Would any of you suggest 'reporting' an obvious newbie who has obviously not read anything of the rules and protocols here, whose profile includes no bio and indicates having joined but 2 hours prior, and whose portfolio includes but a single, very short and very poorly written hub?
I'm not even sure if it is original content, or spun somehow. It is information widely available elsewhere.
Some of the 'suggestions' included don't even make sense in the context of the article.
Just wondering...what would anyone else do?
I would also agree with others that have said to 'report' it!
I just feel that we should all try to keep HP as clean as we can. Especially with the 'death' of so many other 'revenue sharing' sites !
Reading today about the changes (and possible demise) of a different popular writing site (the B word) I would imagine we'll be seeing an influx of writers who were previously over there. The standards were not set very high from what I saw on a couple of visits.
Reporting substandard work is the best way to keep this site in good standings and preserve a reputation for quality articles. It may seem harsh to report poor writing, but it is in the best interest of the serious authors at HubPages that we encourage quality.
I'm reporting 20 Hubs a day as a 30-day challenge to clean up HP. Traffic to the site will improve when low quality and overly-promotional Hubs are removed!
Writer Fox - Is this a 30-day challenge you made to yourself, or was it discussed on the forum somewhere (as we used to see the 30/30 challenges)?
Well - count me in. I submitted a ton of hubs and/or hubbers yesterday and I am back at it today. I checked some of the most egregious offenders today & it appears HP admins are responding and getting rid of the content or hubbers. One was a 17-year-old new hubber (stated his age in the profile) who had copied the content on his hub from wikipedia. I'm finding quite a few very inappropriate hubs & accounts.
I mentioned it in a post, but didn't make a thread about it.
If you run out of Hubs to report, send me an email. I've got a list of offenders and you can find at least 20 to report on each account. I'll never get through them all by myself! Some of these people have hundreds of Hubs.
Back in 2010-2011, I used to spend two hours per day flagging spam on the site. That's what most of us did during the flush years, but it never even made a dent in the low-quality content on the site.
Good point -- I hadn't thought of that. If ex-Bubblers come here and assume HP is the same sort of site, there could be a rash of way-too-short "articles" about what people had for breakfast or the fact that they took their dog for a walk. I will be on the lookout.
Edit: I just found one in my feed. The entire hub consists of one sentence and a photo. In the author's bio, he invites people to "connect" with him. Sound familiar? I'm sure the article won't pass the QAP, but I flagged it anyway.
if you think that newbie is doing something against hubpages rules, report it. I had been reading comments from newbie who doesn't write a single hub. I didn't follow them
Report it...a simple as that. As Sue says, not necessarily a newbie. Some of these newbies are old spammers and trolls returning.
I have been reporting profiles like that without hesitation ever since reporting was invented. Admin has always expressed their appreciation.
My question is "Why didn't the editors of hubpages pick up on this?" I know it took many revisions before my first hub got published. I think hubpages is getting very lazy when it comes to this site. It seems anything written gets published. Half my original hubs aren't even visible. I know many of you had made the revisions, but honestly I am so busy with work and life; I have not found the time to revise these hubs. Yet they publish new hubs with spelling errors, grammar errors and also hub writers who do not reference the site of the information. I am getting disappointed with this site. However, I love to write (just haven't found the time) and I love to read other hubs, this is why I have not left the site.
I can appreciate source references, but they are not always needed. If a hub is written with good information, and an authoritative tone, it is likely that the author is familiar with the topic, and is writing from their own knowledge base.
That is the case with quite a few of my hubs: I usually write about what I know, and there is no way to 'cite sources' when that source is the author's own brain and life experiences.
Opinion essays are a whole other matter; also not something for which sources can be cited. So I don't agree that source references are always required.
I'd report it - changes are it will also be flagged up in Hub Hopping - but if it is poor I'd use the report tool.
Not necessarily newbies. They often need time and encouragement to learn the ropes. However, new or old, I report any crap I find and give good reasons why. For example,
Bad English spelling and grammar,
useless, re-hashed, obvious, insufficient content, poor formating, spammy...
And the list goes on.
Report, report. If admin don't agree, they can always ignore your report. We all have a responsibility to help prevent anyone bringing down the whole site with poor content.
In 16 months, I made $28.19 over there. That was from writing proper, researched articles, and short fiction. If I followed the crowd there and posted what I had for breakfast everyday, I could have reached payout on a weekly basis!
Writer Fox is right. I'm all for a thorough early spring clean.
Tip for Finding Hubs to Report
The hub hopper is a good place to start, but it does not tell us who the offending author of a bad hub is. So... to find the author of a bad hub, copy the hub title from
Hub Hopper and paste it into the HubPages search bar (not Google).
Once you have found the hub, go to the author's profile. Chances are that the author in question has many more hubs that need reporting.
This method may quicken the cleansing process.
If we all report 20 a day, the site will soon sparkle with high quality content.
Sue - I agree with you - if everyone could report 20 hubs a day, it would make a difference. there are plenty of writers here who've been on the site for a while & are experienced writers (too many people sign up here to make money, and know nothing about writing or ethics).
We need an efficient way to do that, though - I haven't found a quick way to locate hubs to review (I suspect few others have found one, either). I started checking the 'new' hubs (latest) and it requires several clicks to read one, report it if needed, and then go back to the list. New hubs do go through a screening process, but I still see issues in the Hopper (which I hate - I don't go there now that the Classic is gone).
There's still a ton of content here that was never vetted to begin with, and it appears the import from Squidoo added to that problem.
I'd be curious what strategies various writers use to track down the bad content and report things. I hope HP realizes we would not bring this up and spend this kind of time if we didn't truly care about the site.
If I see a post on the forum that raises red flags, I research that Hubber (I reported several yesterday). I check the 'latest' hubs, but that's tedious. I suspect, if others use these routes, there's a duplication of effort (wasted time - we would get more done if we divide and conquer).
I don't take notice of whether a crappy hub is by a "new" user or not. If it sucks, I report it and move on.
Tonight I have reported two Hubs by the same guy. Brand spanking newbie, and both of his Hubs were plain cut and paste jobs from other sites.
You just don't do that sort of thing, regardless of where you write!
Thanks, all, for your advice and insight. Much appreciated.
I almost always report even if it's an obvious newbie. If you're going to write and publish on the site, do it right and read the rules. Yesterday I saw a paragraph published as a hub by a 10 year old! He mentioned he was 10 in the hub, not on his profile.
It has been a long time since I reported any Hub or writer. The reason is that I have not noticed the Hub Hopper icon anymore. Where did it go? Another reason is that I favored the older classic Hub Hopper. With the Hub Hopper I could review an article on basis old how well a writer made their point, and how thought provoking their article was. With the newer Hub Hopper, I felt like I had been cast into the role of a technical editor, and felt like that role was better left to folks who focus on rules.
