Sometimes I go and check if someone has already claimed the URL for a hub that I've got half an idea to develop. If I get a "Sorry that hub does not exist." WOO HOO! I can go and claim it.
But sometimes I get a "Sorry, this page is no longer published." And the result being even though it's no longer published, no one else can grab that URL.
Any chance of these URL's being freed up and released back into the wild?
I have also noticed this issue. There are several pages I would like to build but when I check the url, it says the page is no longer published. Why are there so many unpublished pages? These pages should either be published or the urls should be opened for other people to build.
I get your point, but you get that same message if you search for a URL that is no longer published, or one which someone else has under development. How do you propose that HubPages differentiate between the two scenarios?
Well there should be a time limit on how long you can take to develop a page. If it is not completed in say, a week, the url should be released. Otherwise what is to stop someone from just grabbing a bunch of urls and taking as long as they want to build them.
What is wrong with grabbing URLs for later development? I do it myself.
What are the chances of someone else on Hubpages wanting to use the same URLs at the same time? Pretty slim I would have thought.
What bugs me is someone nabbing a brilliant URL and writing (and publishing) one paragraph of mince! What a waste!
You would be surprised, some topics have a lot of competition for titles. I would imagine when a new product comes out, people rush to grab titles to build hubs for them.
I agree with you on how it is annoying to find a good page with only a few sentences on it. I have found a few of those too.
Isn't the "Sorry that page is no longer published" because the author has unpublished the page and not deleted it? If that's the case they are still using the URL, just not in public at the moment.
That's a possibility.
So the next question raised is how long should a URL be squatted on?
If the hub is deleted (after the remorse period) the URL will be returned to the pool, if it is simply unpublished it will remain unavailable. If we see any obvious efforts to squat on urls we'll take action, but it hasn't really come up yet.
I have 30 hubs that are presently unpublished. Should someone be able to pull those URLs from me? Or force me to publish or lose it?
How fair is that?
Just a thought.
It depends. If they are original topics and there is no interest from other users to build those pages, then it is ok. I'm wondering what is the purpose of having so many unpublished pages?
I have many many works in progress. Some, because they are part of a series. Some, because I simply have not finished them or found fault with my original research and am continuing to learn before publishing -- no need to spread faulty info.
Might someone else want the URL? Maybe. That is part of the reason for grabbing an entire series at once. Also, as I research, I can place appropriate information in the right places, without fear of losing it on my computer.
Because I choose to take my time publishing and writing articles. That is my choice and should not be dictated by anyone.
Totally agreed, Cags. I do my keyword research in chunks and grab the URLs. I may write them immediately, I may not. I don't call it "squatting" so much as "procrastinating."
If I wanted the URL “All-About-Pork-Chops”, and it was taken; I’d just change it to “Pork-Chops-All-About-Pork-Chops”. This brings to mind a question; I wonder how Google digests double keywords in an URL?
I have 20-25 odd hubs as 'works-in-progress', and they are still unpublished. I would absolutely hate it if I lose them. What's more, while looking for a suitable URL, I had also to go through a number of "Sorry, .....". I guess someone else must be looking for a URL, and getting the same message.
Anyway, I do not plan to squat on any URL!
Edit - This thread is 2 years old.
I don't think it is a good idea to just change 1 letter if a url is taken. If a page is taken I don't think it is fair to just make a minor change in the title and then cover the exact same topic. However if a topic is not covered, but the url has been taken and unpublished for an extended period of time, that url should be released if there is interest in it from other users.
So if one person covers a subject (or keyword)..no-one else can?
Well I mean in cases of exact topics being duplicated. Of course there can be multiple hubs on a related topic.
Maybe I'm just not used to the openness of this site allowing members to create and title pages however they like. Don't get me wrong, I like the openness, but without a little regulation people might start taking advantage of the system and the overall quality will suffer.
"Edit - This thread is 2 years old."
LOL, you can't keep a good thread down!"
Thanks re: underscore.
by Jake Michael Peralta20 months ago
I just published a new article called "Interesting Guns in Gaming". Unfortunately, the web address for this article used the original name of the article "Top Three Guns in Gaming". Do I have to do...
by SivadiK6 years ago
When I first made my hub public I saw a page where hubpages gave me the short url version for my hub. However I didn't copy it and I'm not seeing that page again. I was wondering where can I get it again?
by Catherine Giordano2 years ago
I've been using the short url from the hub metrics page to link to my hubs on my blogs. Yesterday, I discovered that they did not work. I thought they worked like bit.ly and tiny.url. I just did a HP...
by ryankett5 years ago
May I suggest a new operational feature? I propose that unpublished content, in other words URLs that have been grabbed and stored for future use, should have to be used (in other words, published on) within 6 months of...
by DatsNice4 years ago
If I revise my hub, how do I change the URL so it matches the title?
by Marcy Goodfleisch20 months ago
I think Editor's Choice hubs change our URLs in some manner. When the program was first started, I was required to be in it, due to being in the Apprenticeship Program. So - my question is - had the original...
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.