jump to last post 1-29 of 29 discussions (78 posts)

HubHopping - some things don't change

  1. frogdropping profile image86
    frogdroppingposted 5 years ago

    Having hubhopped for a wee while, I came across the usual dross. Low quality, spun content, copied content. Of the ones I hopped through, 7 (no avatar, profile info etc) had just joined and thrown up hasty hubs that were basic SEO stuff - written just for a couple of backlinks.

    Then there was this one Baptism, one that was one of several.

    Anyone can check (and this is not about lambasting the hubber, it's an example) and will note that an awful lot of the text is duplicate. It will fail Copyscape.

    My question: we are covering spun, duplicate, low quality, pictures, promotional etc - what about religious stuff like this? The fact is it is not the entire work of the author, period. Does the fact that it's religious exempt it from the new TOS?

    And whilst we can sit and argue back and forth that quoting religious text may well be necessary to the hub, the fact remains that when it's done to this degree it turns a hub into a duplicate one.

    So - to my point: I, like many other hubbers, have pretty much lost all the income I was making on HP. Whilst I find the changes tough to keep up with, I believe it is for the good of the site and its users overall.

    I want HP to at least find it's feet again. So, is there a certain group that are exempt? I didn't flag it by the way, as I still don't know where HP stands with these hubs. And there are many, thousands and thousands, just like this one.

    Are we ignoring the religious hubs that match the one above? This is not about a witch hunt, this is about being senseible. Such a hub does not meet with the TOS.

  2. Mark Ewbie profile image84
    Mark Ewbieposted 5 years ago

    I never know what to do with the religion ones either - I can't make a balanced judgement because it's not really my area.

    What concerns me is that the hopper presumably measures visits without flagging as being eventually OK for viewing.  So if we just skip over them they get passed.

    As for the other non religious quality improving - no it isn't.  It's the same as ever.  These people are not going to go away.

  3. recommend1 profile image69
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    The normal rules of TOS must apply regardless of the content - or the whole thing is a crock.

  4. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Because I do not like religion I have never flagged a religious hub, as I don't want to make a prejudicial decision. I have seen some hubbers with nothing but religious hubs which are just quotes from a religious tome. smile

  5. ThomasE profile image80
    ThomasEposted 5 years ago

    There are exceptions made with poetry (for example, quality and length), but beyond that all hubs are fair game AFAIK. You can flag these hubs. Moderators will then make their own decision.

  6. darkside profile image79
    darksideposted 5 years ago

    No one knows hubhopping like frogdropping so hopefully hub hq can heed her words.

    1. frogdropping profile image86
      frogdroppingposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol that made me smile for real smile

      Thanks everyone. Religion brings traffic, I'm not completely stupid, and that's got to be a good thing.

      This is about pinpointing whether or not religious based hubs are exempt from the TOS, in the same way as poetry is from 'low' content due to the word count.

      @ Earnest - I never flag them either, but for me it's because I'm unsure where they stand overall re the TOS.

      It's hard to offer an opinion based hub, in that subject area, without quoting text, but when it's to the point that the hub wouldn't pass copyscape, what then?

  7. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    I don't flag hubs based on the subject...same as I don't not flag hubs based on the subject.

  8. frogdropping profile image86
    frogdroppingposted 5 years ago

    UW I don't flag hubs that don't contravene the TOS, so we're on the same page smile If I've been unsure in the past, I've asked and the HP team have emailed me direct.

    I flag hubs when I'm hopping if they don't meet with TOS. I'm not interested in the subject, I have no favorites, I don't use personal bias - I love dogs for e.g., therefore if a dog related hub needs flagging according to the TOS, it gets flagged.

    I'm fair, always have been. But religious stuff I completely ignore, as though they're a taboo. And it's that that we need to change.

    Writing about religion should not allow the hubber some kind of false immunity. That is unfair, no question.

    1. DIYweddingplanner profile image90
      DIYweddingplannerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Poor writing is poor writing, no matter what the subject.  You don't have to agree with the subject.

  9. DIYweddingplanner profile image90
    DIYweddingplannerposted 5 years ago

    If you want to have a flagging field day, just go into "hubbers" and click "latest."  You could go all day and all night and never get done, I promise.

    1. Mikeydoes profile image79
      Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      When I go hubhopping it is all I see. Hubs made 42 mins ago, or 2 mins ago. Some text and 2 backlinks.

