So for the last couple of weeks I have actually been studying at University.
I now log into my hubpages account and some editor has made all these changes. It reads so stupid.
I am furious that someone has touched and changed my hubs! HOW DARE YOU!
I notice my earnings too have gone down.
My email to the editor who had their eyes SHUT has gone unanswered, I've had words, sentences paragraphs changed. Photos enlarged and adds removed.
Considering my content and audience, they were written a specific way!
I can't even take my work off here as they have ruined 9 hubs.
Can Hubpages make an effort to respond. Plus who is re-crediting my lost earnings?
I am furious. NO CONSENT.
Any and all edits can be reversed. You can also opt out of the editing on your profile in edit mode.
Why should i spend the time now reverting their work? I am studying for a degree and don't have time to go over 9 of my best earners.
Not trying to be rude but why did you opt in to the edits? It shouldn't take more than half a minute or so to revert them back.
We're all 'opted in' by default, just as we are the EC program.
You can still go to edit mode of your profile and opt out. Only takes a few seconds. You can also revert the edited hubs back to the originals. It must be done in edit mode for the hub you want to switch back.
Yes, but there are many hubbers who don't know they're opted in. People can sometimes miss or overlook emails and newsletters for numerous valid reasons. There are probably hubbers who don't even realize their hubs have been edited, or that they are participating in the EC program.
Just like me. I did not know that the admin can edit that. How do I know that I am opted in editing my hubs?
Go here: http://hubpages.com/my/profile/profile
Scroll down to the question about "HubPro".
Go to edit your profile, Thelma, scroll down and you will see the option.
I would welcome having an editor do what editors do to any of my hubs.
You are automatically opted in to editing. You have to manually opt out in My Account (Psycheskinner provided the link—thanks!), but I hope that you don't.
Thank you very much Guys. I have seen it and I just leave it as it is and so I am opted in. I just hope that I will be notified before my hubs will be edited.
You will be notified at least twice before we begin edits. Make sure that your email in My Account is the one that you use on a regular basis, so that you don't miss it. In the meantime, I recommend sorting your Hubs by traffic and freshening up those with the highest traffic. In tests, we have found that even updating grammar, spelling, and adding media, can improve traffic. I would also take a look at your products in Earnings>Amazon>My Account, and if you haven't sold any of the products in your Hubs, I'd remove them. I took a quick look at your Hubs; you've done a great job. I love the original photos!
IF the hubber was unaware of being defaulted into the program and IF the edited hubs are locked by the editor - it is not all that easy to restore one's own work. Being unaware of the default of being dropped into a new program is NOT giving consent.
No one "opts in". We were all PUT THERE without our consent. We have to opt out if we do not want to be in the program.
Yes - no-one opts in and I cannot even edit my own hubs because they have locked it.
Yet you have time to complain about it in the forum, even if you don't want to do anything to change it back? OK then, back to my own work instead of trying to help out in any way.
You are not the first person this has happened to, but it's not supposed to happen. You are supposed to be notified by email before the editor makes any changes.
Check your spam folder to see if you've received any notifications which you can reply to.
My understanding is that your original text is not lost, it's still there and it's possible to revert back to it while you're in edit mode, so I suggest you give that a try as it may not be as big a job as you think.
Also, as others have said, opt out immediately so no more Hubs can be edited. We were all "opted in" by default. You should have been aware of the program through the newsletter, but maybe you're not getting that either - maybe every email from HubPages is going to your spam folder?
Thank you Marissa, for your information. I am now looking at reverting to my original hub.
Unfortunately, this could've been a helpful program, if it had be a consultative one rather than Hubpages just taking over and locking myself out.
Good morning! I have just sent you a lengthy email regarding your account. We definitely weren't ignoring you, it was just the weekend. While it's still early, I hope you leave your edits—your traffic to these Hubs is up significantly since the edits (86%) and your reader satisfaction is up 32%. Your actual information is amazing and I think with the work by our editor, your Hubs are now some of the best on the web for your topic. All good authors have editors, and because of the feedback we have received we are working really hard to collaborate more with Hubbers via email. When we do, Hubbers are usually very pleased (as are the editors).
Wow, what a broad brushstroke to paint. I would say it more accurate that many good authors use GOOD editors to improve their work. But we have seen several instances reported here where editors without proven qualifications have made highly debatable changes to hubs, and those are certainly the reasons why I will not touch the HubPro program with a ten foot pole.
If I want an editor for a specific piece of my writing, I will contract and work with an editor of my choosing. And to imply basically that if you don't use an editor that you are not a good writer is highly insulting. Maybe, too, many of us prefer to be able to express ourselves freely here even if we otherwise employ or use an editor for other types of work? If I'm writing a fiction short story or novel for publication, of course I want an editor. If I'm writing about a personal experience here on HubPages I don't necessarily want an editor injecting their opinions or changes in any way. I guess that makes me a non-"good" writer.
I think it is entirely correct to say all good authors use an editor prior to publishing, or at least the exceptions to that rule would be a very small percentage. The use of an editor who is competent at their job is implied.
Thanks, much better way of saying it! I need an editor for my Forum posts!
I realize we have had a couple unhappy Hubbers, but for the most part, Hubbers have been happy with their edits, they just aren't as vocal in the Forums. Our editors have proven to be highly qualified and are constantly being assessed for quality. They are doing the work that is asked of them from HubPages management—they are not working in a bubble. We have also made changes and are communicating a lot more with Hubbers, and if Hubbers are checking their email, there is a lot of back and forth now between Hubbers and editors.
To speak frankly, I think you are doing yourself a disservice by opting out. To have someone edit your work for free, and you have the ability to change things back if you want, seems like an easy decision for me.
I don't believe that I said this, but if it's what you took from my post, I apologize because it's not what I meant.
Editors won't be changing your personal experiences. We have learned from our mistakes and are treating narratives very differently now.
You have made very good points here and I agree strongly that if I want an editor to go over my work, I would contract and choose a qualified editor of my choice - never would I allow just anyone to touch my work.
I have to ask this question. After editors edit a hub is it given some type of promotional boost?
Great question! No. We don't do anything on our end to give it more traffic. All of the traffic growth is organic.
Edit- Well, I guess there may be some traffic change if a Hub's HubScore improves and it is more prominent in related search, but the numbers that we track are from outside sources, not internal traffic, so our statistics shouldn't be affected.
I hope that Hubpro yields an improvement in overall HP traffic soon. No sign of any traffic boost since the start of 2015!
I hope so, too! There hasn't been a confirmed Panda update since 4.1 on Sept. 23rd, but we suspect an update will be coming soon; we know a mobile update will happen in April. We have worked really hard by removing pages from the index and editing. As of today, we've edited 1,363 Hubs accounting for almost 12% of traffic. That's 4,631,593 monthly views. Our goal is to improve reader experience for as many readers as possible. If we do this, we should be rewarded. Unfortunately, we never know what Google will do, but if our focus is improving content for the reader, we can feel good about what we are doing.
I understand your anger and frustration, but thank you for posting it, because it has helped a lot of hubbers to opt out of HubPro if they prefer to edit themselves. I hope everything is resolved soon.
yes, by default, it in "yes" which means, you had agreed to let the editors to edit your hubs. You can go to your account setting and press NO so that in future, they won't touch your hubs
You did give consent if you did not "opt out" of HubPro. Opting out is available under your profile settings. And as SirDent says, you can reverse all changes once the editorial lock is removed from your Hub.
