Please check out our Blog Post on a couple of quality-related changes on HubPages!
Love the idea of a system which will hopefully clean up grammar and spelling mistakes. That is something I have been asking for ever since I first arrived on HubPages. That really is terrific news.
I strong disagree with not being able to opt out of Hubpro Basic. I do not want my best hubs, producing the most traffic, potentially ruined by foreign edits and liable to losses in traffic. Surely an author has rights to their own work and style that do not break the rules!!! Will HP provide compensation if traffic falls?
"Because HubPro Basic does not involve adding content or major organizational changes, any Hub may be edited with HubPro Basic (HubPro Premium still has an opt-out option, but HubPro Basic does not)."
I totally agree with this.
Will there at least be a notification if our Hubs are edited?
@janderson99 We care about traffic as well. It turns out that Basic editing has been the most successful thing we have done for increasing traffic. For Hubbers with really high quality Hubs, the edits will be very minor if at all.
We know that the direction we are taking isn't going to be what all people want. Especially for people that try to push the rules.
Our goal is to treat Hubbers with respect with the Basic edits as we work toward a more professional HubPages that's a fusion of Hubbers with professional level services for creating really high quality content.
Before you rush to judgement, I ask that you give it a try and see how it impacts your traffic. I'll check back in later this evening. Best, Paul
I absolutely agree with this.
The evidence I have seen and heard about re some of the HubPro edits so far has always convinced me that I would rather remove content altogether than have my hubs edited.
I think the owners of HubPages need to remember that all content of hubs is copyright to their authors. Bottom line you can't change my content without breaching my copyright UNLESS THIS IS DONE WITH CONSENT.
A system which would allow people to see what sort of impact a basic edit might have might be OK - so long as it is NOT implemented until such time as the author has had a chance to review it and revise as they see fit.
As an ex Squid with some hubs which don't fit the HP 2 links per domain rule I'm already moving content off HubPages and benefiting by much enhanced traffic as a result - the bulk of which has come via Google (ie Google doesn't play according to the HP 2 link rule)
Has Hubpages just given me a reason to move more faster? It certainly has if it intends to breach my copyright and change any of the content of my hubs without my consent.
@makingamark thanks for bringing this up. Hubbers do own their content and can take it down at anytime. It's also important to remember when content is posted on HubPages that it may be modified as part of our service.
HubPages Editors will work with Hubbers to create world class content. As far as I know, there is no service in the world investing in their contributors like we are.
We know it can be unsettling for people to have their works edited. Before passing judgement, I hope people give it a shot and see the results for themselves.
It's also important to remember that we have a pretty small number of editors and limited capacity. So as much as I'd like to edit more and faster we are limited to a relatively small number of hubs each month. So the likelihood that all of your Hubs get HubPro basic is very small.
We will continue to evaluate the results and make changes to the program to make sure we are getting the best results.
Where do you say in your terms of service that published content can be modified at any time?
I understand you can unfeature and unpublish - but CHANGE CONTENT?
If your automated programmes show up too many problems with a hub you can just unfeature it for quality and indicate that HubPro Basic is available to fix the problem if need be. I don't see the rationale for any editing without consent of the author.
If you've only got a small number of editors then why can't you continue to operate according to a policy of consent? That way you don't run the risk of damaging the reputation of the site re breaching the copyright of the author.
Or is HubPro Basic going to be an automated program - and somehow somebody forgot to mention that?
Does your HubPro editor understand these:
Sigh! (#1) And everything just went to Hell!
So, ..... (#2) there I was, again.
I changed my tone, quickly, (#3) before I went on with my explanation.
1- Using the exclamation as a point of pause and exclamation.
2- A "pregnant pause" used to slow the reader down and start another thought stream at a different pace.
3- bracketing a word or phrase in comma's to drive the thought (quickly) home to the reader.
I threw this together, quickly, as examples of how a writer, a real writer, will develop a style that can often include what others in other situations would call "poor English", but are perfectly acceptable in a novel, or poem, or narration.
My perception here is that, quite simply, HP wants us to be technical writers, and that they tread a thin line here with our "creative works". Will your "paid for services" editors really care if I feel I am the next Hemingway? Or will they corrupt the very thought process I, as a writer, was trying to drive home?
Sure, "spelling" and "standard grammar" editors are available and I myself am a constant abuser of the concept of using perfect English. I place haste in front of diligence too often, and I know it.
But, with the editors I use, I can override what the automatic editors changes to things. Can I do this with your "edit for hire" people?
I already have my personal and "creative" works on my own website due to the lack of support I get from HP. If you look, most of what I have left on HP are technical articles focused around the world of RV's.
Just don't run me away with everything.
Moving writing to where? Probably can't say in the forum. I guess chatting means exchanging HP-mail? I know that you folks don't know who I am because I'm not active in the forum. Why trust a person you don't know? (Although if you were writing for Squidoo, we may know each other from another forum.) Take a look at any of my hubs and you'll see that I'm a good writer. As for the HP forum, I have 8 online shops on Zazzle.com, so I need to stay active in that forum. There's only so much time in the day!
I think given the gravity of the changes proposed both the title of this post and the way if has been introduced this could have been much more informative and much better communicated.
Bottom line the proposal is that ALL Hubs can be edited with HubPro Basic without the consent of the author - which is actually a breach of copyright.
ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF HOW IT WILL BE APPLIED!
Then further on - in the middle of a paragraph and not highlighted in any way we have this
That's right any Hub may be edited with HubPro Basic
I'm trying hard here, but I'm not seeing it. How is what HubPages proposes to do a breach of copyright?
Any and all content - that's text, images, formatting etc - is copyright to the author. Copyright relates to format as well as original content. So if I choose to write "colour" and not "color" that's the way it has to stay. If I have written for the web - and included bold in my text in order to highlight a key point - then that is the way it has to stay unless I agree to change it.
The only thing that Hubpages controls is the template. The QA system provides for unfeaturing or unpublishing hubs which fail to meet the QA guidelines - it does not provide for editing WITHOUT CONSENT.
If there has been a change in the terms of membership such that hub authors no longer have copyright control over their content then I think we shall see a lot of content leaving the site.
All I'm saying is that ALL changes to the content of a hub MUST have the consent of the author if HubPages is going to comply with the copyright of the author. That's all.
I could refer you to my hub about copyright but it's already left HubPages for a new start on a new website....
Thanks for explaining your reasoning.
I'm fairly familiar with copyright law in the States at least, and when you own copyright, you decide what rights to grant others. I believe we did actually grant them permission. At least, I thought I did, but a copyright lawyer would be able to figure out what the legalese really means, in light of the purpose of the modifications:
HubPages does not claim ownership of Your Hub Content or Author Content. Such content will be owned by You or a third party from whom You got permission to post the content. By posting Hub Content on the Service, You grant HubPages a worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license, for as long as Your Hub is displayed on HubPages and for a commercially reasonable time thereafter, to reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, modify, adapt and publish the Hub Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Your Hub on or in connection with the Service. By posting Author Content on the Service, You grant HubPages a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, modify, adapt and publish the Author Content on or in connection with the Service.
It's in section 6 of the TOS. It's always been there.
It may be in section 6 - but it states very clearly that it relates to advertising.
I refer you to my last response - see http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/132575? … ost2758884
I am genuinely amazed you should this is OK.
You are proposing to interfere with matters which are a question of AUTHORSHIP and therefore Copyright.
What you are saying with the proposed changes is the equivalent of saying Google can change the content of my blog posts because it owns Blogger!
It's also what a number of authors think. Would you like me to provide you with a sample of what is being said in private places? It's very definitely not complementary. People see the proposed changes as a major prompt to accelerate movement of their content off HubPages.
Quick question Paul. I understand I can't op out of HubPages Basic BUT can I reject the changes if I don't like them, and how easy will that be to do (i.e. is there a version of my original preserved somewhere?)
If you are unhappy with any of the changes, you can change them back. However, if spammy elements are added back to the Hub, it is highly likely that the Hub will become defeatured when it goes through our quality system (regardless of the Hub's traffic). Hubbers, like you, that write with proper grammar, spelling, and don't include spam in their Hubs will see very, very minimal changes, if any. We think HubPro Basic is important because we know that most Hubs, even well-written ones, have over three errors that can be easily fixed, and we've seen a positive correlation between traffic and editing for grammar and spelling. I understand why Hubbers are sensitive about their work being edited, but HubPro Basic is a very light edit for those that already have sound Hubs.
