I've only had a few hubs moved over the the niche sites. The 2 that were moved needed little editing.
Others have been "might be moved" , if I change or correct a few things. I've done the editing, but they've not been chosen.
The question I have is this - why leave the writer hanging?
Why not explain the specific reasons that the hub was denied?
In other words, I get notified that my hub may be moved to a niche site, but it needs to be edited for grammatical errors.
I do that, then I get another notice that says the hub was not moved to a niche site. And the rejection letter really does not tell you why - it's a canned response - spammy, not evergreen - but once rejected, you really have no idea why it was not picked.
Is this fair to the writers?
Is it to time consuming for the moderators to work with those hubs that could be moved but are just off the standards a bit?
Is there a better solution than saying, this hub could be chosen, do the editing, then Nope - this hub was not chosen, move along and write another hub.
Not complaining, just wondering if Hubpages is trying to work with writers or "get the writing right, or you won't get moved to the niche sites. And you'll be left int he dust."
Hope the question makes sense!
Sounds like writers must wear many hats: writing, editing, proofing, fact-checking, selecting and/or creating graphic images, performing the layout duties, etc. I personally enjoy doing all these things but I still make mistakes. I learned over the years as a professional freelance contract technical writer that every piece of writing needs at least one set of peer review eyes, a reviewer, who can and often does find grammar and typo problems you can't see. You go writer-blind when reviewing your own stuff because as you read you often see what you already expect to see rather than what is actually there.
That's why I commiserate with Claptona's problem. A one-shot review is a help but not the solution. I typically worked with technical illustrators and it was frequently necessary to go back and forth several times to satisfy all issues successfully. Same with gram-checkers and tech editors.
So I suspect that my approach in this case is going to have to be a practical one: Tell me to fix an error once and I'll fix it and republish the article (after reviewing it again for any other possible problems.) If it still doesn't fly and there is no further feedback the only response has to be to just shrug and move on to the next article. HubPages is ultimately in control, not us.
Thanks for the reply, I thought it was just me.
But, a lot of what you say makes sense - back and forth to get the article right. I guess the question would be are we working with hubpages or are we working for ourselves and if we can't figure out hubpages "ideals" then we just forget the 6 hours spend on the article, and move on to the next.
It certainly would be nice to have short conversations with the moderators who say nay or yay to the moves to niche sites.
Again, thanks for the reply Garry, it means my thinking was not that far off!
This may be a silly question, but just checking - you did resubmit after you made the corrections, didn't you?
It might help to take a look at my Hub which summarises the new rules, and make sure you really are following them to the letter. Then also look at the email you received for each Hub, and check what they list under Specific Issues - that's what you really need to fix.
For instance, I picked a Hub at random - your Retirement outside the US Hub. In it, you have several links and some of them are "not sufficiently relevant". Every time you add a link, ask yourself, "is this link relevant TO MY TITLE?". It's not enough for the link to be relevant to the paragraph or the sentence. So for instance, you have a link to the UNESCO World Heritage site. What does UNESCO have to do with retiring abroad? Nothing - it has to go.
Same goes for Amazon capsules and photos. The other rule with Amazon products - you must explain why you personally recommend the product or book. You have two books in that Hub. On one the description reads like a promotional blurb and gives no indication why YOU think it's a good book. The second one has no description at all. They would both get snipped.
Finally, consider using Callout capsules for your main headings instead of filling in the title of the text capsule - HubPages seems to like that.
By golly, I did Marisa.
I was surprised that it actually went through after the edit. LOL
But, the thoughts occurred to me, so I thought I'd ask the question.
I've had 2 where they've said it was a possible hub for a niche, then got another email back saying it didn't make it. No other reasons were given.
But, on stuff like this, no question is silly - always feel free to ask away!
OK, so it might be worth posting those Hubs in the "Improving Your Hub" section to see if we can spot WHY they didn't make it on second submission. That way you can avoid making that same mistake in the future.
Sure, I'll repost it one more time.
It's the hub I did on the Copper Canyon Train Ride.
But, the question is still out there - is it possible for hubpage moderators to work with writers to get the "possible" hubs on the niche sites? Other than send a form letter stating that it may be spammy or not up to par?
So, any who, here's the hub that I resubmitted.
http://hubpages.com/travel/The-Copper-C … Train-Trip
Thanks for taking the time to respond to the question and to offer your help. I've learned a lot from you on the forums, Marisa.
I can see three things that might have stopped it being moved.
