I received an email about one of my hubs, which said:
'Violation: Overly Promotional - Solely or excessively promotes another site(s), especially when Hub links all point to one site.'
Accordingly, I reduced the number of Amazon products and I got rid of the Amazon RSS feed.
I then submitted it for re-publication.
However, I have now received another e-mail, about the same hub, saying:
'Violation: Promotes site(s) or product(s) unrelated to Hub content.'
The hub is about Human Brain Evolution. The Amazon products are related to the brain. There are five links to some sources I used ~ no two the same, except Wikipedia. There are links to other hubs ~ my own and others' ~ and there is a news capsule.
I really don't know what is wrong, or what to do about it.
Any advice, please??
It sounds that someone is flagging your hub just for the sake of flagging. If you want, I could check it out and see if it is indeed, over-promotional?
They can flag all they want to, but only a moderator can unpublish it.
That is a good point and I agree.
However, flagging something continually is poor conduct. I know that it will help hubpages in the long run but, Hubber are not robots. We have feelings and they can be hurt by having people flag their hubs too often.
For me, when my hubs are flagged, (which is rarely because I follow the guidelines), I feel like have failed. It is a major self-esteem killer as a writer.
I don't see how that's possible since you would never know if anyone flagged any of your hubs. It's completely anonymous.
If a Hub is re-submitted for publication, and without ever getting published again incurs another flag... that's all the work of the site moderators.
Do you have at least 50 words for each rss feed. I read somewhere Hubpages wanted a certain number of words to each feed and 50 sticks in my mind. It could be even more. You might look in back announcements
Yes, that is absolutely correct.
But I do not see why all of the problems cannot be addressed at the same time ~ and explained clearly.
This sort of behaviour is unfair on those of us, who are trying very hard to submit quality work, on which we have spent a lot of time.
It may be an adequate response to some of those I see when hub hopping ~ 'trolls', apparently, who submit several items of spun rubbish, just so that they can link to inappropriate adverts.
But it is not appropriate for those of us who are working hard to make Hub Pages a quality experience for members and visitors alike.
Sorry to hear about your problem. Here's a forum thread that might give you the answer. If not email HP, and ask what they mean and how you can correct the problem. Good luck
Thank you for the offer, but I think that Rosie has sorted it out with her link
Thank you for that link. I think that this explains it all
Thanks, again, both
No, it wasn't that, after all.
I have had another e-mail, because my Amazon links ~ which are indeed relevant ~ were not considered relevant.
Hey Trish, email Maddie directly. She oversees the moderators.
Hi Trish, sorry to hear it was the Amazon product. I hope Maddie comes to your rescue. Let us know.
Thanks Rosie ~ and everyone.
I am still waiting to hear what is actually wrong.
It was an early hub, so perhaps not one of my best, but it seemed perfectly ok, all the same.
It was about the brain ~ brain use and brain evolution ~ including references to Homo erectus and brain size. I had the correct number of Amazon products and they all related to brain / mind use and a couple on Homo erectus evolution, so I am bewildered, and do not want to submit any more articles, if they can be unpublished for incomprehensible reasons.
I try very hard to write high quality articles, which keep to the rules. Suggesting that I write low quality stuff, with inappropriate products, makes me sound like a troll.
I have to say that I am not at all happy about this.
The new alertness on the part of Hubpages admin is salutary. But coordination and restraint are needed for the cleansing exercise. The morale of serious hubbers should not be affected.
Well, I have tried something else.
I removed two Amazon books, which were about the workings of the brain, and discussed evolution, but were not, perhaps, exactly about the hub subject. I wouldn't say that they were so far off topic as to deserve to be unpublished, but I don't know.
I have also got rid of a couple of links to some of my hubs.
Again, 'Hub Help' hubs have advised linking to our other hubs, to make readers aware of our other work, and it seemed like a very sensible thing to do, but maybe not.
I have no idea what is required of me on said hub, so we'll just have to see if this works.
The warning that: 'repeatedly submitting hubs for review that are still in violation of the rules will result in the permanent closure of your account' is of some concern, of course.
Thank you, Paul, for finally giving me some useful information on my unpublished hub.
So, I am not allowed to put links to my other hubs ~ not even to one informing people that they can donate money to deserving causes without spending a penny.
