I'm very happy with the results of the niche sites. It's a win-win for HubPages and writers like myself. But I'm a bit curious about the process for choosing Hubs that go on those sites.
One of my most successful Hubs on a niche site has more than 1,250 words, multiple photos and an original video. I have checked it carefully for grammar and spelling.
Another Hub has all of the exact same attributes, plus some original photos, but it has not been chosen for the same niche site.
I understand HP looks for Hubs with certain characteristics. I want to produce Hubs with the qualities that lead to publication on a niche site. So I'm trying to understand if I did something wrong with the second Hub, but I just don't see it.
Have any of you experienced the same thing?
Paul Edmundson recommended people go over their hubs checking for typos and improving them according to their 'stellar hub's guidelines. He reckoned if there was little for a copy editor to do, there was more chance of getting the page moved.
Some hubbers have reported that overhauled hubs have been moved.
I would also take the score thing seriously. Add tables, polls, videos until you are well into the 80's. Amazon capsules, above a certain number, at least, depress scores.
None of this is guaranteed to produce a result, lol. Its a percentage game...
Thanks, Will. I spellcheck all of my Hubs. Some of them that haven't moved to niche sites have scores in the upper 80s. So the scores don't seem to be a factor.
If they're Hubs that were already existing when the niche sites were published, HubPages stated quite clearly that the main criteria was traffic. The whole idea of the niche sites was to please Google, so they wanted to include Hubs that Google already liked (i.e. that Google was already sending high traffic to).
Once they had moved the high-traffic Hubs, they then looked to see whether any categories were under-represented on the new sites, and went looking for Hubs that were appropriate to fill the gaps.
With new Hubs, they are checking them as they are published (or within a week or two) and moving them if they meet the criteria which they've stated (the ones you get when you submit a site for consideration).
They've also said they are looking for more Hubs to add from the old Hubs, but I don't think we've been told anything about how much effort is going into that.
Actually, this creates a problem for people who write for income.
Now that the best Hubs have moved to niche sites, the ability of HP.com to attract strong rankings on search engines is much lower. I can tell by the numbers on my Hubs that have not moved to niches.
So if I write a Hub and it doesn't go to a niche, the odds of getting traffic and generating income for that Hub will be lower as well. It may be a wasted effort because five hours of work (my average per Hub) will be lost.
So it benefits us (and HubPages) to have a deeper understanding of what is required to get a Hub on a niche site.
I think a big factor in the equation is simply time. The HP team is working through an immense backlog in assessing existing hubs to be moved to niche sites. Even though they've added staff, it will take time for them to get to many worthy hubs. The fact that a hub hasn't been moved is no indication that it won't be once they get to it. That's why they gave us the ability to nominate a hub we believe should be moved. I do wish that could be done at a greater rate than one every 60 days.
That's a good point, Ron. I agree it would be nice to nominate a Hub more than once every 60 days. Then again, HP editors might not be able to handle that volume, either.
Maybe they could set it up so that you can nominate a Hub within X days based on your Hubber score...
I understand what you mean. I write hubs in series, and usually the whole group of them are almost in the exact same style, same amount of pictures, same quality of writing, etc. But not all of them are chosen.
The answers here are pretty good ones. I think at first they needed hubs to fill the niches, so they were raiding mine like crazy. They took 2 or 3 a day. Now it's been at least a month,and they haven't touched or given advice about one. I think they are concentrating on newer hubs being written now. There are specific sites that can be written for. If the hub hopper was like it used to be, I'd check more to see what new work was coming in.
Once they get more new hubs, I'm sure they will revisit the older ones left on our HP sites, and some of them probably meet the criteria.
If you have hubs in a series that shouldn't be split up, alert the firstname.lastname@example.org about that. They usually are very nice to work with.
I went through the same thing, Jean. A lot of my Hubs went over to niches in a short period of time, then the activity died out.
I'm doing more updates on my existing Hubs that haven't moved to see if it helps.
They have indicated several times that reader engagement is a big factor. Dwell times, perhaps comments, are probably as important as scores.
With older hubs it might be best to try an overhaul of the pages with good dwell times first.
I haven't seen any evidence that new staff is doing anything. I chose a hub to be moved 50 days ago, but it doesn't seem like anyone looked at it and nobody communicated anything to me. I have 9 in the series that are written in the same style, have changed the pictures, used call out capsules, and had no answer at all. I truly don't think I can make the hub any better, it's the same as those they moved.
They have moved many of my hubs though, and I am happy about that. I would like more feedback and clearer rules though. The three they left behind from the 9 they took are no different, and even have more improvements. It's frustrating. And they have been moved to 2 different niches, as Marisa says, they appear to need material for some of the spotty niches that need to be filled up.
I also have a lot of mythology with high views, at least 12, and nobody said anything about them when they made the big movement of my stuff to niches. I saw mythology by the History stuff. And I'm sure there are many hubs that don't fit categories. I have other hubs that will fit in some different niches, but I'm not sure I want to stray too far from my main one. They didn't touch any of them.
It is a monumental job, I just haven't seen any activity since new staff came, if they did.
I think a better criteria would be if you submit a hub that is accepted for a niche site. If the first one you submit is accepted, it's a good indicator that you understand what they are looking for. Then you could submit another right away (perhaps with a limit on how many). If you submit one that is not accepted, then there could be that waiting period before you could submit another.
This seems like it would get more quality hubs moved faster than the staff just working their way through the backlog. I think most writers know which of their hubs are good.
Its a very niche site available. I am very glad to post me thought here.
Sounds good. Giving an ear to what the staff have to say can help.
I think it is important to differentiate between new and old hubs when it comes to understanding the criteria for moving pages.
A definitive staff statement would help. But this is what they have said so far:
They moved high traffic hubs in the early establishment of the niches. Hubscores did not matter too much for this group.
They are moving newly published pages with high QAP scores and zero spam content.
They are working through a backlog of old, high quality, but low traffic hubs. Reader engagement is probably one of the most important factors in the selection process (if there is any reader engagement). Pages with little need for editing have the best chance.
My own take:
They are probably using QAP scores and read times to arrive at some kind of list, then using human eyes to vet individual pages. If they are not doing that, they are daft, lol.
I would love a staff member to contradict any of the above that is not true, so that we all know where we are.
by John Hansen3 weeks ago
I have had a few hubs moved to various niche sites with hub scores ranging from 69 to 87. I feel I have much better hubs remaining on the original site than some of those selected to move, especially my latest which was...
by TIMETRAVELER227 hours ago
Just curious: How many hubs do you you currently have online right now and how many of them have already been moved to the niche sites?
by Scott Bateman9 days ago
I have been pleased with the audience and revenue for my articles on HubPages since joining the site some years ago.I commend the company for creating the successful niche sites at a time when similar sites were...
by Scott Bateman10 days ago
I received an email that a new Hub is "eligible" for a niche site. But it suggests I need to proofread it before it can move over. I edited the article for readability and ran it through a spelling and grammar...
by Eric Dockett7 weeks ago
I've been feverishly updating my old Hubs, not so much on this account but on my big niche account, in hopes that they will be noticed and moved to a niche site. But, it appears this process has come to a dead stop. It...
by Marisa Wright2 months ago
I just saw an announcement from Christy Kirwan to say they're not going to be launching any more new sites. http://hubpages.com/community/forum/137 … ost2832990So that means if you've got Hubs that don't...
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.