So, I was picked to have someone take a look at my hubs to see if they could use some improvement and the editor decides to pick my highest earning, most viewed hub to edit??? Why would she do that when there are obviously others that could use improvement.
What is your experience with Hub Pro?
There is a forum thread that is talking about a HubPro Hub that has seen a rise in traffic here.
It's important to note that the traffic jump experienced by that Hub is from shares on Facebook (actively promoted by the author), which will be a temporary spike. This Hub was probably #1 on Google search from the time it was published in 2008 until 2012 when a new website took over spots #1 and #2. It still ranks #3 on Google and probably gets a ton of traffic from that position. The only way it will get more traffic from search, with or without HubPro, is to move up to #1 or #2 on Google and, looking at the competition, I don't think that will be possible with this particular Hub targeting that particular keyword phrase, no matter what 'improvements' are made to the Hub. My guess is that Hub got about 2 million views per year until the other website went online and probably less than half that traffic afterwards (which is still great!).
That's why some of the traffic comparisons the staff posts on here are a little deceptive. I have yet to see stats posted about a HubPro Hub that show average traffic for a specific Hub for three months before and three months after editing.
To compare a Hub with outstanding traffic BEFORE HubPro editing with a group of Hubs which never got high traffic in the first place is hugely misleading, especially when the risk is that traffic might go down after editing.
Another thing that concerns me about all of this uptick, great as it is, is that it doesn't seem right to me that someone should have professional editors, photographers and the like work with them to produce a quality of hub they would probably never be able to attain on their own. If the team starts doing this, yes, they will get more traffic to the site, but it will not be traffic that was earned based on the talents of the individual writer.
How many people here can produce a level of photography that appears in that hub? How many would be able to produce the kind of in depth, highly detailed writing and research that went into it, even going so far as to give personal success stories as examples? Certainly I wouldn't! If I was that good, I wouldn't need those professionals in the first place!
Of course an article on a good topic created with that level of assistance is going to do better, but what about all of the other articles from that writer that do not get that kind of help? Is that person suddenly going to become better with photography, details, research and the like? In most cases, I would doubt it.
So, someone who loves the new article and wants to read more from that person is going to be sorely disappointed, aren't they?
I read that viral article very closely last night, and then I read some of the writer's other work. She does a fine job, but her other articles are nowhere near as good as that one...nor would mine be. This is not a criticism, I'm just making a point here.
If the team is taking the cream of the crop of articles and adding to them to make more money, why not just let the professionals they have hired produce their own work and be done with it.
Better yet, take the top articles, schmooz them, and wind up with a stable of top notch articles and then dump all of those that suck...including good ones that are not quite so good as the big winners.
There is something about this that is concerning to me. Certainly, if someone offered me 2.2 million views on a platter, I wouldn't turn it down...but I would also not feel quite right about it, either.
My work will never, ever be as good as what I saw yesterday, but it will nonetheless be my work...for better or for worse. I work hard at it and am very proud of it, but chances of it ever being able to approach the quality of that hub I read yesterday are slim to none. I'm really a crappy photographer!
This is what the Hub looked like before HubPro, and this is the format that earned the high ranking on Google and brought in all the traffic:
http://web.archive.org/web/201503150542 … 3-Day-Diet
I have not yet seen any upturn in traffic, but I do think you are wrong about the editing process only effecting the hub that is being edited. If the editor works closely with the hub author during the process, she can learn what will improve her other hubs also. I learned a lot from the HP editor and went through many of my hubs that were not selected in the week following the process. My views are up about 4% so I have no idea if that is due to the edits or just standard weekly variation.
If Brie does have a chance to use this program I think it is worth it. She can copy the hubs and save them to Word before editing, and if she is not happy with the changes go ahead and put them back the way they were. (I was mostly happy with the changes so I left them the way they were until I see how traffic is effected.)
They are, however, still my hubs.
Why should HP edit some hubs instead of just allowing some of the editors to write their own hubs? I noticed a hub about the Game of Thrones written by an editor last night. It was poorly done, full of errors, and before I read the profile I thought "this new hubber could really use some editing"!
