Heads up! As part of a traffic experiment, we changed the number of Hubs listed in the Related Hubs section to eight instead of five. We expect the experiment to last about a week, but wanted to let everyone know that the change is not permanent. Please check out this thread for background information on the recent design changes to Related Hubs. Thanks!
I'm having a problem with the RH algorithm choosing poor quality hubs full of subject/verb disagreements and other grammatical issues. Is there any way for me to report these poor quality hubs to be removed from being displayed on my hubs? I've tried using the Report button, choosing low quality, and specifically explaining why the writing is low quality. It's such a HUGE part of the page, and it concerns me to have my Google authorship associated with a page that links to poor quality content.
I agree with you, Blake. My Google authorship is very important to me and I do not want my readers seeing links to poor quality hubs on my hub page. I am concerned that my readers may see the 'related hubs' as a recommendation from me. I am tempted to put a notice at the end of my hubs that state: "This author does not recommend or endorse the 'related hubs' below. The 'related hubs' list is automatically generated by the system and is for the reader's option only."
PS: I am also concerned that many readers will click on one of those related hubs and not continue on to my comment section.
I've already been quietly disappointed in HubPages staff for the deceptive "related search," which lead visitors onto a new page full of only ads, where ad impressions aren't shared with writers who brought the traffic to the site to begin with. I don't think that move was ethical. I only bring that up because of the word "related" that seems to be used very loosely by the HP page designers.
If you write a disclaimer like that on your hub, you're just adding to more space on your page that is not useful for visitors. I don't suggest you do that. Let's work on making suggestions. In the past, Paul has been open to suggestions from hubbers and works to improve the site as a whole. I think the issue might be when our own personal values clash with the goals of the whole site succeeding. Hubbers generally want more traffic, and so do HP staff. That is the glue between us.
Well, yes -- that does make sense to me. Making suggestions to HP is the best way to go. And I do know that Paul and Mathew are open to suggestions from all of us. Thanks, Blake.
Here are my suggestions for the algorithm which chooses the hubs for the RH:
1. Find a way for hubbers to "police" their own RH lists a little. Let hubbers review a larger list of RH to choose the best. Or allow us to veto one or two, just in case we find low quality hubs in the list.
2. Weigh the author's own work more heavily when there are sufficient hubs to do this. Maybe 50% instead of 15% of the RH listed.
3. Allow the listing of just one or two hubs when there are not enough good matches yet. (Maybe this is already in effect, but matches may not be strong enough yet)
4. Prevent the repetition of the same title terms, i.e. "How to peel an orange" and "How to peel an orange the fastest way" and "The Best way to peel an orange fast"
What are your ideas?
I like your ideas. I have been thinking about it and feel that during the QAP process:
A list of SH could be added to the bottom (no more than four) and let us approve all/any/none. HP should be able to do this without the public seeing the SH till the author approves. Before the hub is featured, a review section for the author is posted with suggestions. Once the author approves or denies, then the hub can be featured -- we click on Yes or No for each RH. If we click on No, that RH miraculously vanishes.
This means that the QAP team would have to have a new icon in the far right column on our account page where they have the circles denoting featured. This new icon would have to be a color we recognize instantly to alert us to the fact that we need to approve or deny the RHs before the hub is featured.
This extra little work for the author is well worth the time, I feel, to assure only quality hubs are on our pages. This is yet another way for us and Team HubPages to work together and support each other for a better overall great site.
My suggestion was for Hubbers to simply have the ability to plug in their own Hubs, or Hubs from other Hubbers they appreciate. I too have issues with my Hubs being linked to Hubs I'd prefer they weren't associated with via the Related Hubs section.
Marina indicated this was not possible. I don't fully understand why, but I have to believe HP knows what they are talking about.
Seems pretty simple: 5 spots for related Hubs. You add your own choices. If you leave any of those 5 spots blank HP's program populates those links using the current method. If one of the links goes dead you get a warning message and temporarily HP populates it with their own choice until you fix it (or don't). Flag people who plug in unrelated links the same way they get warnings when the put them in the body of the Hub.
I'd really like to see something happen here that gives us more control. I think it looks really good, and can be a powerful way to showcase our own related content.
This is a big issue for all of us, even those not worried about Google authorship.
Last year an author here wrote a hub about walking dogs and one of her related hubs was "how to dump your dog when taking him out for a walk". She complained about it but ended up leaving hubpages.
I published a hub this week on runny noses in dogs and the related hubs were about dealing with runny noses in humans. Those kinds of "related hubs" are not related at all. They just send the viewer off on a wild goose chase, and do not help at all.
Your suggestion about approving RHs is the best one out there.
Thanks for the suggestions, everyone. We appreciate the feedback and understand some of the issues concerning Related Hubs. Although not in the plans for this quarter, we do plan to look into ways we can give Hubbers more control over the RH listing. The recommendations in this thread are great, and if you have anything new to add, please do so in the New HubPages Feature Suggestions Discussions.
So, how do we report poor quality hubs that we find in our RH lists? Is there a better place for me to ask this question?
There are measures in place to prevent low quality Hubs from appearing in the RH list, but unsurprisingly (it is entirely automated, after all), some less-than-stellar Hubs will slip through the cracks. You can send some examples to us at email@example.com and someone can check to see why those Hubs were appearing in your RH listing. Include link to this thread for reference.
It is a pity that HP does not give the same level of emphasis to authors as it gives to Related Hubs - see below for a comparison.
I emailed a few examples to team@hubpages, and I got a response from an unknown person, "Team Hubpages," that there were clearly spun hubs in my examples and that those hubs were unpublished. I guess the person who responded will be looking into the others. So far, I haven't noticed a big improvement.
Do you suggest I go though every single hub and check for terrible hubs in my RH section and email team@hubpages, or are you planning on making some global improvements to the algorithm? I'd rather spend my time creating good, useful, content if this is unnecessary and there will be an easy fix.
The issue is very similar to Hubber Score - Both issues have been raised over and over again, but nothing is ever done. HP gets their impression from any rubbish listed erroneously as Related, so HP apparently don't care, and won't fix either problem globally. A simple search shows that both issues are the festering sores that don't get addressed or fixed. Why?
I suppose that every company has the potential to take advantage of people for the sake of financial goals. I like to think of "HP" as regular people who have to go home and sleep with the decisions they make. We know some by name. I was introduced to Hubpages by a staff person, in person, so I know they are real people. They have families, pets, talents, weaknesses, etc. They do cool stuff. They make mistakes. They live with the consequences of their decisions, whatever that may be.
I guess the best thing I can do besides making suggestions and asking for help is to pray for them to have the wisdom to make good decisions.
I do think we should keep the blame for the poor content showing up in RH where it belongs. The creators of that content are responsible. It's just that now there's a new vehicle for that content to be displayed in prominence across some of the best pages.
Well said, Blake. Thank you.
I am of the belief now that each hubber should be able to link to the hubs of their choice. This is done at Examiner, another site I write for, and it works very well.
Blake made a great point. Finding poor quality hubs first can easily turn away readers from returning to HP and exploring for information from hubs that are quality - well written and structured properly. I wish the rules were stricter around publishing in general on HP so that poorly written content wouldn't even show up.
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.