Is there a balance of Amazon products on a page that makes a hub overly promotional? Or is it dependent on the individual hub (over and beyond the 50 words per product)?
The product you are advertising must be related directly to the hub. So if your hub is the 10 best widgets invented by mankind ever, you can certainly have 10 Amazon capsules that go along with your text that explains why these widgets are the best. But if your hub is about how to clean widget x, you can't have widget y on that hub, unless you thoroughly explain that widget y is much easier to clean than widget x.
The key is to provide value to the reader. Will the product you added to the hub provide value? In the cleaning widget example, a special scrub brush would be a good thing to add. Widget x might even be iffy since they probably already have it if they want to clean it.
The Hub Rating Scale is what is used by the QAP (Quality Assessment Process) team when they vet your Hub for publication. There is no hard and fast rule on the Scale, because the team is meant to look at the Hub as a whole: a Hub which is a blatant press release for a business, with one Amazon capsule, would be unacceptable, whereas a Hub comparing different kind of artists' brushes, with a capsule for every brush, would help the reader and therefore be fine.
If you have a Featured Lens, then it will be published immediately and won't go through QAP until you edit it - so you won't have to worry about it straight away, so long as you don't touch that Hub.
It might get reported, though, if someone thinks it is low quality. It's better just to fix a Hub right away and be done with it. Also, it sounds like people might have problems with images and other imported features from the Squidoo site, so it makes sense just to edit the Hubs as soon as possible.
I'm sure there are good reasons Hubpages gave the Squidoo pages 4 months for editing. People can't convert 300 or 600 pages overnight to Hubpage requirements.
I used to illustrate my pages with pretty Zazzle graphics, but now I have to remove all but 2 of those. Replacing them with my own photos is time consuming.
All my html is wrecked, my videos disappeared, leaving orphan text. I'm seeing lots of other formatting problems to adjust in each page. It takes time. I'm spending from 45 minutes to 2 hours fixing up a single hub.
Along with that, we all have lives to live. Jobs, family, vacations, illnesses, etc.
Just remember when you see a new hubber with lots of hubs, they are a refugee from Squidoo. Remember that the page you see is probably not what it used to look like. Give them some time before reporting or putting unkind comments on it.
Exactly what I was trying to say. You worded much better than I did.
I do hope Hubbers who see one of our hubs looking less than stellar will send us a note before sounding an alarm. I understand some hubs might be out and out spam and need before reporting straight away but most of us are absolutely overwhelmed, presently.
While we can fix HTML and some other blatant flaws, we've quite the project with learning the ropes, navigating, formatting issues, images, capsule requirements, etiquette and on and on it goes.
It will be a while before all the wrinkles get ironed out.
Excessive use of product capsule can be considered overly promotional:
Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen it. I wrote the hub " Books About Money for Kids" that they used as an example! It is disappointing that they copied it instead of linking directly to the hub.
Okay so you really didn't answer me. What defines excessive?
Actually WF, it doesn't really say. There is no definition of excessive. I am trying to get a feel for what HP considers excessive so that I can find a balance for my transferred lenses. It is obviously different than what I am used to on Squidoo and since I haven't been active here in two years, I don't know what it is here. Anyone on staff care to chime in?
Promotional material may be defined as:
• Content written primarily to promote other sites or businesses in search engines.
• Content that repeatedly emphasizes keywords and/or phrases.
• Content that is short or incomplete, with "teaser" links asking readers to "click here" for more information.
• Content that contains excessive product (Amazon or eBay) listings. Well-chosen products in moderation are not considered to be promotional.
• Content that feels spammy and as though it was written to take advantage of the reader in some way.
I read this but it doesn't explain it well enough for me to have a guideline on the word excessive. What I am asking for is further definition.
There isn't one, Paula.
Bottom line, if your Hub looks like it has excessive product listings to an MTurk rater, then it is considered overly promotional.
The only real way to get a feel for how this relates to the way you write when you also feature products is to write a few Hubs and see how they are rated.
Sorry, I don't know what an MTurk rater is.
MTurk is Amazon Mechanical Turk.
https://www.mturk.com/mturk/searchbar?s … 2ES1DAIYZZ
People who qualify to work for the program are paid 5¢ to read your Hub and grade it.
This is known as the QAP process at HP.
I don't think there's a specific definition of how many is excessive but you might notice while in the Edit mode if it notes that there are too many Amazon products. If your hub is about the five best ______, it would be adequate to have five Amazon capsules. If the hub looks like a sales page with a dozen product capsules and the hub is about one product, that would probably not do well with QAP. I think there's going to be some trial and error with the product capsules in the transition. Perhaps at some point there may need to be more clarification of what is 'excessive'. For now, I would use your best judgment and take a look at some of Paul Edmondson's hubs and peruse the site to see how various hubbers use the capsules.
Thanks. I do a lot of writing on decor, and use the capsules to highlight products for color, design, etc. And they get sales that way. If stuff like that won't work here, then I can move them once they arrive. Having a guideline would help.
Your hubs will probably do very well here. Take note of the thread Paul just posted at the top of the forum about specific categories. Maybe you can ask him for more clarification of 'excessive.'
I agree with you that it doesn't explain it at well. It just says excessive use.
Paula: We use to be able to put more than one product in Amazon capsule, now we are limited to one product per capsule, one capsule per 50 words.
My issue is that the new way Amazon capsules are is that they don't always line up with your text capsule very well if you use more than one capsule for same text box.
The information I have found so far, is stick to 50 words per capsule, but don't over do it, and make the hub look sloppy. I am seeing capsule per text box, but even then the hub looks sloppy.
Thanks Linda. I suspect it is more than the 50 words per capsule though. Although that is a good start.
I use a LOT of text per product and I'm finding my work isn't lining up exactly, as I keep getting the 'style tip' thing. If I'm explaining something, I can't be thorough enough condensing my text to about 50 words.
I really wish we could have a module for both product and its supporting text.
What should I do?
I find this hard sometimes too. I don't know if it's a good answer, but I've found I can bust the text up between the Amazon module immediately preceeded by a text module somewhat introducing it to keep things lined up. Alternatively, sometimes it works best to do the text thing side by side with the Amazon module. When right by each other, above and beneath or side by side, it seems to work. Best of luck.
Paula: Requirements is: 50 words of text per capsule. There isn't a specific word count rule to hubs themselves. It was 400 I believe until some things changed. Here is a link to writing Stellar Hubs: http://hubpages.com/learningcenter/Elem … tellar-Hub
I'll also add that 'overly promotional' isn't graded by an algorithm that gives a definition of X number of products, etc. Even a Hub with only one advertising link can be overly promotional as in the example on the page I linked to. Even if a Hub has 50 words per product capsule, it might still be overly promotional.
You are correct there Writer Fox. It is going to be interesting to see if HP cracks down and decides what the specific rules are. I am beginning to see Hubs that have one paragraph and the rest is Amazon products with some text with it which is like what was on Squidoo, and of course the infamous shower curtain lens style is appearing to.
It is too bad that the transferred content from Squidoo is not put on hold, not seen by anyone other than that lensmaster, now hubber until they edit each one and publish them. Otherwise, I think there are hubs that are going to be reported when they have not been edited yet, and others, like on Squidoo, that don't get it yet, are going to follow these new hubs and do the same thing that was done on Squidoo. (sales Pages)
It's easy to over do it with Amazon and any affiliate link. Be very surgical with highly contextual product placement with the intent of helping the reader.