I used to Hop Hubs often, and I would flag many I saw that needed to be reported. Now, I don't go there. This would be a good reason for HP to bring back the Classic Hub Hopper!
I agree--the old Hub Hopper was far better! I intensely dislike the new one, and no longer hop hubs for that reason!
Hey, I'm new to the site but I have been using the hubhopper like crazy the whole week since I hate the spam on my newsfeed. I'm hoping I could at least help contributing to the feed while those articles are still in the 24H provision period.
I'm unfamiliar with the old format of the hubhopper. How dis it work? What features were removed? I mean maybe the difference may be circumvented somehow using the new one.
Hi, DigitalMD - the old (late, lamented) Hopper simply had the up & down thumbs & the ratings on regular hubs and a link to 'report' - but it also had a live comments section & we could often find new friends to follow on the site.
I think the reason the Classic Hopper was removed was to implement ratings based on quality (the sliders) and to make it more anonymous. That allows us to rate hubs without knowing who wrote them, so we don't fall victim to the Halo Effect or give praise based on affiliation - "Oh, this is Susie Spammer's hub, and I like her! So I'll give it a thumbs-up!"
The new one, IMO, could use some tweaking. Some of the sliders refer to more than one thing (can't recall which just now, because I don't use it & I avoid it), and, of course, it is subjective. But then, the old one was subjective, too.
I see. All points on the old version's revision are seemingly valid. But I do agree on the thought that the current one may benefit with some minor improvements as well. Even though there are sliders and description for each parameter, it is still quite subjective.
If I understood the mechanics correctly, it seems that the new/newly edited hubs were put into the QAP with some input from those who have viewed/rated the hub over the 1st 24 hours from which they were provisionally published but not featured. This means that the initial 24 hours is not only important for the hubber, who waits for his/her hub from being featured but also for the community in general, since it will dictate whether the hub will contribute to the 'health' of the site or be considered 'spam'.
I have read quite a bit, but I have not encountered what grade given via the hub-hopping is considered good. There was one post that it should be at least 80? Probably more examples on how the "grades" are given and what should one consider as passing rate may be in order for us to help standardize the hub assessment via the hub-hopping. I'm not saying that we target a specific number, but having a number at the back of your mind helps in judging the quality and not merely subjective to our personal biases since we cannot really control the hubs that we hop on. For instance, if you give me something about medicine, technology or health science-- I can easily grade its substance and quality of content; the flip-side is true for other subjects/topics. This way, we can protect the 'better hubs' from getting a very low grade and not being featured, and 'lesser hubs' which actually contain low quality elements from being crawled by Google at all.
With regards to the hub-hopping, the current version essentially has 2 main features:
(1) reporting- and indicating the flags
(2) sliders for the quality assessment.
Probably it will be better if there is an option to just report and skip. This essentially avoid the slider thereafter. Logically, if I deem that a certain hub is copied content or totally over-promotional, it seems pointless to grade it at all. Moderators may just review the flagged notice first.
Lastly, maybe a "reporting counter" (not really an accolade or anything displayed on the profile) on how much you have contributed may be sent to a hubber every so often. Maybe via the individual stats or account page. This may include: number of hubs I reported, percentage of those that were taken action (eg. labelled spam, banned, etc.).
From my perspective, this personal report counter may be advantageous for two things. (1) this will help encourage the community in flagging spam since they know that their efforts are not wasted (2) avoid 'spamming flags' since a certain % of ACTUAL spam that you reported were given action so you will aim that you will not simply report hubs/hubbers at random just for the sake of leveling up your "reporter accolade"
I'm sorry if I missed obvious stuff or misunderstood the mechanics of hopping. Those were mere suggestions from a fresh set of eyes from how I understand it. Pretty much, those are some things that I think we can work on regarding the topic at hand after being here for 1 week.
I must say though, the community here is every proactive and amazing!
QAP Quality Assessment
You can find out more about how the QAP process works here:
This is the ratings chart for creative writing like poems and short stories:
This is the ratings chart for articles:
Here are examples of Hubs and what ratings they received:
Yes, the staff recommends that we aim for 8 or higher.
HubPages does have examples of the various ratings. I don't have the time to find them right now, but I will look for them later. Unfortunately, they only provide every other number, so they are not as complete as I would like.
This is a good idea.
This is provided in the weekly newsletter, although I am sure that the percentage is not accurate. Mine started at 47% from the very beginning, and it hasn't changed at all, even though the report always says that action was taken on every single hub that I reported. (I only report the really really bad ones, and I don't go looking for them.)
The hub hopper is designed in a way to give weight only to accurate ratings. That's why the slider is used. The ratings are measured against a panel of raters who have set a gold standard for hubs. If someone rates too harshly, the system corrects it automatically. Raters who rate accurately are given more weight, those who are very inaccurate are ignored. You can read more about how it works in FAQ - How can I be sure that responsible people have rated my hubs using the hub hopper?
One problem I see is that some who use the sliders may not have the same idea HP has of what is an 8, or a 6. I sometimes think HP's threshold is lower than mine.
Yes, I think there is still a subjective element to rating even though a standard has been set. Looking at the criteria for the #8 rating will have some rating higher or lower according to our own standards and knowledge. At least there is a guide to check rather than just random rating up or down. Even a hopper's rating is rated as to whether it can be trusted as being accurate.
I agree with that; because my knowledge comes from teaching high school English and writing research, I think my ratings are sometimes a bit harsher than HP's and the Gold Panel's. Perhaps I need to remember that this is not a scientific or literary journal.
It helps to use a consistent rating system though, so every hub with a particular quality gets the same rating. HubPages does provide examples on what hubs at each rating look like.
I'm with you, Patty - I teach upper-division courses, and many of the things I see here would not pass basic Freshman Writing, or even high school courses.
I personally think the sliders are too subjective - and I think HP is missing out if they use the slider track record to pay attention to flags and reported hubs (apparently, they assess the validity of what we report on how well we match what they expect with the sliders).
If I saw a hub flagged by you, or by some of the other really great writers here, I'd take notice right away. I give a bit of latitude in what I flag & I'm sure others do, too, and I don't flag casually. But if I spot a problem, I report it because I truly think it's a problem.
I've become accustomed to the continuum- or slider rating scale and now like it very much. Because of the mental concentration needed, it can be a little tiring to use, so I limit the number of Hubs I rate at a sitting. After the criteria become memorized bit by bit, the process is easier, however. I like the option of a "report" feature in the upper right hand corner as well. Overall, I think for me, hopping may be doing more good than reporting outside the hopper, but I continue to do both.
If people want to help, email Writer Fox who has long lists of sub-standard hubs and needs our help.
I am reporting 30 a day, but there are hundreds more to do.
I'm doing at least 25-30 as well. Have reported at least 50 hubs on one account that are entirely spam & some include copied content as well.
