jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (30 posts)

Community help and feedback needed - hub violations

  1. GA Anderson profile image85
    GA Andersonposted 4 years ago

    wanted to rant - but thought maybe I could br wrong, and some community feedback might show me the errors I am missing

    The story:
    I had a hub unpublished as duplicate
    I did not think it was so I contacted HP team
    found out they considered the author's resource box as dupe - so I edited it
    denied listed as "deceptive tags, title or category, keyword stuffing, and duplicate content
    **HP team says it is a dupe of another of my hubs - not content somewhere else on the net - but... it is not duplicated anywhere

    ps. team says the hub was moderated by a human - not a filter

    so I'm stuck between anger - if they don't want my content - just say so, and "what am I missing" - because I don't see any of these violations as valid

    I would be more than glad to fix any problems if I knew what they were

    so, I hope some of the experienced hubbers might take a look and offer suggestions

    since, you can't see an unpublished hub - I posted it elsewhere - just as it is constructed as a hub

    also, to try to mitigate what might be seen as an effort of self-promotion in providing a link - I have left the post uncategorized so it doesn't show up anywhere on my site that could benefit me

    it is not linked to anywhere else on the site

    and I am clearly telling you it is my content on my site - clear disclosure - and I am asking that you do not click anywhere else on the site - just check out the hub

    but it was the only way I could think of for it to be seen and evaluated

    http://campingwithgus.com/2012/09/27/sa … pages-hub/

    Note: HP team has been very timely with email responses, and answered the questions I asked - I just don't see what they see

    If the link is snipped, and you are willing to take a look and offer suggestions - contact me at gaanderson[dot]online[at]gmail.com and I will send you the link

    ps. I still think HP is telling me I am no longer the type of content writer they want -- (after 3 ACTIVE years and approx. 350+/- published hubs) -- but am hoping someone more objective can offer an opinion that changes my mind.

    Thanks in advance

    1. Old Poolman profile image81
      Old Poolmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That is exactly why I have not written a hub for months.  I was accused of duplicate content, but they would not tell me exactly what was duplicated.  Like you, I tried to fix it and finally just deleted the hub.  If a human finds the error, that same human should be willing to point the author directly to the content that is considered to be in violation of the HP policy.  I just flat don't have the time to play games trying to outguess the reviewer.  Take a look at any hub about baking a cake and you will see lots of copied content..  I more suspect it involves someone complaining about the content of the hub.

      1. SmartAndFun profile image92
        SmartAndFunposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed. If a human finds what they say is an infraciton, they should let the writer know exactly what it is.

        I'm wondering if HP has hired a new, overzealous hub reviewer because there are quite a few of these threads that have been started today by bewildered writers.

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Greetings Old Poolman - nice to hear from you again.

        I too have mostly abandoned all but two accounts. A couple of the abandoned accounts were from the early days and really were just so-so content used as link containers. And I did not complain because I understood HP was trying to improve its content.

        But... that is not the case with this account - or the hubs in question

        It appears that I may just have to "grin and accept it" and just maintain my GA Anderson forum account.


    2. Marisa Wright profile image92
      Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That doesn't surprise me.  An "author's resource box" is an EzineArticles feature, not something that's part of HubPages official Hub structure.  If you're creating one artificially, it would have to be unique every time.   Otherwise, the wording will count as duplicate (even though it's only a paragraph or so).

      On one of your other camping Hubs, I notice you have a link to your profile.  I think you've already discovered that's not allowed.  Are you sure you didn't have that link on this Hub?

      I don't think that's the case.  Their rules are designed to please Google - whether we can see the logic of them or not.

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for the response Marissa

        yes, the author's resource and profile links may be a problem.

        I am re-working them - I will be deleting profile links and reworking author's box wording to keep it unique

        but - as content that is less than 5% of total -  I don't think it should trip duplicate warnings - especially when there is still a blockquote option

        but... that was "yesterday's news" - my issue now is the "deceptive" stuff violations, when I am sure none of it is deceptive or misleading

        even if I fuss a little - I don't begrudge HP their efforts to improve the site, especially when some of my early efforts were purely for links and don't fit the current HP model

        but now it seems a little too restrictive, with too little information about specifics

        Thanks again for checking it out.