If the hubber was away and not aware of the HubPro option, that is not giving consent.
HP put everyone into the program without our consent. This is a very unfair and sneaky way for HP to take control of hubs and edit them without the author's actual consent. To leave the program we had to opt out - but if a hubber is unaware of this not prominently displayed option then their hubs are at risk of being invaded and changed by inexperienced writers with the title of "editor".
I'm sorry, Phyllis, but I have to respectfully disagree on both of your points. You have consented to editing by agreeing to our Terms of Service. Please see Section 6. We give Hubbers multiple opportunities to opt-out, but if they aren't checking their emails, we can't sit idly by; it is too important to the overall health of HubPages and affects all Hubbers.
Our editors are experienced and extremely qualified. We train, evaluate, and assess them on a regular basis. We are one of the only UGC sites left on the internet, and it is because we keep ourselves updated on the latest trends in online writing and adapt. Sometimes the things we do aren't as successful as we thought they'd be, but we don't stop trying. I realize that it is hard to always be adapting to these changes, but it is the nature of being an online writer, and if HubPages is going to survive, we absolutely have to.
I've opted out of the program because I am very uncertain.
My niche is Fashion and Beauty. Which of the editors are qualified to edit hubs in this category? And where can I see samples of an editor's work other than that on HubPages?
Thanks for your honesty, Jayne. Editors try to edit Hubs where they have a background, but it's impossible to cover all content areas. We understand that you are the expert; we aren't going to change your content unless we do research and find that it is incorrect. Even then, we would email you and get your thoughts. For example, here are a few things we might do (with your consent) to a Hub that you just wrote on doing a pedicure at home: we would commission original photos of someone actually getting a pedicure at home for each step and possibly for the materials. We would check for grammar and spelling (although at first glance your Hub looks great in this department!) and maybe talk to you about adding content, if needed. We would make all capsules full width to comply with the mobile version of HubPages. Your Hubs wouldn't need much editing, they are already great. I can tell you write for your reader already which makes our job really fun and easy!
To be frank, traffic and reader satisfaction is up across Hubs that we have edited; I'm not sure why Hubbers wouldn't want this. I'm happy to continue the dialogue on how we can do a better job so that Hubbers that have opted out change their minds. I think that we can really improve in our communication around HubPro—a blog post will be coming out in the next few days.
Robin, we've had a few instances of people posting that their Hubs are being edited and they've had no notification. I can understand this is because of problems with email - e.g. they haven't updated their email address or the email is going to their spam folder.
However, it suggests that the editors are NOT emailing the author to get their thoughts before making changes. Or if they are, it's a token effort only - because if they don't get a response, they just shrug their shoulders and go ahead anyway.
Shouldn't there be a rule that if the editor is unable to contact the author, the edits shouldn't go ahead?
Thanks for the comment, Marisa. I can assure you that we are emailing authors at least twice before we begin edits and many times more than that. I send out the first email, so I know that Hubbers are being contacted, and Editors send at least one email before they even open the Hub. It takes a lot of the Editor's time, but we all believe it's important for the process to be collaborative. Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of waiting idly by for Hubbers to respond—we are so grateful when they do though! Our Editors are extremely cautious when editing Hubs. They want to do the best thing for the reader and the author; we aren't flippant about it. Your work is important to you and to us. Our editors are writers, too. They are very aware of the impact of their edits. We meet as a team weekly to discuss accounts, go over training materials, HubPages policies, etc and I meet with Editors one on one to discuss the Hubs they are editing. Our Editing Team is very collaborative and at least two editors, plus I, look at every Hub that is edited. We have quite a few checks and balances to prevent any egregious errors.
As a side note, I think it's important to keep in mind that very few Hubbers have expressed their unhappiness with their Hubs being edited. In general, it has been a very successful program, or we wouldn't be investing so highly in it.
I don't see why not? Surely you have enough Hubs in the Edit queue to be sending out those first emails while the editors are working on other Hubs?
The process could be:
1. Send the first email
2. Set a reminder to check in a week's time if there's no response.
3. Get on with other work in the meantime!
4. If there is no response in a week, check the Hubber's activity to see when they last logged on.
- If they've been inactive for more than a certain time - six months? - pass the account to the Editors for action.
- if they have been recently active, check their profile for a Facebook or Google+ account or blog where you can leave them a message to check their inbox - and put editing on hold until they respond.
That doesn't seem that much more time-consuming than your current process, especially as you don't have to sit idle while you wait for a Hubber to respond - you have plenty of other accounts to work on.
Sure, once you've worked through all the contactable Hubbers, you'll be left with a pile of Hubs from people who haven't responded. However, how long will it be before you get to that point?
Thanks for that feedback, Marisa. I'll see how we can incorporate this. Regarding the order of editing Hubs, we strongly believe that improving our highest traffic Hubs or leaving them as is, affects the entire health of the site and is a significant risk to our longevity. A lot of the content we are editing has been hit by Panda and stabilizing the site and improving this content is vital to HubPages' future.
At one time, subdomains moved independently; that doesn't seem to be the case now, so we need to treat the entire site as a whole. In order to succeed, our community has to ask what is best for the site as a whole and create content for readers. Many of our successful Hubbers do this and editing is icing on the cake.
These are very tough decisions that impact the community, and we aren't here to embarrass people and contradict what they say in the Forums; we want to help Hubbers. Hubs that have affiliate links, excessive products, and poor grammar have to be improved. Like I said in an earlier post, Hubbers should make sure their contact information is up to date so that we can effectively collaborate when editing.
So you're basically saying that for HubPages, any and all affiliate links = bad.
This is just useful for me to know in prioritizing which hubs I'm moving elsewhere, to places which don't automatically deem the mere presence of an affiliate link as something awful.
I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that if the team wants to upgrade this site and improve ranking, the first thing they should be doing is to rid it of hubs that are poorly written or full of spam. Many have complained that they flag hubs like this, but they never get removed! Only after this chore has been taken care of should editing take place. You say the team is doing this, but authors consistently report that they see no signs of this. Cleaning up the site is every bit as important as editing hubs that already are performing, so why aren't we seeing the results of this?
Oh, we are constantly cleaning! We have either defeatured or unpublished over 150,000 Hubs since October. You are right, it is a large piece of the puzzle and we are doing our best to unpublish or defeature low-quality, spammy Hubs. However, we believe that the content that is getting traffic is the most critical piece to the site's health—this is the content that impacts readers.
Thank you, Robin, for a thoughtful reply, and for the compliments. I've just taken another look at that hub, which I published only a couple of hours ago, and notice that it does still need a few tweaks.
How you'd go about editing my hub sounds more than reasonable. I would hope this is how it's always done. The trouble is, from what I've seen on the forums, this isn't always the case, which is certainly something that worries me about the program.
I must also agree with Marisa Wright, that there ought to be a rule whereby if the editor is unable to contact the author, the edits don't go ahead. It otherwise seems as though you're tricking hubbers into participating. This could be causing people to resent the program, whether they're directly affected or not.
This happens to me all of the time! I'm always finding things in my Hubs to fix. I was pleasantly surprised with the changes that editors made to my Hubs. I was a guinea pig in the program.
You can't always believe what you read in the Forums. There are a lot of inaccuracies and many times Staff don't want to contradict Hubbers if it's not absolutely necessary. That being said, we have made mistakes, and we have made changes based on the feedback. For example, we are much more communicative with Hubbers and are more careful with narrative Hubs.
I think I answered this in my last post. You were likely writing your response to me when I posted.
