Dear Team Hubpages thank you very much I finally received a reply to my request for clarification. Unfortunately, now I have a burning question:
Does the "violation" like this on a two year old 700 words hub with established profit record and about 30K total views
Really warrant an email like this and immediate unpublishing in your opinion?
That violation really doesn't make sense to me. I think it sounds like hubpages is getting a bit uptight about some of their policies. I'm still baffled by the new flagging reason, "purely personal", as one could easily say that a lot of the poems on hubpages are purely personal....at least the ones that I've read anyways.
Is this a hanging chad issue
You missed enclosing the word 'furors' to indicate that it has changed its grammatical function.
If this is considered to warrant unpublishing then pretty much ALL the poorly spelled religious hubs that are mostly grammatical nightmares - will be gone already ???????????????????
Please flag any Hubs you see with grammar or phrasing issues that interfere with the readability or understanding of the content.
Ok boss Now where did I put all those Hubpage staff hub lists . . . . . . . ONLY JOKING honest !!
In fact, I have moderated Hubs by staff members, including CEO Paul Edmondson.
I hope you gave him a hard time
Now, how about publishing the list of rules and advice that you have posted on the office wall for moderators so that those with loads of hubs can make their changes knowing they are conforming with some standard at least - even if that standard is open to change as things change with Google ?
As I've already explained once today, it is impractical to review a Hub, email the user, wait an undetermined period of time to see if they revise, and then review again prior to unpublishing. We are far enough behind as it is. We are hiring more moderation staff, but it takes time to train them... time that is taken away from answering the inundation of emails and reviewing the literally thousands of Hubs waiting for attention at this moment.
The Hub in question was moderated by one of these new trainees. We advise them that article spinning is a serious offense, and if a new user had submitted a Hub with language issues of this kind across multiple Hubs, we probably would have simply banned the account, so in fact you are getting more care and consideration based on your tenure.
Hi Maddie, hope you feel better and glad to get your attention.
Well, I disagree on most of your (team) assessment of the reasons for the damage and ways to remedy it - but I guess you are well aware of it by now.
What is more important though is that we disagree on the feasible procedure. I believe that taking it slower - whatever your vision of what needs to be fixed is - and with more - umm - dignity - will pan out better at the end, for the reasons Sunforged, Mark, and myself already stated on the other thread.
Anyway, thank you for your reply, I am going to delete the offending sentence and re-submit - we'll see what happens.
Hi Maddie... what is the objective ? if you now want to have top class writing and grammar and spelling and are sending a bot to do a job that can clearly not be done by a bot you run the risk of alienating all of us... we are already mostly all writing for nothing or a very small piece of the pie... !!
Bots are not doing the job -- real live people are. That's why it's not always feasible for the (small) team to respond to everyone's request for clarification on a timely basis.
And I don't believe they're looking for "top class" writing, although that would be nice. They're just looking to rid the site of the mountains of cr*p that's out there and that comes in every day. After all, that stuff in large part is why the Google gods came down on us.
And that's no reflection on Misha's hubs, btw -- I've never read them. Or if I did, it was a long time ago. Who knows. I'm an old geezer with a bad memory.
New rules have had to be put in place to stem the tide of spammers, and sometimes the seasoned hubbers get caught in the middle of those rules. No more, no less.
@ lrohner... No Bots..!!!!
..well that's even worse, surely it is possible to develop a formula for this that takes into account the type of writing, the level of hits, the tenure of the person, the revenue generated and this then helps the live people apply the new rules sensibly...
I understand your frustration, but you were sent an email asking you to revise your Hubs and remove excessive product capsules several weeks before the Hubs were unpublished.
on all of my hubs the actual level of Ads or products are minimal so I have never had excessive product capsules to begin with.
Furthermore if you are measuring capsule content in relation to the number of words then this system will never favour short poems.
A much better approach would be to remove the Amazon/EBay capsule not unpubilsh the Hub.
Also I think this whole idea of grammar or phrasing police is a non runner. This is totally dependent on the experience and cognitive powers of the moderators, if they are dealing with unfamiliar subject matter then this whole system of moderation will be an abject failure. Actually the grammar or phrasing may not detract from the overall value or utility of the Hub to a potential reader.