      I'll bet there aren't many quality hubs going out right now. I think a lot of the top hubbers aren't publishing as much. Most hubs I see I want to flag, but I end up not knowing what to do on them so I leave them.

    2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I used to do that when I first started writing here smile

  10. CMHypno profile image89
    CMHypnoposted 5 years ago

    My favourite offering from the hopper this morning!


    'Please look over this specific advice first. Some plus size layers are designed to hit your hips while others gently graze the joints'

    Would you want to wear a coat like this? Outerwear for masochists LOL!

    1. DIYweddingplanner profile image90
      DIYweddingplannerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Owwwy, grazing the joints sounds painful!

  11. Haunty profile image83
    Hauntyposted 5 years ago

    There's no harm in flagging, so I just did. I'm not sure it falls into the category of copied content, but it's extremely annoying for sure.

  12. lrohner profile image83
    lrohnerposted 5 years ago

    I just flagged a hub that claims that cinnamon and honey "cures most of the diseases if taken regularly by the patient suffering from various diseases." This hubber also recommends giving honey to all age groups, despite the fact that it can be fatal to infants. She also advises that diabetics should use honey because it's a "natural sweetener." Let's forget the fact that it impacts blood sugar just as much as white sugar.

    And btw folks, eat all the McDonald's you want. "Two tbsp of honey with three tsp of cinnamon powder mixed in one cup tea water reduces the level of cholesterol in the body by 10% within 2 hours of consumption of this mixture,if taken thrice a day any chronic cholesterol is cured."

    Sheesh. I'll betcha that hub doesn't get taken down. This is ridiculous.

    1. Haunty profile image83
      Hauntyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And you flagged it as what? My biggest problem with the flagging reasons is that you can't find one for misinformation.

      1. Howard S. profile image83
        Howard S.posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Misinformation is regrettable, but it has to be allowed. The proper way to dispute it is in a comment. Do it politely, though, because the author might not otherwise approve it.

    2. Aya Katz profile image88
      Aya Katzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      While I agree with your medical assessment of the dietary advice given in this hub, where in the TOS does it say that untrue claims about the facts of reality are not allowed to be published here?

      Judge it on how well it is written. Judge it on whether it's original rather than duplicate. But don't judge it on truth or falsity. That's not our job. That is the job of every reader: to think for himself!

      1. DIYweddingplanner profile image90
        DIYweddingplannerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree.  If I felt strongly about it, I'd challenge them in the comments.

        1. lrohner profile image83
          lrohnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I did leave a comment. Whether the team does anything about the hub or not, I don't know. And I agree in principle about assessing the technical aspects of hubs rather than the substance. I don't usually flag based on content.

          In this case, however, I felt as though not flagging it would be like watching a car speeding toward a child in the street and not doing anything. This hubber recommends rubbing honey on the gums of teething babies. That is extremely dangerous and could lead to the death of a baby. There's a world of difference, IMHO, between bad advice and dangerous advice.

          1. nell79 profile image86
            nell79posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wow, that is dangerous. Babies don't yet have the flora in their digestive systems necessary to kill any botulism spores that may be in honey. That's what makes it deadly. I have a friend who's a nurse. This concern is real.

            Maybe I should search out the hub and leave a comment too...

          2. Lisa HW profile image82
            Lisa HWposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I agree.  On at least one other writing site I know, there are people to whom an article can be reported for fact checking or similar issues.  (Of course, I did report something once.  It was an article that told people to fill bottles with marbles, tape the top, and turn it into a rattle for babies  roll.  I figured, hazards issue aside (and if anyone were to take that "tip" seriously), there could potentially be legal issues for the site, itself (disclaimers or no disclaimers).

  13. 0
    lynnechandlerposted 5 years ago

    I think and mind you this is just my opinion, but all the negative talk about hubhopping may prevent the better quality hubs from getting published right now as these writers don't want to get caught up in the madness. I know a lot of it has to do with being unsure whether it will make a difference to publish a new hub with all the Google crud going on, but this hubhop talk certainly doesn't lend a positive to wanting to publish anything here right now.