I've seen an even more positive correlation between moving my content off HubPages and increasing traffic! If we'e talking maximising traffic for authors then there are other options....
I suggest authors need to consider very carefully what works best for them and what is ultimately in their best interests.
So far I've taken the view that if HubPages unfeatures or unpublishes my hubs because I fall foul of your imagined associate relationships (there are none) or your two links rule (which Google totally ignores on my content elsewhere) then I remove or plan to remove the content from HubPages.
I'm a published author (currently averaging 4.5 stars on Amazon), have been writing a top art blog for the last 10 years and I'm currently writing a series of articles for a top art magazine in the UK. I'm quite sure there are others who are also very capable writers who take as dim a view as I do of the proposed changes.
In particular I do NOT take kindly to:
* either having my hubs edited by people who know less about a subject than I do
* or an automated editing process over which I have no control.
That is the fast way to lose good authors
You can be very certain I will not be spending any time or effort on vetting your HubPro Basic changes if any are made. Nor will I get involved in remedying any changes made by HubPages to MY content. If any of my hubs are touched, I'll be deleting hubs and working from my archived files and transferring MY content to MY own sites.
I just deleted my remaining hubs. This is nonsense up with which I shall not put.
Also, the editor started auto-playing a completely hidden (!) video "Welcome to HubPages." I've no idea what that was, and the only way to shut it up was to leave the page.
When you chose to use the services of HP, you agreed to allow them to modify your work. This is, in effect a contract between you and them that has no evil intent but exists for the purpose of improving the site for you and everybody else here. I posted the quote later in this thread.
I only stayed on HP because people like Marisa suggested I leave my hubs here, but I don't want anyone messing with my hubs. Now I see my best trafficked hub is up for Hub Pro Basic and no way to opt out?
IS HUBPAGES EFFING KIDDING ME? Why not choose a hub that isn't doing so well? Why chose my best hub? Why wasn't my most recent hub chosen?
The answer. THIS IS ANOTHER FREAKING EXPERIMENT!
I'M OUTA HERE, FOR DAMN GOOD!
Cardisa, I hope you'll rethink that decision when you've calmed down!
If you've got Hubs which would fit nicely on one of your blogs, then by all means move those Hubs. I have.
However, if you're like most people, you'll be left with a bunch of Hubs that don't belong anywhere. If you just delete them, they won't earn a cent and all the effort you put into them will be wasted. Why not let them continue to make income for you as long as you can? Sure, it's upsetting to have your work messed with, but it's only an article, not your baby!
I'm just waiting until my book get's published and I dedicate my time fully to fiction. I tried this content business, but it's not for me. I will be removing them to my bog(s).
What I fail to understand is why would HP want to edit a hub that was written from a personal perspective. There was no research, or facts. The hub in question was written based on personal experience and advice given based on those experiences. How on earth do you edit something like that without removing the writers voice?
From what I understand, the basic Hub Pro only edits for spelling, grammar and the like...it does not edit for content.
No...! Don't Leave Me!
[Update. And everybody is right. You can always change it back. And what with it being HubPro Basic, it will probably only take you five minutes to do so. ]
Oh, Paradigm, I'm sorry, but I think enough is enough. I don't have the energy to stick around.
Here's a hub I ran across that might be helpful, or you can give all your hubs to me. Do at least hang around the forums, if for no other reason than we can poke HP with a stick every once in awhile.
Nobody likes what is going on with this editing business, but I do believe you still have the right to go back in and change things back to the way they were. Ask the team about this before you walk away.
Remember, too, that they have had some success with editing and their view is that the best articles, when tweaked, will bring in more traffic. Several writers here have had that happen.
I also think they may be doing a better job of editing than they did at first.
Finally, save your articles off site so that you can simply add them back if the edit does not work for you.
If you read the TOS, the team has always had the right to edit our work, even though they just recently started exercising it.
I hope you stay. Please give this a chance.
This is a direct quote from the HP Terms of Service. It clearly states that writers give the team the right to modify their work and that by using the site they are agreeing to this:
You grant HubPages a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, modify, adapt and publish the Author Content on or in connection with the Service. You may remove Your Hub Content from the Service at your discretion. You may not remove your Author Content from the Service. HubPages may preserve and store Hub Content (including, for a commercially reasonable time, Hub Content you have removed from the Service) or Author Content, and may disclose such content if required to do so by law or if HubPages believes in good faith that such preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process (e.g., subpoenas); (b) enforce these Terms; (c) respond to claims that any Hub or Content violates the rights of third parties; or (d) protect the rights, property, or personal safety of HubPages, its users and the public.
This right here only motivates me to leave this place. I rememebr Helium had the same TOS about content placed on the website. Ohh...Helium..I wonder what happened to them?
This raises two questions:
1) What is the difference between "Hub Content" and "Author Content?" And if you can remove your Hub Content from the service, but not Author Content, why is that? The difference needs to be explained.
2) If we grant, "... worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, modify, adapt and publish ..." How is that retaining ownership and copyright of our own works???? (As we are also told we have.) That would seem to be a contradictory statement.
Good questions. I don't have the answers to them, but maybe the team can elaborate. Why not email them and ask!
Hub Content is your Hubs. Author content includes your uploads, i.e. photos, and your profile page.
So, they get to keep MY photos, to which I also hold the copyright????? I have not licensed them as CC or PD.....WTH???
(I've also used plenty of PD and Pixabay images; I don't give a rat's a$$ about those...by MY OWN PHOTOS??? That's just wrong! I hope they aren't thinking they can then sell them for income without recompense to me, or worse, prevent my from re-using them elsewhere...)
Oh--and if the author moves their content, and leaves HP, of what possible use, then, to HP is their profile??? It should all go away if the author removes their work and leaves. SMH
As I've indicated previously, this is the same sort of licence as most sites apply which allow them to reproduce content for marketing purposes.
If HubPages is serious about major editing of hub content without the permission of the author then in my opinion they are being overly optimistic in relying on this wording.
Bottom line we own the content and we can remove the content and there's nothing HubPages can do about that. By remove I mean physically remove and deindex the URL from the Google Index. If HubPages were to republish it after both of those actions then they'd be setting themselves up for legal action and I cannot for the life of me see the wisdom of that.
The changes sound promising. The automated spell and grammar check is great news! It will be very useful.
And it is great to read that traffic increased 20%
I think the HubPro basic could do a lot to enhance quality. I run spell check and all of that, but I will find things sometimes after reviewing it several times. It's also quite embarrassing to click on an old hub to modernize it and realize that you have glaring typos that went unnoticed previously.
An auto spell check and grammar check (especially if it's similar to the WordPress plug-in) will help a lot. A change I can get behind
Ditto - an automated spell and grammar check would be no bad thing. But control needs to lie with the author.
If the hub has too many problems then HubPages can unfeature it for quality WITHOUT doing an edits WITHOUT the consent of the author.
One of the objectives of Hubpro was to improve the overall quality of hubs to get a reprieve from Panda and so lift the traffic for the site overall. But while "Traffic is up 20% (compared to the baseline) across Hubs edited with HubPro". There has been a decline in overall traffic.
The Quancast stats show that there have been a decline in overall traffic over the last 12 months. Similarly the 3 month data summary does not show any signs of a reprieve from Panda 4.2 which was implemented in Mid-July 2015. Don't get me wrong, I hope that traffic goes up!!!, but there is little evidence that Hubpro is boosting overall traffic. Surely it is now time to focus more on other strategies such as applying QAP to legacy hubs, cancelling 'grandfathering' so that the rules apply to all hubs and applying more stringent quality tests for new hubs . The new 'Latest' listing show that many very poor hubs are still being accepted and these taint the site and mean that the Panda penalties are still applied. I know HP is doing these things but perhaps more emphasis should be places on these tactics. By the way Google has confirmed recently that user engagement, while important, is not a ranking factor. http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/opinio … m-like-one
Since you mention this, I had a discussion with 'Matt @ Team HubPages' about 'granfathering'. This is what he said:
There are Hubs that are grandfathered into the old standards and have not been evaluated by the current QAP standards.