When people place too many and too broadly associated products in their Hubs, the Hub can go from useful to spam very quickly.
Our advice is to use products as efficiently as possible with the intent of benefitting the reader only.
I've been looking at conversion rates, and my belief is that a lot of people use the spray and pray technique, but it's only a very small number of placements that actually converts. I hope we can get some data that will really help illustrate for Hubbers on the placements that perform well and those that don't.
We now have access to a reporting feature from Amazon that we can customize to get this data - just need to build it!
Okay, this made me LMAO.
Thanks so much for chiming in here. I guess I will see how some of the lenses are judged.
WF, actually I disagree with you here. It is not that easy to repair and review 250 lenses or more right away. We have been given four months to do this, why not take the time we are given?
I agree, it's unrealistic to say "fix it right away" to someone with several lenses. Besides, if it gets reported, a moderator won't take action unless the report is justified. I'm assuming there must be some kind of marker on Squidoo lenses so moderators will know they are in their "grace" period so I can't see why it would be a problem.
I made a comment on your hub about the Hot Pink color scheme. I think you have way too many Amazon capsules on there for the amount of writing you did, compared to what we are allowed.
I'm not saying this to hurt your feelings, because I know the rules can be vague and you are coming from a different site. But I wouldn't have put more than two or three items on that hub. Once the grace period is up, you will be told a hub like that is over promotional.
For a while we were only allowed one capsule on our hubs, and even those with hundreds of hubs had to take so many Amazon things off. I'm just saying in the spirit of letting you know. I like the hot pink. Plus the rules change a lot here, that's why I asked too, I wasn't sure what the latest amount of words to capsules was. Welcome though, it will all work out. Maybe try to put a few less products on the others you bring over, to save yourself a lot of future work taking them off.
That is a lens that transferred to Hubpages this week. We have a 4 month grace period to get those inline. There is no way that I can have all my transferred lenses (250) changed in less than 1 week. By the end of the grace period, my former lenses will either fit this site or not, and those that don't will be removed. However, it is unfair to judge something that has not yet been edited.
That goes for all of the former lenses. Some lensmasters have way more than 250 to change, and we need all four months to do it.
I took a look at your Hot Pink Hub and it looks great - but I have to say, I doubt it will work on HubPages.
We had some very high-earning Hubbers who wrote Hubs just like that at one time. They were devastated when HubPages' rules about Amazon changed, because they felt that the whole reason those Hubs worked was the range of options they offered - if they had to reduce the number of products, it wouldn't be as useful to the reader.
They moved those Hubs to a blog, and I'd say your decor Hubs would go very well indeed on a dedicated interior decor blog in exactly the format you currently use.
ALL my work is so chaotic, it's no longer beneficial to read. Having worked at a large brokerage firm with a few buyouts, I realize a conversion is never 'clean' and the number of bugs and kinks are more on the massive than negligible.
My focus now, is one making each hub's links operable and getting some semblance of order to each; then I'll work on improving overall quality.
I'll much appreciate any suggestions.
Paul, this is exciting news! This could be a tremendously useful tool for all of us.
There is no straight definition for overly excessive because overly excessive is it's own definition.
The amount of capsules on one hub that are ok could be overly excessive for another hub. It all comes down to content, readability, and quality.
I can tell you however, that a lot of lenses are going to be removed after this transfer. The primary reason I never found myself attached to Squidoo is because that community was FULL of promotional spam. Some of the "highly rated" lenses were just a bunch of unreadable affiliate garbage.
This is why Squidoo people would do well to edit their newly transferred articles as soon as possible, before they are reported. And that includes articles which are nothing more than spun content from Wikipedia.
Since the people coming over from Squidoo have a grace period, reporting them will probably do nothing. I do hope they at least get feedback that their hub is reported and needs correction.
I do agree that they should try to make their corrections as soon as possible* though, because they can start earning that much faster, and HubPages can remain a top quality site. Unpublish the ones you know are simply bad. (Although if I had a lot of transferring articles, I would probably wait a couple of days before making changes to individual hubs so I could create a list of everything I wanted to change.)
I started here and then went to Squidoo. Now, I'm back. Personally, I had avoided Squidoo for some time before going there because I found so much that was what I called link lists and sales pages. This was before they started trying to clean up which they never really pulled off but it did get better.
In my mind, articles with more than three or four amazon recommendations got pretty questionable. The flip side of that I saw so well on my own stuff. I had a handful of what I would call overly promotional articles. They were my least favorite and if I asked, I would to this day say they were the trashiest things I have ever written. They also made me the most money and I do mean by far. The irony does not escape me. Now, they were targeted and related to the article, mostly swim suits and kitchen decor for making themed looks but would still be considered overly promotional here.
Currently, I'm really not sure how or even if those four to six articles can be salvaged on this platform. While as a writer I have zero attachment to those particular articles, I do like getting paid off the sales they were making.
There has to be a delicate balance. I don't think Squidoo ever really found it and wonder if HP has. Only time and sales will tell.
I haven't looked at your articles, but most likely you can salvage them with additional content. I've looked at a few transferred lenses (not yours) and some look very good and I see some that look overly promotional. With additional text and breaking up content with separate text capsules and headings, I'm sure some of the more promotional looking lenses can do well here. Your hubs on this account (Rhonda Lytle) look very nice.
It is very hard to escape from Amazon, and even here the site survives with affiliate support from this corporation. However, the main attraction for me here on HubPages is that I don't have to choose an Amazon module to get an article published, as was the case with Squidoo.
Why? Because Amazon is a major tax evader in the UK and elsewhere and treat/pay their staff badly - long hours and low pay; there has been a long running industrial dispute in Germany where work councils are less inclined to take the crap conditions that UK and US workers (with weaker unions and more market led government) have to face.
If this site ever pushed a compulsory Amazon sales module at writers, I would be off.
Paula: Once you put one lens, now hub, in edit mode, it is no longer in the grace period.
This is probably the most helpful to you and other squids right now: http://hubpages.com/squidoo/faq
Thanks Marisa. As I said I have not yet edited that one. This particular article had stuff stripped out that was there with HTML on squidoo. I have to determine whether I will add content, change the overall style of the hub or move it elsewhere. I am positive it is currently in violation of HPs rules. It is also not a priority for me at this point because it is not a top earner or halloween article.
Therefore, I need the time to get to it and make changes. Debating them at this point is not helpful. Since it hasn't been edited it is still within the grace period whether other people like it or not. The move transferred everything in my account including templates that weren't ever published, articles from as far back as 2008, and some that were almost completely HTML that look like link lists now.
This task which began with only one week's notice before our squidoo accounts were locked cannot be completed In a few days.
That is why continued criticism about this or any unedited hub is not really that helpful right now.
Hubbers need to remember that squidoo lensmasters were basically thrown into this situation and we are trying to work with HP as best as we can to get our stuff in line.
And we feel that HP staff has been quite helpful in this regard. Not all the accounts have even been transferred over yet.
I'm on HP for some time now (primary account Prosperity66 - logged into this one which I really love, I don't think I'm gonna be often on the primary one any more).
