I really don't like the "new" hopper and have not bothered to hop hubs since it came out several months ago. In the spirit of helping to clear up the backlog, however, I gave it another shot tonight.
The sliding scale ratings are too much to worry with, IMHO. I tried to thoughtfully apply the suggestions for each point value but many times none of the suggestions were relevant to the hub I was trying to rate. Also, I couldn't scroll up and down the left-hand panel with the suggestions. To read the whole panel, I had to reduce the screen size until the type was too small for me to easily and comfortably read. I tried to refer to the big chart at the link but that thing is just tl;dr.
I prefer the classic hopper because it has more of a pass/fail system that is not so tedious, plus there is much less room for error. However, I get the feeling that simply voting a hub down and then flagging it through the classic hopper isn't much of a help anymore. Does using the classic hopper help with the backlog at all, or is it just more flagging that will never be looked at because there are just not enough hours in the day or people on the planet to clear up the spun stuff and 2-paragraph blog entries being thrown up here every minute?
You pretty much summed it up. I used to love hopping hubs, but I don't do it anymore for all of the reasons you mentioned.
I would go back to using the classic hopper from time to time if I knew it would help clear up the backlog. However, I don't want to donate my time flagging hubs if there is not enough staff available to follow up on the flags. It seems like what HP really wants is raters and ratings.
Using the classic Hopper unfortunately does not help us with the backlog, though reporting (flagging) Hubs, should they not adhere to our publishing standards, does indeed make a difference.
I agree that hopping through the new Hopper is a MUCH more involved process (one that is far from easy and breezy), but we want to be sure to judge Hubs as fairly and accurately as possible.
I have got used to the new Hopper at last! I have two objections still: I have trouble getting the sliding scale to slide and I would like to be able to leave a hub without hopping and proceed to the next one. There are topics I couldn't honestly assess, and at present the only way I have found is to leave the Hopper and then go back in, a total waste of valuable time. If these two aspects were improved, I would be on the Hopper often!
The main thing that would encourage me to use the new hopper is the ability to leave comments as I am hopping; often, if I see a small way that a hub might be improved or have suggestions, I'll leave it as a comment on the hub. I can do this in the classic hopper, but not the new one.
I agree with joanveronica completely!
Hubs that are very specialized can rely on lingo and technical terms that I cannot decipher. If I could "skip" them, I'd hop many more. As it is, I have to exit and find my way back to the hopper.
A comment option would be a nice touch, but probably not necessary since the hub's author isn't the target audience for rating it.
I actually have two other, additional problems with the new hub hopper, though. For one thing, I cannot read the last lines of the rating window. There's no way for me to scroll or to highlight in order to move the text into my screen's window.
Also, I've noticed a few watermarked images being used without permission. There is no way to flag this without it being a "report."
Thanks for your reply Simone.
Any chance the new hopper could be simplified or the old hopper could be slightly upgraded? Would rankings be of any value to HP staff if there were three choices:
• Fail (gets flagged for improvement or removal. No need for the extra step of clicking on the flag button.)
• Pass (gets published and crawled, but is not featured on "read more" or on topic title pages)
• Feature (or maybe call this ranking "Stellar;" these articles not only are published and crawled, but get the extra publicity of being plugged in the "read more" sections and on topic title pages.
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying it, but I would be willing to hop hubs again (for free) if it were simplified.
The "new" hopper is a pain in the ass. I still use the 'classic' version.
At the top, in the Black Box, last row in middle you can click Classic Hopper which gives you the Original form of Hub Hopper.
Yes Joan. Not being able to move on, and basically forced to read something that you are not interested in, or simply be dishonest and score it without reading just to be able to move on, is another STUPID HP CHANGE.
I think what would greatly help with the new hopper would be a much simpler rating system; instead of 1-10, make it 1-5, e.g.:
1 - Very thin, poorly translated or spun content
2 - Poor content, short hubs, needs more content
3 - Reasonable content, not especially original, OK article
4 - Good content, well researched, gives good answers / insight
5 - Great content - Original, well thought out and compelling; gives great insight and answers questions well
1 - Not organised at all; wall of text; cannot find what you need
2 - Basics of orgaisation; attemps at paragraphs and headings, but could be improved
3 - Standard organisation, OK use of headings and titles; would benefit from more capsules and navigation
4 - Logical and well organised, good use of capsules, easy to find information
5 - Superb use of capsules. information extremely well organised, hub is a pleasure to llok through
Grammar & Mechanics
1 - Terrible grammar and wording; mistranslation and no attempt at polish
2 - Poor grammar and spelling; needs a decent proofread and better understanding of HP requirements
3 - Grammar etc. is correct, but content isn't overly engaging; standard quality
4 - Hub is well worded and engaging, easy to read
5 - Hub is fantastically written and highly engaging
I would laos say that rather than having a slider, have 1-5 'stars' under each measure that you can hover over and click to select the ranking.