I was, but still feel it was worth mentioning how hubbers might feel about this sort of behavior, whether they're directly affected or not. You are, after all, trying to find ways of encouraging more hubbers to stay opted in.
Of course, I understand how this can be useful. Low quality hubs that attract a lot of traffic are not good for the site, and many of those low quality hubs were created by hubbers who are no longer active.
Funnily enough, I stumbled upon a hubber the other day who joined the site seven years ago and has over 1000 hubs. Unfortunately, most of them were very short, and some were on super sensitive topics with ads enabled. None of the hubs had been edited for years, which explains why none that I looked at were up to current standards. I'm guessing this is the sort of account you'd like to edit.
We do want to edit these accounts before they lose traffic (which they will if they aren't updated), but we are also editing Hubs that are good to start and we are just putting on some of the finishing touches so that they retain their traffic.
I can understand that Hubbers would feel upset when their work is altered without their input and I feel bad about that, but I can't think of a way to fix the problem of editing accounts that are unresponsive in a way that won't hurt the site. I'm always open to suggestions.
I understand the dilemma. I think if a hubber hasn't logged in for years and doesn't respond to emails, it might be fair to delete low quality hubs that get no traffic, and edit those that do get traffic. The alternative is to delete the account.
But the original poster was just busy. Perhaps it would be a good idea to check when the unresponsive hubber last logged in and try again later if it wasn't too long ago. In the meantime, you can work on other accounts.
We do precisely that except we defeature instead of unpublish.
Good idea! How much time do you think is reasonable if they have logged on recently?
Of course, but in the case of the original poster, she was just busy. Perhaps it would be a good idea to check when the unresponsive hubber last logged in and try again later if it wasn't too long ago. In the meantime, you can work on other accounts.
I'd go by experience if I were you. How long does a hubber have to remain logged out before you suspect complete inactivity? I'd guess one year to 18 months. Even if 18 months passed between the first and final email, I'm sure you wouldn't run out of accounts to work on in the meantime - either active or inactive.
It's difficult to know. I'm not sure we have the luxury of waiting a year, but maybe a few weeks is feasible. We do give Hubbers a week to opt out after we have sent the first email stating that we will be editing their Hubs. We will discuss it as a team. Thanks again for the dialogue.
Well, I think if you did wait a little longer, you'd see fewer complaints in the forums (and just one has a huge impact) and more hubbers might be inclined to opt back into the program as a result, which is what you want. Of course, if the long wait caused work for the editors to dry up, you'd have to shorten it, but can you seriously imagine that happening?
I have to side with Marisa and Jayne.
Lack of response is inappropriate grounds to manufacture consent.
Many of us agreed to the ToS when this was not in it, so we agreed only because there is a clause saying you can change what we agreed to.
And, respectfully, most of us are pretty expert ourselves. That is why I, personally, feel this should be an "opt in" process.
And if edited hubs have higher traffic and earnings than matched unedited hubs, I would like to see that information. The only data shown so far was nothing so straightforward.
That said, Hubpages is pretty much the last man standing for viable content sites. So well done done. I don't think making this program "opt in" or contingent on a reply to the offer email would undermine that success in any way.
I respectfully disagree. Not only is it not the only one but I don't personally find it as viable as other alternatives at the moment.
I've moved quite a few of my "violating" hubs (originally transferred here from Squidoo) to Wizzley where they are doing much better traffic wise and look more appealing from a layout perspective. Even better have been the hubs I've moved to my own niche multi-author content, Spacial Anomaly, where I am now getting far more Amazon sales conversion on these topics, and adsense revenue, than the few pennies they were making here.
GoodyGuides and Whyrll are two other up-and-coming content sites which I believe had strong potential, because they have been started by people who were successful elsewhere first, saw the writing on the wall first at Squidoo and now here, and have tried to do something different, better, smaller, and more controlled from the start. I have much more faith putting new content on these platforms right now. Of course only time will tell...
I just thought I would comment about Wizzley. Looks to me that every time Wizzley gets it right, Google stomps on them just like they do to HubPages.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wizzley.com (I know Alexa is not the best, but Quantcast has nothing.)
Thankyou for this site, Wizzley. I will definitely by looking at it as an option.
We haven't changed this section of the TOS. You can see the edits we have made in the Revisions Section.
I agree that many of you are experts! We are incredibly grateful for the expertise that Hubbers share on HubPages. This doesn't mean that the work can't be improved though; ALL Hubs can be improved. Many of the Hubs we are editing were written a long time ago and Hubbers haven't updated them.
I'm sorry if I haven't presented the data in a way that is straightforward. Let me try again.
Traffic to edited Hubs is up 20% compared to the baseline (an increase of 5% since the last time I posted in the Forums). The baseline for each edited Hub is calculated by choosing 5,000 random, currently featured hubs that were published within 60 days on either side of the edited Hub. For the edited Hub we compare an equal number of days before and after the hub was edited, and we look at the same date range for each of the 5,000 hubs to establish a baseline. This is a more accurate way of assessing traffic because if traffic was up across HubPages then this 20% wouldn't be as impressive. When we assess the traffic changes with a baseline we can see if HubPro is actually working to improve reader satisfaction and traffic, and from the data we have collected it is.
I hope that clarifies the data we've reported. Please let me know if not, and I'll try again.
I have to disagree because some of the accounts we are editing are abandoned. These Hubs are still getting traffic, but could be hurting the site's health. We have the option of editing them or unpublishing them. It's a better experience for everyone if they are edited and improved.
Robin, did you really just say some of the accounts you are editing are abandoned? Why would any account you recognize as abandoned not be deleted from the site?
Surely you guys have to realize that these abandoned Hubs are taking away an opportunity for new Hubs by actual, active Hubbers to rise up in the SERPs. A new Hub written today has little chance of rising to the first page if there is already a Hub there on the same topic. If that old Hub is by a writer who has abandoned his account, how can keeping it alive be a better experience for "everyone"? It certainly isn't a good thing for anyone else who wants to write on that topic.
It seems like these old accounts, if indeed they can be identified as "abandoned" should be purged from HubPages. Why not clear the way for new Hubs by active Hubbers?
Abandoned is a term we use internally; sorry, I probably should have said inactive. Some of these Hubbers do come back. In fact, many Hubbers take a hiatus from hubpages. I don't think it's fair to unpublish their Hubs because of this--they don't violate any of our rules. Most of the accounts we are editing now have active or somewhat active Hubbers, and most Hubbers respond to our emails.
Fair enough. Sorry if my post was harsh. The word "abandoned" did surprise me. I agree it isn't fair to delete accounts if the writer has some hope of returning.
However, in a great many cases a writer shows up, writes 10 Hubs, says, "Dang, this is harder than I thought!" and never comes back again. After a reasonable period of time and a few attempts at communication, I really hope HP is deleting those accounts, regardless of what traffic they get.
I admire your dedication to your program, Robin, and have no problem with you disagreeing with me. If one is going to create a program they should be dedicated to it and promote it - however, there comes a time when it may be best to listen to those who have issues with the program and make some radical changes or drop the program entirely.
Every good author has an editor, you say? Does that mean you believe hubbers not in HubPro are not good authors? Editing is a great thing and a necessary step before publishing, but there is a good way and a bad way to do anything. An editor should work with the author on a piece of work until it is the best it can be and the author is satisfied with it - then and only then should it be published. This is how I experienced it on another site I wrote on for five years and it worked very well. And NEVER should an author be locked out of their own work. Your HubPro is conducted in an inappropriate way.