  2. SmartAndFun profile image92
    SmartAndFunposted 4 years ago

    I just read your hub and I am also stumped. HP needs to point out specifically what they object to because that is a fine hub that they should be pleased to have on their site.

    Grasping at straws here, but maybe they are considering the words camp/camping to be keyword stuffed? That is the only thing I can think of, since they are telling you it is either that, deceptively titled or categorized (it's not) and you fixed what they said was duplicate.

    Sorry you're going through this. sad

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks very much for taking the time to check it out and offer your opinion.

  3. Healthy Pursuits profile image88
    Healthy Pursuitsposted 4 years ago

    I have to say that I don't think HP would be trying to get rid of you. While you're sometimes a pain in the booty booty on the forums, you're a good writer. They're not going to cut off their own income. 

    That said, I had the same problem, but with a video that was considered sub-standard. I had many emails back and forth about the flagged hub. Finally, I asked for the specific problem locations within the hub. The team was very responsive and very gracious. I was told the specific problem that I couldn't locate, and the point in the hub where it was located.

    So I'd suggest that you tell them you're at a loss and need them to be very specific. I think you'll find that they would do that for you.

    Good luck.

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for the reply, I have contacted them, and they have responded, but each response cites a different explanation/violation - I'm truly lost on the most recent team email, re: deceptive titles, etc.


  4. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    I'm pretty much stumped, too.  About the only thing I can think of is that you have used the section on campfire cooking tips in other hubs, using very similar words.

    You don't have a lot of "camping recipes - ________" as titles do you?  A slim possibility as well, maybe.

    Other than that, I don't find anything.

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for checking it out Wilderness - I appreciate the effort.

      I am also still waiting for further direction from HP team - but to be fair - I just received their last response - and replied today - and they have been timely so far - it was just very frustrating to see completely different violations that I don't have a clue about listed for the rejection.

      Again, thanks for checking  it out


  5. Novel Treasure profile image85
    Novel Treasureposted 4 years ago

    I can sympathize with your frustration. I recently had a hub moderated for something similar.

    At first, I did not take it well because I try so hard to follow the rules and when you get the email it's like a punch to the gut. But what I tried to tell myself is that it's not personal, and it doesn't mean that Hubpages doesn't appreciate you as a contributor, but that something about the hub doesn't follow their strict guidelines.

    I do agree that the hubpages team should be more descriptive and maybe pinpoint exact areas where the issues are. Especially, for those of us who really do care about following the rules and are willing to change whatever is needed to remain a part of Hubpages. But I do give them kudos for their quick responses each time.

    I ended up just deleting almost everything in the hub and it was finely allowed to be republished. Though I feel the standard of the hub is very low and am thinking of just deleting it.

    I would hate to see you leave hubpages over one moderated hub. I've read some of your hubs and think you are a positive contributor to hubpages.

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      thanks for the encouragement

      but... I am still trying to determine what it is about the hub that they say are violations


  6. GA Anderson profile image85
    GA Andersonposted 4 years ago

    Well, I have an update...UPDATE  --  UPDATE  --  UPDATE!
    HP team did respond, ( and rather timely I should add), and they did take the time to offer specifics.

    The "Deceptive title, tags, or category" violation was for "keyword stuffing" which is deemed to be deceptive.

    Here is the dastardly deed, the culprit, the keyword-stuffed content that caused the violation and unpublishing of the hub:
    Capsule Title: "Camping Recipes and Campfire Cooking

    Capsule text:
    Camping recipes and campfire cooking are a natural part of most camping trips, and what could be more traditional than a 1-skillet meal cooked in a cast iron skillet or Dutch oven. This easy recipe is a perfect fit for a hearty traditional camp meal.

    Whether using a Coleman camping stove, an open campfire, or any kind of gas cookers, this recipe will get the most out of the least camping food, using the least amount of camping cookware. Leaving the camp cook more time to enjoy what they came for.."

    The words in red are the ones they highlighted (yellow highlights) as being the stuffed keywords.

    caveat: I agree with them that it is a clunky read, and deserved to be edited, (which I did), but I don't think it qualifies as keyword stuffing - and certainly not deceptive.