I'm one of those former Squids who wasn't upset with the move to HubPages, though I was quite surprised since knowing HP very well I wondered what former Squids would do on here.
Even though I was sure most of my lenses would look like junk and turn HP into some kind of junk reservoir, I'm agreeably surprised to see how they have turned
With time and training, former Squids will be accustomed to using less commercial modules and the more "serious" layout out of which commercial modules pop up. It's going to become a standard to remove any excess Amazon or eBay capsules.
I don't think it's time to review former lenses yet... we've been given 4 months to get used to HP
I am concerned that some of my pages might be considered overly promotional and mistaken for promoting a business when actually I have a good many pages that promote local charity events and non profit organizations. Does this mean that my pages might not be a good fit for Hubs? I sure hope they are because I am enjoying it over here. I really need to know because we have several events coming up in our little town and I would hate for my pages to flagged as too promotional and removed. Any advice?
If they are charities, then I doubt there will be a problem. The question to ask is - does this Hub provide meaningful information about this charity? So long as it's not just a sales pitch to get people to donate, you'll be fine.
Ohme has been known for years for promoting her town Pendleton, SC and their various activities like the chariety Friends of the Park. The whole town gets involved and everyone reads Ohme's lenses (now hubs). You could say these were promotional, but absolutely in the right direction.
In fact I had a hugely popular page I modeled after Ohme telling people where all the local activities for a certain holiday were. It got updated every year and I know it got decent SE traffic.
Many writers on Squidoo wrote things to be helpful....
OhMe - Don't sweat the small stuff. Everything you have is probably a good fit. What I have discovered is my products fit nicely. It's a matter of rearranging and added text where needed. The concerns of the others hubbers is unfounded for those of us who take this transfer seriously. We know what we need to do and we have the time to do it well.
It is useless to discuss all these attitudes... promotional links and this rank and that rank. Don't waste your time if your purpose is not delivered move to another platform.
Highly successful platforms may care hell for their writers. They will keep playing with their editorial arrogance. You just keep guessing till they receive the same fate as squidoo did.
If you love to write than popularize the hub pages. It takes phenomenal time to achieve a target... not worth the effort. Hub score and Hubber Score.
Remember most of the QAP process do what the editors want, I do not know if they are capable of true assessment. If you love to write on hub pages carry on. This is a good interactive platform. Do not waste your time on nuances.
Lionrhod: it is 50 words per capsule. Paul posted here earlier that if the description is or will be part of the word count. Who knows when we will get a definitive, update on it.
While hub is in edit mode there is word count on the right. I just removed a description in capsule and it did not effect the word count. Apparently descriptions are not being counted by the system as part of the word count. Who knows at this point.
50 words per amazon or eBay capsule and they can be anywhere on the hub
Actually if you have more than one Amazon module in a row, you will find that you need to add a text module before each to avoid being flagged. I am not sure how the human raters will see things. I found that the 50 word limit seems to apply to the total number of Amazon modules. So if you have 200 words that is 4 modules allowed!
This actually means you could have more modules here than at Squidoo as they capped you at 20. I am assuming as I have not tried that a 2000 word article would be capped at 40 here? I feel that this is not their intent, but it is how the system is working at the moment.
Before my computer died and I returned to find out that the moving men had packed my bags at Squidoo and thrown them into a new, unknown home, I had been working on a How To page.
I've never used the How To module over at Squidoo (I hadn't finished it enough to start building my lens) but as I understand, they encouraged us to choose products as a shopping list for our readers.
For instance, some of the ingredients in my how to included essential oils, herbs and sea salts. (Nope it wasn't a bath product. *g*)
Personally, I think having something like this can be very helpful for the reader. I happen to live about 3 miles from the local herbalist, but for my buddy, who lives waaay across town, this is still the closest place to buy herbs. Back when I lived in CO, the nearest herb store was more than 50 miles away.
My question is this: How-To pages tend to be more picture oriented and less word oriented. You want to break it down into simple steps that aren't confusing to the reader.
In such a case it might be challenging to give them 50 words per item on items that might be hard for them to access without a link to something like Amazon.
So how would that work over here on HP?
The other day I was doing some searching for a certain kind of article. I wanted information, so put the search term in the box and checked out what came up.
Yes, yes, yes, we are all territorial for our respective choices of which platform we liked best. I have an account here with a couple hubs ....pretty well written ones too if I do say so myself, but chose the Squidoo platform. Some of the hubbers here came to Squidoo but couldn't make it work for one reason or another.
Anyway...during my search I saw several hubs with regurgitated info, almost nothing unique. I saw people from other countries that would not have the same experiences writing as if they did, and the info was spun for sure.
My point is Squidoo had a bunch of people that came from some black hat places trying to make a quick buck. We also had a management team that promoted and encouraged sales pages. Even I, who only wrote content wrote some starting in late 2012. One of my most popular articles got a lot of traffic and I took it and added Amazon stuff and it stayed popular, earning me a decent conversion rate.
Do I still have that one now, yes I do. And personally because of the way I wrote it, I could take every Amazon product off and still have a good article. However, like others have said, I don't have the time or concentration to really go in and work on all the lenses right now. I had 10 skulls when my 50+ lenses got transferred, now I have 4. Two were for overly promotional, and the others were for links. I also had one broken link (loved this one as it was for the Squidoo Cupcake Club
During my search for the health issue I was looking for, I found some dodgy hubs, by hubbers that had a lot of Amazon capsules with no text, and instead of condemning all hubbers I just moved on.
Those of us from Squidoo that care, will care as new Hubbers. Those that didn't care about Squidoo won't care about here either. Learning who is who can help strengthen this platform and let us all have a good place to write and earn!
You make an excellent point. I've been surfing around here a lot lately. I had an account here long before I ever heard of Squidoo. I'm seeing a lot of the same thing, the Amazon modules with no text but I have to point out, it's running fifty fifty as far as who is cranking them out. I'm seeing just as many from Hubbers who have always been here as from transplanted squids.
At the risk of sidetracking this thread (which I don't want to do) I'll agree that regurgitated pages are a problem I've already come across here. Worse, these pages were regurgitated from other hub pages. Maybe. Kinda sorta.
One of those (on adding a contents table to your hub) gave credit to the original author, then added screenshots, additional helpful suggestions and so on. I didn't think this was a problem.
In the other case (how to make ice cream in a plastic bag -- very nifty idea) it depends on who wrote which page first, I'd think - and as a new Hubber I have no idea how to determine that. The first page I found went into the chemistry of how the process works and everything. Great page. The second page was just about the process itself. Did one of them copy the other? It's possible that BOTH of them got the idea from somewhere else on the internet and didn't even know their respective pages existed.
If I'm writing a page, I'll usually do a search, and if there's someone already doing it better than I can, I'll move on to a different subject. (Arguably, sometimes one writer will "make sense" or "get through" to a particular reader in a way that another writer saying essentially the same thing in a different way won't. It's not entirely true that there are no new ideas under the sun, but there is a good base here.)
Back to Amazon modules and how many are acceptable, the original subject:
It's pretty obvious that HP and Squidoo have/had different takes on this. Even at Squidoo, I tended to err on the Iess-is-more side. And yes, I saw many pages back on Squidoo that I felt were Amazon module after Amazon module.
Of course, how useful that is depends on the subject matter and the reader.