  14. frogdropping profile image86
    frogdroppingposted 5 years ago

    Lynne so far as I'm concerned it isn't difficult to publish a hub within the TOS. I've published hundreds with no issue. Those that use HP as a means of sharing information, helping readers, offering insights, reviews - whatever - can publish happily away (to their hearts content) so long as they meet the guidelines.

    Anyone that doesn't will be one of two types: ignorant of the full TOS because they're new or relatively new and haven't yet worked out what's not allowed or the type that don't give a monkeys, the spammers.

    Better quality hubs won't end unpublished. Flagging does not cause a hub to become unpublished. What does is when it's looked at by a moderator and they note something that doesn't comply.

    1. 0
      lynnechandlerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I realize that, but like I said it is just my opinion that all the talk is negative and while I agree we need to help clean up the site as best we can by hopping hubs and flagging, I don't see the need to bring it to the forums in a negative aspect.

      Negativity only begets more negativity. There is way too much of that going around right now as everyone is down with the Google slap, so flag do what you feel is right, but don't bring it here. Bringing it to the attention of the moderators who are the ones to make the final decision is all that is necessary.

  15. frogdropping profile image86
    frogdroppingposted 5 years ago

    Negative? The whole shebang just got negative. I'm asking publicly because we may all learn from this. Let's just pretend I didn't ask. Then the mods figured this out and thought 'we'd better tell the hubbers'.

    Where do you think it's going to be made public? The forum. Like they do everything else that they want to highlight. 

    However I apologise for upsetting your or anyone elses sensibilities because I came up against something that I feel is important and needs airing.

    I'm also greatly pleased that every time I've started a highly positive thread (and there are many), you've entered into it with the same spirit, and thanked me for lightening the mood.

  16. 0
    lynnechandlerposted 5 years ago

    FD~~I'm really not questioning the original OP of starting the thread. You had a valid question and one that needs to be addressed as far as I'm concerned.

    The negative I am speaking of is all the following comments that bring up the crud that can be found. Ok, it's great that we are all willing to help out and find this stuff, but does everyone have to point out the obvious. I don't think so. I think many, as am I, are frustrated and this is where our frustrations come out in this form.

    The thread should have really remained on topic of what to do with the copied content in religious hubs, but it did not. The moderators or site admin would have or should bring this to our attention as to what to do with the content of these types of hubs and yes they would probably addressed this in the forums.

    I'm really not challenging you to be more positive and I do think you had a good point. It just fell by the wayside is all and that is what upset me not the original question.

    I'm sorry I upset you. I really didn't intend to do that. I was just stating what I felt about how the thread progressed from your original question. I'll go back to my corner now.

  17. frogdropping profile image86
    frogdroppingposted 5 years ago

    Lynne I am not offended, nor upset. I know this is a common theme online (in forums) to play the injured party or feel offended. There's no need to return to a corner, I didn't know you felt as though you had one.

    I have (in truth) noticed that you're helpful and my words were meant in banter.

    And yes these things do go off-topic and become something they were never meant to be. However I like to think I (me lol me) kept on point. And even then, this is not about religion, it's about duplicate content and where the line is drawn, if there is
    one.

  18. 0
    lynnechandlerposted 5 years ago

    LOL, yes I have a corner. It's the one where I try really hard not to express my opinion in the threads and only offer up advice that I feel will be helpful. This is one of those times I should have sat on my hands, lol.

  19. rebekahELLE profile image92
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    I would not flag that hub. I don't see it as duplicate or copied content. It's presented in a topical manner and would help someone trying to find specific verses on the subject.

    There is a topics section also for quotes and sayings.
    There are thousands of searches for verses and quotes, etc.

  20. frogdropping profile image86
    frogdroppingposted 5 years ago

    @ Rebekah I didn't flag it. And I'm aware of the high traffic both religion and quote searches can bring.

    What then is this type of hub? Duplicate? Quotes? Somewhere in the middle?

    And still I say that copying and pasting is exactly that. Quotes, passages of text or otherwise. IF HP wish to remove dupe content then to my mind that means anything that involve large bodies of copied text.

  21. nell79 profile image86
    nell79posted 5 years ago

    As far as the religious hubs go, if it's quoting text from scripture and then explaining the meanings and background in their own way, I don't see a problem with it. A lot of people actually look for these kinds of things to see other's interpretations and knowledge of scripture.

    If the article is all quotes and none of it is the author's own words or thoughts, I would see it as a problem.