You say your editors are "experienced and extremely qualified." I would very much appreciate seeing some of their work and references (other than what may be here on HP) that show proof of being "extremely" qualified. As for "experienced" most of the hubbers I know, including myself, are far more experienced than your editors.
I also keep myself "updated on the latest trends in online writing and adapt." I strive for stellar hubs and do not see the need for one of your editors to try and improve my hubs. I am revising my older hubs as time permits and making them come in line with latest trends.
Ok, so you are covered by the TOS, which I just read carefully again, and I see that by accepting the terms, we have agreed to take part in any new program you come up with, whether it is good or not so good. However, I still say it is a tricky way to make the default the opt in. As writers who bring in the money for HP, we deserve the respect to be clearly notified and given a chance to opt in or out - and please do not tell me you make every effort to contact us first before proceeding. As many others have reported, I do not recall being notified via email about HubPro and being told I have an option. I found out about HubPro in the forums by accident and chose right away to opt out.
I agree with you, Robin, that good editing makes for good hubs, higher traffic, etc - but, your way is not acceptable to me.
I never said that Hubbers not in HubPro are not good authors. Many of them are great authors. As for your comment about the Hub being locked, two people can not be editing a Hub at once. This is just a function of our tool. Plus, it helps us to create the data from before and after the edits. I will keep in mind your comment for the next version, though. Thanks!
You can find all of the Editors in our blog posts with their qualifications. Most of them also write online and for publications, but I respect their privacy and am not sharing that information without their permission.
That is great news! I wish more Hubbers were like you and did this!
Sorry that I wasn't clearer, you won't receive emails about HubPro until we are going to edit your account. Since you are opted out, you won't receive an email. We did write about HubPro in the Blog and in the Newsletter.
I do think we can improve the program, but it is working and I think Hubbers that encourage others to opt out are doing the entire community a disservice.
Maybe a suggestion -
Talk to the OWNER/AUTHOR maybe advise the changes they could make instead of taking over and doing it yourself.
You could hear that there was intention to write something a certain way.
We did email you. I know how busy school can be; I'm sorry you didn't receive them.
I realize you are upset, but your hubs are benefiting from the edits. Your traffic is up, you will likely earn more money, and you are no longer in danger of having your hubs defeatured for spammy elements. Excessive products and affiliate links are grounds for defeaturing and not allowed on hubpages. I hope you give the edits time to work, but if not, you are welcome to change them back and see if the traffic sticks. I doubt it though. I gave a lot more detail in my email that I don't want to share in the Forums. Please read it.
I will not try to make a case for my own perfection as a writer. I know better.
However, as soon as this program came in, I immediately opted out, taking a 'wait and see' approach.
What I have seen in the forums since the inception of "Hub Pro," has not convinced me to opt in.
My main concern is voice and style. No matter how good an editor is, they are they, and they are not 'us.' A traditional editing scenario involves suggestions from the editor, and not arbitrary changes. Then, the writer does the re-write(s) to address said suggestions or critiques.
Even if there is a 'revert' button available, I can understand folks' frustrations with having changes made that are not of their own writing style and voice.
In college, I had a creative writing professor who suggested so many changes both of wording and style to a poem I had written, that the end result would have been his poem, not mine. For a reply, I turned in a short prose poem that was a harshly-worded metaphor:
"I work long and hard to birth my poems; who would edit them, dismembers my children."
I am sure that is exactly how many of the people complaining about Hub Pro must feel. I shall remain opted out, for now.
We make every effort to retain voice and style. It's one of our main principles when editing. However, if there are grammar and spelling errors that affect voice, we have to make the changes.
Understood; I pride myself, however, on being a grammar and spelling "Nazi." I actually do proofreading as a side job.
Also, I was not speaking of 'voice' as in first person, third person, etc, but the writer's own personal voice and way of putting words together to paint the picture.
I understand that. There is no use in complaining about it. Just go and fix it. No big deal.
There is no use making almost all of the posts on this forum, this tread seems as salient as any to me.
OP just happens to not be the first occasional visitor to find themselves opted in and edited without their knowledge--we may be bored of the topic but it is brand new for them.
OP was unaware of the program and has a valid complaint and came here for support or help or at least some understanding - posting flippant remarks is not in any way helping the issue.
Oh dear, valuable lesson learned about using the Tutorial section. When you join hubpages heading there explains everything about what you opt in and opt out of. As long as you go an opt out now everything else you write will not be touched. Feeling for you!
* Anne, we understand the shock of what you experienced.
* HubPages really is trying to help higher traffic hubs to get more views.
* Robin reported in another thread that HubPages is seeing an increase on average of 15% more views to edited hubs.
Personally, if HP edited some of my hubs for me, I would wait and see what happens.
If that were the case, why only work on my high earning hubs.
Not one of the lower earning hubs were touched.....
I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be rude to you.
HubPro edits higher trafficked hubs.
The Hub Pro program is designed to increase traffic for those hubs that already are doing well because the team feels this is the fastest way to improve traffic to the site. They obviously do not think low traffic hubs are worth their effort, and they probably are correct.
At colorfulone, ( I didn't feel you were being rude at all)
If they worked with me, made some suggestions rather than doing it themselves, locking me out of my hubs, changing a lot of my work and had provided assistance to my lower earning hubs, maybe I would be happy, actually I would've been very happy...
But to change hubs that do well already, why change what is working? I put in hours of effort and research to make my hubs suit my audience, there is a reason they are written the way they are - and grammatically correct, rigid language, was not part of it!
But as I now have a hub with NO affiliate links, another hub where the editor wrote and added in a whole paragraph of information (which was not correct) and various other alterations, this is a huge cause for concern for me.
I have still not had the edits removed. I do not have the time to go back and rework 9 hubs. Even though I have made copies, I have to still divide capsules, add in links etc. A lot of work.
Thankyou for your information regarding the high traffic.
It's nothin' personal. I just like my Hubs the way they are, and I don't want anybody messin' with 'em, that's all.
Ditto - may as well say that the editor Emily, wrote my hubs.
funny you should mention emily, that's the editor responsible for the changes to aneegma's hubs that caused a big uproar. http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/128409
Interesting clalculus, she seems to take a few extra liberties with the editing gig she has!
Now I have received an email from Robin above stating:
"It is not our practice to return edited Hubs to their original state. You are welcome to, but they likely will lose traffic and could be defeatured for spammy elements." so feeling a bit threatened by Robin, that she may well intervene and make the events she highlighted occur. Interesting enough, they weren't noted as spammy before???
Calculus, may I ask what remedy Hubpages provided you?
Emily doesn't take extra liberties; she does what HubPages management asks her to do. She does what I ask her to do. This is in no way similar to the other issue and we have changed our policy since that Hub was edited. Emily is one of our best editors and her stats prove it, with Hubs she has edited up in traffic by 59%!
Me, threatening? I don't think that's every been said about me before. As I explained in my email, Hubs that are soon to be edited aren't defeatured for spammy elements because our plan is to remove the spammy elements when editing. Had these Hubs not been in line to be edited, the might have been defeatured. Of course, we wouldn't treat them any differently because of an interaction we had with a Hubber.
Just so you all know, my name is also Emily - but I didn't do it!
The thing is, you can paint this however you want.
I wrote my hubs with a particular formulae, that judging from my income from said hubs, works.
Your editor made major changes to pictures, affiliate links (yes a whole hub with not one affiliate link)
My main issue is - your editor added in an entire paragraph, with INCORRECT information.