    I guess using your title and heading keywords in the body of subsequent text is no longer viewed as proper practice. Oh well, always learning...

    So, I fixed...
    the above text
    deleted the profile link
    redid the "former" author's resource box - to a "related resource" capsule with 2 lines of text (approx. 20 words)

    and resubmitted at 5:12 pm (approx)


    6:32 pm - rejected...

    the deceptive violations are gone - but now it's dupe content I am certain that it is not

    So I have asked if they could tell me where it is duplicated or what is part is duplicate content...

    As always... hopeful


    I have tried to remain  respectful and civil - I hope my posts reflect that. I am not trying to beat-up on HP or the team that is making an honest effort to communicate with me.  I believe that their efforts are intended for the best for HP and its community of writers.

    I just think the violations are misguided and incorrect as interpreted and am looking for community feedback to see if I am the one that is misguided.

    ps. if you haven't followed the thread - you can see a link to the hub in question in the first post.

    1. Dale Hyde profile image86
      Dale Hydeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Umm....I reckon all of my hubs could be flagged the same way if they call those amounts keyword stuffing.

  7. Marketing Merit profile image83
    Marketing Meritposted 4 years ago

    You have my sympathy GA. It is very difficult not to take things personally, especially when the goal posts are being moved.

    I had a similarly frustrating experience a year or so ago with Google Adwords. They gave me some free credit to entice me to use their service so I took advantage of this by runnning ad campaigns to several of my websites. Two of these were Amazon affiliate sites with, at the time, little unique content as they were newish sites.

    I received a warning from Google about the sites. Fair enough I thought and so I deleted those particular ad campaigns. Next thing I know, I have been permanently suspended! When I challenged the decision, on the basis that there were no ad campaigns for the two sites complained of, I was told that it didn't matter! 

    I know this is going off topic slightly, but the point that I am trying to make is that, as internet marketers, we are considerably at the behest of third parties, whether we like it or not. Sometimes, it is better to chalk things up to experience, not waste anymore time and move on.

    Best of luck with this! wink

  8. 0
    Giselle Maineposted 4 years ago

    I checked out your link and I did a few Google searches on some of the terms.  The only thing of note that I came up with, is that a Google search of "Campfire Hobo Goulash" (enclosed in quotes), comes up with 2 results: one is yours, and another is an old, no-longer-published hub of (presumably) someone else's which contains a similar almost identical recipe.  On the search results if you click on the double arrow (>>) which comes up when you hover your mouse over it, you will be able to have the option of seeing a cached version (click on 'cached'), so you can have a look at the other hub.  Even though it is no longer published, it is possible this other recipe is being picked up as duplicate content. 

    Of course, it's not possible for me to know simply from the search results whether your recipe was around first, or the other user's, or indeed whether it is just a common camping recipe which both users happened to write down at the same time.  But anyway, this 'duplicate content' may be why your hub is being moderated. You can look into it in more detail yourself using the Wayback Machine and communicating your findings to the HP moderators. (That of course presumes it is the recipe that is causing your hub to be moderated - it may be some other cause entirely -!).

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for making such an effort.

      And you are spot on, except I hope about the cached version still being around.

      The older hub you mention was mine from another account. I deleted it weeks ago so I could move it to another HP account.

      ps. the hub had been published with no problems - it wasn't until I tried to move it that the issue exploded

      I even used the  Webmaster Tools request to have the url deindexed and de-cached, about 10 days ago.

      but that is not the dupe problem. HP team has indicated it was the author's resource box and the "general" form of the hub.

      or that was the problem before it was determined the hub was "deceptively" key-word stuffed... and now, since that was corrected it is back to dupe content again

      but you went to a lot of effort to offer your input - thanks


    2. Old Poolman profile image81
      Old Poolmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Bottom line though is if the moderator found the duplicate content, he or she knows exactly what it is.  Why make the author of the hub spend hours and days of work trying to locate this on their own when it is already known?  That is the part that makes absolutely no sense to me.  As I mentioned above, most any recipe hub has most likely been published somewhere with slight variations.