Question (since the regulars are watching this thread) - a few days ago I 'bumped' an old thread where the OP had very suspicious content & reported the OP again. The thread is now gone - did others report the OP as well? Several of us had complained about 12 months ago & nothing was done. The thread was active again about six months ago (which is why I found it so easily in my forum archives). But the guy was STILL on the site!
I'm hoping the entire account was deleted. I can't recall the OP's username - but he posted biology hubs of a suspiciously academic quality, and his forum language was poor.
Please tell me HP is better able to follow up on those things now than they were 12 months ago!
Well, now you've shamed me publicly. I'll match the ante and raise you by five: I'll report 35 a day during January!
See if you can top this one:
I just reported a Hub with 120 links to an AllPoster affiliate account and 18 links to a Zazzle account! Those were all followed links, by the way. Is it any wonder why Google has penalized HubPages!!!!! That's a clear violation of Google Webmaster Guidelines.
This is why I find it laughable. Hubs get unfeatured for low traffic, but hubs like one
WF described gets a FREE PASS. I guess it brings in traffic and revenue to HP.
Linda - I don't think the spam we all see gets a free pass - I think the filtering and quality control systems have historically been linked to all content that needs to be reviewed.
As you've mentioned, some of us have reported problems in the past that appear not to have been addressed. Perhaps there haven't been enough staffers handling those complaints. Perhaps the content we've reported hasn't fit what HP sees as a problem. Many of those hubs or accounts I've reported (and many issues reported by others) have been taken down, though, and I know the site appreciates the extra help.
As for the low-traffic takedowns (or low engagement, or other non-spam issues), those may have been easier to locate with the site's bots and filters. Spam and other quality issues require additional filters and often a staff review.
Please keep reporting content or accounts you feel violate the site's TOS. It can only help improve the site's overall quality and its standing with Google.
After reporting probably 60 hubs on the specific account I've been researching, I nosed around the Internet a bit and found a commercial website with substantially duplicate content (hawking the same products) with the identical name of the Hubber in question.
I'll aim for 35 a day, too, for as long as I can keep up the pace. I've already met that goal the past few days.
In other news, if anyone wants an entertaining pastime, do some searches for various adult-content words. I reported more than 100 of those earlier today (I'm fast). The other day, I reported a ton of others (same type of searches). I also found a hub that existed for no other reason than posting phone numbers for adult entertainment. These have been on the site for many years, so obviously the filters were never in place and did not catch them.
That's good work! I can't report so many a day, but I will up the numbers I do report and continue to use the Hub Hopper. I admire the community members who are coming together on this reporting task.
Yay! Hi, Patty! Thanks for adding this goal to your very busy day!
FYI - let me know if you're still in Cols? I'm due for another trip back to the family soon.
Good for you, Patty! The way I look at it is that anything in the Hub Hopper is already in the QAP review process. Is that correct? I figure that all of those are being reviewed by MTurkers as well and they will give them a score.
The Hubs I am reporting aren't in the Hopper and maybe have never been through QAP.
I'm reporting things on this list by using the report link at the top right of every Hub:
Things to report on the 'Report' link:
1. Overly Promotional: more than two links to a person's own blog/website, zazzle, etsy, personal Amazon affiliate referrals – More than 2 links to a single site (exception for Wikipedia, Flickr and certain authority sites), keyword stuffed, purely promotional, or teasers that require you to follow a link to read the full story.
2. Unrelated links or products – Promotes sites or products that are unrelated to the content, products not directly related to the Hub's topic, or links to other Hubs, websites/blogs, etc., which are not relevant to the Hub's topic.
3. Images – pixilated, grainy or watermarked images
4. "Excessive products advertising without useful info that can't be found on seller's website. If products were removed there would be no hub left."
5. Low Quality – Short or unfinished, rife with spelling or grammatical errors, contains a large number of broken links or videos, or is poorly formatted.
This is beginning to sound suspiciously alike a witch hunt with WriterFox proudly trudging ahead of the gang waving a burning torch and egging others on.
WriterFox are you part of the Hubpages staff? Have you consulted them as to your qualifications to designate specific profiles which you have deemed as unacceptable for this site to the point that you must delegate other Hubbers to specifically report these articles on your behalf?
Yes, it is acceptable for each person to do their part to help publishing staff remove "crap" from their websites but this is starting to sound pretty wacko to me. I am not a newbie here and this is not my only profile on Hubpages. I have 4 and my longest has been here for 6 years. I have been writing online much longer than that.
I am definitely confused as to how and why emailing WRITERFOX for a list of names to "literally attack specific profiles" is acceptable. I find this horrifying.
I don't see the point of having such a list either. When I find something reportable, I report it. I have found that HubPages has been willing to respond to a first request. The staff doesn't wait for a big list of complaints against a particular hub or hubber before they take any action. I personally think that if all of us are writing about a particular hub, we are wasting their time and ours, since they would have already taken care of it the first time (or at least considered whether it was against TOS).
This isn't a witch hunt; it's a spam hunt. HP seems to want reports on individual spam Hubs, not just Hubber accounts which have spam Hubs, thus, the mega individual reporting is necessary.
When I find spam on a Hub, I check the Profile page. If I note several other spam Hubs, I keep a list and come back to the account and check it later when I have a brain-dead moment listening to newscasts, podcasts or boring conference calls I have to be on. (Some accounts have hundreds of Hubs!)
Yes, I am aware of your many accounts on this site and the ones you transferred from Squidoo. If you don't have spam on your Hubs, you don't have anything to be concerned about personally. The purpose of reporting is to alert the staff to give a Hub a manual review. It seems that after all this time since the QAP process began and even with the new spam filter inaugurated in December, there is still tons of spam on this site! And, the HP staff encourages reports about spam Hubs and the staff knows who is 'crying wolf' and who isn't.
I just reported a Hub with 11 links to the Hubber's Zazzle account! That same Hubber had several other Hubs with 6 or more personal Amazon links! How does stuff like this pass the filters? I have no idea; but, in reporting these Hubs, the engineers will have information about what is slipping through and how to improve the filters.
Paul E. stated on the forum in December that HubPages has received manual penalty actions from Google because of spam. People who care about the health of this website will diligently help the site remain in Google's good graces and those who don't care will just belittle those who make the effort. I choose to help and that is why, for 30 days, I'm going to report at least 20 spam Hubs per day from my accumulated list.
Lorelei: I understand what you are saying. But, a lot of people are not using the Hub Hopper because the classic version is gone. You cant skip hubs in the version that exists now. So, catching hubs that need to be reported are going to be less than they were already. The list WF speaks of, from what I understand, is a list of hubs that need to be reported to HP. It does not matter who is reporting these hubs, or simply getting a list of questionable hubs and reporting them. Personally, it takes time to accumulate a list. I wonder why not report those hubs on the spot, unless it is a list of hubbers and not individual hubs, which I don't think is good. That is a Target list IMO. If people are going to keep an eye on a Target list, a lot of new people coming in, submitting crap hubs, etc, are going to be missed. I see hubs from people who joined 5 minutes ago and withing 10 minutes they have 5 hubs in the news feed. Since we have the boot camp, the newbies should not have any hubss hitting the newsfeed, able to be shared etc until they have passed HUMAN QAP and are featured. It is frustrating to see the crap hubs stay, hit the news feed, when so many others are being unfeatured by a computer system.