If I'm reading a how-to on photography, or making a piece of jewelry or cooking with ingredients that aren't available locally, then OF COURSE it would be helpful to know which camera or soldering iron is the best.
In the case of my Amaranth Brittle recipe, where to find that grain - I got mine from a local ethnic market, but I know for certain that my regular supermarket doesn't carry it, and when I lived in CO, I would have had to hop in my truck and drive 50 miles to find the stuff. The gas would have cost more than the amaranth itself.
On the other hand, if I was writing a recipe and linked to something like butter or flour, that would probably be excessive.
On the Hot Pink page that started this part of the discussion, well yes there are a LOT of links to hot pink products. But interior decorating is all about having options. One set of drapes might work for you, another for me. (One of my old bedrooms used to have hot pink sheets and a crimson throw, and wow did that look scrumptious together! Felt like I was sleeping in a rose garden.)
And yes, those of us who came over from Squidoo DO care - immensely. That's why we're here on the forums instead of back in our account pages, working on fixing our lens/hubs. We want to get it right. We don't want to have our pages shut down. We want dynamite ratings and to be respected as hubbers.
And mostly, on this thread. we want a way to understand what "overly promotional" means, since it means different things to different people.
I think though, that it's important that we former Squids realize that we're all a little uptight right now. We're trying to get umpteen lenses in shape in what might not be a lot of time to do so, depending on how many you have. I'm lucky that I only have 21 to work on before I can go on to creating new content.
The time factor feels a bit crushing. Especially when you realize that the moment you start editing a page, your time factor just went down to zero.
Personally, I think it would be helpful if the Mods/powers-that-be on HP could give us some help extending that. Because as we're editing our pages, we come across unexpected obstacles that we didn't know would be a problem and then have to research. Example: I added a photo and then it took a half hour or two to figure out how HP sizes/works with images.
So let's take a deep breath.
It feels like some Squids here are getting a bit upset re the person who brought up the Hot Pink page as a potential problem. Realize that this person was intending to be helpful to us hub-newbies and give us some guidelines for what we can and can't get away with here, and what's going to work best for us.
In the end, I hope we'll find a happy medium that will give the old Hubbers a little more freedom and us Squids-turned-Hubbers some guidelines and boundaries.
Well said. Since it is my page, I was just upset that people were criticizing it before I had a chance to edit it to conform to HP's rules.
Totally understandable, Paula. I think any of us would get flustered. I wish there was some sort of graphic or something that basically announced:
"This hub has recently migrated from Squidoo. We hope that you will give the author the benefit of the doubt while they're revamping their page to conform to Hub Page standards."
OK, here goes. From my point of view.
I have been here four years or so. Tried playing the game. Write hundreds of pages. Then Panda and a never-ending set of rule changes. Now down to 80 pages or so because I simply couldn't keep re-editing - and I mean keep on. Round and round.
Less ads, less links, no RSS - it has been a constant battle just trying to stay published.
The problem I see is that has been a real sacrifice. Yes the site outlasted Squidoo but it is hardly buzzing with well-off authors.
I am just unsure why HP granted a grace period at all. Everything we do has to go through QAP and we accept that. It is the rule here. It MAY be the thing that stops Google slamming us yet again.
To me and I know I will sound unfair to Squids (not the intention at all) it seems a strange risk to be taking. Do they think Google / Panda will wait four months for the Amazon capsules to be trimmed? Or will they just review the site and the mass of new content and down we go again?
Hey maybe nothing bad will happen. Maybe the number of Amazon capsules doesn't even matter. I am just trying to explain how Hubbers who have suffered over the last two / three years may feel.
Absolutely no offence intended. We are all internet writers trying to earn a few dollars.
I can feel what you are saying, and appreciate you saying it in the way you did. Personally, I respect someone that says it like this, What I don't like, or respect, is when anyone acts like they know everything and their word is the end all and should be treated as such.
We had someone come to Squidoo from here, did the same exact thing but it didn't work for them. Why, because their info was proven to be outdated, and the broken record they kept playing was ignored after awhile.
I am putting my trust in the management of HP and people like Marisa who appear to know what they are talking about, and not listen to every "the sky is falling" premonition. I would think that HP didn't do this merger lightly, and that since it is their income that will suffer as well that the risk to benefit ration is what they are following.
These are legitimate concerns I'm sure many of us are having Mark. I have been worried also about the massive influx of new hubs. While I feel for the writers who were uprooted and brought here; those of us who have been here are entitled to have our concerns. We can do that without meaning to offend those coming over from Squidoo.
Perhaps this is unrelated, but this month is the first time my earnings have dropped dramatically, despite my views not being that much lower than previous months. I have to wonder if the massive influx of new hubs is having something to do with that. Over the past year and a half or so; nearly every month my payment has been increasing, now suddenly, I'm at less than 50% of where I normally am mid-month. Very disheartening as I count on this money as part of my income.
While I want everyone to be successful here and have a great place to write, if earnings drop like this again next month I may have to consider my options. If people are going to have amazon capsules every 50 words; I am willing to bet it's only a matter of time before we are slapped again for being spammy. Very concerning indeed.
To keep this in perspective: the last time HubPages was slapped for being "spammy", there was NO limit on the number of Amazon capsules or products in a Hub. None.
In response to that slap, HubPages introduced a limit of one capsule per 50 words. Obviously, HubPages could have set a much lower limit if it wanted to. It didn't. So clearly, HubPages considered one capsule per 50 words was acceptable and not "spammy". And in all the time since, they've never considered lowering that limit - whereas they have continued to make other changes to improve the site. So it's reasonable to assume they have no problem with that level.
The other part of the rule is that Amazon products must be directly related to the topic, and that's the aspect Paul Edmonson has been hammering home recently - if it's not directly related, don't use it. With many subjects, that sets a natural limit which is much lower than 1 product per 50 words. But the fact is, the limit is the limit and if HubPages thinks it's too high, they can always change it - why should we set artificially lower limits for no apparent reason?
Where did I say we should set artificially lower limits? I said I was concerned about the site looking spammy - and frankly, an advertisement every 50 words does look that way the majority of the time. Most people know how to keep it in balance, targeting a hub to very specific items etc. Others - not so much. They may see the 50 word limit and place numerous products in hubs. What do we do to enforce the "directly related"? Just because a hub can have an ad every 50 words, doesn't mean it probably should, directly related or not.
For me, If I'm reading something and products are advertised every 50 words, I'm clicking away. I'm sorry, but I think it's a legitimate concern that people might see "every 50 words" and think that it's a suggestion, rather than an upper limit.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the point is: HubPages does NOT agree with you - otherwise they would have set a lower limit, wouldn't they?
I guess HubPages received advice from Google on the matter, which is how one ad per 50 words was deemed acceptable. But, as you say in a previous comment, if somebody did (and I'm sure somebody has) inserted the maximal amount of ads, it would seem spammy.
Paul Edmondson said on a recent thread: "A good product Hub is adding a single Amazon listing and doing a deep review in the Hub." http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/123705? … ost2620265
I doubt HubPages got direct advice from Google on this issue. They have never had a direct pipeline to Google to get advice, and Google is famous for not giving a direct answer.
Regardless of what Paul says, the rules do not reflect his views! If he thinks one product per 50 words "looks spammy", then perhaps he should do something about it and reduce the maximum number allowed - it's his site, after all.
