I have been submitting my articles for niche sites and I have been getting emails that my hub has quality but isn't upto the standards yet. They give me two options and ask me to either wait for them to edit it (mentioning that this will take time as the editing queue is long) or to edit it myself. If I choose the second option and resubmit it, it might get rejected if they don't like it.
I am feeling just so sad with these emails and I wish they would point out what they find missing in my hubs. This has happened for four of my hubs out of which only one has been edited by the team and sent to PetHelpful. I am still waiting for the other three of my hubs to be edited by the team. What do you suggest I should do? Should I wait or edit the hubs myself? All help will be appreciated. Thank you!
If you need advice with the editing you can post them in the forum as "I need feedback on my hub." I'm sure plenty of people would be glad to advise you.
They are very backed up now because they are editing many of the hubs that were originally moved to HealDove since a lot of quality issues were missed with those previously.
I suggest you do the editing yourself because getting it done sooner will be advantageous for you monetarily. You just need to do it right by following Google's Quality Guidlines. In case you haven't been following the other thread about that, here is where you can find the guidelines:
https://static.googleusercontent.com/me … elines.pdf
Oh! Thank you Glen for advising me with this and for sharing this link. I will go through it and hopefully edit the hubs myself.
The Google guidelines are exhaustive and exhausting, and personally I think you can tie yourself in knots trying to understand and interpret them. I would follow Sherry's advice, and post them on the forum for advice. It's often the best way to spot what's missing.
Thought they were moving only high quality hubs to niche sites. How did sub-standard hubs find their way on HealDove?
And how many hubs are on this site? I think they should be done with checking them by now. It's exactly a month since it was hit by Fred!
HubPages hasn't commented, but we know that the niche sites were originally created by moving the top 20% of Hubs from HubPages. Those Hubs were selected because they were getting very high Google traffic, so it was obvious Google already loved those Hubs exactly as they were, and therefore there was less need for tweaking.
I think the problem is that Google changed their algorithm, possibly with Fred. Back at that time you refer to, they went by other stats such as view duration – implying that they are actually reading and not clicking away. Bounces would lower ranking. Then later Google possibly decided to put more weight on bad grammar and spelling. Fred definitely is a different algorithm, as our traffic drop seemed to coincide with it.
What do you think Marisa? Does that make sense?
I'm interested that you mention view duration. I don't remember any mention of that as a criterium, only volume of traffic. However, that's irrelevant now. Google loved those Hubs then, and clearly they don't now. And that's because they have updated the algorithm.
View duration is a ranking factor and that's tested by many SEO guys. I tested it out myself on a few sites and my HP articles with larger average times ranked better. Same with pages on my website.
BUT the view duration can only be counted if the person spends time on your page and then hits the back button to go back to google. And probably if they go to another page and spend just a few seconds before hitting back the algorithm sees this as a weak sign (for the other website) and thus boosts your site up eventually, if that makes sense.
I know what view duration is, I just don't remember HubPages staff mentioning it as being a factor in their choice of Hubs to move. They talked about traffic, period.
Ah I thought you said you didn't know view duration was a ranking factor. Yes HP only looked at traffic.
I realise I misread what Glenn was saying.
When I talked about view duration I was referring to Google, not HubPages. I guess I wasn't clear. Due to the fact that Google ranked higher because of a good view duration, Google placed it higher in the SERPs and more people saw it and visited the page. THEN since the traffic was good, HubPages considered it a good quality to be moved to niche sites. That's what I meant.
Now, possibly due to Fred, Google is putting more weight on other things—such as poor spelling and grammar.
I don't think they were sub-standard. But since laymen and women are giving health advice, they want to be sure they are professional and that the advice won't hurt anyone.
When they first started moving hubs to HealDove they didn't have the editors on board yet. They were hiring them and training them as time went on. I think that was the problem. I know for fact that the first hubs of mine they moved were never edited. No snipping. No changes. They just accepted them as is. So I can only assume this was done across the site.
As I read other hubs, I found some that had terrible spelling and grammar errors. They were from top rubbers too. So I guess they trusted them for that reason without checking.
Anyone can make typos. You should see my mistakes, but I catch most of them with constant proof reading. I read over my hubs three or four times before publishing. I guess many don't do that and typos get in.
Yes, I would do as Sherry advised. Getting your hub to the standards as the Google quality requirements is definitely something you should do, but in my opinion a stellar hub covers the requirements.
Thank you so much Lobobrandon for your advice. My hubs are always made in the stellar mode. But, I'm not able to understand the missing quality. It would really be helpful if the team could point it out to us.
It all is pointed out. No need for the team to repeat it. It's all in Google's Quality Guidelines that I gave you previously. Just take the time to read through it. We all did. It's priceless.
They also have a rule saying you need to have minimum 5 hubs in order to get them featured. So may be if you added one more to the list, it could help with the process.
No Jason, that's not relevant - that's only for people who are brand new to HubPages.
I have written 12 hubs till now. Thank you for sharing your opinions.
by David Hinerman2 months ago
I used to write on HubPages a lot; especially around 2011 & I was doing extremely well at one point. Last time I wrote a few articles was at the end of 2013. Are there any major changes I should be aware of? The...
by John11 days 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 Terrie Lynn2 days ago
Can an admin look into my adsense account and connection. I have many articles on niche sites and more than 50 articles. yet bI am back to making what I did over 6 months ago even though my impressions is way higher...
by Paul Edmondson16 months ago
We are very pleased with the results of the domains that have launched so far. I want to give folks an update on what we are doing and how the process is working.We have about 25 domains that we plan to launch in...
by Filip Stojkovski3 days ago
Hi everyone. I've been putting some work in writing quality articles the last few months, all my articles are approved as featured but earnings are still pretty low. I have earned a total of $1+ in two months, and with...
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.