When our hubs were once chosen, we had a way to see what was supposed to be fixed before it appeared on a niche site. Now I don't see anything like that. It could be me, but there was a way to see what they wanted added or deleted.
It's very frustrating. Yesterday I was told my hub on Zeus, the Greek god of the sky, had an "average" picture on it. He communicated with humans by throwing thunderbolts, and I had a large, colorful thunderbolt picture at the top. I sometimes write 3,000 word hubs, and feel they need colorful images to keep the reader going until the end. I felt it was a snarky and immature comment. Obviously the moderators aren't even reading these hubs to see the details.
Is this happening to anyone else? And should I just take my best psychic guess about what needs to do be done to have my hub moved? I feel like the powers that be are getting swelled heads. Average? For a picture?
Yes. I had a Hub rejected because the paragraphs were "too short".
They were short (one to two sentences each) because "reading ease" is a ranking and engagement factor for search engines. I now don't know what is an acceptable length for paragraphs.
I've just gone through the same experience so I understand what you mean, however it does sound as though you've been told exactly what they want changed. There's no point changing anything else, if the email says the problem is the picture.
I think the picture looks great, but if they've got a bee in their bonnet about the picture, then you can't make up for it by improving other areas. The problem might be that if the moderator knows nothing about Zeus, they'll think that picture is irrelevant. If it had a caption saying something like "To ancient Greeks, lightning was caused by thunderbolts hurled by Zeus", the connection would be clear and maybe it would be allowed?
When they first moved the Hubs, the moderators actually made the changes for you - all you had to do was go and look at the changes they'd made (by following the link in the Hub or clicking on the little red pencil). They didn't want us to make any other changes ourselves. Maybe that wasn't clear to you, if so it's a pity you did so much extra work for nothing.
Now they're not making changes, they're just picking Hubs that are good enough for the niche sites and sending us a quick email to say, please improve a few things. The email always tells you what kind of changes are required and there's no point making changes they don't ask for. So for instance if it says you need to address links and photos, there's no point wasting time changing headings or grammar.
The annoying thing is they're usually not specific about exactly which links or pictures or whatever and then it's a guessing game. At least in your case they've told you the exact problem.
By the way, your other photos are not credited correctly, you need to find the photo on Wikimedia Commons and paste in the credit line from there. Just crediting Wikipedia is not enough.
I thought the procedure had changed. I have so much trouble finding pictures for some of my hub topics, so I have to stretch my imagination and sometimes use a picture about something else mentioned in the hub.
I used Google Images when I first came here, and never realized it was wrong. I've spent so much time replacing pictures, but I'm trying. Shouldn't the moderator be reading the hub more closely so they get the connections?
I didn't know we had to credit the Wikimedia pictures. I'll add it to the list. When the changes were pointed out in green and red, I did get that, so I didn't change all those for nothing.
Thanks for your help and patience. Take care.
I'm not sure you did get it (when the changes were pointed out in green and red, I mean). When those changes were made, you were only supposed to open the Hub and look at the changes, that's all. If you did anything at all to those green and red changes, you were doing it for nothing (unless of course you weren't happy with the changes). But anyway, it's all in the past now.
I haven't seen your Zeus, so I am in no position to offer an opinion on its individual merits but I will say that pictures are as important as text to visitors.
I recently spent a couple of days writing a page on pets but could not find a good image for the lead picture. I published it anyway because, I had put the work in, but a couple of days later, unpublished it. A second rate picture was never going to cut it.
One day, I will come across the pic I need and republish.
You need to take pics seriously...
Your photos of statuary are heavily pixilated. The rocks image of Zeus kids looks like it has a net over it (to prevent landslides?) the netting also creates a strange sizzling effect.
I just re-read the OP and realised I misread it, sorry.
I thought they were saying the first photo was "average" but actually it just said A photo was average, not the first one. Now I look at the other photos, I agree that they are probably the problem, not the first one.
Here's a better version of Zeus:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File … Inv257.jpg
And here's a better one of Hera:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File … nv6005.jpg
The rocks picture isn't really necessary (and actually I would double-check that myth because while I was looking for a better picture of it, I found other versions of the story but not that one).
I think the first photo is a great choice, although it could use a caption to explain the relevance. Here is the Hub, by the way, for those who couldn't find it:
http://hubpages.com/education/Zeus-The- … -Supremacy
Yeah - I think it was Chronos greedily gobbling up Zeus' brothers and sisters that gets Rhea to feed him a rock instead of Zeus, when Zeus was born. That's the only rock story I know of, but I am no expert.