So, surely we have to assume that in the right situation, he'd be perfectly happy with one product per 50 words - otherwise he would have changed it long ago. That's the point I'm trying to make.
I say this, by the way, as someone who rarely uses more than one or two Amazon capsules in a Hub, because I don't write Hubs that lend themselves to lots of capsules - but I defend the right of other people to use as many as needed by their topic, within the rules.
I remember there was some contact, although I've no idea whether this issue was touched upon. (Subject was sub-domains among other things.) http://searchenginewatch.com/article/20 … covery-But
[Edit: I hoped a hub based on a podcast broadcast in August, 2011 (a month after the contact with Google), by Paul Edmondson called 'Writing Content Online to Promote Products' might enlighten us further, but it's unfortunately been unpublished. http://pauledmondson.hubpages.com/hub/W … e-Products ]
Of course, nobody could possibly say anything against using the maximal amount of ads if the hub calls for it, but I think Paul's message is 'less is more'--commonsense, in my opinion. I'm like you--I place only one or two ads per hub if any at all.
I feel you're missing my point. Paul Edmonson controls HubPages. He may say "less is more", but he sets the rules and the rule he has set is a maximum of one capsule per 50 words.
What's the point of setting a limit and then telling everyone in the forums (which is only a fraction of all Hubbers) that it's wrong?
The message I get from all Paul's posts is, be discriminating in choosing your Amazon products. In most cases, yes, that will result in far fewer capsules. However in some cases - like that Hot Pink Hub - the writer could be very discriminating and still have multiple capsules, because the whole purpose of the Hub is to offer the reader a wide range of choices within that colour scheme.
As I interpret Paul Edmondson, products must be very closely associated with the subject matter of the hub, and must benefit the reader in order not to seem spammy. Apart from that, actual placement plays a very big role in whether or not an ad converts. Therefore, hubs with ads that are too broadly associated with the subject matter of the hub, and that don't benefit the reader, can come across as spam.
I think, for many hubs, that if you tried to insert one ad for every 50 words, your ads would soon get very thin on the ground, and the hub would seem very spammy. That, I think, is why Paul says 'less is more'.
But, of course, one ad per 50 words might be useful in some cases, like in the hub 'Hot Pink in the Bedroom' (ca. 68 words per ad), which is basically about using pink bed linen and window dressings to give a bedroom a different look and mood. All ads are for various bed linen and window dressings and benefit the reader by offering (to use your words) 'a wide range of choices within that colour scheme' to suit a variety of tastes. Because the products are very closely associated with subject matter, the hub doesn't seem spammy, which proves Paul's point. I don't think Paul is against one ad per 50 words if used properly. And he does seem to support the words in the product description counting towards the 50, which he surely wouldn't do if he felt the maximim should be reduced.
I, personally, use few advertising capsules, because I don't like the look of them in my articles. I think a hub with too many ads can easily look like a page out of a catalogue, which I think could deter some readers. I think this is also what Christin S. is talking about. More than a couple of ads can spoil a hub and its vibe, even if the ads are closely associated with subject matter. I thought of all manner of products I could include in a hub I wrote about bleaching hair, for example, but the hub is intended to provide information and not sell products, and I don't think visitors arrive at that hub with the intention of buying. So, it has only one Amazon ad, which I felt could really benefit the reader. 'Hot Pink in the Bedroom', on the other hand, is quite clearly a product hub (which none of mine are), and readers who find the hub are probably searching to buy products like those advertised in the hub, anyway. I think, although Paul Edmondson says, "A good product Hub is adding a single Amazon listing and doing a deep review in the Hub," he does understand that hubs like 'Hot Pink in the Bedroom' might need more leeway, which is why the maximum is kept as it is. After all, 'Hot Pink in the Bedroom' isn't about one particular product, so why should it have only one ad? I just think the placement of ads needs changing--Paula Atwell will probably be editing the hub since it's imported from Squidoo.
Paul is basically telling us that using more than a minimum of ads can easily turn a hub into spam, which is why we should be very discriminating, and why he encourages the 'less is more' principle. He's never said, though, that using the maximum is always wrong. We just have to make sure we avoid this:
"True story. A Hubber wrote a thoughtful piece about a stressful family situation. In the Hub she added a list of Amazon products to help you relax. That subdomain had a manual spam action placed on it and it took months (maybe over a year) to get the penalty removed." http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/123705? … ost2620265
I'm obviously expressing myself very badly, Jayne, because if you read my post again, you'll see we agree 100%.
"products must be very closely associated with the subject matter"
"hubs with ads that are too broadly associated with the subject matter of the hub, and that don't benefit the reader, can come across as spam"
"But, of course, one ad per 50 words might be useful in some cases, like in the hub 'Hot Pink in the Bedroom'
"The message I get from all Paul's posts is, be discriminating in choosing your Amazon products. In most cases, yes, that will result in far fewer capsules. However in some cases - like that Hot Pink Hub - the writer could be very discriminating and still have multiple capsules"
So we agree, yes? The maximum allowed is not excessive, provided the other rule - close association - is followed.
I actually thought I'd expressed myself very badly, since you felt I'd missed your point.
In my original comment, I basically agree with Christin S. that using the maximum quantity of ad capsules could easily make a hub look spammy and drive readers away. A good example of that would be to insert 30 ad capsules in my informational hub on bleaching hair. Even if the ads were highly contextual, it's the wrong type of hub for so many ads, so I shouldn't do it just because I (technically speaking) can. 'Hot Pink in the Bedroom' is obviously the type of product hub where more ads work well.
The only reason I was disagreeing with Christin was that she was saying (or appeared to be saying) that one capsule per 50 words would ALWAYS look spammy.
You are conceding that it depends on whether it's done appropriately, and I have no problem with that.
I don't think Christin means always. She says 'the majority of the time', and she does talk about balance.
Another type of hub on which multiple ad capsules would seem apt is something like 'My 20 Favourite Movies for the Festive Season' (title fictional), or some sort of play list. I think an ad capsule for the appropriate DVD or MP3 beside or below each entry would be taken for granted by most readers.
Indeed, I remember those days. These were hard times on HubPages and I do remember that lots of Hubbers did complain because of these capsule limits... But they proved to be wise decisions.
Now that doesn't mean that everybody is supposed to create Hubs with one Amazon capsule per 50 words. As with everything less is more
That's why I'm trying to keep things in perspective. Yes, one Amazon capsule per 50 words is a lot and I can see why newer Hubbers would see it as too many - but I wonder what they would've thought of the Hubs that existed under the old rules, which had far more than that??
As a former squid and HP member, I've had the same question running around my head for weeks. It really doesn't make sense from everything that has been said about the acquisition. I take no offense at all in what you said for you're correct.
Why would anyone touch what has been deemed toxic much less pay a boatload for it? I'm sure the buy out of Squidoo wasn't cheap. Seth didn't get loaded that way.
So, why remains the question. Being a bit of a conspiracy theorist may have rubbed off on me too much for I have a theory. It's not pretty, but it's logical and explains the action.
Why a four month grace period? What happens in four months from the time this started? Something so obvious we have but to look at the calendar. It's the end of the Christmas/New Year sales season.