So why don't we just say your editor wrote my hubs and take me off as the author.
I have requested all changes to be removed and I am still awaiting this to occur.
This is my work - not the editors. I have also opted out of your editing programme, maybe you should make the setting an opt in!
Plus, I have a few lower earning hubs - why not work on those.
I don't have the time to read your comments Robin, and considering you had the time to be here why are my hubs not back to where they should be.
This is one of the reasons every writer should make and store a copy of each hub. Had you done that, you could simply go into the edited hub and replace the new wording, etc. with the original.
Luckily I did Timetraveler2. But that still takes time, need to re-find links removed etc.
On a side note, some of the edits were warranted and I have also included them. So after 2.5 hours I now have a revised version and hopefully between Emily, and myself, they should now shine as Hubpages intended.
Can't complain about that, I guess!
Three down, six to go!
Robin & Staff -
Please examine what this Hubber is saying. What troubles me is that hubs are not just edited - they are substantially REWRITTEN - this goes far beyond any acceptable or conventional role of an EDITOR.
Nowhere, in the HubPro announcements, does it say a staff person will completely rewrite, add content (inaccurate, it appears) change images and pretty much take over the editorial content and look of a hub.
HubPages does not OWN the content on this site. Nothing about the HubPro concept suggests these sort of wholesale changes will be made. In all my years of writing for publications, I've never seen this type of thing done.
Responses from the site seem to relate to how much "traffic" has increased. That is not the point. The point is that the site is taking the property of another person and completely changing it. And, if the writer doesn't respond and say, "Oh sure - go ahead," the site does it anyway.
It appears to me that HP is selecting hubs for this intrusive sort of reworking based primarily on traffic. This means the site is using hubs that have a high number of views for its own purposes (and I realize views and revenue are connected) and redoing things to suit its own goals. But - YOU DO NOT OWN THIS CONTENT!!!! This goes dramatically beyond editing.
Would HubPages host a site of original paintings, and then completely distort the art & paint over it?
Would HubPages host original music compositions and then rewrite the music?
Hey - why not? It might increase the number of people who view the art or listen to the music. The heck with the person who owns the copyrights to the work and whose product it is.
Robin - I respect you and the entire staff greatly, and I want this site to succeed. I just think you're missing some of the key points at stake here - ownership of the content and the conventions of standard editing. If HP wants to mess with content to this degree (because it's content that gets good traffic), it should buy the content outright. Then you would own it, and can do what you want with it. The author should have the right to request his/her name to be removed if the original content is distorted beyond recognition and does not resemble their work.
And NO - you do not have the right (I think this would hold up in court, actually) to redo something OWNED by another person without their prior permission and their understanding of the outcomes.
Stop talking about traffic and how great Emily is, and address those issues.
The Hubs we edited needed grammar and spelling edits. This is the role of an editor. We did extensive research and added and updated content that was needed to make the Hub complete and accurate. This is part of HubPro and is specifically called out in our email correspondences. When Hubbers respond to our emails, we happily collaborate about these additions.
Marcy, we believe that your Hubs are judged by other Hubs on the site; if we don't help Hubbers clean them up, your Hubs will be affected.
Please take a look at HubPages' TOS in section 6 regarding modifying Hubs.
We are more concerned with reader satisfaction than traffic, and I've been saying this since the very beginning. Readers are happier with Hubs that we have edited.
HubPages has changed a lot and we continue to adapt. We've had to make the tough decision to take the best interest of the entire HubPages community over one individual. We realize this can be viewed as a pretty significant change. However, we take great care when editing accounts and rarely make sweeping changes to a Hub. (I hope you read all of my earlier posts because I wrote more about this and I don't want to repeat myself.)
The reason we focus on high-traffic Hubs is because these Hubs are seen by the most readers and have the biggest impact on the site's overall quality metrics. If you think about a view-weighted quality rating, we can significantly increase our user engagement metrics by improving our highest-traffic Hubs.
All that being said, I do appreciate Hubbers sticking up for each other and supporting one another; it is one of the things that makes this site great. I do think it's important to know all of the facts, though, before one starts making accusations. It is difficult for us sometimes because we don't want to embarrass anyone, but we have information that sometimes isn't presented accurately in the Forums.
if you want more people to opt in, you could tell us how much traffic a hub needs to get to be eligible. if its say 500 hits per day on average for the past month, then people who have only a handful of qualifying hubs might be more inclined to give it a try. since nobody knows what you mean by high traffic and everyone's definition of high traffic is different, a lot of people might be afraid they'll have dozens of hubs edited if they opt in, when in reality it would only be two or three.
It's in the neighborhood of 500 views a day to be eligible.
I think respecting the editors time is the whole reason to wait for an affirmative response from the hubber.
It is a complete waste of their time when a hubber returns, hates the revisions or blames them for loss of traffic, and reverses them.
Although some edits were good i.e. grammar, structure - the inclusion of extra incorrect information, plus the editors personality and lack of personal experience in the topic seeping into the writing, ultimately detracted from any perceived benefit.
If only there had been a consultative process, suggested edits for the author to make etc, one may still feel as though the writings were the authors own work and not reverse the edits, wasting not only the authors time but the editor's as well.
Very good point, psycheskinner.
Organised Kaos, I understood completely from the outset of your post why you were so upset. Your point and the supportive points made by some, are well-taken. If you were studying and missed the email, you missed the email. I would have preferred the editor to wait and move on to another project. I hope HP makes adjustments to the HubPro process. Collaborative partnership between the hubber and the editor should not be this difficult. The conflict and mistrust it creates is so unnecessary. I hope everything works out for you.
Over 1300 Hubs have been edited, and this has only happened a couple of times. Most Hubbers leave their edits, are enjoying significant increases in traffic and reader satisfaction. This may sound a little tough, but most people who tend to be unhappy, have a motive other than creating great content for readers. The issues tend to come back to affiliate links, products, and other links to the outside world. At the end of the day, HubPages is a community. There are a lot of places to write online, but here we don't write in a bubble. What we write, how we link, what products we add, affects everyone. The HubPages Team is doing everything we possibly can to create a site that is about quality and reader satisfaction over individual short-term gains.
Being tough is necessary in business, but why not also show that you value truly informed consent in your content providers? It costs you nothing to do and reassures us that this is an profitable and principled company. One need not be sacrificed for the other.
I remember when in my profession you could do wonderful psychological research by deceiving people and bribing them to participate with higher grades. We did a lot of great informative research and advanced our careers. And the world is a better place now that these things are not allowed. Truly informed consent and assertive opting in is a baseline for any group activity.
I've never been one to go back and forth in the forums. So I'll just say, 'thank you' for your reply, Robin. I trust that HP's intent is for the good of the community and the company. Carry on.
@Robin - Nice to see Socialism is alive and kicking. Better Read than Dead!
"This may sound a little tough, but most people who tend to be unhappy, have a motive other than creating great content for readers. The issues tend to come back to affiliate links, products, and other links to the outside world."
So is HubPages now saying that writing to earn an income is incompatible with creating great content?
Why don't you just disable the HP Earnings Program then, since that's obviously going to attract the wrong kind of people?
What happened to individuality and self-expression - doing what you want while abiding by the rules ( I did it my way). I presume the edited hubs met all the rules, if not why weren't the issues dealt with by informing the author and getting them to make the changes? If it is a matter of "The issues tend to come back to affiliate links, products, and other links to the outside world" - surely these are easily detected and dealt with. [I guess unfeaturing would zap the traffic!] Hubpro is completely over the top IMO. The Chosen Ones already have good traffic - Google Loves them! Anyway - Down Scope!