For this reason, my hub is deemed too trollish to publish??!!!
I am astounded!
No, you are not allowed to have unrelated links, even if they are to your hubs and even if they promote good causes.
I think the alert on the hub and the email make that pretty clear, but if you have suggestions on how we can make it more clear, please advise.
I read these forum posts twice through because I'm astounded at the news that you can't link to your own Hubs unless their topic is related to the Hub you are linking from.
Did I miss this notice somewhere in another forum, or in the Blog?
It wasn't so long ago, on the advice of several Hubs here about linking to your own Hubs, that I added RSS feeds to many of my Hubs, titling the RSS capsule something like, "Here's the latest from Sally's Trove," using only /latest/ in the RSS URL.
Here are three of many Hubs currently published suggesting this strategy for driving traffic to your latest, best, hot Hubs:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Beginners-Guide … --Part-III
http://hubpages.com/hub/What-to-do-when … n-Hubpages
http://hubpages.com/hub/Promote-Your-Ol … -RSS-Feeds
If I've understood this forum thread correctly, then this is a nightmare for HP...
The new rules and these strategy Hubs, many written by respected Hubbers, are at odds with each other.
Please tell me I misunderstood.
No you didn't misunderstand Sally. I only found out yesterday that we cannot use an RSS feed to link to our own 'Latest Hubs' and at best we can only create one that solely links to our hubs on relevant topics to the topic of the hub you are placing it on (I emailed the Team and they confirmed this). For example, if I want to place an RSS feed to my own hubs on a hub I wrote about growing vegetables, then I have to create a tag e.g. growvegmh and place it on every hub that I have written on veg growing. I then create an RSS feed and insert that tag into it. This way it will only show my 'on topic' hubs in the feed. This has been a nightmare for me, as I had also just found out Clickbanks links are now banned too. Most of my 300+ hubs had both Clickbank and RSS feeds to my latest hubs on them. I was up until 06.00am this morning deleting those from my hubs, and have spent another 2 and a half hours doing the same thing today. I still have 117 hubs to do, and even then I need to go through them all again creating these 'relevant' tags, inserting them on the hubs and then creating the RSS feed URL and inserting it onto each hub too. I am going to be at this for days.
No, Paul, the alert on the hub did not make it at all clear. I had no idea what it was all about ~ hence my numerous attempts to deal with it.
I had no idea that we could not link to our own hubs. As someone else said, even authors have lists of their other works in their books.
There are hubs on here, offering help, which recommend linking to one's other hubs ~ mainly related, but also to some which offer other subject areas. Even RSS links are recommended, which are, apparently, now banned. I hadn't seen any rules disagreeing with any of this.
I feel that I have been treated like a troll, when I am trying my utmost to submit quality material.
Sending incomprehensible messages to your writers, together with threats about being banned, is not the way to keep good subscribers.
I am not happy about this and find the attitude of Hub Pages quite insulting.
Banning my article, because of a link, to my own hub on supporting worthwhile causes for free, is, in my opinion, little short of disgusting.
I spend a lot of time researching and preparing my work, until I am satisfied with its quality, but I am becoming aware that rules, and rule changes, of which many of us seem to be unaware, can result in our work simply disappearing from the Internet.
Is it worth my while to carry on working so hard for this kind of reaction?
I would be grateful if you could check the rest of my hubs as soon as possible, so that I can discover whether I am going to have any more problems of this nature and decide what I am going to do.
These notifications were not meant to treat you or any other good Hubber like a troll. We tend to be firm in our email notifications, since most of the violators are very much deliberate and need to have this message communicated with utmost clarity, but we're certainly open to suggestions if you have them.
We've taken the occasion of the recent Google algorithm update to tighten up our standards, and we are making sure that links in a Hub are related to the Hub's topic. RSS links are not banned; however, indiscriminate (i.e. unrelated to the topic of the Hub where they are used) use of them is not allowed.
Going through the corpus of over 1 million Hubs takes a lot of time, and we are trying to do it as quickly as possible while being thorough and careful.
We've asked everyone, staff included, to take the time to review their own Hubs and bring them up to standard. If you miss a few and they get moderated, please don't get offended. I've had several of my Hubs moderated, too.
You have only got 6 hubs - what about those of us, the hard working hubbers, that have hundreds.
