I just spent 10 minutes hub hopping and can tell you there are some rare specimens out there trying to get through the net, over the wall and into publishing land. If you've never hub hopped before I recommend you give it a try, experience at first hand the desperate quality of the writing. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Inside, I'm doing both.
What with the recent Squidoo transition and all, plus the Panda update, it's becoming clearer by the day that we'll need to up the quality of all our hubs. The sooner the better.
Well stated and I totally agree! The sooner the better.
This has been a steady, unwavering reality ever since the HubPages site first opened its doors.
I stopped hub hopping because 99% of the hubs were unreadable, either because the authors weren't native English speakers or they were native English speakers but were completely clueless about spelling, grammar and sentence structure.
What Relache sez. Sadly, a certain amount of crappy Hubs were, are and always will be part of the mix around here.
It can be an eye-opening experience, hub-hopping. You are on point, chef-de-jour. Love your description and the visual it gives of those rare specimens sneaking in over the wall. Where is the gatekeeper? Sounds like the White House.
Imagine that! I wonder how many of these critters get over the wall? I hope the walls are high and the keepers never sleep. Seriously, these very poor hubs could be holding us all back when it comes to inspections by General Google's Pandas and penguins.
I'm a recently transferred Squid, and when I went hub-hopping I assumed that they were assessing my hopping skills by intentionally starting me with some awful hubs to see if I would evaluate them properly (with a couple of good ones mixed in to see if I could tell the difference).
So those were really real?
Yes, I think so. I'm not sure what happens after the hop, presumably those hubs that aren't up to much are politely told to come back another day and try again - in a different disguise?
Those are all real, in fact, the authors all just hit the publish button.
That used to all go live on the site too, before the Featuring concept got invented in the wake of things like Penguin and Panda.
joanhall: No it wasn't a test or a joke, but hubs??? for real.
I hub hop pretty regularly and it's usually 50/50. I've found some exceptional hubs and some... not so much.
Okay, I just hopped three to see what the status is these days. The first one was nearly incoherent. The second was passable (some grammatical errors and weird photo choices, but offered some good, original information). The third was excellent (no noticeable errors in spelling, punctuation, or diction; easy-to-read formatting; credible, accurate information).
I'll try again later and see what I get.
My second hopping experience was marginally better. I need to do more. I take it if I flag a hub the HP team will investigate but if I don't? It'll get over the wall and into publishing land?
I hub hop a few times daily, but only manage three hubs at a time. Reading too many exceptionally bad hubs impairs my perception of what really might be good, or, better said, what really isn't good.
So if someone who is an author of some atrocious hubs goes hub-hopping, they would see nothing wrong with other people's atrocities and would give them the thumbs-up, right? Is there some kind of quality control over the quality control process?
At this moment in time HP needs all the help it can get. If these poor quality hubs are being published - and the hub hopping isn't that efficient a process - can anyone google them and discover them? That wouldn't put HP in a good light at all.
It's doubtful that those who 'write' those hubs would ever hub hop. I catch hubs on the feed, but don't spend time hub hopping anymore.
I did it too and I ran into some really bad Hubs. I ran into some really good ones too. The bad ones were bad. Half broken English with no photos. Ideas that were scattered and had no flow.
If we hub hop and find bad quality hubs we should flag them immediately right?
Indeed we should. In fact, we should take sadistic pleasure in doing so. MOOOWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Yes, it's my experience that there is a lot of copied content out there too. You can tell the copied content because it typically has no images and only one capsule. Sentences are well written, but concepts are out of order. They have removed some sentences and rearranged others to avoid the copied content flag.
Often these are copied from medical text books or job hunting tips that are reused all over the internet. One paragraph I plugged into Google came back with over 40 articles with almost identical content in it. It does not take long to report it, and hopefully it gets removed quickly.
The Hub Hopper is designed to test and calibrate the accuracy of those using it, so only accurate ratings are given weight.