While Squidoo may have tanked for sales pages, and that's a big may for there were many other factors involved peeps aren't talking about so much, the sales pages were making bucks. Not all of them of course, many were trash, but some were pulling dollars.
I had three that were making consistent sales and the numbers were rising. Do I love the articles? Not at all and remember thinking vividly when I wrote them this is trash, but they did sell. Were they trash? Not really but how serious can one get about hot bikinis I ask you?
There were a lot of pages there like that. Basically, it's a money thing.
It's money on the front end and the back end. Let's think about this.
Many of the pages that came over were from folks who did not have their own Amazon ID or Google Adsense accounts.
I dare say there were many more that did not than did. As we have seen repeatedly stated in forums, it's going to take these folks at least two months just to get a Google Adsense account, if they can at all. If they are outside the US, some may be looking at six months.
All that revenue, admittedly pennies per page, will automatically go to HP while all those people await their Google and Amazon accounts. When one is talking over 175k pages, those pennies add up pretty fast.
Further, it eliminated the competition. Hubs that were never associated with Squid lenses are now linked in the related hubs at the end of every hub here. Those will translate into increased traffic too.
From a bottom line business perspective, at this time, considering the events we have seen and what has been stated, the good money bet is on just that, it's all about the money.
Hi Mark, and great meeting you!
Can you possibly explain what Panda is? I've heard the term a couple times now, but other than the black and white critter that lives at the DC zoo, I've no clue what one is.
Why were we granted a grace period? Please don't take my answer as contentious - it's not meant that way: Well because we were being shifted over to a site where we don't know the rules. We don't even know what a QAP is. We didn't sign up for this originally and we weren't given much choice. Some folks have 300 or so pages and up. For those folks, they'll need to edit something to the tune of 4-5 pages/day, EVERY day for 4 months straight to make the cut. Ouch!
I'm not sure how/if our pages would drive down the site, but you can surely understand that wasn't our intention. The majority of us were perfectly happy on Squidoo and would have never looked for another home. This was a business deal between Squidoo and Hub Pages and we didn't have a say in it.
Had we originally WANTED to sign up for HP, worked ourselves through boot camp and been given the chance to slowly build hubs and get up to gear, that would have been great. And in such case I would understand why you suggest, "we accept we have to go through QAP."
Me personally: My computer broke down with giant motherboard problems. Three days ago, after having just barely gotten my data back on another computer, I was in the process of writing a resume for a creative writing job. I went over to Squidoo to link to a couple pieces of sample writing and found myself in the middle of an exodus/disaster zone/new learning curve.
Believe me, nobody wants us to get our hubs into compliance more than we do. We certainly don't want to do any harm to HubPages or you.
Any helpful advice you can pass on will be duly appreciated.
I know you guys have been given an impossible and onerous task.
Panda is the name given to one of Google's website penalty programs - that has put many of the online writing sites and others out of business over the last few years.
A site can see its traffic disappear overnight - and many (most?) never recover. HubPages has been hit repeatedly.
Two years ago at Halloween I was watching Squidoo traffic in amazement as you guys hit another record high. Meanwhile at HP traffic was almost at a standstill.
That is the power of Panda. Eventually it caught up with Squidoo.
Indeed, and those who sounded the alarm, were then labeled hostile and detrimental to the site. Now those same people are lampooned in revisionist articles, as cannibals who destroyed the site.
We were also alarmed at the traffic numbers, didn't seem like it was real.
Truthfully I have wondered this myself. Unless someone has some sort of understanding with Google officially, the 4 months could be a heck of a gamble.
I am sure some of the flotsam has ported over too from Squidoo, hopefully it wont drag HP down any more than the re-blogged/copied content, and Wikipedia spun articles might that are already on HP.
There are a lot of those copied blog post Hubs on the site right now. I guess HP deals with that stuff by no following and such, I imagine that the bad Squid stuff will be as well?
I hear you, Mark.
It was a questionable risk to place 175,000 unvetted articles on the successful HP domain. Those Squidoo articles received less than 36% of the traffic per article than a Hub on HP received before the sale was announced. When all of the Squidoo articles have been transferred (projected date of October 1), content on HP will have increased by 52% since the announcement was made on August 15.
As an owner of several websites, it is not a risk which I would have taken. To allow content which does not meet HP QAP standards to remain featured on this site for four months is inviting a Google reconsideration of the HubPages.com domain. Since HP has encountered severe problems with Google algorithms in the past, I am astounded that this decision was made – even more so since we have seen so many posts on the forum from Squidoo people deliberately waiting to bring their Hubs up to compliance with HP standards.
If HP really wanted Squidoo content, I believe only featuring articles which received consistent traffic from Google would have been the more prudent decision. Much of the traffic on Squidoo was internal, due to the payment structure of that site, and it was easily manipulated with software programs and circles of people trading and selling visits (check fiverr.com for examples) and ad clickouts from multiple accounts and IP addresses.
Food for thought:
https://hq.squidoo.com/forums/topic/squ … es-wildly/
One of those articles is blatantly exaggerated, and revisionist. I am sure you got quite the chuckle at reading its tabloid style.
I just posted that 2.5 minutes ago. Did you really speed read all that information in that short amount of time?
If not insulting at best. And old news.
WriterFox, you are now deliberately rabble rousing. While I respect Mark Ewbie and his opinion, I also know that HP got lots of good content with the bad. Since Google is aware that HP bought the rights to Squidoo's technology and is merging the two companies, I am sure they will not jump down our throats immediately. As part of the HP system, flagged content will get unpublished at a specified time, content without traffic will become unfeatured and content that violates the worst rules will be locked. In the meantime, you can hub hop through the entire site to report violations, not just the newly transferred.
Surely people here wouldn't be deliberately low rating imported lenses just for sport? If those arriving squids got together and did that to return the favor, imagine the outcry?
That is the type of system gaming that helped land Squidoo in the situation it was in, hopefully the HP system would also extend a grace period to protect us from that type of dirty pool?
Wow that minibabe article is fantastic. It could also apply to anywhere on the web where there is money to be made.
Yes, yes, it was a lovely stickman.
edit: Looked at it again. Yes... very nice.
He can't take rabble rousing. You made him cry.
Perfect! (You're a speed artist.) "Don't it make my blue eyes sad?" - Remember that song?
Why don't you make a Hub featuring all your stickman images. Should get a lot of views from Google image search and Pinterest!
Hahaha. That is one of the funniest things. Oh lol and now I'm crying.
What do you think I have been doing for four ****** years? I think a couple of years ago Google changed Image search and that was one of the many moments when my traffic took a dive.
It wasn't a speed drawing by the way. An old pic. I have one for nearly every occasion. Sadly not many occasions need one.
'Don't it Make My Brown Eyes Blue'? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9lz_yzrGZw
Jayne.....Thank you! Saved me the trouble of correcting these guys.....but OH yes....how I love Chrystal Gayle. Her songs were/are some of my favorites....terribly romantic...especially her duets with guys like Eddie Rabbit, etal. Haven't seen her in a long time. But I have all her music.
I have to disagree with you on that one.
I find this article partial and borderline. I posted a public reply to it on my marketing blog. I don't think it should be cited as a reference
Yeah I suppose it is, at least for those who don't mind playing fast and loose with the facts.
It is an opinion piece that can easily be refuted with forum posts going back 10 years.