    That's my two cents.

  22. rebekahELLE profile image92
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    I guess I don't see it in that light at all. As far as I understand using quotes in an article, it's fine as long as it hasn't been lifted off the page in sequential order, like copying a page. 
    He uses quotes that pertain to each point he's making in the hub.
    Actually, I think the manner in which he presented his topic is done well and with creativeness.

    I see top hubs which were simply 'copied' (gathered) from another source churned out all the time. It's info that could easily be found from doing a simple search, it's not original, and yet it happens daily here. hmm I guess everyone has different opinions. 

    ok, I'm off to work.

    1. nell79 profile image86
      nell79posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree. As far as quoting religious text from scripture, if it's done in a way that's meant to educate and not just to be lazy and steal another's words and pass them off as one's own, then I would say it's a helpful article.

      I would say it's not a violation of TOS because there's no violation of copyright and it's impossible to discuss or teach religious topics without quoting scripture.

  23. David Warren profile image83
    David Warrenposted 5 years ago

    As I am relatively new here, although I do Hub Hop daily, I don't flag anything. I see Hubs that I would definitely flag but as I am new to this digital realm I believe it would be arrogant for me to judge yet. I hope that I am doing OK, I get positive comments and have yet to get flagged so far.

  24. frogdropping profile image86
    frogdroppingposted 5 years ago

    While I'm (I guess) asking questions, I wondered about these guys. These all use the dot com misdirection stuff. What's going on with these hubbers?

    http://hubpages.com/profile/trading
    2331 hubs - 3 years

    http://hubpages.com/profile/writers
    104 hubs - 4 years

    http://hubpages.com/hub/ww_hotmail_com
    120 hubs - 3 years

    http://hubpages.com/profile/InfoFinder
    103 hubs - 7 months

    http://hubpages.com/profile/TheWriteStuff
    125 hubs - 4 years

    http://hubpages.com/profile/www.ibuzzup.com
    2677 hubs - 20 months

    1. Sally's Trove profile image98
      Sally's Troveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, I kind of wonder, too, not so much about them, because it's clear what that game is, but why there isn't an HP rule in place about using the dot com construction in the way these folks are using it.

      With that said, I admit to having used it on my most recent Hub, because if I had used just the name of the site alone in the title and not added the ".com", it would have looked like a typo.

      What appalls me is the number of comments those Hubs (not mine) generated where it's clear the visitor thinks they are on the actual dot com site.

      1. sunforged profile image64
        sunforgedposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Its likely the comments are faked, copied from unrelated places or even from the original site, thats a standard method to make sites, articles look older and give "social authority"

        the construction doesnt bother me at all, its only the poor quality of the content. if someone wants to attract all the traffic that was destined for yahoo.com and then describe yahoo.com or offer (their perceived) better alternative in a valuable way, more power to them.

        I see no need for legit writers/marketers to  temper their marketing strategies simply because it a) works b) attracts the sadly poorly blessed in the brains department.



        Its all crap, but its not necessarily against TOS crap .. you have to keep in mind the search terms the searcher uses to find some of this "questionable" content.

        "Curing cancer with Monkey Stool" (just an example) ... if your article shows up first page for that, of course as people not looking for the information, we (writers who read it without searching intentionally) will see it as total crap (pun intended) but for whoever actually searches that term, it may be exactly what they are into ..who knows!

        As long as the "promise" made by the title is relevant to the content ... everything else is subjective

        1. Sally's Trove profile image98
          Sally's Troveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I appreciate your expertise in all of this, however, if I were not experienced in the online world and searched ATT.com and got one of these Hubs, I'd be inclined to think I'd reached the site I was aiming for. I think that's the value in this kind of "redirect".

          But you are quite right. The whole thing could be staged, comments and all.

          Whichever, the whole thing is nefarious.

          1. sunforged profile image64
            sunforgedposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            IM sure that is exactly what the purpose is. Im just not sure I consider it my responsibility to help AT&T's customers find their website.

            The examples that FD shows are all crap and I dont back them in any way.

            But! .. to attempt to come up first for any type of those searches by creating valuable, interesting or entertaining content ..thats web marketing.

            1. Sally's Trove profile image98
              Sally's Troveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Um, I think you and I agree.

            2. Mutiny92 profile image86
              Mutiny92posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I agree with you SF!

