In today news pages, I see titled "Google panda 2 years later: 5 questions to CEO Paul Edmunson" an article that states that Hubpages is seeking from now on, only quality. Two of my hubs that I would characterize as tendencious, controversial are marked with an empty white circle, is it a quest for quality or a subtle censorship?
The two articles are Syria, the disinformation and capitalism is dead! As you see it, no need to read them to predict the contents.
Have you taken the time to understand the ratings system of the QAP? Have you applied to those two hubs in an honest effort to see how it scores?
I had a look at one of your Hubs on Syria. It's not the subject matter, I'm sure.
One thing you have to realize about HubPages is that it's not enough to just write. On HubPages, you have to be your own editor and graphic designer too. Online audiences are looking for articles that are visually pleasing as well as having good content. Large chunks of text look indigestible and don't attract a reader to read. Break up your text over several capsules and place your photos tastefully throughout the Hub instead of at the end. You'll be surprised what a difference such a small change will make.
I suspect you'll tell me you shouldn't have to do that - that's your choice. But it's simply a fact that if you choose to write on revenue-sharing sites, you have to be more than just a writer.
We are all getting caught with failed QAP/quality. It has to do with not having pretty pictures and crap like that. Not the message. Unless they also have a deep political hatred for hairless dogs and ladies who go over Niagara Falls in a barrel.
Ah, here we are! We are approaching the sensitive issue. "not the message", "deep political" could it be that people who think differently will face first the gallow? It seems like it. Once again, in what way texts written months if not a year ago loose their relevance qualitatively? Isn't it absurd?
I have no idea how you got that from what I said. I can only assume you actually think my "Curley the hairless dog" hub failed QAP because it threatened the modern military-industrial complex in ways I failed to appreciate when I wrote it. Either that or you are irony impaired.
QAP quality is based on exactly what it says in the help zone. Lots of headings, pretty pictures, good grammar etc. I assume you looked there before jumping to conclusions, no?
And what is your job Hubpages? What did you do for me lately? What are you tools, your strategies, your policies to promote us, to make sure that we are read? Or do we endorse the whole responsability and you only bring the platform? What if It is our turn, as writers, to make you accountable for our exposures? Why only blaming us for our sudden lack of quality?
As I understand it, HP has no tools, strategies or policies to promote your hubs or to make sure you are read outside of trying to provide a site that google likes.
If so, it will never be your turn to make HP accountable for your exposure. It never was a part of the agreement.
That's what I understood. Then maybe it's time for them for an update, what do you think? For a company to grow both executives and executants should be pampered!
What bothers me is their criteria of selection. How do they judge a text, for instance? Why a text written a year has suddenly no more relevance quality-wise?
Secondly, I am also fed up to face a wall or nobody when it comes for a clarification!
Max, this has had clarification over and over for the past year. It's on HP blog, it's in the learning center, it's in the forums a dozen times and it's a part of the hub hopper.
If you want to know how HP comes up with the quality portion of hub scores try the learning center and move on from there. Or hop a bunch of hubs, enough that you become proficient with the scoring system there.
Then can you tell me why a text written a year ago was different than today qualitatively? And you will understand that it is ABSURD. To send me to the learning center won't solve the absurdity of my problem, will it?
Perhaps because the definitions of quality have changed? Perhaps because it was never checked against quality guidelines?
I don't find it ABSURD that older hubs be checked against the guidelines that new ones are, or that they are required to follow the same rules. Indeed, I support and applaud these actions of HP that are designed to clear out the masses of trash that have accumulated over the past 6 years here.
It would appear that you haven't kept up with the changes being made at HP over the past year or two; I assure that they are many and that they are important to you. I can also assure you that it is not absurd to read through the learning center to find out what they are and how they will affect your work here.
Perhaps? As it did or did not? If it did how come your hubs are not affected? If it did not then why are mine affected? As I said I'm speaking about two tendencious and controversial subjects, I am not talking about fishing in Idaho or a new hamburger place to try in lower Manhattan.
With a score of 99%, how come someone like you would disagree, it would go against your interests, I understand you, but don't underestimate me!
Changes within the past year or from few days ago? Don't adapt your answers to what Hubpages would want you to say about them if you were their spokesperson. Thank you for your assurance but what you said so far was irrelevant since you did not take into consideration my grievance.
I rate hubs and have unfeatured hubs.
Your hubs failed QAP. Fix them or move elsewhere. It's more helpful than dreaming up conspiracy theories.