Addiitonally, an option to flag the hub as 'Awesome' in addition to flagging hubs for moderation violations would be a great idea as suggested by someone else in this thread.
Combine this with the ability to leave comments and you'd have a wonderful hub hopping tool that I am sure more people would use.
Still too much for me. I wouldn't use it. They're either good enough or they're not, IMHO.
The only problem with that approach is that 'good or not' is basically how the Classic hopper rates them and acording to Simone that doesn't help to reduce the backlog (which is what HP badly needs help with and will help to improve our ratings on Google.)
So, we need to find a middle ground, i.e. a hopper that regular members will feel compelled to use that gives HP the info they need to rate hubs but avoids the problems of it simply being a yes/no decision, hence my suggestion.
Sorry, I don't understand - You are suggesting a binary option of 'Good Enough or Not', how does that differ from the classic hopper 'Up or Down', which is the same binary option?
There simply need to be more metrics and evaluation in there for the info to be of use to HP in rating hubs.
If you are talking about the minimum QAP score that a hub needs to be featured, I'd rather not know.
It would influence my rating on those "borderline" hubs.
Bah, I replied to the wrong post...
The post I was referring to was:
"But that's still Yes, No or Great, in only one aspect, which I suspect wouldn't cut it for the QAP. Perhaps Simone can drop by and let us know what their minimum requirements are when it comes to rating."
To further elaborate, I think a yes, no system would be biased. There are too many times that subject could be enmeshed with content. It also makes it a bit too easy to ignore grammar for sake of organization or substance for organization...etc.
Maybe they need to adjust their minimum requirements if they want more people to participate. That's what I'm getting at.
Pfft... There are three simple questions. We are all capable of answering them for the majority of them we see, even though the topic may not be our favorite. The changes have seen a big uptick in the site's rankings, it seems, so it's worthwhile to answer them. If keeping this site as a high-ranking site with the ability to earn more isn't worth answering three questions, then I seriously doubt that the complainers will have anything worth contributing anyway.
Marina has provided some insight in this thread:
They are not planning on limiting the rating to one scale. They prefer three different scales. However, I still contend and agree with the posters here that the scales can be made simpler. One easy way is to limit the scale to a 5 point scale instead of 10 point scale. I don't see how the extra points really add any value.
For me the three questions don't line up with what I want to say about hubs, or what I think makes a hub good or bad. That is why I stopped hopping.
I imagine the questions are lined up with ranking algorithms for writing quality.
HP staff doesn't need constructive criticism on them. Their goal is to simply ensure quality. Writers who are seeking critiques should be getting that at other sites.
I have no idea what they are lined up with, but they don't line up with what makes me like or not like a hub. Ergo I don't use them and don't hop anymore. That is all I am saying.
I hear what you're saying. I hope you'll reconsider, since getting these through does seem to be improving everyone's Google traffic from what it used to be. I don't use it much either, because it's sort of a pain and leaves out potentially big violations like copyright infringement, but it boosts us all to have more people involved in it.
I feel the same. I guess I'm just not cut out for hub hopping anymore. I feel like an article is either good enough for the site or it's not. Additionally, I'm fine with "stellar" hubs getting an extra push. I appreciate that they've made an MTurk FAQ, but it has 42 questions, most of which have to do with how to properly rate hubs. That is a big clue that the process is not simple enough and/or that people are misunderstanding it, IMHO.
I guess I should just go back to flagging, but I read on another thread that it doesn't do us much good as far as eliminating junk articles.
I like Paul's idea. What irritates me about the new hopping is one man's 10 is another man's 5. How does that help? This is especially true in the area of grammar.
I stopped hub hopping since the new hopper. However, I still flag hubs that are obviously span or poorly translated or just too short (except poems), to bring them to the moderators' attention.