We are working on a long-term project to subject these old Hubs to the same standards, but it will take some time for us to do so.
I'm not really sure what the problem is. Is it because finding low quality hubs is too difficult at the moment? For the time being, I suggested that if a low quality hub that had been 'fathered in' is reported, it could be unfeatured provided the report is justified. 'Matt' chose not to discuss the matter with me further.
There have been two significant updates from google that hurt traffic. It would be worse if we hadn't done hubpro, but I agree we need to do more and we will. We are about 1/3 through the initial list of hubs we thought we would need to hubpro to see site wide benefits.
Our plan for the next few months is to hubpro and now hubpro basic hubs (small number of hubs). Auto correct errors we are highly confident we can correct, work on driving more social traffic, review low quality featured hubs and work on ways to improve the quality of newly featured.
Our data shows the avg visitor is having a much better experience on hubpages, but the overall corpus isn't improving as much as I'd like. I hope we can correct that soon.
Paul - you seem to be suggesting that the only thing impacting on traffic is changes in the Google algorithm. That can't be the whole story.
You don't mention how many of the TOP 70,000 hubs from Squidoo you have lost (ie the ones featured by Squidoo and the ones that got decent traffic and NOT the unfeatured lenses which were imported as well).
Given what I know about the number of people who have been very busy deleting hubs and moving content the loss of the traffic from those SquidHubs has got to be significant.
Have you done any analysis of how many featured Squidoo lenses have disappeared following the transfer - along with associated traffic - and whether the trend is continuing?
Have you asked people why they are deleting hubs and moving content?
Do you think this change is helpful in that context?
Do you think HubPages acquiring a reputation as a site where the copyright of authors is ignored by management will be helpful to the future development of the site and its traffic?
Can I recommend that you reinstate the notion which keeps you legal i.e. that hubs may not be edited without the CONSENT of the author.
I'm totally fine with everyone having their hubs proofread for basic grammar and spelling; the site really needs it.
But if the overall corpus isn't improving as much as you'd like it's because the guidelines you set for QAP are too lenient. Here are two hubs from the front page feed that are featured and that any reasonable person would think should not be:
http://verilyprime.hubpages.com/hub/A-P … d-Behavior
The lack of social media share buttons on the Mobile version is a glaring example of one way to immediately boost traffic ("driving more social traffic"). Surely this should be a priority. When this glaring omission was raised previously, the answer was that it would not be considered for at least 3 months. Please implement this.
Apparently spelling is much more important!
Priority must be given to ensuring that Pokémon is spelt correctly - with the acute accent on the e.
As if everybody who searches for Pokémon actually writes it like this!
Rearranging the hubs in the side columns reminds me somewhat of rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. Mobile browsers cannot see the side columns!!! How many times have people said this in this forum?
Here is a report Mobile Marketing Statistics 2015 - published last month
http://www.smartinsights.com/mobile-mar … tatistics/
* Mobile Media Time Is Now Greater Than Desktop and Other Media (51% in the USA)
* Mobile vs desktop device usage - bigger percentage of viewing now done on vertical screens
* Mobile Ad Spend still lags behind Mobile Media Consumption - i.e. publishers have failed to recognise how consumption of information has changed
* 89% of mobile time is spent on mobile apps not mobile sites
* the highest conversion rates come from iPads and tablets
I logged into my account yesterday and was horrified to see that my hub that draws the most traffic and earnings throughout the year is being edited. I don't know what triggered this. I get a huge surge in visits a certain time of the year. Then it slows down, because this is a somewhat seasonal topic. We no longer own our content here.
Ouch those Quancast stats look painful for the past year. It actually makes me fear for Hubpages if the decline continues. Anything that will help us with overall traffic is a huge plus, so I trust this site will do everything in its power to stay alive.
I wonder if part of the decline is due to a large exodus of hubbers in combination with Panda.
Now how that type of paragraph is normally interpreted on every other website which uses such a condition is NOT what is suggested by Hubpages Basic. That condition is normally used to provide permission to display a hub for advertising purposes ONLY. The modifications usually included relate purely to advertising and promotional materials.
HubPro Basic can:
* remove links (i.e "The assurance that all links and products are relevant and benefit the reader")
* remove Amazon products (ditto - quote from a hubber in another place "I read a thread today where a HP staffer thought it might be a good idea to remove ALL Amazon links from a hub.")
* change words - because by implication once you start removing links and products you are going to have to remove associated comment - or make a complete nonsense of the hub.
That's pretty fundamental editing in my book. That goes way beyond what is required for advertising and promotion purposes.
Sorry. If Hubpages is going to breach the copyright of authors to that extent then I think a lot of content will leave the site and HubPages reputation will be damaged.
I don't quite see how that will resolve the problem with the steady downward trend in traffic (see http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/132575#post2758862)
Like I have said previously everything related to the copyright matter (given the scope indicated above) is resolved if the editing is consensual.
I personally don't see what the problem is in making editing via HubProBasic subject to the consent of the author.
What exactly is the rationale for the removal of consent vs. create potential for damaging the HubPages reputation?
(BTW - I'm not the only person of this view. This matter is being discussed extensively in other places - it's just I'm sticking my head above the parapet to point out that not everybody thinks the suggested change is fine and dandy)
You're absolutely right. While I have no quarrel with a spellchecker that reviews a post and then emails me with its findings...without changing anything, the idea that someone could change my words, remove links, or delete products without my consent is noxious.
Google has said they want better content, not more content. So, it seems to me that the initial focus for editing and cleaning up the site should be on the low quality hubs, rather than those that are doing well. Adding more words to a high quality hub doesn't solve the problem of the hubs that just plain stink.
For example, a script could check the summaries and unfeature any hubs with summaries that repeated the same word more than say 10 times (with exceptions for "and", "the" and similar words).
Run a spell/grammar check and unfeature hubs with more than a set number of errors or typos; just don't change them.
If you have to, block people from certain countries from joining. Or, even close the site to new members entirely while you clean up the junk.
Next, you may have to impose some future limits on who can join, or post. An open site, with no admission requirements, is a spam magnet.
Third, as you pointed out elsewhere on the forum, scaling editing is hard. So is writing well. You could enlist the help of some highly qualified Hubbers with proven writing skills. They should be paid (I edited lenses for other squids, and it's quite time consuming), but on a freelance basis, per hub or per hour. This is cheaper than hiring employees, and current Hubbers already know the system and the rules. Editing must be opt-in, rather than opt-out, and the Hubber must have an easy way to reverse the changes.
I discussed these proposed changes with my lawyer.
By "lawyer" I mean my mate Dave who knows about the law having been arrested a few times over various silly misunderstandings.
I explained each point to him at some length
1. How much my content means to my many readers
2. How they would be made sad if any spelling was corrected
3. How important that advert for grow your own bunion removal cream was
4. General rant about how unfair the world is
“So what do you think” I asked him.
He appeared to have gone to sleep. I woke him up.
“It’s their site” he said.
I'm all for improving the quality of the site. It's the automated spelling and grammar checker that worries me. My understanding is that it will retroactively fix all featured hubs. Will we get notice on these, as we do for HubPro?
I usually run my hubs through a grammar checker on Word. This will be helpful for the times I forgot to run the checker, and the new software might catch things that Word missed.
When I use the grammar checker, while I agree with the suggested changes most of the time, there are times that I do not. What this automated checker will do is go back and make the changes I have already decided not to change. It will be time consuming to go back and change things back, provided we will even know what has been changed.
I am greatly concerned about automated spelling and grammar checks. I post knitting patterns that use abbreviations that are commonly known and used in knitting. These abbreviations will be seen as spelling and grammar mistakes, but no knitter would look at my patterns if I listed the full term in my directions. The pattern would just be too long and cumbersome.
I don't like the direction of rigidity I see HubPages moving in. I fear that I will have to pull all of my hubs from HubPages soon if the site continues in a direction that doesn't maintain more flexibility.
I've never had a good experience with automated ... well, much of anything. If you're going to edit our content without permission -- which I don't condone at all -- then I think it should be done by a human who (hopefully) has the ability to take context into consideration. And then we should be notified that our content was altered, in what way and by whom, so there's accountability if that editor makes errors.