I can assure you it has nothing to do with your topic. I've given good ratings to hubs I thought were morally repugnant. No one has it in for you. No one knows who you are when you are rating hubs.
Raters rate between 30 and 40 hubs per hours. You are implying that we are taking time out of our day to become morally enraged enough to risk our pay just to fudge ratings enough to fail your hub.
Ain't nobody got time for that.
I have zero idea if the hubs you are questioning ever went through the QAP or not. It would depend on when it was published, whether you ever edited it and if so, how much editing.
The rules have definitely changed, though it has nothing to do with how controversial the topic is. It has to do with how well the hub was written, and those guidelines are where I pointed out. Changes took affect about a year ago or so, but in just the past few days those changes have begun to be applied to existing hubs.
My hubber score has absolutely nothing to do with anything, and in fact it was only 94 just yesterday. What DOES matter to me is that HP clean up the site and get it back into the good graces of google, because that's where my earnings come from. Google decides HP is poor quality and there goes my money; google likes HP and the pocketbook fills once more.
And yes, my hubs have been affected - I've already had one go unfeatured because, I think, of going through the QAP. None unpublished (yet), but it could happen as the rest go through the program as well.
Once again, someone who understood nothing in what I said, opens her mouth to say nothing interesting. Let me enlighten you, like you I put pictures that would destabilize someone like you because of their truthfulness, like you I corrected them upon request.
Again your assurance means nothing since you are nobody and especially since you and I don't get along. And it is a pleonasm. Where is the parallel between giving good and bad ratings and the quality of a text? Once again, you read without reading, in that case why wasting my time and yours?
I certainly don't want to be pleonastic...
Hows this? Your hub failed. Get over it.
And what do you mean we don't get along? I have no idea who you are.
Well I was a tequila girl in my day, but I avoid it now... I might be able to get my hands on some codeine, but I think it will take quite a bit to take you down.
I read "And if..." is that your cup of tea? Lil spooky.
You can differentiate fiction and reality?
I saw that. Then you need at that level, a psychiatrist?
Thank you, Marisa but I work in an advertising agency.
Furthermore, if you keep your consistency, you will notice that all my hubs are constructed almost the same way, thus my question why only those two, and, why now?
Visually pleasing means space between paragraphs, equilibrated, not too long... the form is respected.
The content is the problem then. Am I difficult to read? As a copywriter I should know, shouldn't I?
Then what is left? The subject matter.
And what would be, to be more than just a writer?
I take it you're not one of the HP Illuminati?
More nonsense! Why is it that people who answer show more their ignorance than their knowledge? As the French say it rightly ridicule doesn't kill.
And it makes any hubs of a less quality? They all have the same construction. Then emphasizing those two?
They weren't aware of the other 20. If they happen to drop by this thread, then they will be...
An old friend like melissa that has nothing to say but bury me. Unless I'm quicker.
Dude, your words are way too ominousness... choose your words more carefully.
You as well. You should think twice before opening your mouth. You never know who is facing you, don't you?
I found your hubs interesting. No problems there.
I think what everyone is trying to let you know is that HP is really big on format criteria these days. They like subheadings. They like purdy pictures. They like as many sparkly doodads as you can throw in there. When QAP or HP itself gets around to your other hubs, the same thing is probably going to happen as did to your first two.
You're lucky, actually. You've got a chance to beat them to the punch.
Hang in there.
I took a look at one of his. It's well-written but has some grammar errors that would bring down the score a bit. The organization is a bit blocky, with no sub-headings and one small cartoon. The cartoon is unreadable and cut off. It's kinda ranty as well. The lack of media would bring the substance score down a bit. It would have passed the prior QAP but is borderline for the new bar.
"Thank you miss Barnett" as I sit in the front row of her elementary classroom.
I actually am trying to help. You asked what the issues were and said all of your hubs were the same. I'm letting you know what would throw raters off.
He's the guy under the bridge... I don't think his hubs are the issue.
Thanks doc, now that I know I feel better and it comes from someone who uses to... drink margaritas and pop up codeine? Is it what you said? Not very smart?
No, no... no codeine. And everyone's had tequila at one point. And I never claimed to be smart. (And you do realize how question marks work right?)
But you are playing with me, aren't you? You think that you can intervene and ridicule me? You didn't pick the right horse to fool around, believe me. Melissa tried me. I remember her. She's pretending not remembering me. I understand her.