              I thought that there was a push to clean up the bad content on HP.  Whether it helps with the Panda adjustment or not is another story.  I would say that most of these are not good content.

    2. Mutiny92 profile image86
      Mutiny92posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      http://hubpages.com/profile/gss <-another one

      This is a terrifically successful technique though - most of those folks have over 1M views which should translate to a nice income for impression-based ads. 

      If these were honest reviews of the website, it is pretty reasonable to assume that the hub would at least link to the site discussed...most of the time, they don't, as it might give the viewer a chance to click out with something OTHER than the adsense ad featuring the company they were "reviewing."

      Types of "reviews":

      My thoughts are that a title with www. somename .com is deceptive.  If a person was googling that url, they are not looking for a hub that talks about it.  The hubber wants to place on the first page of google in order to get some of the views and redirect them via a paid mechanism to the intended site.

      The hubs with "www. somename . com LOGIN or LOGON" are even worse.  That is blatantly trying to capture the searcher.

      The hubs with "www. somename . com REVIEW" is a bit more debatable.  While there may be a legitimate review of the site, take a look at the comments where people believe that the hub "belongs" to the site under review.  No matter how good the review is, the searcher feels the affiliation to the intended site.

      Look for yourself.  Type in "www. login" or simply "www." in the hub search box to see them  - my search maxed out at 1,000.   Some of them are legit - some are REALLY good - some are junk.  How do we differentiate?  At the end of the day, if it deceives someone (intentionally or not) then it should probably be addressed. 

      I look forward to seeing guidance on this.

      1. sunforged profile image64
        sunforgedposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Its really no different than using "Brand name model XYZ"

        If the page was intended to steal login info then its a problem.

        But here at hubs, I dont see these hubs as hurting HP, IF the comments were real, then obviously the readers arent being forced away from the domain. I really dont have any terrible feelings in my breast just because a searcher spent 1 minute extra reading a page that wasnt exactly what they expected. 

        Im referring to the style - as the examples are garbage and are not worth defense. Losing pages that generate millions of page views is bad for all of us.

        I think its over reaching to assume that we should be trying to protect the readers or make decisions for them of what they wanted to land on.

        If the content matches the promise of the title - thats as far as I ll reach.

        No, I dont have any examples of this style myself.

        1. Sally's Trove profile image98
          Sally's Troveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The content of these Hubs never affirms the promise of the title. These Hubs are completely deceptive.

          1. sunforged profile image64
            sunforgedposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            agreed - as far as the examples go.

            Im just defending the rights of legitimate reviewers to use similar titles.

            for example I dislike the site Factoidz alot.

            I reserve the right to optimize an article for

            www.factoidz.com Review

            or even www.factoidz.com

            subtitle: sucks smile

            etc etc

            My market would be those who are searching for Factoidz or trying to get their for any reason.


            If all i said was


            www.Factoidz.com is a terrible site that has a history of cheating writers.

            Try these alternatives instead:
            >
            >
            >>
            >

            - I consider that sufficient. Its up to google and factoidz to make sure they outrank me, not my fellow hub writers.


            (all with the assumption , that what I shared was "best foot forward" original and genuine)


            again, i dont see the distinction in "www.examplesite.com" and "Brand Name model XYZ" - either way we are attempting to be a step in the "navigation" towards the original creators products.

            1. Sally's Trove profile image98
              Sally's Troveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I couldn't disagree with you more.

              If I want to be a step in the navigation toward ATT's products, then I will put a link to the real ATT in my Hub. None of these redirecting Hubbers do this.

              1. sunforged profile image64
                sunforgedposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                as you pointed out - its likely there is that option in an ad, Its still a link.

                Maybe, the writer doesnt want to send someone to the original source, Maybe, I want to attract factoidz searchers and say hey, Hubpages is better, I think thats my prerogative.

                Whats the difference from our affiliate links that send the user to amazon for "Brand Model XYZ" ? If this was about being fair or the very best option - then we would never link to amazon - we would link to the original product creator ..(most fair to creator) or we would link to the cheapest price on the net (which is what i tend to do) w/o being concerned about aff links

                again- these examples are terrible, but I do defend the concept.

        2. Mutiny92 profile image86
          Mutiny92posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I disagree SF.  I think it does hurt us.