I've been following another thread about a hubber whose hub went through HubPro, and that editor added copyright-protected song lyrics. The hubber followed suit on other hubs, thinking this practice was OK since the editor did it, and the ads on all of those hubs have, to my understanding, now been disabled. It doesn't take a "professional" editor to know that using lyrics is a copyright no-no, unless that song happens to be in the public domain or you have express permission. So I'm as concerned about these human editors as I am about an automated system.
Make sure HubPro Basic knows to stay away from all math-related hubs; I cringe to think what it would do to my algebra, electronics, base-numbering system hubs, etc. Also needs to stay away from computer programming hubs. Meanwhile, I've turned HubPro Premium back on.
Paul, when I first started writing here, I didn't pay nearly enough attention to keywords, as I should have. With a couple of hugs, I just got lucky. Now I'm very much aware of keywords and on my own sites use a paid keyword planner. Will these editors be paying close attention to what people are searching for?
I think part of the problem is not understanding why HP have chosen to leave the obvious garbage and piss off the apparently less garbage writers. It could be explained better.
I suspect that deleting the garbage would not leave a lot of pages. Maybe 50% or more would disappear overnight. That's a guess. It might be 90%.
I think what they are trying to do is get some quick-win improvement without losing too much content. Sure - some of the precious people might leave to their claimed world where individual websites can make oodles of money but the bulk of HP content writers don't come anywhere near these forums.
Most won't know or notice their hubs have been changed.
Maybe that simple numbers game is enough to improve HubPages - and here is the irony. We all want more traffic and a financially strong site.
So much as I hate to think a single word of my marvellous content could be changed - I'll swap that ego for a future and a few more dollars.
You have said it all my friend. I agree 100%
If the team persists on leaving the dross here and spamming our articles the way they are now, nothing they will do will help.
Time and again I have seen situations where authors remove their worst work, have maybe half of their original hubs, and see their page views rise significantly.
It is not the number of people you have writing here, it is the ranking that Google gives those who are still standing after the bad work has been removed that counts.
A smaller community that brings in more money due to better content and search results is what will do the trick.
An easy test is for the team to unfeature, en masse, the worst of the worst and wait a week to see what happens. I understand that this can be easily done, so why not give it a try. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
+1 - this seems to be the situation in a nutshell.
Can HP set the barrier higher for new entrants in the future? I stopped publishing hubs when I lost interest over the quality of hubs being published and didn't feel like publishing next to bad English writers. It devalued what I was doing on here.
While I am actually all for a grammar and spelling checker that is going to correct my work for me and save me a lot of work I do have a couple of MAJOR concerns...
I write a lot about Saudi Arabia and also about business improvement techniques that have originated out of Japan.. As such many of my hubs are peppered with words that are not English in origin. I have thrown some of my work into software in the past and it has tried to change many of these words into other words that are completely wrong...
Am I suddenly going to find that my Hubs are going to make no sense at all as these "incorrectly spelled" words are changed for something more English?
Leanman, that's exactly what concerns me.
@Marisa Wright The type of errors that get corrected tend to be common misspellings and things that are easy to detect. Think of this as word by word, very surgical corrections.
I posted this example http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/132583#post2758996
UPDATE: Just to clarify. HubPro Basic is performed by our editing team.
Paul, thank you.
Do you mean that the editing team verifies and approves each autocorrect item manually?
The example you included of types of corrections wasn't reassuring; it looked like many other spell checkers I've used in the past, which for my work cause more errors than they correct.
Can you tell us if your automated spell and grammar checker is anything like the standard ones that come with word processing software? If so, that's a red flag.
In order not to flip out over how often I'd need to proofread my hubs, I'd hope for something like I outlined here:
Is that possible?
and refined here:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/132583? … ost2759303
Team, we do appreciate what you are trying to do but think about it:
Automated proofreading produces work like spinned articles and poor translations. Just one or 2 errors on a page spoils the entire content. Gobbledygook invites suspicion of credibility. So if the aim is to go "Cream of the Web", trustworthy & all, then I would stay well clear of "out of author-control robots" messing with the artform of literature.
Come to think of it, you may, one day, get the robots to write the hubs too. Then we'll all go on the scrap heap and you still make millions
@Marc Ewbie: Do you really think that by implementing a spell checker will bring HP its traffic back?
I'm disagreeing with you big time.
I was here for 7 years (deleted my older account two months ago because of all of this). I've seen HP survive all Internet catastrophes and get its traffic back in a very short amount of time. It's been a while since traffic hasn't increased; which is a sign (which Squidoo didn't want to see either, we all know how it all ended). Instead, it's still falling, which is not a good sign.
Personally I think that big content sites are not going to recover their old popularity.
Strenghten the writing rules at this point is just non sense. Why would anybody keep writing for the pleasure? There is no pleasure writing on here any more.
Should HP lower the payout threshold, lost of us would have already been gone (personally I don't agree with leaving HP my last payout).
While we don't all write here just for the sake of money, we deserve a reward for the work we did. Doing, re-doing, re-re-doing articles all the time to make them fit with the constant stricter (and silly) rules, is time consuming and must be rewarded. Alas, earnings are next to nothing given the constant affiliate link restrictions in favor of more and more intrusive ads. Which ads become totally invisible should a visitor have their ad blocker turned on.
If HP should look for a script that is effective, they should search for one like that: something that enables the writer to select if they want their links to be followed or ignored by search engines (Amazon and eBay capsules should be turned into actual capsules visible in any circumstances and also into "no-follow" links automatically).
This would be an improvement: more sales, more commissions, more earnings for the writers. Because it is what makes HP survive: the money they earn. Not the money they keep when upset writers close their accounts before reaching the payout threshold.
As said earlier, there is no pleasure writing on here any more. Should this script turn my Hubs into pages that don't make sense, I won't care. Actually, I just wait for the payout threshold to be reached and once paid, I'll leave.
The problem is not HP, the problem is Google - and the millions of internet writers like us who have spent the last several years trying to fool google into sending them traffic so that they can make money...
How much value does a page on HP or any other site have to the searcher if they are looking to buy a specific TV - none - they may as well be sent direct to the retailer.. rather than coming here and then going to the retailer through a middle man.. Better for the searcher and the retailer but cuts us out!
Google has put in place many changes which means sites like this that exist to make money will find it more difficult to rank than sites that are written for fun or to share knowledge - and also harder than real eCommerce sites..
If we continue to do what we always did - or even add more things to make money from - we will just vanish as a site from Google...
So if people want to do what they always did before and think that they can still get the traffic and that HP are wrong then they know what they can do - start your own sites and put your stuff that breaks the rules there on your own site.... Maybe it will do better for a few months, maybe it will do nothing - but I am pretty sure that it will not last... The rules here on HP are not so strict as to make them impossible... but they will try to keep us within what Google is looking for..
As to whether a spell checker will bring back the traffic - read what they are actually telling you... They have done the trials - they have run the grammar and spelling checkers on many hubs - those hubs have seen a 20% (without looking so please don't shoot me if it is wrong) improvement in traffic.. They are giving you something that should help you!!
This site wants you to succeed - they cannot succeed themselves without us!!!!
Google wants to see well written, error free, accurate writing that engages the readers. They are happy with ads - but they don't want to see anything unrelated, they don't want to see anything that is a little dodgy or spammy, etc... What is wrong with following that??
We blame Google for being overly commercial and then we complain that we can't throw in 10 links to our personal business or put up an Amazon ad for 15 types of dog supplements that are never mentioned on our hub about dog training, or add doggy jewelry to the hub just because it is about "dogs"...
Add value - not shove excessive advertising under the noses of our visitors.......
The game has changed.... we have to also....
THE MINOR ISSUE
The grammar and spelling check is only a bonus if your spelling and grammar is not good.
For the rest of us it presents a potential problem for the same reason that we frequently ignore suggested spelling and grammar prompts on Word and elsewhere - because they guess wrong! So for the good writers we may have a clean-up job on our hands.
That's precisely why ALL EDITS should be subject to the consent of the author.
No spell or grammar check elsewhere operates without the consent of the author so why should HubPages be any different?
