jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (10 posts)

The QAP process - constructive critisism

  1. SimeyC profile image88
    SimeyCposted 3 years ago

    There has been a lot of angst relating to the QAP system but no real analysis. So let's try and do something productive. When anyone gets a chance, review the 'latest' list and list any common problems that you see with hubs that have been published. Are there too many with major grammar errors? Is the formatting poor? How many out of the last 30 should not have been published etc.

    Until we have objective statistics and feedback we can all shout about how good or bad the QAP is. By quantifying the results and analyzing areas where the QAP seems to be failing we can assist HP.


    1. Paul Maplesden profile image91
      Paul Maplesdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Great idea Simey - Bump!

  2. agilitymach profile image99
    agilitymachposted 3 years ago

    I think the premise of this idea is great.  The only problem is the execution.  How many hubs should a person read?  In what format should the data they collect be?  How can a concept such as whether a hub should be published or not be quantified?

    For instance, I just read one hub that I suspect is from an English as a second language writer.  The information in it would be helpful if that was a topic someone was interested in, but the layout was poor, there were many grammar errors, and it was clunky to read.  Still, it had information in it that apparently is difficult to find on the Internet without doing rather extensive research.  Also, the information was so dull to me because I care so little about the subject that I quit reading the hub.

    Should the hub be published?  It's borderline.  The information in it could be useful, but the hub was poorly written.  However, considering the writer has English as a second language, it wasn't bad.  How can these things be decided?  How strict should someone be?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Right or wrong, whether you agree with them or not, the answers to your question is in the MTurkers guide book.  They are doing the quantifying.

      The basic answers are also in the directions in the hub hopper; apparently hoppers using it properly are following the same guidelines. 

      I would add just one thing: "However, considering the writer has English as a second language, it wasn't bad".  That consideration has no place in deciding the quality of a hub.  First language, second or tenth doesn't make it well written and making excuses won't change google's mind when it comes time to apply penalties.

      1. WriteAngled profile image92
        WriteAngledposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. Ignoring illiterate "Engrish" by ESL hopefuls who want to make a quick buck here is going to make Hubpages sink even quicker in Google's eyes. This garbage should be excised as rapidly as possible. Broken English, together with spun and machine translated rubbish should be the main focus of QAP in my opinion. Why penalize literate writers who have not mastered SEO, while at the same time rewarding losers who murder the English language just because they have succeeded in targeting high-paying key words in their illiterate garbage?

  3. WriteAngled profile image92
    WriteAngledposted 3 years ago
    1. SimeyC profile image88
      SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I thank you for this - we also need a quantative note - was this 6 poor hubs out of ten? or 6 poor hubs out of a hundred.

  4. 0
    Giselle Maineposted 3 years ago

    Hi SimeyC, great idea.  I had a look at the latest hubs, and I was actually very impressed at the quality compared to a year or 2 ago (i.e. before the QAP).  I couldn't find anything in the first couple of pages that looked problematic.  In contrast, a year or 2 ago maybe every other hub released would be of extremely low quality (spelling, grammar, spam, way-too-short content, etc).  So I was pleasantly surprised to find that the QAP is actually doing something. 

    However, I also believe that the QAP could have been replaced by an automated spelling/grammar/length checker for a fraction of the cost and solved the exact same problems.  I really think that what was holding HP down was those really obvious issues like nonsensical sentences, poor language, etc - not so much the 'higher level' issues like how the hub 'looks', etc. 

    I don't really like the QAP because it seems needlessly complicated and expensive, but I admit I do like the end result of the latest hubs actually looking really good.  Again though, the QAP could just as well have been replaced by an automated process - I think too much attention in the current QAP has been paid to small, subjective issues than larger problems which can be more objectively identified by some other process.

  5. WriteAngled profile image92
    WriteAngledposted 3 years ago

    Six poor hubs out of two or maybe three pages that I scanned; I cannot remember. There are ten hubs per page, so six hubs out of 20-30.

    1. SimeyC profile image88
      SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Were the over-promotional hubs poor or just against the TOS - whether it's right or not, the QAP does not cover TOS violations. If these were flagged and became less promotional, would they count as quality?

      I actually agree with you that TOS violators shouldn't be published - but I feel this should occur before the QAP proces - i.e. any TOS violation hubs CANNOT be published.

      So 6 (or 4) out of 30 - representing a 80% (or 87%) success rate - I'd be interested to see if this improves or gets worse over the next couple of weeks. (or 6 out of 20 - 70%)

      I'd like 100% of course but feel something like 98% is acceptable. Thank you for your research.