Many authors write great content and earn from them. I earn from my Hubs and I write for my readers; making money and writing good content can work hand in hand. I do think it's a good idea to ask yourself what your intention is when you write. Hubs that are written solely for the purpose of earning are unlikely to stand the test of time.
How can you tell for sure if a hub (or any other article) is written solely to earn money or not? I have a hub (to choose just the one I'm thinking of) that has very few Amazon modules or affiliate links mixed in with a LOT of text. It's written on a topic I know very well, something I'm passionate about doing, and has apparently been very helpful to readers over the 7+ years it's been around. HOWEVER, to be very honest, I wrote it and others like it with earning on my mind--at the forefront of my mind. In fact, that particular Squidoo-lens-turned-hub, though very informative, has earned a lot in sales royalties over the years and in ad revenue. I would not have placed that article/hub on a site that did not have earning potential. I write to earn a living.
Perhaps it's not obvious that the hub I'm thinking of was written for the primary purpose of earning income ... but it was.
"making money and writing good content can work hand in hand."
Yes, exactly - but that's not what you said.
I've already opted out of the HubPro thingie but if this is indeed the case, then nothin' I've got would qualify anyway.
...shoot, I'd be happy as a pig in poop to get 500 hits per day across all of my hubs, never mind on a single hub.
I'm not anywhere near being in the HubPro pool either, Keith, but I'd be glad to be swimming in it. The editors could change whatever they wanted while I laughed all the way to PayPal frequently.
OK - I am confused. Perhaps things have changed over the past four months, or perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but I couldn't help but remember this post: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126313? … ost2667085
I believe things have changed over the past four months. The last one who posted in the forums about HubPro said she was getting 500 views per day in her first thread on this topic, (in her last thread she said 5000 views per day, which may have been a typo but was not corrected).
I was in the beta test so I guess the traffic threshold was lower for that.
The edited and non edited hubs should be shown to the author to make the editing effective. The consent of the author should be taken.
Robin, your approach is in no way representative of what 'collaboration' means.
Your team, with out consent, locked me out of my hubs for days, then rewrote, edited , took out and altered my work on a great scale. That is called - taking over.
Leaving me with such a mess it took 2 hours to work out what edits were worth keeping.
Collaboration is talking with people before, during and after the process.
This did not occur.
Your response that you will not return my work to how it was is authoritarian. Not collaborative.
Plus Robin informed me that the Hubpages TOS means they can alter any hub they want, if they want.
Anne, you chose not to respond to us. You even stated you received our email and decided not to respond. I truly wish you would have responded because it would have been a much more pleasurable experience for everyone.
I think it's important for everyone to know that Emily absolutely improved these Hubs. Search visitors like them more, traffic is up, and they now meet our quality guidelines. These Hubs are not personal narratives and their information must be accurate and the content must be grammatically correct.
As for the content added, Emily did extensive research and verified information from multiple resources. For example, she gave additional information on topics that were subjective, e.g., how painful is a tattoo. To have your personal experience, Anne, is incredible, but it's also helpful for readers to know different perspectives as pain thresholds are different for everyone.
As a side note, I've noticed you have made some changes to your Hubs. I hope the changes you are making are making the Hub even better. Your Hub's Google traffic is now up 40% since you started editing your Hubs, but that number is down significantly since we finished editing. This could be a coincidence, it could be a stabilization, or it could be the changes that you are making. I'd suggest leaving the Hubs that you haven't edited and see if their traffic outperforms the ones that you did edit. That would be a wise test.
I thought I'd share your traffic from Quantcast since Hubbers don't have access to this information. This is traffic through yesterday when you hadn't gone back in and edited your Hubs. You can see a large spike in traffic when we finished editing.
On that graph, what are the values on the vertical axis? That is, what does each line represent? I was recently looking at a client's Facebook page likes, and the value of each line was ... 1. At first, I saw what looked like a big spike, but it was a gain of just 3 followers. So it's helpful to know what we're looking at.
That is impressive in light of having been following this thread.
As I see it, just because a small percentage may complain about something does not negate the validity of those complaints. The voices of "the few" are legitimate and should be listened to and seriously considered. Sometimes the vocal few speak for a significant number of the silent majority.
Robin (and everyone) - please read my very long comment on the previous page of this thread.
HP does not OWN the content and does not have the right to modify things to the degree being done without prior approval and consent of the owner of the content.
There's definitely a difference between editing and ghostwriting. Writing new content would fall under the ghostwriting heading, which would/should require more explicit consent. If one opts in -- or in this case, fails to opt out of -- an editing service, that's not the same thing as giving consent (or implied consent) to ghostwriting.
Robin - I read this entire thread before commenting at all.
Please try to see the issues below as separate concerns:
I agree that traffic, the quality of content, the quality of writing, etc. are very important to the overall health of the site.
What I am saying is that wholesale revisions such as those being done (extensive revisions) violate our understanding of the quid-pro-quo here. The site agrees to host what we publish, and in return, the revenue our work draws to the site is shared.
The site has the right to decide what it will keep hosting - HubPages can delete, unpublish or unfeature anything on the site.
As has always been the situation - the writer OWNs the content he or she publishes. There is no agreement in place that says HP has the right to rewrite content. Editing and rewriting are entirely different. There's also not an agreement (agreements are by both parties, not through 'opt out' arrangements) for the site to edit content.
When I started writing here, there was no HubPro program or an 'opt out' notification (which, I maintain, is not the way to do it). This was created after that, so the terms (or understanding, or agreement) under which I published were changed.
You mention that you rarely make sweeping changes to a hub. That is also not the point - no hub should undergo 'sweeping' changes without the knowledge, consent and final approval of the writer.
I opted out after reading how extensive the changes have been in some cases. Editing is one thing (I have great regard for the editors who have helped me over the years) but dramatic changes are not just 'editing' - it amounts to taking over the content and recreating it. And, you are choosing content that has high traffic.
I realize this is a fragile time for the site. You know I am on your side in that regard. I just think this is not the way to address the problems.
Thanks for listening - truly - thank you!
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. I wish we didn't have to make edits to Hubs, but we do. Hubbers always have the right to remove their content if they are unhappy with our policies. Of course, we don't want you to, but it is always your right.
Again, major edits and rewrites are rare in HubPro; I just want to make that clear. Most of the time, the process works—we collaborate, discuss potential changes, purchase high-quality media, and help add content that makes the Hub better for the reader and the author. If your Hubs were in HubPro, I think you'd be very happy with the results.
But... the program is voluntary so it seems you don't have to do it to every account, apparently?
I really don't see how getting explicit permission would effect the program in any significant way. Or even just giving criteria and asking people to volunteer.
Since people are automatically signed up, it is not voluntary - it is involuntary, with the right to 'opt out.'
Are you saying you disagree with me that Hubbers own their own writing and have all rights to it?
Are you saying you disagree with me that the owners' rights include control over the content?
Are you saying you disagree with me that the owner of the content should clearly give permission for editing and changes of any sort?
It has always been the policy of HP is that writers own their content. Is HubPro a new PROGRAM, or a new POLICY?
I'm not discussing quality or disagreeing that we need to improve some of the hubs on this site. I'm sure many of the hubs that went through HubPro changes came out the other side looking great and with improved images. I'm not discussing the need for increased traffic and better treatment by Google. I am discussing ownership of the content and the boundaries that generally come with copyrights and content ownership.