PLUS As I've indicated elsewhere - for me if it's a question of 'revise on HubPages' or 'remove content and republish elsewhere' there is simply no contest.
THE BIG ISSUE
While I agree with a lot of your analysis (i.e. the world has changed and article sites are no longer popular with Google - and there is a real risk this site will disappear - like Squidoo) you make a mistake when you assume it is ONLY people with poor quality articles which are moving them to other sites.
On the contrary, HubPages's major problem is going to be the removal of content by good quality authors to other sites - precisely because the writing is on the wall (written by Google) about the future fate of all large article sites.
That's precisely what happened at Squidoo and was one of the major reasons why traffic acquired a significant downward trend. (I was writing a book at the time or else I would have been joining them!).
The other thing that happened at the end of Squidoo was a constant battery of minor changes - attempting to reverse the traffic trends - which kept messing up lenses. People started removing content from squidoo just to get away from the changes. (There's an awful lot of people commenting in other places about the strong sense of deja vu they're experiencing right now)
This is essentially about two things:
1) strategic change within the marketplace and
2) the increasing scope for people to monetise their content on their own sites in different ways - which didn't exist to the same extent when the big article sites got going.
The major problem at HubPages is assigning the decline in traffic to things like spelling and grammar when there are bigger and much more significant issues which are not being addressed at all (or so it appears). It reminds me of looking through a telescope the wrong way round.
IMO what HubPages needs to do is to completely rethink its business strategy and then develop a revenue model which supports its new vision for the future.
* what does it propose to do in the face of the inevitable and continuing decline of article sites?
* how does it generate and keep good quality content AND their authors on the site? (i.e. there's no point in improving the content - which belongs to the authors - if you irritate the authors and they remove the content from the site).
One of the reasons Squidoo was so successful for so long was that it had a differentiated income model and paid more to those people who brought more to the site. That provided a major incentive to stay for people who write well. Creating constant change which was both irritating and created a lot of work for authors proved to be a considerable disincentive to stay for those with lots of content.
Just a thought.
Squidoo sounds great.
Where can I sign up?
Maybe HP should make a distinction between writers who can engage an audience and those who can't and eliminate accordingly. I'm pretty sure that would change our fortunes.
Good grief. I have skimmed down this list of responses and you sure have a huge problem with your stuff being edited. What makes you such a special writer that 'your' stuff shouldn't be touched? Have you ever had a paper graded? How is HP supposed to do that - show you what you did wrong so that you can change it? It makes sense to 'just have them change it'. You can always re-read the article to make sure that none of the meaning or charm has changed - then change it back if it isn't right.
If you're a real writer, the kind of editing that is being talked about in the basic option IS NOT something to fear. You should be grateful for it. Sure online writing can be personal - go get a blog if you don't care what your writing looks like, how it comes across or how it comes up in search engines.
Having someone else look at your writing for editing errors is a NORMAL PART of being a writer. So many of you need to stop being so overly-sensitive. The best authors rely on good editors & editing. Really.
Well actually as it happens I am a published author.
* I had a book published this year by a major publisher in the UK (Quarto), USA (North Light Books) and Asia (Page One) and was reprinted after three months as it sold so well. It's currently ranking around 4.5 stars on Amazon and is being sold around the world in foreign language editions. My book required very little editing by the Editors employed by the Publishers. In fact I do recall having to edit the Editor who inadvertently changed the technical meaning once or twice.
* I'm a very experienced Blogger - my main blog has been around for nearly 10 years, is well regarded by thousands of people around the world and notched up 8 million pageviews last weekend
So credentials out of the way...
You have 23 hubs. You have NO IDEA what it's like having to edit over 100 long hubs for errors introduced by a system which has no default to the author for confirmation of change - unlike every other system used to correct spelling and grammar.
I also don't do 'creative writing'. Can't think what gave you that idea.
I write compendium information hubs and have done for nearly ten years. They worked very well on Squidoo - less so on HubPages because it can't cope with the idea of having more than two links to the same domain and hence some of my biggest and most popular hubs were unpublished. However when the content is moved and republished on my own websites the traffic is tripling and quadrupling - with the bulk of traffic coming from Google.
and your credentials are....?
(Having reviewed your responses I think you might just have a problem in knowing how to respond to posts.
EXAMPLE: There's no need to quote yourself when responding.
If you want to make a reply specific to an individual then use the reply bottom left - this then incorporates and quotes the last response on the post where you hit reply. If you want to make a general comment on the whole thread then use Reply Bottom right)
My Hubs include quotes from different Bible versions and Commentaries that were written centuries ago. It is essential that these remain as originally written for comparison and affirmation. My Hubs will no longer be fit for purpose if these quotes are changed.
I am very concerned.
Wow. Wow. I've been out of the loop for the past week, running a summer camp and BOOM! Major changes have occurred at my beloved HP. I've been in and out of the forums when I stopped in to check stats but didn't really know what was going on.
Well, my initial reaction to HubPro Basic and Autocheck is . . . Hopeful. It seems that in the longrun, quality will improve for the site which may increase our standing with Google search engines.
However, I'm concerned about what will happen to poetry and creative pieces. I have a hub under Hubpages Tutorials and Community which has a bunch of bolded lettering. I did that for reason. Mine is a very minor example I can probably live with if it gets modified. But what will happen to those hubs authored by hubbers who took creative liberties to express themselves with a unique style and voice, which will not be appreciated by an automated spelling and grammar checker?
I'm sure this has already been asked and addressed 20 ways to Sunday but I'm just getting the memo. Happy Sunday!
Maybe HP could assess these types of hub based on the engagement factor (time on page)? Good stuff will have high engagment, bad stuff will be clicked away from asap.
Good point, Suzanne. When I read a not-so-well-done creative piece, I usually exit after the first stanza. If it doesn't move me, or uses too many words to express a thought, I'm out.
I see the timeline for pinning updates about HubPro - which are rather significant even if unspecified in the original post - to the top of the Forum is just 4 days.
Some people are going to come back from holiday to a rather big surprise...........
Oh, come on!! Creative pieces are creative - no one is going to be rewriting your poetry for you. Yes, you might have to go through and re-read ALL your stuff after the autocorrect hits to change things back that might change - but, you wrote it once, you can go back and do that.
These changes are HUGE fixes for HP and they are long overdue. Sure there will probably be a little rocky road for a bit while they are being implemented and we get used to them - that is normal.
This is not a reason to panic.
Btw, great job on putting these announcements in the feed, HP - but then you moved the feed, so it still took me four days to see this. I have been responding to 'questions' about this from the main page. The author's feed should be as 'front & center' as the main page. Can you create a tab between the two pages so that we can just switch between them?
Also, one suggestion I have with this new system is that this 'basic editing' part of the process should be done IN THE BEGINNING during the time between when an article is waiting to be published and actually is published.
While that is impossible to do with articles that are already written; and playing catch-up is practically a never-ending job - editing them before/as they are being published would:
1) Create a situation where there are far fewer errors coming out in articles to begin with.
2) Makes it so much easier for the author while it is still fresh in their minds. Editing during the first run could be more suggestive instead of actual changes (with the exception of the automation). This could even be a volunteer peer to peer thing with more involved editing coming from HP's editors, later.
Creative folks really should relax... remember on the HP quality page that there is an option between 'creative' and other types of writing. We all treat those pieces with less stringent rules. Spelling always counts, however - unless you're trying to be creative about it.
If nothing else, I think these changes will cause people to make sure that their writing is better before they turn it in - instead of just throwing it up here like so many people do: eyesores that are hard to read.
Writing matters. It counts - especially if you want to get paid for it.
An addition... If we started with volunteer peer editors who have a good grasp of writing basics doing the first round of editing; those initial editors could be the first eyes on some of HP's best articles as they are being written - and they could be the first ones to start bumping it up the chain of editors (including Hub of the Day) for more attention and/or accolades.
Every article would get a glance this way - no amazing poem would be missed and every article that should get more attention will because Human eyes can see that it is worthy of it.
Also, it would make it so much easier to vote for this last thing... what was it, Hub of the Year or something like that? I wouldn't know where to start to vote for something that important, so I didn't. Who would I be missing?
However, those kinds of awards could be voted for throughout the entire year; then dwindled to the top 5 in each category for all Hubbers to vote on when the time comes.