Just in case due to the way some are in the forum, yes, I have 3 hubs because i recently deleted and moved 70 hubs.
I doubt very much if WF is doing any kind of witch hunt type activity.
I do agree with Linda as far as a list with hubber names included like a target, I don't like any kind of lists, forums, posts naming names or making implications. That's not what I would like to see continue on HP. I see plenty on my feed that gets reported. The point is to report what needs to be reported. HP makes the final call on what remains published.
FYI, as far as I can tell, newly published hubs show up on the feed before they have gone through the QAP. I went to report one I saw on my feed today, but it had already been removed by the time I reported it.
The one thing we can agree on, I think, is that HP needs to find a better way to get rid of the copied content, spun content, poorly written content before it hits news feed, before writer can share it all over the Internet. Instead they unfeatured hubs for low traffic, and other reasons that make no sense whatsoever, when hubber has followed HP rules.
I don't see this as a witch hunt at all - WF has found some accounts on which action won't be taken without reviewing and reporting every single hub. The one I reviewed (and am still reviewing) has more than 100 hubs that are (so far) nothing but a series of Amazon ads or links to other hubs in the same account, with a ton of promotional text.
The QAP process is only screening new content (and there's still a bunch of low-quality new content coming in each day). There are still, however, many hundreds of old hubs or accounts that are substandard or that violate the TOS. Sadly, when sites such as HP were first in vogue, this type of content didn't get screen upfront and (apparently) didn't penalize things with Google.
I just flagged several dozen very old accounts that were inactive, had no content, and had usernames that were very suggestive. I don't call that a witch hunt - it's more like a valid Neighborhood Watch program to clean up problems in an otherwise decent community.
What I find interesting is that HP leaves it up to hubbers to make reports, when these hub should never be featured or available to social network sites, etc to begin with. The hubs I know have been reported for duplicate content, poor grammar, a ton of links to same domain, remain published. Yet HP unfeatures hubs for no good reason.
Actually, I have stopped reporting anymore. Too much crap floats through even if you report it. There was one today for computer technology and all the hub contained was the promoting of a website that has nothing but products on it with maybe 50 word snippets. Others that are one long paragraph with no breaks. Spelling, grammar, spun etc are things that should not get a free pass but I am seeing some of those same hubs, over and over again. Tired of wasting my time.
When I first started writing here, I reported hubs like that. I quit doing it, because half the time the reports were ignored.
Exactly Barbara. The monthly report we get in email it has shown that HP only did anything about less than 50 percent of reported hubs. So why bother when you report hubs that you know are copied content and even provide links to where content came from, not written in English, poor spelling, on forbidden topics, etc.
Barbara - that may have been a staffing shortage at that time. The main thing to focus on now is that we ARE getting results from the reports, and hubs as well as accounts are being deleted (or otherwise corrected).
As you and Relache mentioned, I also reported a ton of things a few years ago (I celebrate my third-year anniversary later this month). Sometimes they were not addressed, but they were addressed often enough to let me know someone was paying attention.
Now, HP has imported a huge amount of content that includes some real problems. We can help improve the situation with some volunteer reviewing & reporting. This will not only help those of us who have published here for a few years, it will help the responsible writers among our new colleagues from Squidoo succeed as well. Many good writers 'came over' after the acquisition, and they're not to blame for the problems on that site.
Is the grace period officially over? I would hate to report hubs that are still under the grace period.
My understanding (based on a drive-by comment here) is that the grace period ended 12/31/2014, but I could be wrong. However, perhaps there's a difference between substandard hubs or those that need to be reworked and serious violations of the TOS.
Since several accounts were purged or addressed during the fall (from what I hear), I'm wondering if egregious violators are being addressed separately from anything for which the grace period would apply?
If extreme cases of TOS violations are not addressed right away, that's like letting thieves into your home & saying you won't pay attention for a while & you'll avoid calling the police for several months.
My understanding was that the date would be a rolling one depending on when the move actually took place, but would be sometime in late January. I wonder what HubPages plan to do when the date happens - I would imagine that they would run all remaining hubs through the QAP.
I do like the idea of going through particular topics. This means we will catch the old stuff that has been hanging around here forever as well as new hubs written on particular troublesome topics. I do hope that I haven't written any hubs in the topics you select though!
There's still way too much spam on this site:
Thanks Marcy. I guess I should give them a 2nd chance.
We need to give staff some time to go through them all, especially during the holidays and weekends. The 60 hubs I reported last week have gone but there are hundreds left to report.
Remember the guideline from:
"Product-oriented Hubs are considered spammy ... if the products were removed from the Hub, the remaining content would unlikely satisfy the reader."
Is there a way i can help look at hubs and rate them or report if really bad?
Tell me that this makes sense!
There was a post this morning and when I checked the profile of person, they admitted on the profile that they are 10 years old.
The profile with copy of statement was reported.
Then this person responds to my answer that he is asking questions about his brothers account. When I responded with must be 18, he deleted the age admission from profile. I reported this again, and told HP what they were doing, and informed them a report had already been sent with hubber admission to being underage.
WHAT DID HP DO! Not only leave account active, but featured a hub by someone who claimed to be a 10 year old.
Not sure if age is the issue to be honest. Does HP have age limitations? I am not sure I have ever seen this.
Must be 18 or older. Adsense rules are to be 18 as well. Amazon associates program has age stipulations as well.
If you're reporting a hub, it's best not to tip off the person. We have had others delete or revise information in their profiles after getting comments from us or figuring out other Hubbers are onto them. Just submit the report & let the HP staff do their job.
Also - if you just reported it this morning, the site has NOT had time to go through the list of reports. It's Monday morning, and the staff in San Francisco has barely had a chance to arrive. There's only an emergency crew on during weekends & holidays. They have a huge backlog of reports to address from those of us who submitted reports this weekend (hundreds & hundreds). Just give things time.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread....
They removed age from profile, but after it was reported. In fact, I copied the information from the profile when I reported it.
I reported question as well. His comment to answer was that the question was about his brother's account, not his.
I commend anyone who takes the time to clean up the site by reporting crap, but like Barbara Kay I've been discouraged by lack of action on the part of the moderators. I'd like to know (from a staff member preferably, but I won't hold my breath) what types of crap hubs are worth reporting and which types are going to be given a pass no matter what. Should we bother to flag all the crap hubs here
http://hubpages.com/search/include%3Ahu … e%2Bweight
http://hubpages.com/search/include%3Ahu … y%2Bonline
These hubs are filled with ridiculous spelling errors, no-brainer info, and a lot of out-dated info, but none of which are TOS violations. Or should we just save the effort to flag hubs that violate TOS in more obvious ways, like being obviously spun/translated and spam?
