and eBay royalties on these.
Unconscionable isn't it?
Then Paul Edmondson states in his Hub: "...we have been following Google's advice to either fix up or remove pages (avoiding merging because of HP's structure)."
Avoiding merging? Why is that?
Because credible authors who are in good standing with Google are the only hope for the damaged HubPages domain. Paul Edmondson desperately needs to keep these subdomains on the site (even if he broke federal and state laws by importing, posting, and profiting from content he clearly does not own).
Next, he mentions layout changes but avoids the possibly fatal decision to hide the share buttons. Yes, it's assumed that readers know they need to zoom out to find them. And according to Marina Lazarevic, "...approximately 10% of all desktop visitors (5% of all visitors) will not see the new buttons."
Yeah, even if 5% was accurate (and I highly doubt it), you'd think a sinking ship like HubPages would want to keep those visitors sharing. Unless, of course, HubPages is trying to make life easier for scrapers.
Then, Paul Edmondson glosses over the "few partial manual site penalties."
What?
I never heard of a partial manual site penalty, I'm guessing it's like being "a little bit pregnant."
Oh but here's where things start to become clearer
If HubPages "goes under" then you've been forewarned that it will have nothing to do with the HubPages business model.
In fact, Paul Edmondson states that Google doesn't provide any specifics. Hmm, I would think a manual penalty (even a "partial" one) would be clearly written by Google's team.
The best Paul can do is guess at whatever issue Google has with HubPages. Oh and cross his fingers.
Don't forget, HubPages can only survive (according to Paul):
"As Long as Google Doesn't Kill Us."Poor Paul!
Satirical cartoon of Paul Edmondson blaming Google for HubPages demise and what Google probably thinks. Created June 19th, 2015 by RoseWrites / All rights reserved (Click to enlarge)
No comments:
Post a Comment