Okay, I'll stop now.
As stated - no need to quote yourself!
Have you ever come across the edit button. It's down at the bottom of the post after you publish.
If you've made an error and/or a typo and/or want to add an extra note in it's always best to use the 'edit' function.
What are you talking about? You can't understand what I wrote above because I made a writing error or something? This isn't a published article. Where did I quote myself; and if I did - why does it bother you?
Good idea except for one thing: Why would anybody "volunteer" to take on such a time consuming and exhaustive task?
You don't have to volunteer; and it is not up to any individual hubber to be responsible for anyone else's writing. There are many of us who would volunteer simply because we care about writing and how we all are coming across. There are many of us who voluntarily participate in the hub quality site, for example - just because we care.
They just need to expand on the hub hopper - and maybe limit access to it for volunteers who pass a basic writing test to prove their entry-level editing capabilities. Right now the hh is very limiting - you can't even contact the author from that page to suggest corrections or let them know that things are not coming across well. I can't imagine tinkering with that part of the site and adding more things to it (like voting) would be that hard.
Please, please no. I saw the havoc and bad feeling that volunteer editors caused at Helium and I have no wish to repeat that experience.
In my experience, the issue is as much the fault of 'overly-sensitive' writers as it is tactless, power-hungry editors. Newer and/or amateur writers have a much more difficult time accepting criticism. If someone starts getting a reputation for over-editing - they can be axed easily enough.
I agree, writers can be over-sensitive. I'm the first to tell would-be novelists that they are barking mad to self-publish their book without an editor's input - after all, if Stephen King and JK Rowling still need an editor, how big-headed can you be to think you don't need one?
However, there is a difference between a professional editor and a well-meaning volunteer one. I had ridiculous edits suggested on Helium. Some were because they didn't understand my specialist subject, and some were because they were being over-zealous and trying to impose formal grammar on a colloquial piece. It was a waste of time.
There's also a vast difference between a professional editor of fiction and an inexperienced "professional" Editor of a factual subject they know little about. I have also experienced the latter - "up with which I will not put" - as the saying goes!
God preserve us from the egos of the amateur and/or inexperienced Editors who know too little and think rather too much of themselves.
As a specialist translator who has built up a good reputation with a number of agencies, I am frequently asked to proofread/edit the work of other translators. I charge $40/hour for this service and the clients pay up without a whimper.
Why on earth should I or anyone else provide editing services to Hubpages for free???????
Hubpages is a hard-nosed commercial enterprise not a non-profit organisation seeking to improve some aspects of life on this planet. It was set up to rake in profits for its owners. Is not already enough that we provide content at no charge against the possibility of earning a few shekels?
Possibly, just possibly, doing editing work for free might attract the unemployed in order to get something on their CVs. I cannot however see anyone else being stupid enough to give up their time for nothing to feather the nest of a private business.
I am not talking about the type of editing that costs $40 an hour to do - I am talking about proofreading through and article ONCE in order to give basic feedback to the author on things like 'idea that are not coming across well' and general grammar/punctuation errors...
Again, there are MANY of us who already do a similar form of this while HubHopping for quality control checks. It isn't such a silly idea.
I am a professional writer and having the right to see and approve edits is not "special", it is an industry wide norm. From writing scientific textbooks right down to paid forum posting.
No, it isn't unusual for an edit 'just to happen' for minor corrections such as spelling or punctuation. And while, as a 'professional' - your editor may let you see and/or approve every single one; 'just editing' happens all the time.
This is not a professional writing site. There are many amateurs who are spoiling the whole bushel of apples; and they are the ones who need all this editing. If you are a professional writer and know what you are doing; you probably are not going to get corrected very often - as Dave or someone said above. That makes sense.
I know that I have never had an editor not run a change past me in 30 years. From the highest spiritual poetry to the lowest drudge content work, adding up to a dozen novels, several textbooks, hundreds of chapters and articles and a few million other sundry words here or there. Not once. That was not about how many changes I needed, it was about process when editors work with originators who are retaining copyright.
This is a real professional issue that almost lead to me pulling a chapter from an Oxford University Press book last year. Copyright holders have final say about what is put out under their names. So the basic requirement is notification so that the author and withdraw the work if they change is non-negotiable and not acceptable to them. Which might be something as high minded as the message or as cultural as whether British spelling is permitted (that is very important to some people).
I would definitely rate and flag hubs if a more easy to use hopper, like the old one that did not have all the sliders, was brought in/back. I used to hub when I had spare time but with the new design I stopped.
I wish we had a good way to scale editing. All the data we have as well as I've compared data with some really large publishers and their data supports it as well.
The most effective way at increasing traffic is updating articles that are doing well and adding more content.
I'd really like to increase the number of paid editors by a lot. There are so many talented people out there and I find it really frustrating as an entrepreneur that there is a large source of intellectual talent that we haven't been able to employ. If we can ever get traffic growing, we will be adding editors as fast as we can afford.
Many people don't know this, but we've added a few more Hubbers as contractors recently. I know there are many more we would like to hire as well.
"Grammar and spelling rank high with Google."
Truly? How can I tell? When doing research, or even looking things up out of personal curiosity, I find many, many articles at the top of the 'google god's' search results that lead to poorly written content, with both kinds of errors; yet they are at the top of the first page of results!
As far as appeal to readers: yes, to educated, literate readers, the likes of which are usually found on and contributing to writing sites. But as for the rest of the world? Pffft!
With the takeover of the social media shorthand nonsense, and the myriad of people who don't know the differences between "they're; there; and their," and who speak in "textese" language such as "U be hear 4 diner?" or "why where you late?" and the ever-popular "selfie" craze with ungrammatical and inane commentary, I doubt most of the rest of the readers even notice such mistakes and abominations as we writers do.
I tend to agree with "makingamark," and will add to his commentary to state that in traditional publishing, copy gets run by the editors, and then is sent back to the author with the request to make the noted changes. It is not done for them!
I join in the protest to have opt out taken away. I opted out for a reason, and I'd like to remain so.
The point is, Google is trying to improve on grammar and things like that just like HP is - that may be one of the reasons why they are pushing these editing changes.
As for the current search outcomes... just because someone has something important to say; doesn't mean it is cool to say it in an unreadable or unprofessional way.
In other words, just because everyone else does it - doesn't make it right, ha!
You need to relax just like makingamark and so many others... really. There is absolutely nothing wrong with improving your writing; and objective criticism and editing has always been a great way to learn.
And AGAIN, if you do it correctly yourself the first time - you don't have to worry about them correcting anything.
You totally missed my point. I agree it is NOT "cool" to use unreadable or unprofessional writing to convey information. My point was, that if Google is so concerned with improving that, then they should start by not featuring such articles at the top of page one in their search results.
And no, I did not imply that it is the correct thing to do just because "everyone else does it." Once again, you missed my point--which is that the trouble begins in our schools; at this point they are so busy teaching kids to take a test that they are failing to teach grammar and spelling.
No, it is not the right approach, and we are seeing the results of that daily. My point was not that it is acceptable; only that such positive changes are likely to go unnoticed by far too many people these days.
Congratulations--you are 3 for 3 on missing my points! I do not have a problem with improving my writing; I welcome constructive criticism.
However, I do NOT welcome anonymously-made and preemptive changes to my content without my input--as I said in my closing sentence--that's not how it is or was ever done in traditional print publishing.
(And most of the time (with the possible exception of a typo sneaking through), I always do write correctly the first time!
I was an English Major in School, back when they still taught spelling, grammar and sentence structure.
So I'm not "worried," simply irritated on principle.
Misfit Chick, you don't seem to realize how rude and condescending you are being. If you're going to criticize writers in this discussion, perhaps you should take a little time to see how many hubs each of those writers has published on HP, read the writers' profiles, and read at least one of each of their hubs. Then make your comment. And do learn the basics of posting in a forum -- where to hit reply, how to edit your posts, etc. You'll find that it makes it easier for everyone in a discussion when the basic rules are followed. Not trying to be mean to you but trying to be fair to all.
I'm not rude and condescending - I'm passionate about this subject; tired of off-kiltered, overly-sensitive perspectives from other 'writers' (sorry, I don't look each one of you up - I just go by 'how you sound'); and frankly THRILLED that HP is finally taking this issue seriously and doing something about it - even if it doesn't involve any of my own elongated ideas.