Well, as we all know, there are good and bad levels of people in all fields. My argument is not with editing, per se, but with editing so much that the piece looks nothing like it used to or is clearly beyond the normal capabilities of the writer. I think that's what Janshares refers to.
I agree that people definitely can learn about new techniques and methods as they go, and I would hope they would translate their lessons into action, as you have done.
I see your point, TIMETRAVELER2. I wouldn't feel as proud of a drastically edited hub that ended up doing really well because I would no longer see it as solely mine. I understand HP's "we're all in this together," and "for the good of the whole" attitude, but it would be uncomfortable to receive a compliment for something that wasn't really mine. Call me possessive. (shrug )
Hi Jan, but what is drastic?
Most novels have an introduction where the novelist thanks the editor. If your read a book by Stephen King (for example) and he uses an editor, do you think that book is not really his? Should it have the name of the editor on there instead of his?
I am a novelist and text book writer and every single editor from Wiley to Cleis made suggestions subject to my explicit approval. Not so much as a comma was moved without me reviewing and approving the change. If I did not approve it, it was reverted and we discussed the matter until a consensus was reached.
I am deeply grateful to those editors because they actively collaborated with me to improve my books.
There is no question than using an editor, when properly done and accredited, is a good idea. However, from what the team says, the photos were not only not the author's, they were specially commissioned by one of the team photographers. It is one thing to make suggestions, but quite another to give a step by step professional tutorial that changes the basic structure of an article.
The problem is that without clarification, it is very difficult to know.
Recently I read book by one of my favorite authors, but was sorely disappointed by the end of it. He had written in conjunction with "another author", and although the work is titled under his name, it clearly is not the same quality as other books he has written.
I know from my experience as an English teacher that it's OK to use a red pen to show someone where they have erred or need improvement, but I would never rewrite a student's paper for him or add professionally done images. That is for him to do, if he so chooses. When he does, the work himself, it indeed, does become his own, and he deserves full credit for it. Not only that, but he learns from it so that he can replicate his success.
I can't think of any writer here who wouldn't love to have a real pro with all of the right equipment and background pop in, suggest improvements and point out mistakes, but I also cannot think of anybody here who would want an editor to change his work so much that he would never be able to duplicate it in any of his other work.
I guess it's a matter of where one draws the line. My line, right from the beginning, was to opt out because, for better or for worse, I want my work to be mine, cry over the downs and revels in the ups and know the consequences and successes are my own.
Well, exactly. I was disagreeing with the notion that HubPro any any way compares to how publishers edit the work of novelists. I opt into that process regularly, I opted out of HubPro. I object to the suggestion that it is because I don't know how to work with editors.
Who said you don't know how to work with editors? Did I? If so, you misunderstood me. My comment was a general one that was meant to clarify my own thoughts about the way HubPro seems to be doing its job. Nothing more. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I think they're editing style, as of right now, is too controlling. I saw edits on my work that made my head spin in disgust. Like "uninterested" to "aren't interested." That's... I mean... that is completely going against "Elements of Style." So it does make me worry that the editing is being done in a juvenile fashion rather than professional. I want to discuss or know why a change is being made, not for someone to literally just change it, especially when sometimes it's inaccurate. That's not professional editing.
DrMark1961, by "drastic" I mean it doesn't look the same any more or has a tone or style that doesn't sound like me. For example, when I was president of the women's group at church, the correspondence secretary would write letters on my behalf and put my name to it. It didn't sound like me. I changed it. Anyway, I think TIMETRAVELER2 said it best in the above post.
Yes, but he names, thanks and acknowledges the efforts of the editor, and we know King to be a superb writer.
The type of editing that is done for books does not change structure in most cases, but rather catches mistakes of syntax, spelling and typing. It's a totally different animal than what is being discussed here, but without being able to compare the original to the update, it is impossible to know.