This question has been addressed many times in the forums. My understanding is that if you think a hub is spun or is otherwise violating the TOS, you should report it. If you simply think it is a low quality hub, you can give it a low rating accordingly. When you report something, you are asking a moderator to take a look at it, so you don't have to worry that you are wrong.
Since the TOS has been recently tightened to only have relevant links, you may be able to report more than you could in the past.
By the way, if you look at all the hubs in those two categories, I'm sure you might find at least one that would pass the TOS and QAP.
It is scary that there are 400 results in the how to loose weight category. There is a lot of loose weight out there!
Thank you for pointing those out Calculus. I just reported the very first hub and its author on your list with the following reason:
"This hubber has only 1hub that is not featured for good reasons but can still be found via HP search when searching "weight loss". Why has it not been removed from the site, together with its author who joined 4 years ago?"
A number of us have been assigned long lists of hubs to report by Writer Fox. Would you be willing to pull in a small crowd to help you report the bad weight loss hubs?
We must stay ahead of the imminent influx of Bublews people so the site needs all the help it can get right now.
I have drawn Paul Edmondson's attention to the excessive/exclusive product hubs and to this thread by email.
I'm doin' my part. I just called out some d-bag who copy/pasted an article from Wikipedia. Nice try, Gomer!!
Sue Adams is right - only an organized effort will work here (which does not mean we should stop reporting isolated hubs). Writer Fox has assembled a list of egregious offenders - if each of us takes one of the offenders and quickly reviews all hubs & reports the bad ones, we will see better results than we will from scatter-shooting.
Some of these users (probably most of the ones WF has found) need to be banned. Some might be able to revise their content enough to stay on board. But as long as the spammy content is associated with HubPages, we all suffer.
The manual penalty from Google brought HP traffic down by another 6% in December, when most sites with large numbers of seasonal articles experienced an increase in traffic. In August, HP was #60 for U.S. traffic on Quantcast. Today, HP is #81. That's a dramatic drop.
After reporting spam on 65 Hubs today, I'm surprised the Google slap wasn't more severe. Really, I'm nauseas.
FYI - any Hubber who is a repeat offender can also be reported on his/her profile page for the pattern of violations.
I think you should definitely report them. They are probably a spammer.
Don't report it as they may not have figured out how to use the sight yet. Leave them a comment telling them what you think and the areas of improvement. There is also a place where you give a thumbs up or down for articles just give a thumbs down and they will be notified and be asked to fix the information.
Thumbs up and down, on the hubs, means nothing anymore.
Being new is no excuse for lousy spelling and grammar, plagiarism, not writing in English, creating hubs about forbidden topics, and the list goes on. These things are common sense. Forbidden topics are essentially across the board with writing sites, and Google Adsense.
First of all, thank you SO much for your help flagging Hubs and finding spam. And thanks for referring to the guidelines we published recently in the FAQ - watch out for a related blog post very soon!
I just want to give one word of advice to the Hubbers that are flagging: please don't flag more than five Hubs per account for the same violation. If more than five Hubs violate the same rule, flag the profile instead. When you flag a profile, feel free to add any details about the account in the optional comments field. This will help the moderators cover more ground, faster.
Again, thank you for being upstanding HubPages citizens and helping keep our site clean!
Thank you for this response. It's helpful!
Thank you for letting us know staff is responding to the reports! Some of us are screening accounts with more than 100 hubs (and reporting them separately). and this will save us time and allow us to review more accounts.
Now you tell us!
That will really save a lot of time. (Is there an accolade for us "fine upstanding HubPages citizens?")
+1 on the accolade idea. Do you have a Purple Heart icon?
Sorry, WF! Please forgive me.
I will bring up the accolade idea at our community meeting this week. We have a ton on our plate this quarter already, but we might be able to squeeze it in. I love the idea.
Well, this is interesting.
On the other platform there was a group of dedicated community members that went around the site flagging poor quality, and giving accolades to good work. We were called Angels, and mostly it was a big help to the site.
Like every good story there was a bad guy, or two, that went around flagging (dinging) pages because of their own personal agenda. These bad Angels ruined the whole program...and of course their friends stood by their side to the very end of the site.
Now perception is reality in most cases, and the perception is that these good, upstanding citizens are looking for spam from the migrated lenses. What about the hubs that didn't go through QAP? I am quite sure there are/were enough hubs to have kept this group quite busy without once looking at a pre-determined group of hubs.
I am all for keeping the site clean. I was one of the Angels on the other platform, and spent a few years of my time helping the community in several different ways. But what is happening here by publicly giving out lists and saying lets get 20-30-35 a day just doesn't sound like it is/was to clean up this site. It sounds like Round 2 or 3 in the Us vs Them atmosphere that was allowed to develop in the forums.
Ok, that's my say...and it's a shame that HQ (whatever admin is called) doesn't "appear" to be responsive, publicly, to the behaviors that have been cementing this wall for the past 4 months.
Kathy, thanks for sharing your perspective. I am truly sorry you feel this way and want to assure you of a couple of things:
- Many Hubs that are flagged are not moderated.
- Hubbers that flag Hubs have a grade assigned to them. In order for a Hubber to be considered effective at flagging, most of his/her flags need to result in moderation. If we have deemed someone an inaccurate flagger, we will start ignoring their flags altogether.
I have not read every post in this thread. I chimed in to give some advice to those that wish to help keep HubPages clean by flagging Hubs (any Hubs), that violate our rules. We're all adults here, and it would be a shame to me if Hubbers were flagging Hubs simply because they have some personal beef with the writers. Either way, rest assured that we have built-in measures to deal with inaccurate flaggers.
Lastly, I encourage those who are flagging to read the Guidelines for Reporting Hubs if they have not done so already.
Well Marina, maybe you should have read every post in this thread before commenting, because then you would have seen where Kathy's post is pointing to. I will help you:
Quote: There's still a ton of content here that was never vetted to begin with, and it appears the import from Squidoo added to that problem.
Quote: Many of the hubs we are reporting (thanks to Writer Fox being so diligent in spotting offenders) were migrated from another site that had a mixture of great writers as well as members who violated Google's standards.
Like Kathy mentioned, this behaviour has been going on for months in these forums. It really does make one feel quite welcome here, doesn't it.
No witch hunt they say? I wouldn't know what else to call it. The graze period isn't even over yet.
I have been keeping up with the forum posts, and have read every single post. I don't see that former Lensmasters were being singled out. We have been complaining about poor quality and spammy posts since at least the day I started on this site, and I have read even older forums that show this has been an issue from the very beginning. If you read other posts about reporting, you will find that this type of reporting happens in waves and has happened before the transfer.