It would be difficult to be impressed with the feedback so far.
It would be helpful if you could explain to me what the heck $$s earned, amount of traffic and length of membership has anything at all to do with decent content and how it helps to get rid of spammers. I'm totally lost and don't get your logic at all.
Decent Content = better traffic (clear correlation)
better traffic = more earnings (clear correlation)
longer membership = better hub citizen (perhaps)
Perhaps if staff explained why some of the spammy misleading hubs left on HP for many years, which coincidentally gained millions of views over that time period, were allowed to remain until after the Google slap, would be a very good starting point. Don't you think, Ironer?
Or perhaps you don't think those type hubs were responsible for the slap?
I saw one hub with over a million hits that was misleading, dishonest and a blind review for a product that has not even been made yet. The hub made wild guesses as to what would be it's features.
One hub only from this hubber, badly written, more than 900 comments.......what's with that?
I suppose this is what concerns me the most, Earnest. The moderators are reading these posts, and have been doing so, but none of them have the consideration to address these concerns.
Not surprising, of course. Can you imagine what they say to each other in regard to this issue? It must be supremely embarrassing to those in charge, but not enough to give an explanation to their loyal members. What a way to engender trust from those who trusted them. Why should we trust them again?
Raise the flag, Randy, cuz I totally agree with you. What I don't agree with is that cr*ppy hubs should be kept up here now simply because they get lots of traffic or make money. (Again, this has nothing to do with Misha.)
I'm glad we're in agreement, Ironer! But still nothing from the top concerning this issue. Are they afraid to face us?
Stretched too thin? Yes. Unwilling to impart too much information? Probably. Afraid to face us? I really don't think so.
the ones that irritate me are ones with www. pickaname .com in the title and then a few paragraphs on what that other website is about. The comments show that these are misleading as people post comments asking about their account or an issue with that website. One author as publish more than 2,500 of them in 19 months and has millions of page views. No REAL content, no benefit, but is extremely misleading. It seems odd that these are not targeted.
Of course, if these are allowed and endorsed by HP - knowing how many views and impressions it can earn - I will move from product hubs to www. i can fool you. com hubs.
There's money in them thar hills!
You don't have to worry much about those types of hubs. Advertisers are shunning them. I checked about a dozen top company domain names as keywords and they pay exactly 8 cents a click.
Thats an impressive accomplishment and no doubt a great contribution to HubPages, hang in there Misha.
Misha's hub is available in Google's cache.
It is very hard to read.
I disagree. It lacks perfect grammar here and there, it's incredibly descriptive and info rich (writer's perspective) and is, for want of a better description, a sales pitch.
The Soho reminds me of Breakfast at Tiffany's. Audrey Hepburn is the picture of vintage style. She is the fine wine of previous furors and prestigious not just by skill but by view and prestige, a face that will last forever. Like Coach Soho, it is the Crème de la Crème of early styles that became illustrious not just by flair but by the beauty and spunk they bring to any woman.
The offending sentence, read in context simply lacks 'furors', as opposed to furors
The only changes I'd make were it mine would be:
The Soho reminds me of Breakfast at Tiffany's. Audrey Hepburn is the epitome of vintage style. She is the fine wine of previous fashion crazes and prestigious, not just by skill but by view and prestige, a face that will last forever. Like Coach Soho, it is the Crème de la Crème of early styles that became illustrious not just by flair alone but by the beauty and spunk they bring to any woman.
I wouldn't have flagged this on the hopper for being poorly written, nonsensical or spun content.
Agreed, FD. Although I did raise an eyebrow when I saw "Misha" talk about "his" Soho purse. I let out a big PHEW! when I saw the guest author's name at the end.
If you don't think it's spun, maybe comparing it to these will convince you.
http://www.hoodialoveoprah.com/coach-so … small-hobo
I didn't say it wasn't spun Paul, I said I wouldn't have flagged it for that reason. It didn't have any of the usual spun signs about it. It looks far more like an article written or rewritten by a non-native English speaker.
I looked at your links, there's no denying the similarity. I still think it's a manual rewrite though. Spinning wouldn't leave so many similarities.