How different was your own edited article from the original? What did they do to improve it? Did they change placement or wordage? Did they place their own photos or simply suggest that you use some that might be more appropriate.
I'd really like to know exactly what it is that they do and how much of it they are doing with any given hub.
Are you not using a view that shows who is replying to whom?
Mostly she corrected spelling or grammatical errors, which I did not mind at all. She made several MFP images that were really good but for one of them I did not like the breed, so she deleted and replaced it with an appropriate dog breed; I did not like another because the dog did not fit the image of the hub, so I submitted another one of my photos and she made it a MFP image and mailed it back to me. It has already been repinned several times, so I hope it is going to do well on Pinterest.
So the HP editor made changes very much in line with what psycheskinner was describing in how she works with an editor on her books. (Oh, by the way, that comment about editing was directed at me, not at you.)
Now, back to the scary part. I was very happy with the HP editor, but there are a lot more whom I have never worked with. Are they all the same? I have no idea. Is the editing experience going to be the same with every editor? I am not qualified to answer this at all.
But do I suggest other hubbers try it? Yes. They let me know beforehand so I saved the old hubs in case I wanted to go back to the original. I would not want to go back and insert my old grammatical errors, however!
This doesn't sound too bad because the edits are quite basic, but as you said, this is one experience with one editor for one person. I would hope all of them do the same as yours did. My one concern is with editors using professionally commissioned photographers to make photos specifically for a person's hub. It is one thing to choose basic photos that you can modify to suit your hub, but quite another to have someone like this use their skills and specialized equipment.
Most writers here are not photographers and would not want to invest in buying the type of tools necessary to produce perfect photos, and I doubt they would want to pay to take classes to learn the necessary skills. We do not make enough money here to make doing that worthwhile.
Yes, one person, one time, got a viral hub out of it, but what about the other tens of thousands of writers here? As you know, some have complained that the articles that come back to them look nothing like their original work. That is taking it waaaaayyy over the top as far as I'm concerned.
As I mentioned, I have not worked with all of them, but I do want to comment on your comment on photos.
When someone is doing a Google image search, and sees an image you pulled out of Wikimedia commons, why should they even bother pulling up yours and perhaps looking at the accompanying article? If your photos are original, and the searcher likes them, they are more likely to look at your web site, read your article, etc.
I have an inexpensive camera but try to post new photos of my dogs, parrots, rabbits, guineas, etc as often as possible. Does it help traffic? I think so. As Writer Fox mentioned in a previous thread, if you add captions on each one they are searchable and are searched for often, as far as I can tell.
So if HP replaces a few old and overused photos on someones hub for something original, or you do it yourself, I think that is a good thing both for Hubpages and for the writer. Saying that you do not make enough to make it worthwhile is wrong. If you do it more often, you will make more, which makes it more worthwhile.
The good thing is that you know that images need Alt tags. The bad thing is that HubPro editors are not trained in SEO, aren't using Alt tags, and most people who are having their Hubs edited don't know that adding a lot of pictures without Alt tags can actually hurt their traffic from search.
I looked at the Hub that went through HubPro and is now viral on Facebook. That Hub had high ranking on Google before the editing and had 6 photos. Now, it has 30 photos: 19 without Alt tags and 11 with bad Alt tags. That's a disaster. Not only does the page take way too long to load now (and page speed is a factor in Google's ranking), but the lack of Alt tags and inappropriate Alt tags violates Google's Webmaster Guidelines. Alt tags are mandatory for accessibility and for valid XHTML.
Also, the Description tag on that Hub is 203 characters (with spaces) when the maximum is about 155, depending upon how many capital letters are used.
On that Hub, the HubPro editor put 34 H2 tags, one for every 86 words. One section headed by an H2 only has 31 words! All because some editor thought those big headlines looked visually cute. To Google, that looks like spam because that's what it is.
Paul E. stated on the forum that the HubPro editors were not going to edit for SEO. Well, OK. But, why are they editing in such a way as to damage the already successful SEO on Hubs? I can't imagine why a company would hire editors for online content who have no understanding of SEO. That is, after all, one of the huge differences between an online editor and a print editor. Go figure.