The methods to find the reportable articles will find hubs new and old. It is expected that if the site gets new content, no matter where it is from, that there will be some excellent, some good, some mediocre, some poor, and some downright appalling.
There really isn't any way for us to tell who came from Squidoo and who hasn't, unless your hub uses terms that are specific to that site, or you mention it. You are Hubbers now. You are one of us.
Actually there is a way. The profile indicates when the site was joined and the hubs may carry copyright notices that predate that.
I can think of several ways to ascertain old lensemasters:
1) There was a whole thread welcoming people, with hubber profile names.
2) On any of the threads where there was a rift between some old hubbers and new.
3) If your goal is to rid of the site of the posts that got the 4 month grace period that had too many Amazon modules, once you find one all you have to do is go down the list of hubs, or check Titles. Some are pretty self explanatory. If I was looking I would look closer at Top toys for a roadrunner than I would at How to get the grease off the inside of the butter dish!
4) I can name people off the top of my head, for one reason or another, and I know I am not unique. Now you put 10, 20, 30 people together and they too can do that. But, how many of these people can name the profile of someone they saw only once or twice over the years?
Anyone that has helped moderate anything online can figure out how to concentrate on a certain group. That might even include a group of non-English speakers, or Hubbers with children, or any other group if they so chose. The possibilities are endless when the flagging isn't a random thing.
It's a fact that I am targeting a certain group; that group is called Spammers. And, it doesn't matter when the Spammers joined the site. Spam doesn't belong on HubPages and the staff – representing owners of the site – obviously agrees with that.
Where is the spam hiding on HubPages? You can find 99% of it in older Hubs which have not been edited since 2011 (the year of the first Google Panda algorithm and the first use of QAP on HubPages) and in Hubs transferred from Squidoo which have not been edited and sent through QAP in the past four months.
A few days ago I found the worst case of spam that I had ever seen on a Hub: 120 links to an AllPoster affiliate account and 18 links to a Zazzle account! But today I found a Hub with a whopping 177 links to Zazzle. I'll spell that out: One-Hundred-and Seventy-Seven. And, if you want to know, both of those Hubs were on articles transferred here from Squidoo. But, I also reported Hubs today which have been on the site for years and years.
If you are paranoid that your account is going to be reported, just review your own Hubs and delete any spam or TOS violations. If you do that, then there will be nothing to report. Do you understand? Reporting can only affect your Hubs if the staff agrees that they contain spam or TOS violations.
Geez WF, my ears burn from your shouting and I'm an ocean away. Your neighbours must have gone deaf by now.
You know very well that we came from a site where sales lenses were very strongly promoted. The graze time hasn't even ended yet and when it does, these kind of hubs will be caught by the filters no doubt and will be unfeatured/unpublished automatically.
Not everyone has the time or opportunity to work on their hubs during boring conference calls.
I wouldn't worry too much about all this reporting. For the most part, the hubs that are reported are probably already unfeatured anyway (for traffic), and those that are not, as you said, will be caught in the filter automatically (for spam).
I've been writing for different platforms like HubPages in these past years. Some I left, some I stayed - like HP and Squidoo.
I have seen many platforms requiring 5 or 10 test articles from their new writers before being allowed to automatically publish. These new comers and their work were monitored closely and nobody could publish junk without a strict filter.
Why doesn't HubPages act the same way? Human review for new hubbers...
This would help to avoid those reporting missions some have on their agenda, this would also help set a more friendly atmosphere in these forums. Not that I really expect from some Hubbers to be nicer to former lensmasters than they are now. But this might help a bit anyway.
Talking about those who report "illegal" Hubs... Some of the should keep a closer eye on their own work as I could notice that their work does not comply 100% with Hubs standards and rules. Especially when it comes to use of public people's image in a commercial means and copyright infringement.
OK That's all what I had to say. I'm an old time Hubber and always liked this site, but these past 4 months have been hard for me to keep silent and see my former fellow Squids attacked on all fronts on here.
There is a vetting process called the HubPages Boot Camp, which all new members must pass.
It seems that new hubs immediately show up on our internal HP feed, which can be confusing as this makes it appear as though they are featured and have passed the QAP. However, as I understand it, just because a hub shows up on the feed doesn't mean Google or any outside visitors can see it.
As far as this being a witch hunt, I certainly witnessed a handful of Hubbers being rude in the forums to Squidoo transplants a few months ago, so I don't blame those who transferred over for feeling targeted. However, I honestly do not think that is what this latest effort is about. This is a non-discriminatory clean-up effort.
I know, but it doesn't seem efficient enough. Now that spam might be very old, but in this case, HP should automatically unfeature what wasn't updated after change of rules, for example, or Hubs that are abandoned. This was also a major problem on Squidoo.
Even though I was on both sites from the beginning, I've always checked both sites' emails and modified my pages accordingly. Only this time I won't, I'm tired of working for nothing and already had to do all that on Squidoo for the result we know. Pages that don't comply will be deleted and relocated.
But I digress.
I don't check my feed, I don't play the social game, I'm not a joiner so I'm not aware of what kind of spammy Hubs are created each and every day.
What I wanted to say is that there should be a way for Hub to get rid of bad writers/spammers right away: with 10 articles being closely monitored before publishing this should be doable. Some other sites do it. They thus don't get that bunch of spam on there.
The other thing I said is that before reporting others for TOS violation, one should take a closer look at ones own account.
Ouch. I'm totally new here and with blogging and haven't even put in a bio yet as I get a feel for this. I wanted to check out other bios to get an idea what to put on mine. I have not had a chance to read through it all yet. I apologize if I've offended anyone before I've even started.
Hi Sharon. You haven't offended anyone yet. We are just on a campaign to get rid of some of the spam Hubs that Google doesn't like.
Here's a lot of information about how to write on HubPages: http://hubpages.com/learningcenter/contents
Welcome to the site, Sharon! You'll be fine - the site has so much helpful information on what is expected, and you're doing the right thing by viewing 'trusted content' to get a feel for things. And, your hubs will go through a QAP process that actually can help spot places you need to tweak.
Many of the hubs we are reporting (thanks to Writer Fox being so diligent in spotting offenders) were migrated from another site that had a mixture of great writers as well as members who violated Google's standards. Some are accounts or hubs that have been on the site for ages, but never went through the review process now in place. If we can address the problems, it will benefit everyone who cares about high-quality content and succeeding as a site as well as in our individual accounts.
So glad you're here - it's a wonderful community and a supportive place to write!
hehehe.. There are many people who just join sites even without understanding the rules that are set within, We just cannot blame them dear.
I hope that the accolade idea was a joke. It would encourage animosity within the community.
Substandard hubs are usually found via the Hub Hopper or by typing in critical keywords in the HP search bar.