As far as being treated as a troll, I am afraid you have been so doing.
I understand that your changes are in order to get HP status back and for HP income generation to return BUT if you treat the people that will make you the money, in the way that you are so doing, you will lose a lot of them. This will mean that all of your efforts will be for nought, as there will be no money earnings writers here.
It is now easier to remove hubs that 'violate' rather than amend them. Especially when, as in my case, a flag has been set against my account that means that just changing a broken link causes my hub to be unpublished for days.
HP is being disingenuous. If you rate us as being in the 80's or 90's for hubscore, surely you have come to the conclusion that we are not trolls.
I challenge you to review the entirety of my output at HP and tell me that any of it is produced by a troll.
When did I or anyone say that if you get a violation notice, that we're calling you a troll? I've gotten several of the notices and never took it that way.
BTW I publish under the username livelonger, and have about as many published Hubs as you. This account is for official communication, hence the very few Hubs.
Glancing at your Hubs, I can see that you're a talented writer and you write great quality stuff. But sometimes we all make inadvertent mistakes and a moderator, who is more familiar with our standards and who is entrusted to apply them fairly, lets us know. Banning only happens to people who repeatedly and deliberately make the same violation over and over again.
In order to make our corpus of Hubs as search-friendly as possible, we have to tighten up our standards, and that can affect some great-quality Hubs. As others who publish on either sites have mentioned, this is not uncommon.
I don't mind being moderated. I have already had some hubs moderated ~ and I have moderated a huge site, myself.
It is the manner of moderation ~ three e-mails, none of which make it clear what I have done wrong, and no clarity on what is and what is not allowed on the site.
No response to my e-mail, a threat that re-submitting could result in being banned, and generally feeling that I was being treated like a troll.
I have removed the criminal link to a my charity hub ~ although it went against my own moral judgement to do so.
I have always extolled the virtues of Hub Pages, but I see a lot of people being upset, and now that this has happened to me, I can really understand why.
Is there a rule page, by the way? I need one, but haven't yet found one.
I understand that the site and its rules needed an overhaul, but alienating your writers is not the best way of going about things.
About unrelated links: What about the links that are at the bottom of a Hub because of being a part of a group that I have created? I myself try to group my Hubs in some logical and organized way that would make sense to a reader, but that does not always mean that the Hubs in a group are "related." Could those links that occur from Groups be counted as unrelated links?
No Jason, that is a reason for unpublishing. My related rss feed on Office Products was considered unacceptable on a hub about computer mice.
The rss feeds, it seems, must be directly related to the content of your hub.
I wish the rules about all of this was made clear to us.
Well, not being privy to what Aficionada meant exactly by "logical and organized way", I'm assuming that the grouping was topically-oriented.
And, yes, an RSS feed containing links to Hubs unrelated to the topic is no different than individual links to Hubs unrelated to the topic - they're not allowed. This has been the case for me, too, and I'm on staff, so the rules are being applied consistently across the board.
We're working on the FAQ which will make a lot of this a lot more clear. I'm sorry for any confusion about this.
Thanks for the reply, Jason. I think that my uncertain groups probably fall somewhere between Okay and what IzzyM states.
Most of my topics are clear and understandable. But, in an effort to make sure that all of my Hubs were in groups, I created one (recently changed, even before this forum thread) called "Everyday Matters That Make You Think," and it did cover a very wide range of topics. I think that group would certainly have been Iffy, at best.
As for the new one that I created, I may just have to wait and see if I get notified about it. I really think the links would count as related, but I can see some room for interpretation that might not go the way I would think. I'll just see.
Here we go again!
Another problem hub: 'Some Online Best Buys'
E-mail number one says:
Violation: Deceptively Tagged/Titled/Categorized, or Keyword Stuffed
The hub warning says that the title already exists elsewhere ~ so I changed it and clicked on re-submit.
E-mail number two says:
Why can't we receive just one message, explaining exactly what is wrong?
Is it deceptively titled?
Or does it just have the same title as another hub?
Or is it substandard in one of the other ways mentioned?