At HubPages Headquarters, a special team, known as the Gold Panel, meets every week to discuss quality standards. They also regularly rate Hubs using the Hopper, and their ratings are used as a standard to which other Hoppers are held.
If three or more Gold Panel hoppers give a Hub the same rating, that rating becomes a Gold Rating and the Hub becomes a Gold Standard Hub. Those who are new to the Hopper start off by rating Gold Standard Hubs, which gives a good idea of which Hoppers’ ratings can be trusted.
Based on their ratings of Gold Standard Hubs, Hoppers’ biases are corrected in future ratings. For example, if one Hubber is particularly harsh with her ratings, our system corrects for her harshness.
Weighted averages of ratings are collected for Hubs. Ratings from very accurate people are given more weight while ratings from inaccurate people are given less weight. Ratings from very inaccurate people are ignored altogether.
To protect Hubs against changes in Hopper accuracy, Hoppers are given new Gold Standard Hubs to rate occasionally and their accuracy scores are re-calibrated accordingly.
Finally, ratings from the Hub Hopper are not our only means of assessing a Hub’s quality. Hubs are also rated via internal, automated systems, and may also be rated by HubPages staff members and casual readers.
Linda thank you for shedding light on the hh process. I have a couple of questions after reading your comment:
i) calibration is dependent on regular hopping from regular hubbers but what if the majority of hh is done by one-off hubbers who might hop 3 hubs one week, none the next and 6 a month later? Would the panel have to ignore this input?
II) are poor quality hubs considered by the panel even if they get flagged/reported?
iii) there must be thousands of hubs to be hopped each week, how many are stored so to speak, pending final decision?
iv) would it be wise to incentivize hh for those hubbers with a good track record of accuracy?
This, unfortunately, is the reason that I rarely hub-hop any more. It's a sad waste of time.
I mentioned this in another thread:
I'm on Mechanical Turk, so when I saw HubPages jobs appear, I signed up, took the test, and was approved. I hopped for pay for a few hours, rating honestly, according to the chart I was given.
The next day, I discovered I had been removed from the HubPages program, for rating hubs too low. Except, according to the chart, and what I was seeing, I wasn't rating them too low. I was rating some seriously bad writing, giving it the low ratings it deserved, and got canned for it.
That Gold Standard? It needs a really good polishing.
Yes it does need polishing. I wonder what the skills are of those they have kept on at MT! Those charts tell you what they want, but yet you rate the hubs accordingly, you are doing it wrong. But, they don't really tell you what you did wrong.
I did 15, then got dropped because I scored to low on their test, which really, according to HP was not a test because there is no right or wrong.
Funny, how if we use the Hub Hopper on HP, which is what is used on MT, we are fine to do it for free!
Oh DEAR! HubPages should have retained you in MTurk status for honestly assessing some of these hubs. If there was more honest assessment such as yours, the quality of hubs would improve immensely!
I've only done a little hub hopping and most of mine that I saw were pretty good. They were well written and full of information. There were a couple that looked like they were written by someone struggling with English, but most of the ones I saw were decent.
Just finished hopping some Hubs for only the second time since I've been on HP. I ditto most of the remarks in this thread regarding the poor quality of many of them. Question: I just realized that the photo credit source is listed on the Hubs we're reviewing. Doesn't that nullify the "anonymous" nature of the review process?
Glenda: I don' t quite understand what you are asking because photos should have credit given to the source. You may mean that the profile photo of the author appears, which is part of the hubs! Those who wrote the hub do not know who hopped their hub, or those who may have reported it with or without seeing it in the hub hopper.
Some of the photos have the hub author's name in the credits. Many of mine do.
Oh! I do the same thing because HP will know it is my photo. I add owned and taken by myself, Linda Smith. Not for reuse to it.
This way we are providing the source and the attribution is for ourselves. That way, there can be no question as to whether we are actually allowed to use the photos we are using.
@Shorebirdie "Some of the photos have the hub author's name in the credits. Many of mine do."
Yes, ALL of mine do. I only use my own photos. That's what I'm referring to when I say it loses the anonymous factor. In other words, the person doing the Hub-hopping can readily see who authored the article. Doesn't that leave the door open for bias?