But if you keep on playing, be sure you are not a sore loser.
Why would you imply that I am Syrian? You don't need to be Syrian to support their quest for freedom. I supported the Irish against England. In what way is it different?
It was not for you, it was addressed to Beth.
Both score 69, it's not as if they were at 10.
By the way, which one did you read and where were the grammar mistakes?
I'm actually talking about the QAP score which decides whether your hub is featured or not. Hubscore isn't the same thing. I'm not 100 percent sure there is anything but a passing acquaintance between them.
I read "Is our view of the US distorted?"
There were some capitalization errors such as: "international court of justice" (proper name)
"rambo-like intruder"(Proper name)
"middle east" should have been capitalized.
"Afghanistan's oil resources in the North exploitable" North shouldn't have been capitalized.
"we understand why turkey is not the best candidate" Turkey should have been capitalized.
"infanting the 1945 united nations chart celebrating" United Nations should have been capitalized.
And other errors like:
"we will admit that their objective concur to multiply and solidify the US interests worldwide"
(either objectives concur or objective concurs)
"Why not copying the maneuver?"
"Its pawns on the world chessboard indicates clearly its motivation"
pawns ... indicate,
"Is Iran's encirclement, our military objective?"
No comma needed
"limitroph" is misspelled.
I'm lucky that I've tweaked each of mine at least a zillion times, so I've hopefully caught all that stuff.
Thanks, but not really. I only do it when I'm bored.
What I actually do is sort the changed-column to get the oldest at the top. Then I just go look it. I always find something, whether it be a needed correction or a sudden bright idea for an enhancement. Makes the whole thing fun instead of work.
Some of mine are horrible. The problem is I don't see the errors because I know what I meant to write.
To be honest, the lack of capitalization is supposed to show my contempt for the organizations and the country associated to the event or the subject however for north and the numerous grammar errors it is unforgivable. Thank you for underlining them. I definitely need to readproof. Thank you again.
Like I said, proofing our own stuff is challenging because our mind reads what we meant to write but our fingers might not always cooperate when typing.
No, quality does NOT mean spacing between paragraphs and not too long. The description you are offering is what works in your business, NOT what works online.
For a guide to what HP feels works best online, look up "stellar" hub - it's a good start. And as the site belongs to HP and they make the rules, you'll either produce what they think of as quality or not be published, whereupon you can look for another site that will accept your work. (You won't find anything in the "stellar" hub description about controversial topics, though - that has nothing to do with quality.)
Sure you don't remember me nailing you. I understand it's hard to bite the dust.
Again, you are not productive and apparently you don't understand it. I need smart interventions. You are definitely not qualified judging the level of our past few feuds.
I'm passing good at knowing what it takes to pass QAP.
And I argue with a lot of people. ~Shrugs~ I'll have to look back through my posts and find our argument sometime.
Folks, I have been following this thread and one thing jumps out: This guy is simply spoiling for a fight and no matter what you say, he will argue. He simply does not "get" that HP is his employer, and if he wants to stay in the game, he has to follow their rules...which mostly are dictated by Google et al. He is complaining that an older article got whacked, but I say the same is happening to many here right now, which is why so many are complaining. We probably all will take some hits, but if we do, our choice is either to fix the problem, delete those hubs or walk away from HP. Complaining is a waste of everybody's time.
by Marisa Wright2 years ago
I'd like to suggest we get rid of Hubber Score - and perhaps even Hub Scores. They:- are constantly misunderstood;- cause a lot of upset and grief in the forums; and- encourage newbie Hubbers to direct their...
by Gary Anderson17 months ago
I thought if a hubpage was listed in Google search it was featured. But apparently that is not the truth. I guess I will keep the hubs up and run my own check on them.
by Deonne Anderson3 years ago
Hi!I am new to HubPages and need HELP! I joined a couple of days ago and have only been able to publish one article. I am unclear as to how postings work. I was under the impression that once I...
by Ellarose925 years ago
I know this is in the help section but I wanted information please:)
by David2 years ago
I just wrote a hub on making money with HubPages but wanted to make sure it's ok before publishing. I know you are not supposed to mention what you are earning on HP, but is it ok to use titles like 'How To Earn $1000...
by Simone Haruko Smith5 years ago
Hello everyone!Now that Money Grows in Hubs has moved on to final judging stages and all entries have been entered, it's time to reflect. This has been an AMAZING contest. We had 5,707 total entries (1,073...
Copyright © 2016 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.