OK, so here's another question. Is hub hopping with the new hopper the exact same thing that Mturkers are doing? If so, supposedly the test is difficult enough that most people don't qualify for the job. Does that mean most of us are not qualified to hop hubs, yet anyone can do it for free here, and perhaps put bad data into the system? Maybe they shouldn't want us hopping hubs then, if we're not qualified to do it accurately. (Not trying to be tacky -- this is a real question. Just seems like maybe everyone should have to pass the test before being allowed to rate hubs.)
I wish there were an option to skip a hub and go to the next one.
I don't feel qualified to analyze poetry or articles on certain subjects.
If it is a scientific or a video game subject, for instance, I may be unfamiliar with the terminology, or it just goes over my head and I can't get into it. I might seem like gibberish to me, but be understandable to another person.
Let us skip!
That we DO have at MTurk. We have the ability to "return" a hub for another. It counts against our stats but we do have it. (I've had to return my own hub a couple times)
I think the penalty is there to keep Turkers from only rating short hubs or poetry to boost their hourly rate.
I like the Classic Hopper much better than the new one too! I always switch it.
I find that pro's and con's are found in both the Classic and the New hub hopper. It takes less time for me to "rate" a hub with the new program. With the classic, I appreciate being able to specify exactly how the hub can be improved, if needed. I use both methods but lean toward the new program. That is solely due to the fact that I can read more hubs as it takes less time to write a comment.
I can see if a hub is c__p or not without going into some Byzantine scoring system. I used to apply my own criteria to many hubs that needed instant killing.
Unfortunately for HP, I am not willing to spend hours submitting endless gradings on meaningless scales. I would need a minimum payment of £25, which I think is currently about $40 or a bit more, per hour to make this worth my while, and even at that rate of pay would probably find the work too boring to accept. For the pitiful rates HP is offering via MTurk, it is not worth getting out of bed, let alone turning on my laptop.
This is basically my feeling as well. If I can do this quickly and simply I am willing to do it for free. I think there are other hubbers who are willing to spend a few minutes every day doing some "express" housecleaning. We could fly through a bunch of the junky hubs that are not getting removed, even though they should never have been published in the first place. The ones I am referring to are not just new hubs that go through QAP, but also the backlog of old junk articles. These are hubs that need to be flat-out removed and it would be a waste of time to rate and analyze them. Maybe we could just toss out the terrible ones and let QAP people rate only those that have a chance of remaining published. Just thinking out loud here.
I have just returned from my first time hopping hubs at Mechanical Turk. Mechanical Turk gives good instructions on how to rate hubs, and has several examples of hubs that have already been rated. I found it very helpful, and I feel much more confident about my ability to properly rate a hub with the new hub hopper now. I think it's worth looking into if you are willing to hop hubs, but have been uncomfortable with the new hub hopper.
I think the initial comparison was between the old hopper (no longer offered) and the new hopper in Hubpages itself. And the hopping turk (hopping for money) would be a third phenomenon.
The Mechanical Turk hopper is basically the same as the new Hub Hopper on HubPages. What I was saying is, that you can get a better feel for how to use the new hopper if you check out Mechanical Turk. If you are not interested in making a nickle apiece for hopping hubs, you can always come back here and do it for free.
I think it would be good if HubPages would give some examples of hubs that have been correctly rated, it really made it easier for me.
by NaomiR7 years ago
If we flag a hub, does it say which hubber put in the flag, or is it anonymous. I mean, could someone turn around and flag your hub to retaliate? How does it work exactly? Thanks.
by James Paterson9 years ago
it used to be the case that when when you flagged a hubpage, you could comment with your reason for doing such to help the hubteam understand, i used the box to put links to websites that certain hubbers had copied and...
by Paul Edmondson4 years ago
There is a new Hub Hopper that is available today. I've posted some details about it on the blog and set this thread up to discuss it and to get feedback. *Note, the Hopper is only collecting data right now,...
by Melanie Shebel5 years ago
Over the past few days, I've been having some problems flagging hubs. I'm not sure if I'm the only person experiencing this, but it's been happening ever since I got my new computer, so my guess is it's a bug that is...
by Christine Miranda4 years ago
I like hopping hubs, learning new things and meeting other hubbers. However, I have absolutely no interest in reading hubs on religion, politics, poems, fictional stories or some far away place I will never visit so I...
by Sherri5 years ago
The question of whether poetry Hubs should have 400-word minimums came up in this thread a few minutes ago:http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/70203#post1528809I've been puzzling about what to do with poetry Hubs I've found...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.