If I have 15 or so images in one of my hubs, do they load faster if they are thumbnailed so that only 5 images are full size?
Do you think that the videos are also loading very slowly? I think that most people that search for subjects on dogs like looking at the videos on the hubs, but would I be better off to avoid adding these in the future?
You can optimize your images for faster down loading by using one of the free programs online, such as:
I never use the thumbnailed images and you probably couldn't even see something that small on a mobile phone. I have Hubs with over 100 images, and they get good search engine traffic. I also have Hubs with lots of videos. If your Hubs are getting good traffic from search now, I wouldn't change them at all. If you are looking for ways to improve Hubs which are NOT getting good search traffic, what you have to do first is look at the competition for your targeted keywords. Analyze why other webpages are ranked higher than your Hubs. This is something that the HubPro editors, apparently, aren't trained to do.
Thanks for that link. I am already running a few images through there from a hub I published yesterday.
Which option do you choose for your hubs? (small, normal, etc.) I am choosing normal, and just curious if I should make them smaller and faster.
The smaller size you choose, the faster the download will be. What you sacrifice is quality. Experiment with the different sizes to find out what is best for your specific image.
You can use this free tool from Google to find out the download speed of any Hub and which of your images could be improved by optimizing:
Another interesting tool. Thanks for your continued assistance.
Is there a speed number you are looking for. I just checked a hub I published yesterday (65/100) to one of the HP edited hubs (59/100). Are both of these numbers okay in Googles eyes?
It's interesting to note that pages on wikihow.com average about 91/100. For example, check out the score on this one with huge images: http://www.wikihow.com/Track-Your-Tax-Refund
This is something that Hubpages could fix sitewide to make all of the pages load faster and go up in the search engine rating, isnt it? It makes me wonder why they do not change that feature.
Beats me. Paul E. knows all about that site:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/113562? … ost2416953
Site speed has been a factor in Google's ranking for five years:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot. … nking.html
Moz.com did a study about a year ago which found: "However, our data shows there is a correlation between lower time-to-first-byte (TTFB) metrics and higher search engine rankings. Websites with servers and back-end infrastructure that could quickly deliver web content had a higher search ranking than those that were slower. This means that, despite conventional wisdom, it is back-end website performance and not front-end website performance that directly impacts a website's search engine ranking."
http://moz.com/blog/how-website-speed-a … ch-ranking
It is interesting that the page load speed tool (from the Fox) shows a very low speed for the Hubpro hub that generated all the traffic recently. While page load speed was not a factor for the Pinterest viral explosion, it does raise the issue of complexity and speed going forward, especially on mobile devices. Try it.
http://blessedmommy.hubpages.com/hub/Lo … 3-Day-Diet
I opted out. The HubPro program will only edit your Hubs with the highest traffic because, as has been posted on the forum, the financial future of the site is seen to be in those Hubs not losing their present traffic and the belief that if they are not constantly 'improved' that they will lose traffic.
Some people have posted good experiences with HubPro and others have posted horrible experiences and even lost traffic.
Has the option to opt back in or out been taken off of some accounts? Or were they moved somewhere else? I don't have the options for EC or HubPro on my profile page anymore. Maybe they'll pop back up at the 60-day period? No sweat, I'm opted out of both anyway, just curious.
The options are not there for me either!
The option is still there. Here's where to find it:
That isn't my understanding of the reason the higher traffic hubs should be improved first. Since people come to the site through the search engines, our front door is the hub that the reader lands on. More people land on these higher traffic hubs, so they should be as nice as they can be. Our entrance pages should be as nice as possible to present the site in a good light. If they like what they see, hopefully they will stick around and browse a bit.
We can make the backroom as nice as we want, but it won't help much since not many people look at the back room.
Actually, this is what Robin E. said about the purpose of the HubPro program:
"Tackling the successful Hubs first is one of the most important topics to discuss. Essentially, if you have a high traffic Hub and you are not improving it, there is a good chance you will lose this traffic. We have seen it over and over again."