I too would be interested in knowing where HP now stands on who owns the copyright to content posted here... and how the, frankly, *rewriting* and *ghostwriting* aspects of the HubPro "editing" program fit into that.
Further, with regard to the recent blog post highlighting "stellar" hubs for us to emulate, in line with the HubPro approach, (and the resulting discussion at http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/129533) - can hubbers have some assurance that offensive content and/or profane language will not be added by HubPro editors?
Many people prefer not to use the f-bomb, for example, whether or not it is "used as part of a proper noun" - which is apparently in accordance with HP quality standards, as long as the potty-mouth language brings traffic?
I would very much like to read an official reply from HubPages administration to Marcy's question.
This is the crux of the entire current scenario.
You own your content, but you give HubPages rights when you post on HubPages to modify it. You can take down the Hub at any time and we will nolonger edit it. Anyone that isn't comfortable with this can unpublish at any time and take their Hubs.
Frankly, I'm doing everything I can to improve HubPages and investing significantly in Hubbers success so we will exist in the future.
Our strategy is taking shape on how to succeed in the future. It's a fusion of professional editors, photographers, illustrators and Hubbers. I believe we have found our path. I hope folks will join us.
I'm working on some FAQ/learning center documents to communicate this more clearly.
@relache I thought you were on a boat:)
I have had some of my hubs edited, but I never received any emails about it (I just went back and double checked my email I use for hubpages and can't find any emails about it at all).
I don't mind the editing, except for the fact that I can't find any way to see WHICH hubs of mine have been edited and exactly WHAT changes were made. The only reason I know they've been edited at all is that the editor stuck some massive photos above my writing.
Can you please tell me where I can see the details about changes made to my account?
Robin, I'm starting to think I am absolutely in the wrong place here at HP. That saddens me greatly because I've tried to actively follow HP's rules and suggestions ... but I keep finding myself at odds with much that is said - and done - here.
For instance, I read http://blog.hubpages.com/2015/03/23/hub … -makeover/ and went to take a look at the recommended reading.
One hub is called 'Kickass Shots' which surprised me. I took a look anyway ... and discovered 'Liquid Cocaine', 'Red-Headed Slut' and 'Purple Star F*cker' as capsule titles. Say, what??
Even worse on that hub are the images. Purple Star F...er has all of the letters in place. Are you telling us that it is a recommended action to use that word in our images?
This is a hub you are sending us to for hints about how we can improve our own work. The best of the best, one would think. Yet one of the images has a spelling mistake. (Melon has one L - not two.)
To be honest, I thought that 'Kickass' hub was a really poor example of what should make a great hub.
So I went to look at another. http://tealparadise.hubpages.com/hub/10 … r-2-People
I stopped reading that hub at the point where I read "In a power hour, the goal is to drink 60 shots of beer in 60 minutes. That's one shot of beer per minute."
I scrolled down to see if the related hubs section offered any advice on alcohol poisoning. No. May I suggest you add one?
I haven't bothered looking at the third recommended hub. I don't think I could tolerate further disappointment.
On the subject of 'related hubs', I currently have open in a separate tab http://bertholdhub.hubpages.com/hub/An- … pple-Tree. I link to this hub from my hub http://longtimemother.hubpages.com/hub/ … pple-trees (which won a Hub of the Day award in the days when Simone actually contacted potential winners and made suggestions about small improvements to ensure it looked like a worthy winner.)
Here's the list of Related Hubs beneath the Illustrated Guide for Pruning an Overgrown Apple Tree ...
The 10 Most Important Moments and Events in History, An Illustrated Guide
How to Make Bread and Butter Pickles: An Illustrated Guide How to Make Bread and Butter Pickles: An Illustrated Guide
An illustrated Guide to Making Rice Flour An illustrated Guide to Making Rice Flour
Common Halloween Costume Stereotypes And The People Who Wear Them, An Illustrated Guide Common Halloween Costume Stereotypes And The People Who Wear Them, An...
An Illustrated Guide to Making Goat Butter An Illustrated Guide to Making Goat Butter
No link at all to anything about apple trees. Does HP think that readers who choose one illustrated guide are only interested in illustrated guides? No real interest in apples ... just lots of pictures?
Or, if this is an oversight, would you please fix it so that my HOTD hub about apples has a chance of appearing on that page?
My apple HOTD is dragging its sorry ass in term of ratings. (I can use the word ass now without fear of upsetting HP. Shame it's not a kickass hub.) Should I label it - and all my other lame-ass hubs with pictures - "an illustrated guide"?
Good golly, Miss Molly! I just took a quick look at one of the hubs you mentioned that is on the blog:
http://blog.hubpages.com/2015/03/23/hub … -makeover/
The "Kickass Shots" hub is given as an example of an exemplary hub?
With that photo with the "F" word right on it? Really, HubPages team? Is that the best example you can give us, and are we truly allowed to use that word? I don't, and never have, but was completely shocked to see that in a hub that was given to the entire HP community as an example of a stellar hub.
That hub evidently came over from Squidoo, as mine did, according to the "lens" remark in its comment section.
I agree with LongTimeMother, and would like to add that example is absurd, if not outrageous.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to be shocked by that hub recommendation, Shades-of-truth.
Did you notice it was preceded by the words: "Here are a few examples of great Hubs using this format that have benefited from a significant traffic increase after editing"
That hub was edited! By a professional editor! And then shown to us as an example of the good work HP's editors do!
Quite apart from the F word shown in full, we were sent to a hub with a spelling mistake. What does that tell us?
Oh, LongTimeMother, I am sure we are not the only ones to be shocked. My daily life is so busy, I rarely can take the time to read the blog posts. Had you not pointed that out, I would have missed it.
Yes, I noticed that it was supposed to be one of a few "great" hubs mentioned. I have read some marvelous articles, here on Hub Pages. None of them were selected as an example, but then, they most likely did not have anyone other than the author - edit them!
Oh my goodness.
Someone please tell me this is a joke, right?
That "Kickass Shots" hub is one that has been edited, and held up as an example of a "great hub"?
Not only is the F-bomb displayed in a photo, but a drink name uses the word "Slut" in the text. I had to remove that word from one of my lenses to not trip the content filters here (I was only using it to criticize some of the insults directed at women in a hub tackling infertility myths.)
So, a hub that is nothing but a list of drink recipes and photos, some with titles derotagory to women, references to drugs, and swear words is totally fine and even encouraged around here.
I guess because hey, it contains no affiliate or product links, right?
sockii, I simply don't get it. While so many struggle to produce excellent content, our very own HP team puts that one up as an example to be emulated in their blog post?
Would someone from HP HQ please give us all some input?
Well, I've just had a chat with Christy on this very subject ...
I just saw that and left even more boggled by the current mindset here at HP.
It makes me very uncomfortable. I actually thought we were all working towards a common goal of raising the quality of the site.
HP needs to offer us a definition of 'quality' that gives us a realistic view of what we should expect.
I was under the impression that quality meant wholesome, pure, excellent content. I know I am naive, despite being mother to many and a business owner, but "quality" on HP lately seems like it means this:
"We prefer that our Hubbers write Hubs with questionable content, that will bring in lots of readers, which will generate lots of advertising revenue, so all will be satisfied."
I am quoting what I see going on, not anyone's statement. Purely from my own head...
No WONDER many of us do have opted out of the HP edits!