  9. GA Anderson profile image85
    GA Andersonposted 4 years ago

    @Old Poolman

    In my case, in a couple of the emails, team listed a link of the dupe content mentioned. It said the hobo goulash recipe hub was duplicate content of a published recipe hub for Swiss steak - cooked in a Dutch oven

    I said...????????? hmmmmm How can a goulash recipe be a dupe of a swiss steak recipe

    It's was when I asked that question - fixed the aforementioned "author's resource box" that was cited as the dupe content, and resubmitted the hub, that the whole mess of "deceptive stuff, and keyword stuffing violations were cited.

    Now those citations are gone and it is back to being rejected as dupe content - which I am certain it isn't.

    Alas, this little recipe hub was never that important, isn't a great contribution, (although it's not junk either), and could just as well be allowed to go away - except it just doesn't seem to want to go quietly into the night....


  10. GA Anderson profile image85
    GA Andersonposted 4 years ago

    Well, just imagine I'm saying this in a quiet and weary voice.

    update, uh update.....

    Now that I've been Google slapped, and lost more than 90% of traffic almost overnight....

    HP has ended the marathon and published the Hobo Goulash hub talked about here.

    hurray.. hurra...hurr... oh buggers!


  11. derek gulbranson profile image82
    derek gulbransonposted 4 years ago

    Hi GA Anderson. Sorry about your frustrating experience with the moderation filters. I've run into that duplicate content filter myself once or twice. I'd love to make this a more pleasant experience for our authors but it's not an easy problem to solve.

    The reason that we must be moderately aggressive with the duplicate content and keyword stuffing flags is a large percentage the content that people (or computers) try to post to HubPages on a daily basis is exactly the kind of computer-generated duplicative, keyword stuffed content that we need to prevent from being published. Since HubPages is such a big platform, it's an attractive target for spammers creating fake articles. Unfortunately it's not an easy task to get the computer to accurately differentiate these articles from those written by an actual human being with some understanding of the topic. This also means we have to be somewhat vague in our guidance to our authors, otherwise some enterprising spammer will reverse engineer our advice and adjust their spam software to spin articles that just pass the filter but are still computer-generated and extremely low quality crap.

    Just to clarify a few things:

    Since the ingredients list for recipes is not copyrightable, the ingredients list for recipes is not included in the duplicate content requirements. This means if you have a really short intro with a photo and an ingredients list, you might get a duplicate content flag more often. There's some debate on the best way to handle recipes with regard to duplicate content, so feel free to weigh in with any perspectives you guys want to share.

    You can cite other articles, but more than half of the content must be your original work.

    Please continue working with the moderation team to resolve your moderation issues, but I just wanted to let you know that I'm paying attention. Also if you have links to those example Hubs you mentioned, please post them to this thread. I didn't see any of them on your profile.

    1. SmartAndFun profile image92
      SmartAndFunposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think hubbers are wondering why the moderation team can't just tell us exactly what is tripping the flags, whether it's dupe content, keyword stuffing or bad links. Can't they just tell us exactly what is causing the problem?

      1. 0
        Casimiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think Derek just got through explaining why they can't get too specific. Read his reply again. Essentially it's the same reason they don't specify the internal details of how your Hub score is caculated.

    2. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Greetings Derek,
      After the lengthy ordeal to get the hub published, it is good to see a response such as yours.

      First, Since HP team email responses said the hubs were human moderated - I'm sure they were as frustrated with me as I was with them. But... I stayed polite, and they continued with timely responses - even if I did not agree with them.

      Second, the hub(s) are not duplicate content, but, each had an author's resource box of approx. 40 -50 words that were similar in each hub.

      And last, although the intro's were not intentionally over-stuffed with keywords - some were a little clunky reading.

      So, First, it took a couple turns before team indicated it might be the author's box - so edited or deleted to pass dupe filter

      then it got crazy - ie. deceptive title tags or category violation, which was just plain nuts - on HP's part

      Finally a team email took the time to point out, (copy/paste/highlight) the clunky intro and said it was keyword stuffed - at least they made the effort

      and on, and on,

      but regardless, HP team always responded, so cudoes - but geesh, if it's a human moderator, a little explanation would have saved a lot of trouble

      as for the links... they are on a different profile campingwithkids.hubpages.com (which has suspended posting privileges for being a second account - not for any etiquette violations - go figure)

      ps. It's all good. I understand HP has a lot of house cleaning to do, but you need a net to catch the baby...