However, these 'improvements' have resulted in lost traffic for some people:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126313? … ost2669301
I don't remember reading this post from Robin. I stand corrected. Maybe I was mixing my reasons with the staff's reasons.
That was the explanation Paul Edmondson gave for editing high traffic hubs first. He also said he believed it would improve the sites' panda rating faster.
Robin seems to have a slightly different take on it, but they're all valid.
Google's Panda algorithm already likes the Hubs getting high traffic from search – that's WHY they get high traffic from search in the first place (before any HubPro editing). Those Hubs get high traffic from search because they rank high on search engine results pages. If a Hub is already ranking #1, it's impossible to rank any higher!
The high ranking of a small percentage of Hubs has done nothing to improve search rankings of other Hubs on HP thus far. That's a real clue why 'improving' them is not going to improve search rankings of other Hubs in the future.
This is what Paul E. said about the HubPro program: "I don't like to talk about doom and gloom scenarios, but our current model isn't working."
What that says to me is that newer Hubs are not getting much search traffic and HP is relying on older, successful Hubs to keep its doors open. That does not bode well.
You said yourself that you lost traffic after HubPro editing because the editors didn't understand SEO: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/128409? … ost2707992
You also said on the forum that your Hubs were part of the experimental program and were only receiving about 80 views per day. The Hubs going through HP now get a minimum of 500 views per day. So, editing them is severely risky since the editors don't know SEO and don't know how the Hubs achieved their traffic numbers in the first place.
Here's the statement Paul E made about why high traffic hubs have been chosen to be edited.
"Here's how I think it works and why we focus on high traffic pages.
User satisfaction is a significant piece of Google's algorithm. While I'm not sure how Google determines user satisfaction, we have found a significant correlation between dwell times on a page and our user satisfaction metric. However Google collects this data, I feel it's heavily view weighted. Meaning that Google needs lots of real user data to determine a site/page quality change. When we edit high traffic pages, this speeds up that process and since most of a Hubber's traffic is concentrated in a few pages, by editing these and making them significantly better, the average dwell time increases for the page/site. Google then sees that users are materially happier and then they send it more traffic.
Since Panda is a site wide ranking factor, the most direct path of improving our quality signals and traffic (for all Hubbers) is by significantly improving the Hubs that drive the majority of the traffic."
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/128471? … ost2704220
I lost traffic on one hub when a title was changed. That wasn't a biggy for me, because I've experimented a lot with title changes over the years, so I changed it back and traffic returned. I don't expect HP to be perfect. It's not and never will be.
I said that the minimum traffic hubs I had edited were around 80 per day. I had several edited that get way, way more than that. I took a risk. It worked out
I think it's helpful to try things out and take risks, it's how we learn.
It was good for me. Traffic increased around 30% on my edited hubs.
I've had a similar experience. I don't mind that HubPro didn't edit my lonely hubs that don't get many views, because I think (in my case, at least) the subject matter of those hubs isn't searched much at all. I think it would have been a waste of the editor's time to target those hubs just so the traffic could rise from four or five views a day or week to seven or eight.
A 30% increase is nothing to sneeze at on already high traffic hubs.
I am sure you are happy with the increased earning too.
The hubpages position is that the greatest potential gain is in highly popular hubs. I guess you know they already have a readership and so could have a bigger one.
With HubPro we are seeing really significant increases in traffic and quality. I highly recommend it if given the opportunity.
Stats: 22% traffic increase compared to non HubPro Hubs (as time goes by this is increasing!)
Quality Score (NPS): 2.27 X increase
In short, you get to work with a professional editor, illustrators and photographers, and your content is likely to see significant increases in traffic and quality.
Y, but it's rare and I wouldn't attribute it all to editing as much as seasonality or other factors.
I took a look at your Hub with the most traffic and it appears to have been hit by Panda in late September. I've seen several Hubs that have been through HubPro now that have been able to get to new heights.