We don't think changing a few words and posting the same article dozens of places contributes much to the world (or to HubPages), whether it's done with software or by hand. It's only purpose is search engine optimization.
If we detected someone doing the sort of promotion that Misha did on that hub today, they would likely be banned. We didn't have the tools to make that practical 3 years ago.
For my part I wasn't aware that he had. And neither am I suggesting that it's fine to do this on HP. I was simply replying to Will regarding his comment that it was unreadable.
I just stated that it wasn't, and went on to say why I wouldn't have flagged it had I come across it on the hopper.
He Frog, actually a spun article sometimes looks like bad English. I saw a lot of blogs with spun articles and some were nonsense, but others looked just like bad English.
Hey bg That was my train of thought. When something's spun correctly there's no chance of it resembling the original article. Or at least it shouldn't, if it's done right.
However they're a horrible read, and that was the point I was making re Misha's. It didn't read horrible. And I wouldn't have been concerned (on the hopper) were I to have read the first couple of sentences.
I flag (obvious) spun content and will flag badly written stuff. I check for dupe content when I can see that the hubber has a poor grasp of English (generally) and yet their hub/s are word perfect.
And the aforementioned hubs which garnered so many views before being removed? You know, the ones with millions of views which some thought was actually a contact source for Yahoo, I believe it was. Why were these type hubs allowed to remain so long on the site when you guys had to know about them?
I don't envy HP's role post-Panda. Certainly, they must take action and tighten the rules to protect the community and keep the website as a valuable, income generating site. I do recommend a blog post to follow up on this one http://blog.hubpages.com/2011/03/improving-hubpages/
It seems that several long-term hubbers have been pretty vocal with concerns that it should prompt HP management to make a statement formally.
Just looks like the same content reposted on other sites.
I certainly don't envy them either, Mutiny. But how difficult can it be to admit they screwed up by allowing those hubs to remain because they were making them money?
Paul, I think you just made PCUnix's year with that statement...
Not so sure about that, Relache! I haven't seen him around for awhile on HP's forums.
too funny Relache! I was counting the minutes until he posted!
I don't like double standards Paul. Go ahead and ban me, please.
And yes Andria, this was a spun hub.
I am actually starting to believe Hubpages is being serious about getting rid of second rate content.
While I can certainly agree that spun articles about Coach bags are not contributing anything to "the world", I'm not sure that they didn't contribute something important to Hubpages, and I'm wondering what will take the place of that contribution once all such articles are discarded.
I write quality content on a variety of topics, but to be frank I never earned much here. I was grateful for the traffic that I used to get from Hubpages, and I realized at the time that what people like Misha were contributing to this site was their backlinks, legitimate or ill-gotten and their traffic, which Google helped to stream their way, because they helped Google earn.
Because Hubpages got a high ranking based on the Google algo, which privileges connections over content, people who have content to share with the world need people with connections in order to get noticed at all. That was the devil's contract that all of us at Hubpages were agreeing to: that some of us would contribute content, while other would contribute the traffic, and all would benefit from the arrangement.
Sure, I hated those thirty-day challenges, as a writer with high standards. But I kind of understood that it was those people who sold useless products to the general public that were footing the bill for all the rest of us.
What are we going to substitute for that? What's the new business model?
Nicely put. I have been asking myself the very same question.
Clear out the junk on Hubpages and there is every reason to expect the traffic to come back. Squiddoo was hit a few years ago and has bounced back- after boosting its quality controls.
I know Hubpages has a lot of science doubters and people who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old and all that stuff, but there is not “every reason” to expect this other than blind faith.
None whatsoever. Personally - I think quack medical advice is far more damaging to the site.
http://hubpages.com/search/include:hubs … l+syndrome
There are over 6,000 pages on "cure cancer." My vote for the witch hunt is quack medical advice from people unqualified to give it.
No one ever got hurt buying a handbag. Except me when my wife needed a Louis Vuitton.
Blame games eh ? I agree that the content which staff dragged down was spun and there is no objection from me on that point.
If we're so touchy about the quality of content here then why celeb/aunty hubs are still in published state ? Remember we aren't going to build demand media here from open social content. If we're chasing professional content that is produced solely to service the needs of surfers then we fall into trap of content farm label and if we allow social contribution then we're forcing anti-seo, grammar nazis and witchhunt folks to bark back at staff. Tough times for sure.