I found many 5 year old substandard hubs via the HP search bar. These were written way before the QAP process was introduced.
If many sub-standard hubs found by the above mentioned methods were imported, that is purely coincidental.
If many of these hubs were written before QAP (and it sounds like some of those mentioned here actually were) then perhaps what is actually needed is for the owners to unpublish any with violations and either improve them or delete them altogether. If that can't be done because they are old hubs with absentee writers then maybe there should be a time limit on how long something can remain unedited before it goes through QAP again. If it fails it can be unpublished by the hubpages team. Surely such a process could be built into the filter as the function "last edited" shows on each page doesn't it?
Geez Lisa, I hope you're not seriously suggesting the one thing we all hated so much on Squidoo?
No Titia, sorry if I upset you. I was just trying to move the focus away from Squids back to where it may have been intended by some posters here. We all know there were horrendous problems with silly algorhythms that did nothing to help the site. This is just a calm acknowledgement that if the problem is at least partially one of 4/5 year old hubs that fail to come up to scratch and have multiple violations it ought to be possible to programme the filter to find them first. In other words, make the filter time sensitive so that those people who know their pages are really bad and cynically don't edit for years can't avoid QAP. Blaming the Squids for all the "spam" is not actually reasonable or responsible because the problem may actually (probably) originate elsewhere. A cynical refusal to edit has to be worse than new pages in a large account that take time to edit to comply with new rules.
Lisa - you're right, a filter could be created that includes the age of the hub, and maybe the admins will do that in some manner. When HP first implemented the QAP, it only addressed newly written hubs (many of us pointed out there was some very old and very bad content on the site). I don't completely know the rationale, but I imagine it was to have a way of ensuring that new work met some standards as they considered options for addressing the very old work.
The backlog of old hubs is huge, and the site has indeed cleaned up a ton of those in just the last 2-3 years. But some of us still stumble on really bad content today (and we report it). If the staff reviewing the reported content is small, they're likely overloaded. I do know they evaluate whether the reports are valid (or if there are people trying to gang up on one Hubber, which has been known to happen years ago). Also, it might take one level of administrative access to delete individual hubs, but deleting entire accounts is a much bigger decision, and is not done randomly or without thought.
You're right that the 'four month' date of joining can be a tipoff that someone came from Squidoo. However, the 'clean-up' effort here does not target things based on that.
In just the past few days, I found and reported more than 100 usernames that appear to violate the 'no adult content' rule. Most of them dated back 5-7 years. These were not from Squidoo.
I also reported a hub that existed ONLY to post phone numbers in the comments section to market adult, um, services. It had been on HP for years.
I've reported two accounts that did come from Squidoo, and both were spam accounts used to create hubs (or lenses) filled with ads and backlinks, and no real content. Those are the types of accounts that added to the demise of Squidoo, and if we don't report them here, they will bring down HubPages as well.
As you can see - by far, the bigger share of accounts I've reported have not been from Squidoo.
Thank you for that Marcy, it really clarifies things. I think that, had Squidoo stuck to the original idea of importing only 180000 featured lenses that would have helped a lot. Speaking for myself I want to try and make things work on this platform which means either improving or culling content that is not in line with the new TOS. I started out writing almost purely informational things but the algorhythms didn't favour that. Obviously it is a steep learning curve but I want my pages to have a home where they can hopefully be enjoyed for a long time to come.
I read the types of accounts/posts/users you reported and it brought back many memories of finding those same types that I too used to report.
Now, after having read your comment I do understand that there are many crappy hubs both old and new. I understand not all the new hubbers from our old site are upstanding members of this community any more than they were on that one. In fact, one such person was noticed here recently with a new profile. In fact there are a few people here that were kicked off the old platform for cheating, spam, plagiarism, or any of the major TOS violations. Seeing any of them here, whether they comment in the forums, or are seen by chance isn't a good feeling of what kinds of antics they'll pull here on HP.
One of the hubs I read when I first came here was something about the different types of hubbers. The social ones, the ones that wanted to be known as "writers", the ones that wanted to earn a living, etc. We all know that less than 10 %, probably less than 5% of the people speak up, but hopefully the ones that try to keep the site clean, have checked their own behaviors and work.
Personally I would love to see the spam, the crap, etc removed regardless of where it came from. However, with the attitude of some of those hunting, it isn't conducive to an atmosphere of fairness to all concerned.
I would personally say you should inform him first or to alert him to read the terms
you should first if possible prompt him on any of his violations since you guarantee he is obvious newbie
Marina says that many of the reported hubs are not moderated! What is the point of reporting them if they are not being moderated.
There is a hub now about making beer, that has been reported, but it is still here.
Another one, hubber claimed to be 10 years old in their profile, but removed the age information in their profile, but is still producing hubs. This one was reported with a copy of what they put in their profile, but they are still here.
But back to what Marina said about many of the reported hubs are not moderated. Well, now we know why hubs that are reported manage to stay featured. But OMG, should a hubber have slow traffic, because then their hubs are unfeatured for engagement.
A new blog post updates on spam and product capsules.
http://blog.hubpages.com/2015/01/07/an- … -capsules/
Seen. Got bored in seconds with each example page given. Bad and... Good!
When I search for bedding sets, I don't need the marketer's personal life. I hate seeing disgusting things so pictures are also important to me when I read a page. One of them made me close the page right away. When looking for gifts for relatives, friends or even colleagues, I don't need 500 words about each option. Show me the gift - tell me if they're worth buying and let me know the price.
And the list goes on.
This blog post makes me think to Squidoo's blog posts in the last 18 months of existence... They tightened the rules so much that... they finally closed.
Ah well, I'm just ready to delete another bunch of Hubs - worked enough for peanuts on both S and HP. I'll leave only HP that seem to me they won't end up unfeatured, until they are.
Linda - what Marina actually said was
"In order for a Hubber to be considered effective at flagging, most of his/her flags need to result in moderation. If we have deemed someone an inaccurate flagger, we will start ignoring their flags altogether."
"We're all adults here, and it would be a shame to me if Hubbers were flagging Hubs simply because they have some personal beef with the writers. Either way, rest assured that we have built-in measures to deal with inaccurate flaggers."
In other words:
* reports from Hubbers are moderated prior to acting on them
* if Hubbers don't know what they are doing in reporting/flagging hubs then all their reports are ignored - and
* if any Hubber is acting vindictively.... well I'm sure HubPages has a response for that as well!
Get a load of this beauty. This is an opening paragraph:
"Health care is important for any human. If health is not good then, everything is not well. In our regular life we forget to take care of our health. For this reason we face many fitness problems and also the money problem."
ARRRRGH! REPORT REPORT REPORT! DIE DIE DIE!
Apparently this is what HP calls a QUALITY HUB!! It was reported this morning. Nice pics, no products.