You'll have access to the original and your editor will work very closely with you. I'd bet that over the next few months you will see significant benefits.
I only wish we could do this for more Hubbers.
Yes, I was hit pretty bad in September and I still haven't recovered. I'll give it a try, but I am nervous about it as I don't want my viewership to decline even more than it has.
This person did: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/128409
"22% traffic increase compared to non HubPro Hubs" -- Is this comparing hubs that are matched in traffic prior to one becoming Hubpro?
I've read more complaints than praise; I opted out from the get-go. My writing is my writing. If it needs improving, I will improve it. It may take time, but I am fully capable.
I am also a good photographer; the only reason I pull public domain images for a lot of my hubs is that I have not had the opportunity to photograph certain kinds of images that I need for those articles.
I am unsure whether an article I wrote on a different account was edited by the hub pro team or not. I do know that it was edited, quite a few times. In fact I think someone edited it for the first time about a year ago and it has not received the traffic that it was once getting of over 200 views a day, though the traffic has started to rise this week. It is definitely not my own any more, they have removed some of my style, my wit, and with it the life that an informative article needs to keep the reader from being informed to death.
I saw I opted out already a time ago. But it's nevertheless interesting to know who is responsible for the content of a Hub Pro Hub? And who is the author? It seems all a little awkward to me, especially when I see Hubbers who seem to be oblivious that some Hubs are edited.
ALT tags???? I suppose I've seen them--or rather, the results of them--when the pic doesn't show up, and you see the caption that goes with it instead...
But, I thought it was automatic by HP. I have NO clue how to create them myself!
HP does not provide a way for us to use Alt tags. What happens is that your caption for an image is coded as the Alt tag. If there is no caption, search engines read this: alt="", which means it is blank and a violation of Google's Webmaster Guidelines.
Because HP uses the caption (big mistake), you have to write a caption as if it were an Alt tag, which means it should be very short (no more than 10 words) and accurately describe what is actually in the image, not how it relates to your text. This is really bad, but HP won't fix it.
Also, Google will use the text surrounding the image and the caption (Google expects images to have captions AND Alt tags) to determine relevance.
I've suggested many, many times that HP change this. Not happening.
Why do you think that is? Would it be so hard for the programmers to add another box above or beneath the captions that would make room for alt tags? I'm no pro, so I don't know, but I agree that this is hurting us.
It's not difficult at all to add a place for us to write an Alt tag. There is a place for a photo source, a source URL and a caption. Adding one more option is certainly something that the programmers know how to do.
I have no idea why the staff won't make this change which obviously hurts the entire site in the eyes of search engines. And, I have no idea why HP allows duplicate Titles and Descriptions, when these are also violations of Google's Webmaster Guidelines.
I know you have probably already done this, but since you are one of our main gurus here, would you be willing to personally email the team about this to see what might be done? It makes no sense that this has not already been taken care of, especially when the team says it is trying to do everything to up our rankings.
BTW...it's great to see you back on the forums again.
No. But you are welcome to post what I said by starting a new forum thread here:
I'll go one better, although it will not be nearly so effective. I'll email them myself to ask about this. I just do not feel I know enough about it to do a good job, but I will refer them to this forum for further explanation in case they have not seen it.
WF said no because he made this suggestion already in a thread started by Paul E. It was not acted upon then so I doubt it will be now.
GAH! I have some captions...I never realized it was a requirement... It's going to be quite the task to search over 300 hubs, and figure out which images are not captioned; only credited. Boo, Hiss!
I'm giving it a go..so we'll see what happens.
Everything must be improved unless you are God then everything you do Is perfect. But I see no halos on anyone's heads unless you are vainly puffed up by your fleshly mind then I suppose that only death and the grave will reveal to you your imperfections.
The bottom line is that the HubPro program has been in effect now for eight months, over 1,000 high-traffic Hubs have been redone, and there has been no increase in site-wide traffic. That's the reality.
Your right, very much so! Don't know how a person could fix the problem but I guess to only write a hub about it and I dare say that would fix any issues.