It's the over generalization that is the issue.
Mark, been there, done that. I joined HubPages almost 7 years ago and had to dance to the sound of a new type of music several times.
My primary account (prosperity66) took a dive and never recovered, still I liked writing on here because of the quality of pages published. I have never been as active on here as I was on Squidoo, though.
On here we've had fancy capsules, serious ones. We've got some removed, others added, we could write about some topics, then not any more, we've faced almost all policy changes most writing platforms did. And we survived.
Not allowing a grace period would have been some kind of punishment for former Squids, now Hubbers. Why punishing Squids for the selling of the platform where they used to write? What did they wrong? Abide by Squidoo's rules? That is what good Squids did. And believe me, there were a bunch of ridiculous rules that were directly against Google's ones.
They jumped through multiple hoops all the time these past 2 years, they modified their lenses at the will of HQ.
Did HQ come up with a women's magazine idea, they turned their lenses into a desperate housewives magazine. HQ loved them, Google hatred them.
Did HQ come up with extreme personalization? They turned the very same lenses into personal ones, adding personal pictures, working hard at doing what they were talking about even if they never did that. I mean you can talk about the best ski suits even if you've never been skiing yourself, do you? HQ loved them, Google hatred them.
Did HQ come up with the will of turning S into a gigantic craft site? Squids worked hard at creating those crafts they used to buy pictures of and turn their tutorials into real-life ones. See above.
Did HQ decide that Squids would now have to create 250 words max lenses? They did... They were even a requirement of 3 of such awful stupid pages in order to renew their giant status. They did it - including myself, I just deleted those silly pages a few months later because I couldn't even look at them. See above.
Also HQ didn't always have the best tastes regarding what a "good" lens was... And since they didn't want to listen to SEO wise people...
Whatever happened to Squidoo and the pages on there, it's mostly HQ's fault. Therefore, I see no motive to punish Squids.
I'm not friend with a big number of them, I often disagree - and even fight - with them. But they were loyal and loyalty is not a reason to punish people.
There is also another thing to consider. We used to have greeters and angels on Squidoo. I was an angel for years. While on my duties, I dinged (thumb down, report, whatever you name it) junk or rubbish. Never action was taken on HQ's part.
We were even once removed the power of dinging a page. Then removed the right to report rubbish or TOS violations. Then removed our wings and the whole program.
Did you use the report button on a lens? You got the automatic email so that you were reassured that HQ would deal with it. But one month later, the very same 100% violation rules lens was live and dancing in what was named the top tier: 2,000 top lenses. These lenses got the best of the ad pool, thus the biggest earnings.
Multiple reports didn't work either. Multiple violations, as with the famous coloring pages took years to be removed from the site - long after the Google slap.
If you were never a Squidoo member you can't know. But high quality work was produced on there. Naturally with the wrong way their filters worked, the biggest part of that work has now gone in greener pastures as it was Squidoo's specialty to lock and delete good lenses.
A part of the Squids are probably the best commercial writers on the Internet. It's a skill they developed: writing quality content that can sell. Money is what keeps sites like HubPages live.
I presume that if HubPages acquired lenses, they knew they would generate money. Otherwise they wouldn't have dealt with Seth Godin.
Because I'm a Hubber and not a Squid refugee (I dislike that name Squids are now legitimate Hubbers), I know that the best Squids are going to turn their former lenses into outstanding Hubs. It is doable and I can affirm having seen already incredibly well crafted former lenses turned into Hubs. They wil naturally decrease the number of Amazon capsules because the Hub design makes those items pop up in the eyes of the reader, thus they won't need that many products; which will still stand out.
They're working hard on them. They created groups on Facebook, files with help and links to HP's best tutorials and they share their results. They get advice from older Hubbers, they put into action suggestions and recommendations.
So I think that now that it's been 1 month since the announcement, experienced Hubbers should rather provide help to former Squids and stop making assumptions about what the admins should have done, not done, what will happen, the pros and cons, etc.
It's beyond our control, in any way.
Let's rather focus on building that one-of-a-kind site Paul Edmondson was talking about last month.
I hear and agree. It's been bad all round. I was just offering a possible reason why old Hubbers might feel aggrieved or bemused by the grace period.
The Squid pages I have read - with the exception of one that was all marketing have been pretty damn good. Jason's Blue Note thing - wow.
None of this is anything to do with me. I was just passing by the forums. HubPages is by and large wonderfully supportive. They helped me when I came here.
In a few short weeks we will all be as one - this period will seem like history.
Like you I think these forums are highly supportive and have tested their productivity when one Hub got its content stolen. Never found such a great support anywhere from both members AND admin team!
However some of my fellow former Squids tend to be a bit scared to come on here and get aggressively criticized... which I understand pretty well.
Then you'll always find some bad apples in any fruit basket in the same way as you'll find transfuges criticizing the country and people they left behind them when things went wrong.
Cheers and here's to a brighter future
I like that. I think that's what most of us want to see and are excited to help make happen. Keep in mind that many people who publish here never read the forums or keep up with the many changes that have taken place here. The 'few' you see in the forums are a small percentage of active hubbers. Visit your feed and read and comment on hubs. Another great resource with great information is the HP blog and blog archive. There's so much information on the site for those who want to read and know more. The forums can be a wonderful resource also, but keep in mind, not everything everyone says is accurate, regardless of who is posting. We try, but sometimes someone may be giving more an opinion than stating a fact or give an outdated answer/response. It's always good to double check if in doubt. The moz blog/site is also helpful to keep up with SEO news and has fantastic tips for writing/marketing online.
I think the point you can take from JustHolidays post is that Squidoo may have been generous with rules, tips and guidelines on how to write your lenses, but that was not necessarily a good thing!
You will get much less advice from HubPages but you shouldn't see that as a bad thing. No one really knows what Google wants - so a site which sets tramlines and pressures everyone to follow them, based on their best guess of what will please Google, isn't doing itself any favours. It prevents members from experimenting and potentially discovering better ways.
Panda is one of the names or Google Algorithm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Panda
I would say that the powers that be know what they are doing. I became a fan of Paul Edmondson when I read this article earlier this year. The article is from 2013, and how they survived Panda. It went a long way in my decision to transition my writing home to HP from Squidoo.
http://searchengineland.com/google-pand … son-149767
Jason: Squidoo contents are coming as is, with some exceptions. Those who allowed the automatic transfer from Squidoo to Hub pages are having 301 URL re- directs from their Squidoo lens to Hub pages account. Supposedly the 301 redirect is suppose to stop Google from seeing them as duplicate or spun content, unless they were duplicates on Squidoo already. Now they have to get their Squidoo lenses in compliance with HP and to format them to fit the HP format.
I am referring to the Wiki spun re-blogged stuff that was already on HubPages and still exists... in droves.
I feel lost. A good write up is a good write up whether on Squiddoo or Hub pages. If this is not so than I am just going put all my efforts on quality creation irrespective of criteria I will leave the judgement on readers and followers. Things could have been the other way around.
Content already here has nothing to do with what is coming from Squidoo. If some of the content coming from Squidoo is spun, plagerized, etc and has slipped through their filters, etc, and is not caught here, then we will have more of it which is no different than the new Joe Shmoes that are joining HP on their own and writing plagerized, slop which is being featured on here.
