jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (12 posts)

my blog headline is not updating

  1. GraceCWalker profile image80
    GraceCWalkerposted 4 months ago

    i edited my blog headline but it is still defaulting to the old headline ..
    can anyone help

    1. theraggededge profile image93
      theraggededgeposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      If you are trying to change the title of your hub, just keep trying. I had the same problem but after several attempts it worked.

      HP is definitely not a blogging site.

  2. Marisa Wright profile image93
    Marisa Wrightposted 4 months ago

    I'm not sure what you mean by your blog headline.

    If you mean on HubPages, then you do not have a blog on HubPages.  You write articles, just like you'd write articles in a magazine.

  3. NateB11 profile image92
    NateB11posted 4 months ago

    I think you might mean that the url (address) for your Hub doesn't change when you change the title; if so, url doesn't change when you change the title.

    Or it might be that you have not hit the Enter button after typing in your new title.

    1. GraceCWalker profile image80
      GraceCWalkerposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      thanks,  i re did the post.  appreciate you reply

      1. NateB11 profile image92
        NateB11posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        No problem.

  4. Sue Adams profile image92
    Sue Adamsposted 4 months ago

    According to Wikipedia, "A blog (a truncation of the expression weblog) is a website consisting of "posts". Until 2009, blogs were usually the work of a single individual. More recently, multi-author blogs (MABs) have developed, with posts written by large numbers of authors."

    Many writers here at HubPages are quite peculiar about terminology. They use the word "hub" for their HP content instead of "blog" or "post".  We only use the word "post" for  forum entries.

    However, now that HubPages are diverting into many new niche websites, each with their own independent names, the word "hub" for our contributions no longer seems relevant. I recommend using the word "article" instead of  "hub" because when our content is viewed on one of those new niche sites by readers who are not familiar with HubPages, the term "hub" seems rather strange, irrelevant and out of place.

    1. Marisa Wright profile image93
      Marisa Wrightposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      You'll find different definitions of "blog" and "blogging" depending on where you look, but that's not the point I think.

      The reason I (and others) say "HubPages is not a blogging site" and discourage the word "blog" is that people do have a perception of "blogging" as throwing down a short post about something. Whereas as you say, Hubs should be longer, magazine-style articles.

      Things have got blurred in recent years and many blogs these days do consist of long articles but I still think telling people, "don't write a blog post, write a proper article!" is an instruction that most people would understand. 

      And yes, I do think we should start calling them articles rather than Hubs in light of the new sites.  It's funny how websites seem to feel they have to have a special name for their posts!

  5. WordCrafter09 profile image85
    WordCrafter09posted 4 months ago

    When I first signed up here (under another name and 8-plus years ago), or some time shortly after, there was a graphic/diagram that HP showed somewhere to explain the relevance of "Hub"  The point was that there the main core/center of a Hub was the article, represented by a big circle.  Then, branching off were all the capsules/links someone might put in the Hub   Assuming I interpreted the thing correctly, all the smaller circles connected by lines to the "core" article were supposed to support and/or complement the article.

    They (HP) talked about "magazine style" then (as they still do).  Somewhere along the way a whole bunch of people started referring to HubPages as "the Hub" (and things like that).    I don't know if that diagram even still applies or whatever happened to it (or, again, if the interpretation of it that I had was even what HP intended it to be - although I think it was).  Then again, HP told people (essentially) "write whatever you want to write, and if it's unique, informative and/or useful it may be earn you a little money".  The term used for the ideal article and all its supporting capsules was "information-rich".  Of course, now there are a bunch of new rules about what links (etc.) should go with any Hub.

    In any case, I'm not sure (I ever even understood it correctly in the first place, and with regard to the kind of "magazine-style" article HP wanted/wants) that "definition" wouldn't still apply today to the Hubs/articles on HP's niche sites.

    My challenge on here (then and now) has always been that while aiming for "magazine quality" in terms of things like proper grammar is easy enough to understand; "magazine style" can depend on which kind of magazine one has in mind

    Anyway, having seen that diagram (I'm fairly certain - or was I just imagining it?????   hmm ) whenever it was, I couldn't resist mentioning it here because in more recent times it's kind of bugged me when people (say, on the forums), say things like, "Welcome to the Hub" or "I haven't signed in with the Hub" for a long time.   (I know people on the HP team change and so has the site, but it was a good diagram.  For all I know, maybe it's still around and buried somewhere and people just don't see it these days.)

    The one thing I do think about referring to "Hub" versus "article" is that when I've referred in a Hub to something like, "this Hub....", I've often regretted it if/when I want to move the thing somewhere else and end up having hundreds of "articles" (or whatever they are) to go through and find all the references to "Hub".  They're not all just simple ones.  Some have whole lines, introductions, paragraphs, etc. etc. involved.   I now know not to do that, but with some types of Hubs I'd written in the past it seemed kind of pretentious and/or out-and-out inaccurate to refer to them as "articles".

    1. NateB11 profile image92
      NateB11posted 4 months ago in reply to this

      I also get annoyed when someone refers to the whole site as "the Hub". It indicates a lack of understanding of the term. Thought I was the only one that was irked by that.

  6. Sue Adams profile image92
    Sue Adamsposted 4 months ago

    I appreciate your explanation, of the "hub" concept. It is interesting. But... times have changed. We must move on because, as you rightly say:

    That is exactly what happens when our "hubs" are moved to the new sites. The term "hub" then no longer applies. That is why I have changed all references to my work on HP from "hub/s" to "article/s".

    1. WordCrafter09 profile image85
      WordCrafter09posted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Aside from the niche reasons and from the moving-to-somewhere-else reasons (for referring to "article" (or whatever would be appropriate for the type of writing something is), I just think references to "hub" don't look as good in things like search results, summaries, "nutshell's", etc. 

      I know this site and the kind of stuff that's on it, so if I were to search for SOME things and see a reference to "this hub" I might still click on it if it was about (again) SOME types of things.  (Like - I don't know - "things that can wrong using  hair extensions", or something like that; or else something like, maybe, raising twins - something that was clearly coming from the author's experience/first-hand knowledge or insight.)

      If I look up something like, say, "how to change a tire" (or whatever) and I see reference to "hub" I'm most likely going to head for the next search result before I ever get to see whether a hub is particularly in-depth or comprehensive or any other positive thing it might be.

      If I didn't know the mix of the stuff on this site maybe I would or wouldn't click on a search result and/or wonder what the heck a "hub" is.  I can't say writers of Hubs taking the chance these days.  There was a time when words like "Xombytes" and "lens" (oh, let's not forget "bubbles") and whatever other words were being used for stuff on the "writing sites" were everywhere and common.   I don't think the "what-the-heck-is-a-_____ factor" was then what it may have become/be becoming at this stage in the game.