Apparently, Substandard can mean:
* An empty or short Hub
* Poor spelling or grammar that interferes with the readability/credibility of the Hub
* A Hub with awkward or difficult-to-read formatting
* A Hub with a full-width link, news, comment, rss, or product capsule as the first capsule of the Hub
* A Hub with broken links or missing videos
No, it is definitely none of these, but perhaps it simply no longer fits with Hub Pages unexplained requirements in spite of having a hub score of 70!!!
The article itself still states that it is deceptively tagged, titled or categorised. I can't see it myself, but I've deleted it.
I also had troubles with inserting tags until I read the small print that said only one tag per box.
Now, I still can post Hubs because when I get to Step 3, Choose or Browse a Category, I get this message: "error on the page."
Can anybody help me. I want to post a Hub ASAP about the upcoming marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton.
If you're seeing a red error on the page, then the field with the problem will also have a red color to it. Which field is colored red and what does it say next to it (in red)?
Thanks for getting back to me, Jason. The box for Step 3, insert tags, was pink! I fixed the problem by reading the fine print instructions, which said only one tag per box. I don't think that rule had been in effect before recently.
BTW, do you know how change the layout of a Hub AFTER you've posted/published it?
Have you tried using a different browser? I was getting all sorts of errors today so I changed from Chrome to Opera for a while and they all cleared.
Thanks for responding. I missed instructions about inserting tags.
Frank, if you want to publish your hub as soon as possible, don't worry about the tags for now. Write your hub. Publish it. And then add the tags you want. Only one tag at a time.
About the format of your hubs. Yes you can change the format anyway you want. Go to your account page and click the edit button to the left of the hub you want to change formatting. You can add a photo, video, another text capsule, etc. and you can delete capsules as well. You can move capsules by clicking the arrows on the capsule up or down or sideways if you want to go to the right side of the capsule right below it.
Thank you for your response.
It was actually me, who first used the term 'troll' on here.
As a hardworking careful writer on Hub Pages and an administrator / moderator on another site, this is how I felt that I was being treated.
I received a message that meant nothing to me:
'Violation: Overly Promotional - Solely or excessively promotes another site(s), especially when Hub links all point to one site.'
I attempted to correct errors that I could not even identify, and which were not clarified, and then I got this:
'Violation: Promotes site(s) or product(s) unrelated to Hub content.'
I really do not have any problem with being moderated, but I think that you need to be considerate of the feelings of regular writers / responsible members.
Telling someone, who is writing quality hubs and trying to keep to the rules, that they keep 'violating', without explaining what is wrong, and accusing them of 'promoting unrelated sites or products', is, in my opinion, equivalent to calling them 'trolls'.
And one feels wary of attempting to re-publish corrected hubs, when one also receives the warning that re-submitting hubs that still violate TOS could result in a ban.
There are related comments here:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/73361?p … ost1599353
Yes, you moderators / staff are having a busy and difficult time just now, but your writers are your site. Many of them are having a difficult time too. They don't deserve to feel insulted and upset by moderator messages, just because some violations are submitted by 'trolls'. These set e-mails could, perhaps, be re-worded?
We will work on that. Thank you for the feedback.
Please understand that these messages are worded for the deliberate sorts of miscreants, who need to have a very, very clear violation-consequence course of action spelled out for them.
If you know you're not a spammer, and we are telling you you're not a spammer, and we tell you that the violation emails are worded exactly the same for everyone who receives them, then why would you be offended by them?
Misty, I remember not too long ago someone wrote a Hub on how to do exactly what you describe--add a "custom" tag and then create an RSS based on that--and then there was some forum conversation about it, because it didn't always work. At the time, HP confirmed that it didn't work...so now I guess it works? (Right now I can't be more specific about the Hub or the forum threads. Maybe someone else remembers?)
This is indeed getting to be a nightmare. All the worse for you, Misty, because you aren't getting hardly any sleep, and what you are getting must be all jumbled up in these changes!
OMG, I so hope it does work, as if it doesn't I think I shall merrily shoot myself. The rules seem to be getting totally over the top, and will potentially drive many seasoned hubbers elsewhere.
Exhausted right now, time here 03.00am and I just finished the removal of Clickbank links and 'Latest' RSS feeds from all of my hubs. Still need to go back and replace those RSS feeds and tags appropriately, but this in itself is a major task with 300+ hubs.
It's not a new rule; it's just that it's being more stringently enforced now. It was always against the rules to put in links irrelevant to the Hub's topic.