We know who authored the hub even without photos.
I just saw a hub with a name that is under photo, but it is not the author of the hub. I clicked to see if source was available. The source page from Flickr appeared. Too bad they did not mention Flickr along with name of owner of the image. But, at least the source is there by clicking on the attribute.
@LindaSmith1 "We know who authored the hub even without photos."
How so? When I Hub-hop I do not see the Author's profile photo. If there are no photos used in the article and I 'Search' the Hub Title I do not find it - probably because it isn't featured yet. Can you help me to understand how we know who the author is? Thanks so much!
After a long gap I wrote a couple of Hubs - neither of which I expected to get through QAP. Personal, slapdash, uninformative and pointless. I only wrote them for a bit of an HP rant. No purpose to anyone else in the world.
Both of them were approved.
In the past it seemed QAP was a bit tougher and I figure they are busy at the moment - or have been instructed to go easy.
Glenda: When you click on hop some hubs the new way comes up with the various categories that you rate in each one.
In the black box, you will see Classic Hopper which is what I use. When you use the Classic hopper, you see the name of the author, and you click up, down, etc and the report button that brings of list of things that you can report hub for such as duplicate content.
In the new way, in the black box, at the top, there is a report button as well.
@LindaSmith1 "In the black box, you will see Classic Hopper which is what I use. When you use the Classic hopper, you see the name of the author, and you click up, down, etc and the report button that brings of list of things that you can report hub for such as duplicate content."
Okay, Linda. Now I understand! I never used Classic Hopper until now. In that mode, yes, I do see who the Author is. Just my opinion: I'd rather NOT know who authored it - I prefer that information to be anonymous during the review process. Also, we can only rate it with a 'thumbs-up' or 'thumbs-down' - nothing more specific than that (like the scale used in the other mode)? Thanks for helping me understand the Hub-hopper process!
Glenda: I prefer the classic hopper. It does not matter about organization, etc IF content has been copied, if it has fluff and the rest products.
I like the Classic HH. Sometimes I will look at the author's profile and see it is the first hub he/she has written.
LindaSmith. The Gold Team training in calibration sounds exactly like other writing test scoring practices. I have scored the AP test and am familiar with scoring the SAT and state-based tests.
Several people mentioned getting paid to hop hubs and rate them. What is the process of getting considered for that? Thanks.
LisaKeating: Amazon Mechanical Turk
Here is a thread for it. Jeannie did a long post with information:
http://carol7777.hubpages.com/question/ … swer622202
http://blog.hubpages.com/2012/11/qualit … t-process/
https://www.mturk.com/mturk/searchbar?s … 2ES1DAIYZZ
by Paul Edmondson4 years ago
There is a new Hub Hopper that is available today. I've posted some details about it on the blog and set this thread up to discuss it and to get feedback. *Note, the Hopper is only collecting data right now,...
by Shil19785 years ago
HubPages has this wonderful feature called Hub Hopping or Hub Hop to flag low-quality/copied/spam content. I know some hubbers do use this and help HP staff weed out the substandard content. Here's one more reason why...
by Edweirdo5 years ago
I occasionally hub-hop, but most of the time I come away from it feeling like I haven't really accomplished much as far as "improving HubPages" goes.So tonight, just for laughs, I decided to type...
by Paul Edmondson4 years ago
We first launched the new Hub Hopper in early August http://blog.hubpages.com/2012/08/hub-ho … o-feature/ We are looking to increase the amount of Hub Hopping and last night deployed an application to Mechanical...
by Timothy Arends22 months ago
I decided to give hub hopping a try. I was curious to see how good (or bad) the hubs were. I found some good hubs, others not so much. After about my second or third hop, I came across a hub that read alright for the...
by Robert P2 years ago
I have been hub hopping lately and I am disgusted with the incoherent garbage that I am coming across - nothing but poorly translated articles of about 400 words, usually without even any formatting. I would say that...
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.