jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (20 posts)

Same site in image attributions: Is this over promotional?

  1. jemuelO profile image83
    jemuelOposted 4 years ago

    Hello fellow hubbers!
    I just want to know if I violated the rules in HP regarding over promotional on hubs. I usually have images from freedigitalphotos.net  cause aside from the fact that they offer free photos, I find the images really appealing. Now, all of my photos come from that site and I put the site's url in each of the images as attribution. Am I getting over promotional cause I keep on mentioning the site on my photos? If yes, what shall I do to resolve this?

    1. galleryofgrace profile image82
      galleryofgraceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Each photo should have it's own url  I believe.

      1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image89
        mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        True, but if the photos are on the same website this still counts as one domain so the problem remains (or did in the past unless HP have adjusted their software since to allow for this).

        I should add I only ever had this problem with photo attributions on Morguefile, and Flickr etc never caused me a problem. Maybe by now HP have added Morguefile to their list of sites it is okay to have more than two links to.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes.  More than two links (and attribute links in a photo capsule count) to the same domain can make the hub overly promotional.

      I'm not sure of a work-around outside of using a different site (wikimedia commons, for instance, that is considered an "authority site") might be to make just one link at the bottom of the hub.  Perhaps someone else can weigh in as to if this is sufficient attribute.

      1. Barbara Kay profile image87
        Barbara Kayposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        In the Apprenticeship program, they teach that each photo should contain a link to the source. That is the way Hubpage moderators want it anyways. That would mean that you can use only two photos from any one site.

        You can get away with posting it all on the bottom, but this is the way the moderators would like you to do it.

        1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image89
          mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          They have exceptions where you can post multiple photos from the same site with source links and they are fine with this. The overly promotional rule was never intended for photo attributions, they were just an unfortunate casualty of programming that was not sophisticated enough to separate photo attributions from links within the articles to other websites. Now HP have allowed certain sites to be 'exceptions' because of the problem this caused, and usually Flickr was one of them (as was Morguefile after I queried a similar flag on an article where I had used 3 attributed images). Based on this you can use 100 photos or more from the same site on an article where you have attributed them, just so long as HP has that site listed on its 'white list', and if it hasn't you can ask them to add it (which is effectively what they did with my Morguefile problem).

    3. livewithrichard profile image85
      livewithrichardposted 4 years ago

      Some of my hubs have half a dozen or so images coming from the same domain (Morguefile.com for instance) and I have never received an over promotion warning.  I think it is because each image, though from the same domain, are from different users and their user pages.

      This is a good question because in 4 years, I haven't seen anyone ask or answer it with authority.

    4. mistyhorizon2003 profile image89
      mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago

      I once had the problem with an automated 'overly promotional' warning due to more than two links to the same domain. The domain in question was Morguefile and the links were to photos I had correctly attributed. I emailed the Team at HP and they quickly removed the warning and emailed me back to tell me a manual review had confirmed this was not a problem. My advice is that if you get such a warning you email the team to get them to remove it because more than two links to a site which you have attributed photos to doesn't count, but when I did it the HP software couldn't tell the difference between the photo attributions and external links in general (might be different now though).

    5. Marisa Wright profile image92
      Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago

      There is no rule that says attribution has to be in the photo capsule.

      In the olden days, before photo capsules had a live link, I put all my attributions at the end of my Hub in a capsule called "Photo Credits".  That was legal then and it's still legal now.

      1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image89
        mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Marisa, but surely even attributing the photos at the end of a hub with the link to the source would cause the exact same problem, i.e. more than two links to the same domain on one hub? The only way I can see around this is if the source of the original photo is not linked to at all (assuming there are more than two images from the same domain on a hub anywhere).

        All that said, I haven't experienced this problem in ages, but that could be because I mostly use the Flickr images now (those that are 'CC' licensed of course) and HP may have exempted them from automated flagging for too many links to one domain. Also I am not certain if it is essential to link to the site when attributing an image, although it is recommended we link to the 'CC' license, quote: "Notice — For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.2"

        1. Marisa Wright profile image92
          Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It depends on the rules for that particular site.   

          For instance, I used a lot of photos from a flamenco site, with permission.  I didn't link to each individual photo on the site, I merely said, "All photos provided by ......" and linked to the home page of the site.

          Strictly speaking, a 'CC' licence allows you to simply mention the source of the photo without making it a hyperlink, though personally I think that's a bit rude.

          As you say, Flickr is exempt anyway, so it's no problem.  I recall Jason saying so many moons ago.

        2. jemuelO profile image83
          jemuelOposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I am surprised to see that my latest hub (which I made yesterday) got unpublished with the warning "Overly Promotional." I used 6 photos in this hub 3 from flickr, 2 from wikimedia and 1 from freedigtalphotos.net.. I included links in the photo capsule (different URL for each photo and they are all CC licensed). I thought HP exempts flickr in their automated flagging for too many links to one domain. I don't want to remove the links on the photo capsule cause I think it would be cruel for the photo contributor.

          1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image89
            mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            On that basis I would email HP to double check this. It might be that you have more than 2 links to a domain that is not one you have used for images, or it may be a glitch, but before you start making drastic changes to your article email the team.

    6. jemuelO profile image83
      jemuelOposted 3 years ago

      @galleryofgrace: Yes, you're right, each photo has its own URL but they still belong to same site (like morguefile.com). I wonder how HP counts the link we include in our hubs.

    7. jemuelO profile image83
      jemuelOposted 3 years ago

      @wilderness: Thank you for making it clear that more than two links to the same domain can make the hub overly promotional. Its a nice suggestion to have a single link at the end of the hub, just to make a proper attribution.

    8. jemuelO profile image83
      jemuelOposted 3 years ago

      @livewithrichard: I have never received a warning as of the moment. I am just afraid of getting one in the future. I raised this question here in the forum, to make sure that I am on the right track. Thank you for the nice comment!

    9. jemuelO profile image83
      jemuelOposted 3 years ago

      @mistyhorizon2003: Thank you for dropping by and sharing your experiences about getting a warning like this. Oh, well and good! Hubpages has updated their listings and now exempt sites like flickr. Thanks for letting me know about it!
      @Marisa Wright: I totally agree with you. Having a 'photo credit' section below the hub will serve as also serve as a good attribution.

      Thank for replying! I really appreciate it.

    10. jemuelO profile image83
      jemuelOposted 3 years ago

      I didn't put any link other than those found in the photo capsules for attribution. I already emailed the team, but I don't get any response from them. It's been 6 hours already. Maybe I'll just wait for another couple of hours or even days. Let's see how HP address this problem. Thank a lot!

      1. mistyhorizon2003 profile image89
        mistyhorizon2003posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It usually takes at least a day before you hear back from the Team at HP, so don't worry, I am sure you won't have to wait too much longer.

    11. psycheskinner profile image82
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

      Just request that the site be white listed. That's what I did with foter.com

     
    working