I didn't proof read the whole Hub but I spotted a few typos, e.g. "The canyon wall's rise into the clouds. For about 4 hours your at the bottom of the canyons." should be "The canyon walls rise into the clouds. For about 4 hours you're at the bottom of the canyons." That looks like a good example where you ran a spell checker but then didn't check to make sure it made sense as well!
The book at the end - your description still sounds more like an advertising blurb than your review of the book.
Finally, ratings capsules are for recipes.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect moderators to go back and forth debating what needs to be fixed on a Hub. They are a very small team working under pressure - they just don't have the time. They're processing a large number of Hubs every day. And let's face it, it's not like your Hub or my Hub or anyone else's Hub is so darned fabulous that it absolutely, definitely must be included.
I wasn't looking for a debate, Marisa.
I was looking for more like what you just told me.
A short note saying fix this, check that is all I'm looking for.
If the moderator gets feedback from the writer arguing points, then yes, a form letter is appropriate.
But, they've got an "angle" or a "viewpoint" of what they want in evergreen articles, and I would expect, since the writers are their source of income, a little exchange is not asking to much.
Do you thing I'm wrong having that expectation?
You can say yes, I won't be offended, really
If your Hub was a big earner, it would be a different story. The highest earning Hubs got a dedicated editor who worked with the Hubber to fine-tune the Hub before they were moved. They're now moving Hubs to "bulk up" the niche sites (Google likes size) - they have a good chance of being more successful on the niche sites than here, but won't necessarily be big earners, so they simply aren't worth investing the extra time in.
I once talked to a moderator (on another site) who said that although it didn't seem a lot to ask (to give a detailed list of precise items), she just didn't have time - it may only be an extra two or three minutes per article but it really mounts up.
The other problem she had was that, if an article came back still needing further work and she then sent a further email, it rarely stopped there - writers seemed to take that as permission to hassle her further, either about that article or others, wasting her time with trivia.
I don't think they're asking you to edit your Hub to suit an angle or viewpoint - they have rules and guidelines, and those are what they're asking you to check for. If your Hub didn't suit their angle or viewpoint of what a Hub should be, they wouldn't pick it as a "possible" in the first place.
I forget, what did the note on the end of the form email tell you to fix ?
I can understand what you're saying, Marisa.
I didn't mention what they wanted me to fix - grammatical, like you picked out was one.
The other was changing the title. I feel Mexico should be the lead word because that gets more hits on key words. I adjusted the title as the moderator suggested.
I guess I don't "get" the moderators tasks. If they don't have the time, they don't have the time.
I would find it helpful, but maybe it's just me and my limited writing skills.
Don't worry, not taking it personal, and I appreciate you sharing with us what you've learned talking to other moderators.
I'll continue trying to get better at writing articles.
Thanks for your input, Marisa.
In that case, you have to ask yourself - "how else could the moderator have expressed that, so I understood better what she wanted?" Would it be reasonable for her to go through the Hub and list every single grammatical mistake? No. So that's a good example of where she can't give more detail.
I think what confuses people is that you get your specific instructions at the end of a long email with other suggestions in it - you don't know where to start. The key is to look at what the moderator asked you to work on specifically, THEN look at the other points and "sanity check" your Hub for those other points.
In this case, I would've run the Hub through a spell checker and a grammar checker like Grammarly before resubmitting. If you've never used a grammar checker before, be cautious about accepting all its suggestions - if you apply grammar too strictly you can wind up with a stilted, formal prose which doesn't read well to modern ears so you have to be judicious.
by Scott Bateman5 months ago
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...
by Glenn Stok4 weeks ago
I noticed that hubs in niche sites no longer include the "More by this author" section below the hub. Is this just an oversight or was it a decision to drop it on niche sites?
by Michael Kismet4 weeks ago
I already have a number of hubs moved to the Hubpages network sites, but haven't really seen a drastic traffic change in said hubs. So, is it worth the risk to submit one of my hubs that already receives a decent amount...
by TIMETRAVELER25 months ago
Many of us here are working hard to upgrade our hubs so that they can be moved to the niche sites. I think it would be a good idea if those upgrades are viewed by the team the same way as new posts so that they...
by John D Wilson5 months ago
I'm thinking new hubs get looked at right away by the moderators.Whereas the reworked hubs will sit until a moderator stumbles upon them.Or does the reworked hub get a priority over the "featured" hubs not yet...
by Eric Dockett7 months 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...
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.