P.S. Why is a message on the side of this post - visible to me anyway - that says that "Advertising and promotional posts in the forums will be deleted - etc, etc."?
3 hours later and I took another look at that apple hub. Nice to see the photo of semi-clad women is no longer offered as a Related Hub. It has been replaced with an EC hub about thinning apples.
I opted out of EC, so mine doesn't show. Mind you, only one of the other 4 completely unrelated hubs are EC ... so I can't figure that one out.
Robin, I'm still confused as to how those other hubs could possibly be considered 'Related' to the topic of apples. I am pleased however, the women in fish-net stockings are no longer shown there. (The caption in the hub says, "As skanky as they wanna be.")
I guess i should be thankful the photo of the penis man wasn't displayed.
Having seen this hub was worthy of being promoted as a related hub on a topic it has absolutely nothing to do with, should I be taking notes and learning lessons from it as well? Would I earn bonus points if I also used capsule titles like 'The Dirty Bastard' and 'The Lame Ass' ... and showed photos of 'the penis man', and a priest with a young boy attached to his groin?
LongTimeMother, you might not earn bonus points, but your hub would probably be exhibited as an example of a stellar hub.
Truly, the "fluff" that is on the site is incredible. That the "Kickass Shots" hub would be touted as an "example" is beyond comprehension.
LTM - I didn't see the hubs you mentioned that have (can't even say it) body parts and a young boy attached somewhere. Were those in the related hubs section, or are they HubPro alumni?
The only solution to this is to opt out of hubpages edit pro through your profile. If I am to advice, leave those which have already been edited as they will receive higher traffic in time to come.
The "50 ways to Show" example in the blog contains significant text (103 words) that appears to be copied from another site published earlier (detected via copyscape). Applies to the last section. Not good as an example!
Combine that with the news from Jodah about a spelling mistake in bold, and I'm glad I didn't go and look at that third hub. I knew I'd be disappointed.
I have a question - what type of content built the site? Hubs about alcohol games? Cocktail recipes? I don't think so.
Because a read a lot of Hubs before I was ever transferred here from Squidoo, I know that was not the focus. I read many excellent, informative Hubs on this site.
Rather than HP focusing on editing existing Hubs, how about getting rid of the ones that drag the site down? If reader satisfaction is what the purpose of Hub Pro Edits truly is, perhaps HP could take a lesson from sites that get a lot of hits from people looking for information.
Wikipedia comes to mind, among others.
Thank you for the response. I do not ever recall reading that by publishing here, we have 'given' HP the right to modify our content. I started publishing here more than three years ago, and I think I would have noticed this clause somewhere.
I realize you're very busy, and that you're always working to improve the site. I'd like to know when that policy was first published here, the specific wording of it at the time it was in place, and any language that modified it subsequent to its first publication.
It's long been the policy that HP could unpublish content (a very good rule, I might add), and I believe I recall that although the 'unfeaturing' policy was not here when I first started it was implemented subsequent to that time.
Since many writers do not frequent the forums, it might be good to have that 'policy' clearly written on our accounts page and clearly written during the signup process. Modifying content goes far beyond unpublishing or unfeaturing - we need to know how that is applied and make certain everyone understands it the same way.
Again - thanks for taking time to respond -
It's in our ToS in section 6. At the bottom of our ToS we have notes on what has been changed and when for your reference. The last change was in 2011 and as far as I know section 6 hasn't been changed.
We will communicate this more clearly on the site.
Paul, do your Hubpro edits team also rate new hubs through the hopper program?
Thanks - and I hate to appear real blonde, but I am not finding it anywhere - (by that, I mean I am not even locating the TOS). It's been a while since I looked at it.
Yes - I agree it would be helpful to communicate things more clearly. I appreciate all your help and answers here!
TOS is at http://hubpages.com/help/user_agreement
That would be the same TOS that says:
"As a Service User or Author, You may Not:
Publish Hubs or Hub or Author Content that include any content or links that are pornographic, defamatory, libelous, tortuous, vulgar, obscene, invasive of privacy, racially or ethnically objectionable, hateful, promotes or provides instructional information about illegal activities, promotes any act of cruelty to animals, or is otherwise offensive."
So, the "Kickass Shots" hub, with 'Red-Headed Slut' and 'Purple Star F*cker' in it, is not considered "vulgar" or "obscene"?
Really, HP team, of all of the Hubs that have been edited by HubPro Editors, is that one supposed to be the "standard" for what HP wants?
Here is the link ... http://hubpages.com/help/user_agreement
Sorry I took so long to get back to you. I didn't notice your question until now.
The hub is http://ryanhupfer.hubpages.com/hub/Hall … tereotypes - it was a 'Related Hub' at the bottom of a very decent hub about How to prune apple trees.
Yes, there is definitely a "priest" with a child attached to the "priest's" lower anatomy. It is one of the smaller photos.
So, HP considers this type of a hub to be worthy of being published?
If you don't flag the objectionable content for them to review, they don't know it exists.
By the way, the Hub you are objecting to was written and published by Ryan Hupfer, former Marketing manager for HubPages. A member of HubPages admin created that Hub.
My main problem with that hub was its position as one of the completely unrelated 'Related Hubs'. That's the only reason I even noticed its content.
I went back to look at the profile of the hubber, after you mentioned he's former HP admin. Well that's just drawn my attention to another HP mystery ...
He has created 43 hubs, but only 7 are currently published - plus he's had no recent activity. Yet his hubber score under the 'new' scoring system is the same as yours, relache. I am puzzled how someone with 36 unpublished hubs manages to score 90.
Thanks, LTM -
You're right - those photos are awful. It looks like it was created at least six years ago (but that's no excuse) and is designed for pop-culture traffic (skimpy outfits, tackiness, slight degree of sensationalism). I would not want that one on my pages, either.
Overall, the layout is outdated and uninviting, but then, we all have hubs we can improve. Taste is a different matter, though.
It wasn't on my page, Marcy.
I have a link within my apple hub to another hubber's article about pruning apple trees. I went to that page to make sure it was still one I'm happy linking to. It is, so that's fine.
Just out of interest, I looked at his 'related hubs' to see if mine featured there ... and noticed there was not one hub listed about apples. They were all 'illustrated guides' to unrelated topics.
I drew attention to it because I was surprised that a hub featuring 'the penis man' etc was worthy of featuring as a Related Hub.
by Will Apse5 months ago
I reckon HP want us to keep updating our hubs after they have been edited and moved to niches sites. I reckon they are also a little afraid that some hubbers will do more harm than good in the changes that they...
by Giselle Maine4 years ago
Yesterday I went into edit mode on one of my non-featured (idled) hubs but DID NOT make a single change. (The reason I went in there was because I just wanted to look at my summary, which I can't do without going...
by Marina16 months ago
Happy Thursday, everyone! In August we pre-announced a new tool that fixes common spelling and grammatical errors across the site. Today, Editbot, the first iteration of the tool, is live on a small percentage of Hubs...
by Sherry Hewins3 weeks ago
I'm guessing I'm not the only one seeing these black Editbot icons on my account page. This time, even when I click on the icon and view the changes, the icon does not go away. I think that, at least most of these, are...
by TIMETRAVELER22 months ago
I have thought for some time that it would be a good idea to place edited hubs back on the feed. If they are going to be judged again, why not let them be seen again in their updated forms? This would...
by Robin Edmondson17 months ago
Please check out our Blog Post on a couple of quality-related changes on HubPages!
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.