I'm very glad to see some older Hubbers coming on to this discussion. Those of us who migrated from Squidoo can certainly use your help.
You folks didn't have a choice on this and neither did we. Nor are any of us in on whatever profits changed hands.
We ex-Squids appreciate the quandry that this has created for you.
Since the purpose of this thread was for us to figure out how to get in compliance with HP, QAP and Panda, what can you tell us regarding best practices?
I would suggest that you start here:
Check to see what is already on the HP site that might be similar to your new Hubs here. You need to have unique and thorough information not already covered in Hubs here.
If you want to know more about Panda and how your Hubs and this site are evaluated with this algorithm, check out my Hub about Google Panda. Also, read the information on my Hub about Google Penguin, because most of the examples I give there were screen shots from the Squidoo site.
Writer Fox, thanks much for the reasoned answers.I'll definitely be checking out your hubs about Panda and Penguin.
As for the Learning Center, that was the first thing I read through, and I'm sure that's the same for a majority of my fellow Squids. Now we're looking for the information that isn't in those pages.
Not to mention, in the Learning Center many of the photos are thumbnails and I can't even look at what they say is good vs. bad.
I'm still working out how it goes here, but back on Squidoo, we had an enormous body of work devoted specifically to making better lenses.
Every couple of days, the admins would write an excellent article showcasing a tip or trick to make our lenses more successful.
I myself was part of (and almost ready to graduate from) RocketSquids, an opt-in beginners program which gave us at least two lens writing challenges, and at least 2 other tips on making our lenses better each week. Each of these would come with links to several examples of great lenses that we could look through and learn from.
Then we had the Giant Squid program - I can't comment on how that worked (maybe a Big Squid can) but no doubt it shared similar tips and ideas.
On top of that we had clubs for various subjects and many of them would publish challenges - often with some tips thrown in.
So this is what we're used to, and what I, at least am trying to find. In between knocking my pages into shape. No disrespect to HP, but I've found precious little of any of that. I'm sure it exists at least in part, but locating it is the challenge.
What I'd love to see is the admins here allow us to opt into some version of your bootcamp that would allow us to keep our pages up and running, but also give us access to the kind of training that HP's normal newbies are hopefully provided with.
The tips you might be looking for are published in the HP Newsletter. You can look through the archive from this link:
Boot Camp really isn't a program where you get special advice and attention. It just means that you have five Hubs which have passed QAP:
http://blog.hubpages.com/2013/04/five-f … b-barrier/
HubPro Beta is a new program here. I opted out (you do this by editing your Profile), but it might be of interest to you:
http://blog.hubpages.com/2014/07/introd … bpro-beta/
Beyond that, reading the Hubs of successful people here provides the best examples. Remember, on HP your target audience is from search engine and social media traffic, not other Hubbers.
Beyond that, just viewing the Forum can provide a lot of information, too.
Thank you again for a helpful answer!
The newsletter looks like it will be a GIANT help.
Sorry to hear that the bootcamp isn't much. That's a little bit of a disappointment. Now granted, Squidoo went under, so they must not have been doing everything right, but I truly appreciated the support and learning that I got from RocketSquids.
I opted out of HubProBeta as well. I've been a writer for about 43 years. I may have been new to Squidoo and now to HP, but I've spent decades honing my craft. The concept of someone editing my work without my approval made every hair on the back of my neck stand up. If they did this in a way that the editors could make SUGGESTIONS which the author could then approve or disapprove, that might be one thing. It looks like they have permission to slice and dice your hub apart. (And to anybody reading - take note - I found that this was ON by default. *Shudder*)
The target audience isn't much different. We were certainly encouraged to check out other lenses, learn from them, comment and rate them up if we felt we should, but ultimately we were focused on bringing in the web at large.
As I have the ability, I'll definitely be checking out the top rated hubs.
Thanks again and looking forward to getting to know you.
Did you know that the Rocket Squid is a program that's been inspired by one of our fellow lensmasters Michelle Willow. It took place on "Ning" and named "Fresh Wonders". New Squids were invited to our School of Wonders and challenged weekly to produce high quality pages?
At the end of their school time, they were awarded a Fresh Wonders badge...
Then one day, HQ that never agreed to recognize the group took it over, bashed it as much as they could and created the Rocket Squids.
Some of new Hubbers were reviewers at Fresh Wonders - Kathy McGraw, WordCustard, and even me... and we wouldn't let a single Fresh Squid be proud of a lens that wouldn't have met our standards which were: unique, useful and quality content. Then only commercial stuff...
It's time to get FW's glitter and shine back
I honestly cannot tell you anything. I have been revamping and improving my content such as it is for two years at least. I know it is much better than it was - cleaner, tidier, less spammy, more attractive - but it gets less traffic.
I know my articles. I don't know, or much care any more, what Google wants from me.
I suppose if I was going to give any advice it would be to be aware of conversations and clues but ultimately to choose your own path.
Hey hey Paula........I don't have a comment that relates to this thread. Sorry. Just poking my head in because I've been meaning to tell you this: You mentioned to me that "we Clevelanders must stick together"......so I believe you have me confused with someone else. I'm not from Cleveland......not even from Ohio. I'm a New Yorker! Of course I hope you have confused me with someone rich, famous, gorgeous & sexy....but probably not.......LOL ....Peace, the OTHER Paula
So basically, we are all saying the same thing. The Capsules are fine as long as they have a close relationship to the hub topic.
What am I remembering about only being allowed one hub Capsule? I clearly recall taking a lot of Amazon stuff off of my hubs. Was it a rule or was I delusional? Probably the latter.
I think what you are remembering is one product to a capsule. You can have more than one capsule, and you can have two lined up together.
Ahh, that makes sense. So I'm not delusional.
You're not delusional Jean, the rules were changed - but the pity of it is, you didn't have to change your capsules at all. The limit of one product per capsule applied ONLY if you chose to edit the capsule.
I still have Amazon capsules on some of my old Hubs, which have multiple products showing. They won't be forced to change until I edit the capsule.
You certainly weren't the only one to misunderstand, I think the change just wasn't clearly enough communicated.
by Mary McShane14 months ago
I just got this email. Is terminating your account normal if you don't have any sales or referrals in 90 days????Hello,Thanks again for joining the Amazon Associates program. We’re reaching out to you...
by Sharilee Swaity5 years ago
I have a question for those of you who use Amazon in your hubs. Let's say that you are writing a hub with a list of different products. Do you think it's better to put all the amazon stuff at the bottom of the hub, all...
by Gemini Fox22 months ago
Had never done a “sales” hub before so decided to try. Have tweaked and tweaked this hub but it still keeps on being not featured due to quality. Getting a little T’d . . ....
by Jean Bakula2 years ago
How many Amazon capsules are allowed per how many words? I don't care personally, I never made much on Amazon. But on a few of the lenses that came over, they are almost all Amazon capsules, with maybe 200 words. I...
by Marisa Wright22 months ago
Janderson just submitted some great suggestions on this thread:http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126313#post2666393and I think this one deserves a suggestion post on its own.We're always being told to be discriminating...
by paradigmsearch2 years ago
http://hubpages.com/my/hubs/stats?categ … ule=AmazonFolks, we really need to make a concerted effort to delete (or at least not display) those Amazon capsules we know to be in violation of QAP.The above link will...
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.