      GA/Camping with Kids

    3. 0
      jenuboukaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My measly two cents on recipe writing,  The actual ingredients should not be shown as a duplicate.  Your intro, and directions can be.  So if this is apart of the problem, then change your intros, and directions.   While we want to link our other hubs that are similiar, at this point, I have stopped, because of HP looking to new avenues to stop spam, this is tagging those who are legit.  (Not bitching HP)  What I do instead is add a capsule of other websites with a Google rating of 3 and up (at least 5) that pertain to the article.  This tends to "boost" the page. 

      The keywords stuffing does raise some questions for me, I though that 1000 word article it was okay to have 15% of it with the main keyword or idea in there.  Even taking camp, to camping, or skillet to pan,   There is an idea as well; to avoid the "keyword" stuffing flag and to broaden the search, use different synonyms for your keywords.  Like what other word(s) do people use for skillet? cast iron skillet, sauce pan, etc.  camping: outdoor camping?  Long tail keywords tend to do better for me and keep me out of trouble so far....So far.  I really don't focus too much on the tags anymore, just the main idea behind the article.  Like one hub is about a particular Mexican dish, so I used a couple of terms for it.  Ones that I found people Google a lot.  Perhaps this could pertain and help you out on your article. 

      Again just my two measly cents.  All the best.

  12. Mr Archer profile image94
    Mr Archerposted 4 years ago

    I recently had my first "Duplicate" hub rejected. I searched in Hubland to no avail. Nowhere could I find anything associated with the hub I had published. I contacted the individual who had rejected it, and asked. They responded by saying that is wasn't in Hubpages, but somewhere out in the world of the internet.
    Last year, Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child put out an all-call for a title for their upcoming book. I submitted a suggestion, and lo and behold, it was chosen. Another person had submitted the same title, so we were awarded co-winners in the search, and will have our names in the Acknowledgements when the book comes out in December of this year. In the past few months, the authors have released six chapters in sets of two each free to the public to read on their website. They are requesting that the people reading at their online site "The Pendergast Files" of their website to share the chapters with their friends. So, I set up three hubs including these chapters. Chapters one and two went through fine. So did Chapters five and six. But Chapters three and four were flagged.
    According to Hobpages, if the content is ANYWHERE on the internet, even if you hold copywrite to said publication, it is a violation of thier site. So, I remeved that hub from the site. But the other two remain in place and active. Can't figure that one out - one is illegal, but the other two are acceptable? Same thing in play, here. They all came from the same source, and I flagged each as exactly what theu were - free chapters to be shared with all. Oh, well.
    Another thing - have any of you noticed your unpublished hubs getting views? I have just begun to write some hubs and hold them back while I debate where I am going on them, or just flat haven't finished yet, and I have had views! Not many, but enough to bother me. If it is unpublished, who is looking at it???? Just curious.

    1. WryLilt profile image88
      WryLiltposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The history of why Hubpages no longer allows duplicates may be relevant.

      Until February 2011, Hubpages had no issue with duplicate content. The site was full of it. Then suddenly Panda (Google Algorithm change) hit and Hubpages lost up to 50% of its traffic. It then started changing rules willy nilly till something stuck. Banning duplicate content was one rule change.

      WHY is duplicate content bad? Well think of it like this. If you Google "Red Tree River" and the first three results are the exact same article, you'd be a bit annoyed wouldn't you? Especially if you were trying to get different perspectives. So Google ranks the oldest article first, and then the other ones usually get relegated quite a way down the results. So really, the others are just a waste of space and Google treats them as such.

    2. Dolores Monet profile image92
      Dolores Monetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Mr Archer - congratulations! That is so cool, to have created the title for a Preston and Childs book! They are so much fun to read, and so popular, and now you're in on it all! I know that I digress, but I am so impressed!