I can't imagine what rules I may be breaking; but whatever they are, I could really care less. Excuse me for being more than a little irreverent.
There's an exception: newspapers edit and publish. Or at least that's been my experience.
True--but newspapers are the exception, given that they are on a daily time crunch.
Not so with magazines and books, the former having a long lead time between acceptance and publication, and the latter getting published when they get published, usually without much of a time impediment.
I read through this thread, and it seems to me that the writers in this discussion have a good understanding of grammar, punctuation and syntax. I hope that there are many more HP writers who also express themselves well in their hubs. But I have to say that I run into a lot of hubs that are poorly written.
If HubPro can fix the worst mistakes, then maybe it's worth a try. If HubPro is working now, why are there so many grammar and punctuation errors? Is HubPro going to check the Q&As, too?
When "all right" is misspelled in the title of a hub that HP is actively promoting in emails, I find it a bit upsetting. Today I got an email about a new design for the home page, so I went to look. My first impression was that it's a mishmash of Q&As mixed in with articles and creative writing. One Q&A at the top says, "Whats the solution of all this?" The same person (with no photo) asks, "All human want to have a good life in this world.and the moneys is the issues!!!." Why HP chose to put these at the top of the column, I do not understand. Maybe a computer program chose them.
To be honest, I am considering moving my writing out of HP. I would love to know your thoughts.
+1 This certainly doesn't portray HP as professional at all and would not attract more quality writers. It needs to be fixed!!!
Exactly... You've captured the issue in a nutshell. I know that *I* have always wondered how a Hub of the Day could be chosen with obvious spelling errors within the very first paragraph.
I know that many of us have considered moving our writing - but, as 'bad' as it is, there doesn't seem to be anywhere else to go beyond HP unless you are ready to reach for a more profound writing career.
I have also considered simply moving everything to my blogs - but, they do play off of each other as far as traffic goes. I haven't found a reason beyond 'dang I wish they would fix these eyesores' to leave, yet.
And if they manage to fix them, woot!!
I'm not sure if you will be able to see this link or not - but this is one of my hubs that is going through this process and how it looks as it is being edited: http://hubpages.com/edit/changes/?edit=1908
There is a colored legend that shows the text that was removed as well as text that was added. I can see everything that they changed - and THANK YOU to whomever did this. It does look much better.
They did a good job editing, but I will be adding one paragraph back into the article because *I* think it is important.
No, I am not upset that it was removed because it is a typical paragraph that most any English teacher would have deemed 'unnecessary'. My writing is rambling and wordy (maybe you've noticed); and 'killing my darlings' has never been easy for me. Ever. Ha!
It's an easy fix. No problemo and thank you HP. So far, so good.
Nope--anyone but the hub author gets a message "you do not have permission to access this page."
Good, then someone is doing their job right in the background - but, in this case, it would have been nice.
I can see everything that was changed, though - and I 'can' go in and re-edit anything I want to, just like I can in any of my other hubs. Nothing looks different except for this one page.
Aside from the colored legend or 'View Changes with Highlights' page - the other two options to view are the original article and the edited hub that is live on Hubpages.
I actually don't need to go back in and add that paragraph I was talking about earlier; because it was re-edited and added into the article in a better place that I hadn't seen, yet.
Very nice job, HP.
I got an error message, "You do not have permission to access this page." I'm glad to hear that you had a good experience with HubPro.
You know--there's one other concern I have with this, and that is the fact that there is already a problem with the auto-correct/spell-checker within the hub tool (as well as in comments and here in the forums).
Namely, it fails to recognize some contractions as real words, and red-lines them as errors: more than once it has marked "I've" as being wrong, as well as a few others.
It fails to recognize the plural form of some words, e.g., I just ran into this with the word "delicates," in reference to fragile frilly clothing. It is fine without the "s," but as soon as the plural form is used, it is marked as an error.
Hub Pages needs to fix these kinds of things before they go mucking about with people's content.
There are some excellent writers on here.
I know that because they tell me in their forum posts and on their profiles.
With all these wonderful writing skills we will no longer be seeing those old rehashed sub Wiki and sub Amazon sales pages.
We are saved by these brilliant people.
We are trying to raise the quality of the site to a more professional level. I realize that it's difficult to have your work edited, but HubPro Basic is not adding content—it's correcting grammar, spelling, and removing spammy elements. Even the best writers make mistakes and our editors are here to help with those minor changes. We have found through our tests that fixing minor grammar and spelling errors in Hubs can have a significant impact on traffic, and improving your highest traffic Hubs has the biggest impact on readers and traffic.
We are trying to improve quality site wide, one Hub at a time. Google has said that grammar, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation errors can have an impact on a site's quality rating. We have to improve.
I appreciate that, Paul. It makes a lot of sense to address the basics in order to improve the overall quality of HP. I like the idea of HubPro Basic and welcome it to my subdomain. I catch typos in my hubs that surprise me every time so I know most of us could use an auto-tweak or two. Thanks.
One of my hubs was recently edited with HubPro Basic and, at least for me, it was exactly as advertised: basic proofreading, no change in content or style. The editing was light, though it probably varies hub to hub. They also emailed me a before and after document that showed the changes.
I don't believe HubPages is only trying the help themselves with basic editing. I really don't. Why not try it and see what happens? The content is never locked up here. It can always be withdrawn by the author.
What if we push HubPages to the brink of exasperation with all this resistance? It seems to me that the majority of writers here don't want to see HubPages gone forever. Can't we see they are searching for answers to site decline?
Editing on my hub is finished. The end result, as far as I can see, is that all of my affiliate links were removed, the explanation given is that I hadn't mentioned these products in my article and that this was an informational article, not really geared toward affiliate sales. That may be partly true, but in looking over my recent sales reports I did make 10 sales that appear to be directly related to that article, and probably more indirectly related items as well. I thought the books I decided to feature were closely tied to the subject matter. This is disappointing.
This is why it annoys me that HubPages has such a prejudice against affiliate ads. My blogs have lots of affiliate ads and still get good Google traffic, so I can't help feeling that HubPages has got a completely unjustified bee in its bonnet!
However, if Hubpages wants to help me nail that scammer who copied this hub, I'd be more than happy. This is something that might help with traffic.
I agree. This one particular hub has had a lot of visits and is number one in the search results. The affiliate products didn't seem to hurt its ranking. I agree that on another site, now long gone, there were too many affiliate ads. But there has to be a balance somewhere.
You do know that you're allowed to reinstate those Amazon capsules if you want.
Hi Marissa, I thought so. Thanks for the clarification. I don't mean to whine about this, although I realize that's what I was doing. It just hit me by surprise. I understand the HP team is trying to help turn things around, even if I don't agree with some of the methods.
I am not a writer, I am a compiler and have long wanted this assistance. I can most certainly understand true writers feeling that their work is being compromised but in the real world both as a writer and any other field a second set of eyes always refines the process and makes it better. Kudos once again to the HP team.
Additionally, I feel strongly that the unity of the world rests upon better communication. I cringe when a foreigner struggles with the verbiage as I know how difficult it is so with a global perspective, I must shout with joy over this change. HP is bringing the world a little bit closer across the seas and this quality upgrade will serve as a team effort for all be heard and included in the conversation.
HP - keep up the superb work!
A second set of eyes only makes it better if those eyes actually know the subject
I speak as somebody who has had a professional editor make a proper boo boo of editing a topic in a book I was writing for a proper well known publisher
So let's not go putting "second pairs of eyes" on a pedestal - they have to earn their status and value by getting it right - every time!
Hi Marisa, I'm going to put them back. This is my highest-earning hub and you're right, it's foolish not to earn what I should on this one.
Truthfully, I think removing the products was the right thing to do. Take a look at your Amazon sales—if you haven't had any sales on these books in the last few months, I would remove them. Readers are on your Hub for specific information from the internet not to buy a book, and when you try to sell them something when that isn't their intent on being there, you lose their trust. If you want to sell a book, tell us that you've read it and why it's better than the other books out there. That is valuable information. Just finding a book on Amazon and inserting it because you might make one sale some day, is not a good reader experience and should be avoided. Also, just because today your page ranks well, doesn't mean that the ranking is going to stick. We have to make the best reader experience possible; if adding a product enhances the reader's experience then add it. If you are adding the product just to make a sale, I would remove the product. Ologsinquito, you have written a great Hub that has a lot of really valuable information. I think that adding products to this particular Hub is not necessary.