Title is safet
Another Top Quality Hub: Title: HTML-Web-Design-Companies-in-Hyderabad
I checked those out and they truly are nothing but spam. I reported them, just as you did. Thanks for the alert.
What makes you think HP classifies them as quality hubs?
Linda, Those Hubs have never been featured. The first one was only published 5 hours ago and the second one was published 6 hours ago. They are just going through the QAP process and you probably found them in the Hub Hopper.
The QAP process usually weeds out obvious spam. The problem on HP right now is all of the Hubs which never went through the QAP process. I just found a published Hub with 171 spam keywords plastered at the bottom! That Hub has never been through QAP.
Oops! Did HP purchase Squidoo's failing filters???
I have seen quite a few articles on Hub Pages, in the last few days, that have quite a few Amazon links in them - one after another, and very little text in the article at all. Isn't that considered to be "over promotional", and shouldn't they be flagged?
I just re-read what I wrote. Sounds redundant - too many "fews" in there. What I meant to say, is - "Recently, I have seen several articles on HP, that have quite a few Amazon links in them..."
Apologies to the readers - I did not proofread my own post.
That is exactly what Hubpages is calling over-promotional and is trying to get rid of it. Google told them that there are too many spammy pages. That is what needs to be reported along with copied content and poor English.
Thanks, Barbara. That is what I thought.
I am often land on Hub Pages articles, when simply perusing online. So many of the HP articles that show up on the first or second page of Google, related to whatever I might be searching for at the moment, are articles with very few words, but lots of user-placed ads.
Just my thoughts,
Why should you/we have to report anything? If HP wants to offer us pay for monitoring their site sign me up but until then I don't need the headache. Also, all good writers start somewhere and the overall lack of interest in writing by most people should be of great concern for everyone. Maybe today's spammer becomes tomorrows top hub author given time and direction. Or, not, lol.
The less spam and crap that is published on HP, the more successful the site is. The more successful HP is, the more successful my articles here are, and the more money I earn. Writing sites are shutting down like crazy; they're failing partly due to being full of spam and poor content. Google has it out for content farms and sites full of spam, and is basically putting them out of business. We don't want that to happen to HP, so we flag junk with the hope that it will be removed.
HP has already issued out a notice saying that no blog will be published if it doesn't meet specific standards. This has been done due to all the complaints. So for crying out loud STOP COMPLAINING! it's been taken care of. I am sick of getting notifications for this post. Sitting here discussing on how awful people are won't do you shit. First of all, you won't always like what everyone says its a part of life. Second, when it has already been dealt with why on earth is this conversation still going? You want to report go ahead if you don't fantastic. But just so you know that person can be vengeful psycho who will report your post for revenge you don't know everyone you don't know their lives. How do you know that person isn't doing it just because they are struggling to survive and they hope to make a little extra money from here so that they can protect their home? Sorry but personally I think you should leave it to HP to decide they review before publishing. If they approve it is no longer your business unless you can prove it is false or offensive material.
As a recently returned (after 3-year hiatus) Hubber, I'd like to share an anecdote. When I returned, I turned on notifications and within 2 days got emails with mere subject lines (Hub title, Q&A question) that offended my sensibilities as a thinking person. That was my first impression of HubPages after the 3-year hiatus. I read many of the comments above and there are obviously enthusiastic energetic people who care about the quality of the brand. "Bad quality" meaning spammy. For me, "bad quality" also means content, so consider there are some thinking people that automatically dismiss HubPages when this happens. My choice on the offensive Hub title was to leave a dismissive comment on the Hub shaming HubPages for publishing such a title. If HP is reviewing these offensive Hubs before publishing that reflects badly on the brand.
Go to the top of this page and click on the green button that says "unfollow." You will then no longer receive updates on this thread.
Also, when a hubber reports a page to moderators, it is simply a request for an HP moderator to look at the article. HP mods are the ones who decide whether or not it is actually poor quality. If the HP mod finds that the article is of good quality, the flag will not count against the article or its author. Revenge flagging is not going to hurt the author if their articles fall within HP publishing guidelines.
Let them learn on their own. That's what we had to do. I'd stay out of it, unless they are obviously plagiarizing.
Google needs to stop thinking they are the supreme god of all things Internet. They have no right to complain to Hubpages and or to take actions of any sort against Hubpages because an amount large or small is spam. Their ability or lack of ability to filter out one page to the next is a technology issue they need to address. Obviously, their superior technology is a little lacking and they need to catch up to 2015 instead of being stuck in 1999. The concern that there are spammers on the Internet and some of them have used Hubpages is not mine nor any of yours nor should it be the problem of Hubpages themselves.
Grow up google and quit acting like the whiny little babies that you are.
Google is offering a product (search results) to their customers (searchers). Google will lose customers if they continually present searchers with spammy, junky crud in their search results. By weeding out sites that are full of spam and eliminating them from search results, and instead providing them with links to solid, reliable, well written information, they are hoping to increase user satisfaction, which will help Google build loyal, repeat customers and gain new users, as well. This is why Google looks at and judges every site and every page on the internet. Spam makes HP look bad in the eyes of Google and other search engines, causing them to push HP lower and lower and farther back in their search results, so that we all lose traffic and lose money.
This is why it is worthwhile to everyone to report spam on HP. No one says you have to, though.
Sometimes I too come across poorly written hub... But in this case seeing its a newbie newbie then probably give him or her a little while to see if they will get adjusted to the correct protocols. I feel sorry when i see an awful hub sometimes i go privately and email them and ask if they need any help they can contact me. Or i give little pointers. I also think sometimes there are people here longer than a newbie and takes no time or effort to add a picture etc to make their hub look atleast attractive to lur readers. At one time we all had poor hubs, when we did not know how to move around HP. Yet i believe that person should at-least add a bio no one is going to follow a ghost writer.
by Emily Tack22 months ago
I just wanted to share the experience I had, in the last 30 minutes. I am at one of my businesses, so I can only look at a few hubs a day. Today, I decided to do my own Hub hopping, without using the official Hub...
by Sharilee Swaity3 weeks ago
I am really not liking the front page of Hubpages these days. When I first click in to HP, I see a list of the five top questions and articles. It usually something about politics or beliefs. First of all, is that what...
by Catherine Mostly3 years ago
I'm fairy new to Hub Pages, but one of the things I really enjoy is reading through the Hub Hopper - you never know what topic is going to pop out at you OR how good or bad the next article will be, ha! But some of the...
by Janis Leslie Evans3 years ago
I'm curious as to whether there has been a decrease in hubbers using the hub hopper to rate hubs. I just have a feeling there is because my hub scores haven't been fluctuating as much (which is fine with me). Overall,...
by Lionrhod2 years ago
I've been hopping some hubs this morning. I came across a few excellent ones and a few that sheer perturbed me.In at least 3 of them, the English was so terrible and the word choice so indecipherable that I highly...
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,...
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.