Yes, that's the only version of the rock story I found. But the administration told me to go to Greek Mythology.com, and it was all google image pictures. I tried again, and changed a few, but am tired of jumping through hoops, I have other work to do. Thanks for your input.
Thanks for looking up pictures for me Marisa, that was very nice. I resubmitted it a few minutes before I saw yours, so it will be probably be rejected again. Once you go to Wikimedia Commons, where do you go to find free commercial use pictures? I still can't find them?
When I go to stock photo sites, there is little to pick from, and nothing for Greek Myth or Astrology.
Google image search is always the best place to start. Select 'labelled for reuse' and see what there is:
https://www.google.co.th/search?q=Greek … amp;q=Zeus
To be honest, if you cannot use some kind of image editor like Photoshop or Gimp (free), you will always be at a disadvantage in the use of images.
Yes, I've tried a few of these and when I put them in Paint to get them in my documents, sometimes they still come out so huge. Then when I try to make them smaller, they are blurry. I originally had legal pics like these, and the message in edit didn't say they were pixelated. The editor was nasty and asked if maybe I had someone else in the house to look at them, which I thought was mean spirited. I do have a son in his twenties and they looked clear to him too.
It seems to depend on who you get. I've had hubs moved that had google images on them, and since there are so few images in some areas I write about, see others did the same. But I don't write here to be insulted about my vision, for God's sake! Whoever is on the editorial staff is going to lose people if they are continuing to treat them like that.
If you are planning on writing a lot, it might be worth devoting a week or two to sourcing and manipulating images. You would probably enjoy doing it, once you get into it.
There are tutorials for every kind task in every kind of editor. If you get stuck just Google the problem.
'Images come out blurry in paint when I make them small'
https://www.google.co.th/search?q=Image … p;ie=UTF-8
Probably a fix on that page. Anyway, best of luck.
A few sets of out of copyright tarot cards if you are still looking for some:
Jean, why are you putting the images in Paint? If you're not going to change them, just save them on your computer then upload them straight to HubPages.
I find it's very rare that I need to downsize a picture to make it suitable for HubPages. You've probably noticed that no matter what size you change the photo to, it makes no difference to how big it looks on the Hub. If you reduce the photo so it's narrower than the width of the Hub, they will just blow it up again - and then it will be pixelated.
If you feel that a photo takes up too much space on the Hub, then making it smaller won't help because it has to be wide enough to fit the Hub. So there's only one way to make it look smaller - chop bits off the top and bottom. There's no point in chopping bits off the sides.
I usually have to change the picture in some way, so that's how I learned to do it. Put it in paint, usually make it smaller, and save it to documents. Everyone has given me info about pictures, and I appreciate the help, I've had to change all of them in all my hubs over the years, and still have some that I am gradually doing. The Greek mythology ones are the hardest, though I've been given help on this forum. Thanks for your help as usual.
I wrote down your instructions because although 2 of my Greek Myth hubs were moved to Exemplore (which I don't agree with, but am sick of arguing, there should be a History niche that has a mythology sub category). I have about a dozen more that have a lot of views.
I also have another astrology series that is new and has very few views and they are taking some of them. Since I've changed and edited them, they are ready to go if they get chosen. I already submitted the Zeus one again, but wish I had waited. I found other pictures that may make the cut.
I mentioned it in my previous post, but why do you need to make the photos smaller?
As I said, if you are cropping the top and bottom off the photos so they are shorter, then that's fair enough. But if you are just making them smaller overall, then you are wasting your time and probably making them pixelated.
A lot of them did need cropping. Eventually I may need to make a set of astrology and planetary symbols, I'm just not creative in that way. At this point, they have so little I can just make the symbols, nothing fancy, there's no way to find a picture for a Moon in Scorpio or Mars in Virgo etc.
It's a worry that administration would tell you to go to that site, since they clearly say all photos are copyright. Someone at HubPages didn't do their homework!
If you click on the links I gave you, it will take you to the photos. All photos on Wikimedia Commons are OK to use provided you attribute it properly. You'll see links to the right of the photo.
- Click the top one to download the photo.
- Once you've uploaded it to your Hub, go back to the page and click "Use this file on the web".
In the box that comes up, you copy and paste the first line into the "source URL". Then copy and paste the Attribution line into the Source Name.