8 months isn't very long. It may fail in lifting the site as a whole or it may not....there's not really any way for us to tell yet. (Especially as we don't have access to any detailed stats).
It will be interesting to see what effect the forthcoming Panda update has on HubPages. I hope the positive effects of HubPro will make a great difference. More time will tell us a lot.
One thousand Hubs is .11 percent (just over one-tenth of a percent) of the currently published Hubs (over 880,000) this site.
That the editing of about 1/5th of a percent of the entire content on this site has had no discernible effect on the overall traffic does not seem surprising. Eight months, 1000 Hubs and five working days per week equals 25 Hubs "fixed" per week.
Do you realistically think HubPages is going to be able to resolve all the content issues fixing two dozen Hubs per week?
Here is the thing. Since HubPro has a substantial impact on traffic and we focus on high traffic pages, each page that get's edited has a more significant impact on how visitors view the overall site. We've actually edited 20% of traffic from search engines.
I'm trying to figure out how to bring editing to a larger group of Hubbers because the results are great for the Hubber and the community as a whole.
The number of published Hubs has nothing to do with it. It's the number of featured Hubs which matters when discussing increasing traffic from search engines.
There are currently 336,432 featured Hubs (which is, by the way, almost the exact number BEFORE all the Squidoo content was added).
Paul E. has stated that the top 19% of Hubs get about 30% of the site's traffic.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/113562? … ost2416925
On this thread (forum/topic/129865), he also states that the Hubs accounting for 20% of traffic from search have been edited by HubPro.
No, I don't. But apparently that is part of the team's game plan with the HubPro program.
Is that the right link, WF? Cannot find the statement over there.
It seems logic to me that only Hubs that were already strategic interesting are in the category of Hub Pro.
8 months is not long at all, just have to be patient with them, it takes time to perfect something of this sort.
It's too bad they have no way to edit the hubs in an operating theater so we could all see how it works and do our best to duplicate their efforts. It would be great to "see" the editing sessions on all of the hubs they've turned viral through the HubPro program.
WOW, I absolutely love how they edited my hub: http://brie-hoffman.hubpages.com/hub/Fa … ay-or-less
I would let Hub Pro edit any of my hubs. They were professional and did an absolutely fantastic job all the while keeping my voice in my article. I couldn't be happier.
It looks GREAT, Brie. I love your suggestions and those photos are perfect to pin on Pinterest. Best wishes!
Congratulations, Brie. Your hub provides a great example for the rest of us to emulate.
Thanks for providing the link, Brie.
I am most interested in the fact they didn't object to your list of 8 of your additional hubs. I have removed most of my 'additional links' from my own hubs, thinking they were frowned upon.
I'll go back and change them when I get time.
by Marisa Wright4 days ago
Now I understand what people have been complaining about!I submitted this Hub to Bellatory:http://hubpages.com/style/Hair---Color-or-Go-Grayand got back the same standard email as everyone else did, with the following...
by Sheila Craan9 months ago
Lately, I have had 11 hubs unfeatured due to Quality Issues. I have assured my hubs do not contain grammatical or spelling errors. I have included relevant video and changed the titles and added new supporting texts and...
by M. Halyard8 years ago
Hello, my learned colleagues! I am new to this (posted a few hubs last night for the first time). I have been reading forums for several hours today, as well as a few interesting hubs (thank you, Mark Knowles), about...
by Marie Brannon3 years ago
With the latest tweak to their Hub-featuring formula, HubPages has pretty much destroyed the reason I signed up in the first place, two years ago. I was (and still am) in search of a site that would host quality...
by topclass3 years ago
Many good quality pages are Idled (become unfeatured) via ‘Analysis of the how engaged readers are with a Hub over an extended period of time’ – essentially because they get low traffic.It appears that...
by Krissa Klein3 years ago
I just got an email from Hubpages about the hub I published today:"We wanted to let you know that Garlic-Lemon Hummus Recipe has the opportunity to become Featured! Featured Hubs are showcased on Topic Pages and...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.