I so totally agree. I always remove any ad or link that isn't producing results. I firmly believe it is the wise thing to do, a true case of less is more.
This is a nonsense response - given the context in which we are operating!!!
How can any hubber know there have been no sales when the statistical data on Amazon sales for each hub is hidden from the hubbers?
How about providing us with ALL the Amazon results per hub then we can make an appropriate judgement for ourselves?
We had them at Squidoo so it should be possible at HubPages.
Are you serious? I don't have any Amazon capsules at present, so I didn't know. Is HP really not updating this report link, https://hubpages.com/my/earnings/reports?type=amazon , when the Amazon program is being used as part of the HP Ad Program?
Update: Oops, I think I see what you mean. Hub or product isn't specified? Might be able to figure it out from revenue divided by items ordered, but only if there is not too much volume.
Looks like my reading comprehension skills are under par today...
Paul Edmondson recently posted a a bit more info about Amazon sales data here.
Can I post a link here to my algebra hub, so people can use that until the programming is completed?
...and this was my response to Paul Edmondson's post http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/132842#post2762004
Squidoo provided data on ALL Amazon sales per lens for years and years and I really cannot believe that HubPages need permission from Amazon to share that data with us right now.
HOWever--my very few (count them--exactly 3) Amazon sales, have all been for products other than what was in my Amazon capsule!
But--we still get the credit for those, if they clicked our Amazon ad, and then went shopping and bought something else instead, totally unrelated to the hub or the promoted product, that is not within our control.
In one case, it was a jewelry purchase, and I have zero hubs to do with jewelry, and that was certainly not what the Amazon capsule featured. It may have been a book, "for more information on this topic" kind of thing, or it might have been a camping supplies product from that hub, but certainly not jewelry.
Yet, they clicked my link, bought the jewelry, and I got the credit.
As long as they are still on Amazon, without having left that site from clicking your link, you get the credit.
So, even if the product in the Amazon capsule IS relevant to the article, it is very likely the customer may purchase something highly irrelevant. And that's okay. I'm not going to remove any Amazon capsules and cheat myself out of that possibility.
This also kills my brilliant idea of trying to figure out where the sale came from by noting the sale price. Oh, well; back to my nap.
If all of your sales are on different products than in your Amazon Capsules then you should remove them because you are likely losing credibility and trust from your readers. It's not worth it for the three sales—which likely cannibalized clicks from ads on your page as well. What is your intention with adding the products? Are you creating a trustworthy resource? Are the products there to enhance your article? Or, are you adding the products for your benefit. I think products can be incredibly useful and a great resource when applied for the reader's benefit—not ours. For me, author credibility is more important than a few sales. I know you take a lot of pride in your Hubs, Lizzy. I don't think products that aren't useful to the reader are worth risking your strong reputation as a writer.
Robin, I do not feature products for my benefit! I rather take umbrage at that implication. That is not at all what I meant by saying I was leaving the capsules in place.
I do work hard on my hubs and I aim to feature items that will be of interest or use to the readers.
How do I lose credibility if the reader actually clicks on my very relevant capsule, and then in the end, decides to buy something else? We have no control over that.
In the one case, as near as I could figure out, the jewelry purchase came from my hub reviewing a carpet shampoo machine, which featured that machine...the one I have and use at home.
I don't have ESP, so I have no way to know (nor does anyone, really), if someone is actually going to buy the product that yes, was featured, for the reader's benefit.
If your products are not being bought, they are likely not useful to your reader. This isn't an attack on you; It was meant as a helpful suggestion. I'm truly sorry if you took it otherwise.
I've got a lot of stuff going on, and maybe I'm in an over-sensitive spot right now.
At any rate, maybe I'm being dense, but if the product is exactly what the article is about, then how would it be "not useful" to the reader, especially if they clicked on it??!! That would seem to imply they were interested in the item.
How can I help it if they then changed their mind and bought something else? People are goofy sometimes. In my book, if you want to buy jewelry, you go do that; you don't buy it from an ad for a carpet shampooer.
Robin - you are coming across to me as somebody who really needs a very big education about how HubPages is funded and how Amazon works
1) HubPages gets income from its share of the sales on Amazon via our hubs. (However we do not know what these are as they are not reported to us). Take away the sales and you reduce the income. Reduce the income and I guarantee that will reduce the number of people who are in HubPages' paid employment
2) MOST PEOPLE who shop on Amazon also buy other stuff besides the item which triggered the sale. This is ENTIRELY NORMAL. It works like this because of the fact that the cookie which identifies an individual hub as being the one to be credited the sales picks up the benefit of all other purchases made by that individual on that buying binge. Generating sales of other products does not reflect badly on the account holder or the hub - it just is what it is i.e. the way Amazon works!
3) Do please wake up to the way Amazon product sales get reported. We cannot tell which products generate sales as we don't get to see all the data for ALL THE SALES. You are suggesting people remove products which for all we know are generating sales but the income is being credited to HubPages because of the way the income is split (ie keep us all in the dark and then Hubpages gets its share of income from sales)
4) On the basis we do not have ALL the sales data for ALL the products listed on our hubs we cannot make sensible decisions as to the products to remove.
Do please get up to speed with how the Amazon programme works and how sales are generated and reported before you start messing around with other people's hubs!
If Hubpages wants us to make these sort of decisions then they need to start supplying ALL THE DATA on Amazon sales.
Hubbers should not be placed in the situation where they cannot validate the evidence used by others for the changes made to the hubs - because they do not have access to that data.
" Robin - you are coming across to me as somebody who really needs a very big education about how HubPages is funded and how Amazon works "
Robin is the wife of Paul Edmondson, so I'm sure she is laughing her ass off at your comment. You are coming across as someone who doesn't know to quit when she is behind.
Robin might be the wife of Paul Edmondson - but the fact remains that she very obviously does not know that we DO NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION available to us to make sensible decisions about which products to dump when it comes to Amazon modules. (I make this assumption on the basis that there is no logic to her recommendation if she knew this!)
We have to have ALL THE INFORMATION ON ALL THE SALES credited to HubPages to make any sort of sensible judgement about which products to drop.
I entirely agree one of the points she is making is entirely correct. If a product has not made a sale over a long period of time it's probably not worth carrying.
However sales also depend on the level of traffic a hub gets and some are slow burners and take off very slowly. They might not have any sales in the first year and yet still turn into a steady earner at some point. I know for a fact that this has happened to sites I've created. For example, one site took off like a rocket when I changed its title, announced this on social media, it got picked up by somebody with loads of followers and traffic went through the roof - and while traffic dropped back afterwards it's been respectable and hence the hub has been a steady earner ever since.
It is great to be on a site with your own subdomain when you can do your own thing, try stuff and be in charge of your own destiny by employing your own style.
What is supposed to be the difference between shipped earnings and earnings?
Ya know what? I'm going to find me one hub where I can put in one amazon capsule so as to join this adventure.
Here's a practical example of why we need ALL the sales data re Amazon sales (irrespective of who gets the income)
I am currently moving the content from a hub which HubPages has deemed needs to be unfeatured as unworthy on quality terms. This is a hub which has had steady traffic and regular sales while on Squidoo. I'm guessing HubPages thinks it has too many Amazon modules. That's because my lens/hub aims to be comprehensive and is one of a few sites in the world that is about the topic in question.
While moving the content, I've gone back to the historical royalties data I archived before leaving Squidoo which provided me with a list of all sales generated by the lens. I transfer the data to a spreadsheet and then reorder it alphabetically based on the title of the products sold to people who first clicked on that lens before they entered Amazon.
From that I can determine which are the most popular books associated with this topic and which have sold but are less popular. This in turn determines what gets included on the new site and, importantly, where they are positioned on the page and what sort of profile they get.
I don't have to move content to need this data. I also need it if I am to make intelligent decisions while revising content on Hubpages. We all need this data.
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.