If the major problem you have is with the picture, I suggest you look at pixabay.com because their pictures are completely public domain and you don't have the author saying what you can and can't do with the picture. Now, you do have to look, but they have some pretty good pictures on there.
Yes,I do use Pixabay a lot, but even they don't have much as far as Astrology. I've written a lot of Astrology fiction articles to show how the signs would behave it I put them in a certain situation, and most of them have been moved to niches. But then I don't need an Astrological symbol, I can use something I put in the fictional story.
Pexels.com has a lot of good pictures too if you aren't looking for something specialized or a a difficult topic. I think Nate B was the one who told us about it.
What is an "average" picture? If that picture was average, what's the criteria for a "bad" picture or a "great" picture? Does the picture have to shine like a nimbus and speak in rainbows, or it it sufficient for it to have relevance to the topic? Does a picture being "average" or "great" have anything to do with the article being engaging? Very interesting...
I also remember when they gave you the option of accepting their edits or not, but now the edits are just done to the page, and I even heard (haven't been brave enough to validate myself) that consequences exist if you change the edits back. My thoughts have always been this: if the presentation of my articles generated the popularity I have, then why change it? If my readers don't consider it an "average" picture, or couldn't care less, then why change my articles? Just something I've been curious about, is all.
Hello Zeron 87,
It was that rude remark about my "average" picture that began this whole thread. It was a picture of a lightening bolt to represent Zeus, as he threw them around the sky all the time. It was colorful, legal and from Pixabay. I have changed some of their edits back once a hub was moved to a niche without repercussions. I have also had hubs moved to niches with three or four photos from Google images. They will take anything if it fits their needs, so a lot of this is BS. I wrote much of the astrology stuff on Exemplore, and they took anything they could get their hands on.
I do understand photographers need to protect their work. But this is a writer's site, not a photographer's site, so then maybe they should let us write and publish a hub with no picture. If you are spending an hour finding a picture for a hub, something's wrong there. There is little available that is allowable to use, especially for my niches.
It's OK, I'm spending my time on other pursuits now, just came back to fix up a few hubs when they moved so many of mine. But I feel the staff has been insulting several times.The hub in edit mode used to tell us if the picture was pixalated, and I didn't appreciate the comments about my vision. Robin actually asked me if I had someone else in the house to "check" my pictures for me. I'm a widow, and I don't. I'll just let them take what they will, the money is nice, and I'm done stressing about it. One picture per hub is acceptable now and they like it at the top. They say most people are reading these on their phones, but I doubt that. At least for some of my 3,000 word ones.
I get compliments for my writing all the time, and am sick of being dissed for a picture. I make a lot more money on astrology and tarot readings, and am a contributing writer for another site where I have more freedom, it belongs to a friend.
Cool. It's good to hear you're not letting it bother you since you've moved on to other pursuits. It's still rude of them to call your hub pictures "average" or whatnot without an established scale to back it up. It makes one think it's a subjective opinion of personal taste for YOUR hub rather than a professional opinion @_@.
On a personal note, my problem wasn't with pictures, but with them eliminating my ebay (well.. now amazon) capsules. I write hubs on the Yugioh trading card game, and just started to get more people buying from those capsules until hubpages started "editing" them from my page. But that's a topic for another thread I guess...
Hubpages needs to start realizing if you don't treat your troops (writers) properly, or at least with care, their interests can go elsewhere.
by TIMETRAVELER22 years ago
With all the changes due to the merger with Squidoo, I thought some of the incoming writers could benefit from a few tips to help them get started with writing here.Pay attention to the little writing guide in the upper...
by Sakina Nasir9 months ago
I do not understand the method of sending hubs to a niche site. How does it work? I tried sending my 1st hub to Bellatory.com but they rejected it, saying I had to make changes. It was silly on my part though, I had no...
by Sarah Spradlin10 days ago
I've heard to disregard that but I'm still a little curious. Honestly I don't know how the score is even decided but those of you that have a lot of followers or have been able to make money, what is your average score...
by John2 weeks ago
Hi Guys, I have about 50 featured hubs of high quality but my traffic is hardly 20 views per day. Most of my hubs belong to niche topics which generally won't compete with generalised topics on Google search....
by Kylyssa Shay17 months ago
Only the best Hubs on HubPages are being moved to niches, so everything on the niche sites is spam free and trash free. There are no pieces written in broken English or written in ways that appear to be spun. Everything...
by Tina Craven3 years ago
Have you ever noticed that you spend more time allocating pictures and images for your hubs than you do actually writing it?
Copyright © 2017 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.