jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (11 posts)

Do You Think Making Hubs More Generic Is Really The Answer?

  1. Kylyssa profile image94
    Kylyssaposted 4 months ago

    HubPro Basic has gotten more invasive and far less basic. Now they're changing text and replacing related photos with unrelated generic photos, thinking they are improving hubs.

    Computer generated writing exists. It's getting better and better, but why would that lead people to believe that removing the unique and personal elements from writing by humans would increase its popularity?

    I just don't understand why HubPages is going in the direction of removing writers' voices from their writing. In my opinion, they've got it all wrong. Writing from human beings will likely gain in popularity rather than sink and computer programs will try to emulate human writing voices rather than trying to sound as much like machines as possible.

    Readers actually enjoy reading and enjoy the human element in writing. Imposing a more emotionless, less human tone on hubs really won't help anything, nor will removing relevant photos and replacing them with irrelevant ones.

    1. kenneth avery profile image84
      kenneth averyposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      I do NOT think that making our work more generic is the answer. You are right. We each enjoy the human element in others' hubs.
      I wish HP would settle on one thing and as the Beatles said, "Let it Be."

    2. makingamark profile image76
      makingamarkposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      I don't know about anybody else but I know that in terms of what I read elsewhere on the Internet I trust articles written with an author's voice far more than one written with uniform editorial language.

      I think the move to strip out the author from hubs is a HUGE mistake.

      There's absolutely NOTHING in Google's Webmaster Guidelines https://support.google.com/webmasters/a … 5769?hl=en which says anything about grammar and spelling having to be perfect

      I suggest HP reviews the section which says this

      Basic principles

      * Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines.
      * Don't deceive your users.
      * Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you, or to a Google employee. Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"

      If a hub says the author is "xyz" then the person who should be writing the hub is that person and NO ONE ELSE. I refer to 2 and 3 above.

      IMO a much better approach - which would in no way compromise or breach Google's guidelines - would be to create a report and a separate file for review by the Hub author in which SUGGESTIONS are made about aspects which might improve a hub in the view of HubPages.

      The action to be taken would then be left to the hubber to implement - and in that way:
      * decision-making about content is 100% down to the author
      * the content remains the author's in its entirety
      * copyright has not been breached
      * Google guidelines have not been ignored

    3. tdalexander profile image90
      tdalexanderposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      It's really frustrating after spending hours choosing the right image and making comments which are attached to those images to then have them removed on a hub which already receives high traffic when energy could be focused on getting rid of or improving hubs that are poorly written, riddled with grammar and spelling errors and lacking in any valuable content. Many of my readers are autistic people who rely on the visual supports and my images are planned with that fact in mind. Kylyssa, I agree with you 100%.

  2. Ramkitten2000 profile image93
    Ramkitten2000posted 4 months ago

    Thank you for this topic. As some of you saw, I recently had this issue myself, and you're right: HubPro Basic is NOT always basic at all. Not only were they going to change out my personal photos (until they agreed to leave my hub alone and return it to me), but I could also see that they were going to remove chunks of content that related to my personal experience on the Appalachian Trail. I could see the changes they were going to make by clicking on the hub link while it was locked away from me by an editor. To me, what they were removing was MY voice, not to mention photos I took while out there on the trail. They were removing what I consider legitimacy.

    Do we really need to make hubs more generic? My response: NO WAY! Without the personal elements -- even IF that includes less than perfect photos -- a hub, or any article on any site for that matter, can come off reading like just another cranked out piece of content. Or even spun content. Just regurgitating the same old, same old info you can find on a bunch of other sites.

    As a reader, I want legit and real. If that comes through in the writing (not to mention the photos if possible), then I can happily overlook less than perfection (whatever that is).

    I've read HP's explanation(s) of why they're concentrating on "fixing" the best hubs and highest trafficked hubs in their efforts to appease the almighty Google, but I just don't agree with their logic.

    1. makingamark profile image76
      makingamarkposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      My view is that HubPages misunderstands in a significant way what Google does want to see - which is individual authors with expertise talking about their own personal experiences in their own voice.

      There's no way an editor should be involved beyond suggestions on spelling and grammar and possibly some SUGGESTIONS re formatting. (I'm fine with suggestions to remove caps!) and/or how modules are organised.

      This is what Google states on https://support.google.com/webmasters/a … 1093?hl=en and this is what editing should be limited to.
      Be careful of things that can make visitors not trust your site or leave:
      * Errors such as broken links or wrong information
      * Grammar or spelling mistakes
      * Excessive amount of ads
      * Spam such as comment or forum spam

      Remembering of course that if you have to remove irrelevant adverts from a page you would do better to start with the wholly irrelevant ones outside the author's control rather than the wholly relevant Amazon modules within the author's content!

      My view is that once they start to tamper with my text and/or the Amazon modules then the hub is unpublished and moved to another site where it will be my content in my voice and 100% my income.

      If they are really keen to lose content then so be it......

  3. Venkatachari M profile image85
    Venkatachari Mposted 4 months ago

    Why surrender to HubPro? I do not like my hubs edited by anybody. I can accept only suggestions. The human voice, personal experiences and feelings, and opinions should always be maintained by the writer in his writings.

    1. Ramkitten profile image60
      Ramkittenposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Oh, I'd opt out immediately if I could. But this is so-called HubPro "Basic" and we cannot opt out.

      1. word55 profile image82
        word55posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Our hubs should be written as professionally as possible. The staff should offer help as far as proofreading and correcting misspelling as opposed to just rejecting a hub because of a very few flaws.

        1. Venkatachari M profile image85
          Venkatachari Mposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          That could be done by any software that you would subscribe to like Grammarly.

          1. makingamark profile image76
            makingamarkposted 4 months ago in reply to this


            HP certainly does not want to waste money on staff for a job which can be done by software which provides feedback to the author - so mistakes can be corrected as the hub is written. (Which I seem to recall is in fact what has happened in relation to spelling and common phrases)

            HP could also write a program to highlight hubs to authors which have too many mistakes in them - and thenunfeature them if the hubs are not revised.