We understand the new rules and tougher enforcement is affecting quality Hubbers--as I've said before, it affects the staff, too--but we apply the rules fairly. To do otherwise smacks of favoritism, something we are against.
Not to beat this issue to a pulp, but...
Do tags created in Hubs always work when incorporated into the RSS URL? (As Misty described above.)
Would something like a blog post--or official thread, or "notice" appearing on the account page--be helpful in notifying Hubbers whose previously accurate Hubs about how to accomplish something that is now against the rules help to remove the misinformation in those Hubs?
Simone created a great Learning Center entry on this:
http://learningcenter.hubpages.com/hubb … -rss-feed/
Also, we're going to issue a "recap" of all the new rules in a blog post this coming week.
Thanks for that link to the learning center. Guess that means the user-created tags which are inserted into an RSS URL work all the time.
Glad to hear you will be issuing a recap of all the new rules, but I have to wonder how that will remove erroneous information from well-regarded Hubs and Hubbers.
It didn't take me long to search "link your own Hubs" to come up with the three Hubs I mentioned. There were many more.
This being an open platform, folks are welcome to express whatever they want (within the rules, of course), and that lets some write what are essentially Help articles for working within HubPages, whether their information is current or accurate or not. They describe a frame of a picture, which may change in time, over which HP has little control. At the same time, Hubbers old and new rely on these Hubs for guidance.
You've got your work cut out for you.
Thank goodness you are going to issue a recap on all the new rules as I am getting confused with all the different opinions given here in forums... and put this never-ending-thread to rest, no offense intended to anyone. It's just getting too long but I follow it so I could finally find out the solution to Trish's problem. Thanks, Jason.
It seems most of the Hubbers are in the dark regarding the new regulations. Enforcing rules without informing the hubbers about the existence of such rules would be counter-productive. First of all the admin need to inform the hubbers about the new rules and policies. There should not be any ambiguity or uncertainty and everything should be clearly spelt out.
I have found many extremely helpful hubs about how to use Hubpages to best effect. However, if some of the information is now out of date, the hubs concerned should be amended or deleted.
I think as a matter of urgency, the moderators should be going through hubs about hub production to weed out ones which are outdated or plain incorrect.
In addition, I think that it would be useful if any future hubs about hub production were automatically disabled from publication until checked for accuracy by a moderator. I presume it would be easy enough to do this with some well chosen stop words.
Finally, a resource page giving links to all hubs about hubbing with some sort of classification, to help identify hubs on specific topics, would be super!
WriteAngled, that makes sense. Hubpages content and publishing policies may be changing from time to time and any published hub on hubbing needs to be updated in conformity with the latest position of the publishing norms.
Hence, to monitor all such materials on the site and to ensure that no inconsistent and superseded hubbing material runs on the site, such hubs giving information about hubbing should be collectively at a place where some moderator can check their accuracy and relevancy. Otherwise, new hubbers may follow wrong teaching.
HP made a decision, conscious or not, to let users document their system for them.
The result is that HP has no control over that user-provided documentation and consequently no control over the outcome of what that unofficial documentation generates.
I've been puzzling about this for a long while, because aspects of this unofficial documentation permeate the entire site, in both insignificant and significant ways.
This is an open publishing platform and social networking site, so, in concept, anything goes (so long as it doesn't violate the site's TOS). However, this site's owners have been letting too many detailed operational points of this site reside in the words of Hubbers rather than in the words of HP staff.
In the absence of Hubs being monitored before they are published and even more to this point, in the absence of a periodic staff review of "How-to-Hub" Hubs for accuracy, perhaps it would be good to add your last statement to the FAQs or Learning Center.
When I was new here, I was grateful for these kinds of Hubs, but also surprised that Hubbers were writing the documentation that I expected from the company. Since then, the Learning Center and Help have been beefed up quite a bit. But these older Hubber-written legacies remain; some are accurate according to the current HP direction, but some are not.
We have it right here:
Without going through every subtopic under "Where can I find help on HubPages?", where is the disclaimer/caution about using Hubs written by non-staff Hubbers?
@WriteAngled and mdlawyer, you bring up excellent points.
We try to keep the entries as brief as possible, but I can run that by other team members to see if they'd like to include that.