Spun articles are not great, but at least they are not deceptive. If a person googles "Icici Bank login" (for example) they are expecting to go to that bank's login page, not a hub with that search term in the title. It looks like it ranks fine with google post-panda.
While a spun article is probably not the highest quality, at least it doesn't trick people into thinking they landed on the subject's login page.
In my view, this type of hub is attempting to capture people from google who REALLY want to go to their search term's login page, hoping that when the googler mistakenly gets to their hub that Google has an ad for that company and the viewer clicks on it to get to their initially intended location. It doesn't meet what I would consider a "quality page" but maybe it does for others.
It is somewhere between deceptive and ingenious!
I was reading this forum when I got a pop-up ad. Something about a score card? Anyone else?
I'm quite shocked actually. I can't remember the last time I saw a pop-up ad. Mine invited to to take part in a survey, but as I was staring stupidly at it, it disappeared. Next time I will try and be quick and note the company.
harumph! I just got an email as well that says one of my hubs was overly promotional and was unpublished. To be fair, it had 330 word and I had 8 amazon products show, so it absolutely WAS overly promotional based on the rules, but I had already edited a week or two ago and the system accepted it as fine, so I thought it was ok. Now, the system decides to flag it.
I went to resubmit it and I only have 2 options: 1) save it unpublished and 2) done editing.
There is no option to publish it. urgh.
Use the submit for publishing button, the admin team will clear it after review. They cleared my hub in a few hours.
you got flagged, also? I had two flagged and I finally fixed them. Maybe they will be cleared now. One was purely promotional, like above, and I totally understood. Best Gift Baskets was a hubmob contribution during Christmas. I thought they wanted us to promote products. It is all very confusing to me.
The other was flagged for too much personal content. That is very irritating to me. I thought memoir work was allowed. This was one from Mother's Day of last year.
Yeah, funny how that goes isn't it? It's happened to me as well.
Why should we have to edit our stuff twice, just because admin couldn't set their automatic flagging thingie correctly in the first place?
I had one of mine unpublished on my other account - I found out about it this morning, edited and republished it, and now it's just been reinstated.
The thing is, I could have sworn it was one of the hubs that got a "too many products" warning several weeks ago. I fixed all the hubs that received such a warning, before the HP team even had a chance to send me a list.
As a result, I've just spent the last two hours going through ALL 71 hubs on that other account, making sure that they complied with the 50 words per product rule. And it turned out that the vast majority of them didn't.
So basically, I've had to edit all the hubs on that account TWICE. I'm pretty pissed off actually, and I'm one of the lucky ones - at least I didn't get a wholesale ban like Spacey Gracey, and at least I don't have 300 hubs to edit.
All this for a clutch of hubs that were doing OK before the Panda slap, but certainly aren't doing OK now.
I think I'm starting to agree with the people who say that the 50 words per product thing is bogus, because the editing job I've just done certainly hasn't improved my hubs' appearance or readability - far from it.
by abwilliams25 hours ago
I recently received Accolades for publishing hubs that sparked interest and debate.Every published hub has been featured,Until now....Suddenly my hubs are not worthy! I've published two within the past couple of weeks...
by Ben Guinter3 years ago
I've gotten two emails about the same hub, which of course was one of my holiday hubs - the hubs that helped build up most of my following on here.It was about the first flights between the Hawaiian islands, and the...
by LiamBean6 years ago
I have an information hub called "Stemming the Problem of Premature Ejaculation." Apparently someone decided that I need to change the title because of the word "ejaculation." What is this?!I know...
by TexMarInfo5 years ago
I have no clue as to why and I have not been given and reply to me request for more info. I never received and letter from the hub page staff. Can someone please give me some understanding on this??
by Rob Welsh4 years ago
I really - totally object to having my efforts to successfully produce high quality hubs, images and words, undermined by an anonymous and questionably qualified moderator, whom I would challenge to take the time to...
by Warren Clark4 years ago
I find it kind of ridiculous that I have been waiting for a couple weeks now for one of my hubpages to be published. What was the longest time you have ever had it take to get a hubpage to publish?
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.