I'd prefer not to offer cautions, disclaimers, exclusions, etc. to every other possible way people could be getting advice, and I generally don't see warnings like that on other sites. They point to their own resources, and using non-sanctioned resources is generally understood to be at your own risk. Does that make sense?
Jason, look at it this way...making such a statement is a protection for the company. Any time a Hubber follows outdated and unofficial advice, there's a potential price to pay in terms of staff time and energy, meaning money. In addition, there's a matter of credibility. How does HP appear to users if it sanctions erroneous information, even by the default of allowing the Hub to remain published?
About "other sites": that's a huge topic. First, HP is not "other sites". Second, any Hub that is published here is presumably "sanctioned" by virtue of its residing on this site. Third, there's an assumption you're making about how site users "generally understand" the difference between authoritative and non-authoritative information, but you know what assuming does...it makes an...fill in the blanks.
What I'm happy to hear is that there may be a conversation among HP staff about this issue, and in this sense, this forum thread conversation makes sense.
EDIT: S's T posted while I was typing this. I could just say ditto to her post.
Jason, I personally think it would help to add to that FAQ section a very diplomatic disclaimer that would say something like this: "Many Hubs regarding HubPages practices and policies are available; however, some of them contain out-of-date information. Hubbers should always consult the FAQ's, recent staff blog posts, and recent forum statements from the staff for the most current, accurate guidelines" - or something worded more diplomatically.
The reason I would like to see that is simply the fact that when I was brand-new here, there was so much info in the FAQ's and all of the Learning Center, that I was really overwhelmed by it all; and so I absorbed what I could... but then began turning more to fellow Hubbers for advice, both in forums and in their Hubs. They (theoretically) had been through the same things as I, they weren't bound by trying to say a great deal in very concise language (they could provide more detail and answer my specific questions immediately), and I often found it easier to approach Hubbers with a question than to wade through all the FAQ's to learn what I needed to know. I understand that it is the kind of behavior that drives some more experienced Hubbers crazy, but it really is an attempt to be more efficient and effective - not lazier.
I believe that you all are working hard to make the Learning Center as accurate, as useful and helpful as possible, and we all appreciate that very much. But people will always look to their fellows for information and advice, and I believe it can only be helpful for there to be a statement somewhere from the staff concerning the trustworthiness of information found in Hubs about HP policies.
@ Jason and Aficionada, now that's what I call meaningful, purposeful, results-driven conversation!
Thanks, Jason, for running this by the team.
Hey Sally's Trove & Aficionada,
OK - I added a line to the FAQ entry, although it's possible that it won't show up on the live site for a few hours due to caching:
Wow, wow, wow! - saw it.
It's been said before but definitely worth repeating: you staff can be totally amazing at responding to questions, confusion, complaints, and suggestions from the community.
This is good. (I did see it.)
I'm going to suggest another thing...that staff writes a Blog post about this. This is a totally positive action on HP's part, and it's important that this news is at the front for HP Blog readers (and the rest of the online world).
We'll probably include some language to that effect when we post again about the Learning Center on the blog, which will probably come in the coming weeks.
by GAbaptist5 years ago
Over the past few months my SEO has definitely improved, adsense is getting there and the HP Ad revenue is steadily increasing, however my Amazon sales are still in the cellar with no signs of life lately! I have had a...
by Gemini Fox24 months ago
Published a hub on Oklahoma (please don’t get started on how it might be too generic – I had fun doing it). It became the template for my following hubs on Arizona and New Mexico. The Oklahoma...
by Msmillar36 hours ago
Ok, here it is. Hubpages edited some of my hubs to "make them better" so they can be featured and moved to vertical sites. If I undo their "corrections" I risk having that hub removed...
by michifus4 years ago
I have noticed that all of my hubs that contain affiliate links have now been marked as being in violation of the terms and conditions of hubpages.Hubpages must have forgotten to mention that affiliate links are now...
by AnnaMKB9 months ago
First off, my hubs are transferred from Squidoo, and I am aware of various issues there. I'd already checked and edited hubs after the transition, so this is all post transfer.What I don't understand is why some...
by fireatwill416 years ago
This really isn't a problem, but rather something I am interested in finding out. I have a few unpublished hubs with little to no content in them, and the thing is, one of these hubs outranks one of my published hubs! I...
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.