          If I am wrong, then it is a great technique  to start capitalizing on.  Based on the number of views that these authors are receiving, I suspect that the impression based ad earnings will be pretty nice! 

          It just seems deceptive to me -

          1. sunforged profile image64
            sunforgedposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It depends on how you measure "hurt" - the way Google would? .. clicks back, page views, time on page , comments left?

            Looks like these hubs are doing the rest of us a service in those metrics.

            Could a human, be mad that they were misled and make a bad association to hubpages .. absolutely , but I think we can all agree that these are not the most clever of humans... will they even remember or ever know they were on Hubpages?

            I dont know .. but, I do know if I was going to start with any section where I would be concerned about protecting the searchers from deception and misdirection, I would have to start with Health - then Finance - then Insurance - (uh oh - 2 were contest topics!) before moving into something innocuous like a cheesy marketing gimmick

            1. Mutiny92 profile image86
              Mutiny92posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You are right...I am amazed a the number of insurance hubs!  Not many of them are that thought provoking.

      2. Sally's Trove profile image98
        Sally's Troveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The point of this type of Hub is to generate traffic which results in clicks and impressions for the Hubber.

        This kind of Hub not only adds no value to anyone, it capitalizes on other's innocence.

    3. Mutiny92 profile image86
      Mutiny92posted 5 years ago in reply to this
    4. Mutiny92 profile image86
      Mutiny92posted 5 years ago in reply to this
  25. Rochelle Frank profile image89
    Rochelle Frankposted 5 years ago

    I saw one this morning that could be a very good hub, but it was frustrating to see phrases like this:"he and his crews saw the enormous groves of trees which were existed in bulk and sticky, there were a huge perfume was sprinkled in the area."

    1. Sally's Trove profile image98
      Sally's Troveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Stuff like that makes me not just weep, but cry openly.

    2. Aya Katz profile image88
      Aya Katzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Were you able to make out what the hubber was trying to say? If so, a quick email to them in private offering a correction might be a nicer public service than flagging them.

      Of course, sometimes it's impossible to tell what a sentence like that is intended to mean.

      1. Sally's Trove profile image98
        Sally's Troveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Aya, there's so much crap being published on HP every day that even when you find an overall worth to the meaning despite the execution, it's sometimes too much to expect anyone to engage with the Hub's author.

        That's a personal call, of course.

        I sensed the poetry in this clip that Rochelle shared, but what to do about it, especially when there are so many others you'd like to lend your thoughts to?

        I'm thinking that HP deserves attention, the attention we've given to it, to operate within its "rules". If a budding author can't follow the rules of grammar, then I have to think about how much time I'm willing to spend on him/her.

        1. camlo profile image84
          camloposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          HubHopping, I came across a Hub that explained punctuation. Not only were the explanations wrong, the punctuation was wrong as well.

          This Hub also appeared in the Hopper yesterday, so I've flagged it twice (I don't know if this was necessary). I think the moderators must have a huge backlog.

          1. Sally's Trove profile image98
            Sally's Troveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I agree, HP has a backlog.

            At the same time, there's a huge amount of text on this site that is not valid, to your point.

            I have no idea how HP can ameliorate this situation without screening Hubs before they are published.

            I hope HP has a grander vision of this than I do.

          2. Lisa HW profile image82
            Lisa HWposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            camlo,  lol  ..kind of like the people who come on the forums and talk about everybody else's grammar and typos when they, themselves, pretty much have grammar and typing problems in almost every post they make.

  26. RedElf profile image85
    RedElfposted 5 years ago

    What to do if you come across a religious hub that has an opening paragraph or two, and all the rest is quotations from the Bible. Is that not simply copied material?

    I have ignored them in the past, but perhaps this was not the right thing to do - after all, copied content is copied content.

    Also, what about "quotation" hubs that have a paragraph of original writing, and then are nothing but motivational, or famous, or funny quotes. Are they not pretty much the same as "list" hubs?

    1. Howard S. profile image83
      Howard S.posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There are two issues here. One is "fair use" and the other is "value added." The US, and probably other countries, have very clear fair use guidelines, with which HubPage articles must comply.

      Quoting a text portion, or collating quotes from many sources must add value in order to have any original content. A religious devotional, e.g., might quote a 400-word Scripture portion, but then it had better have twice that in commentary.

      This next comment is addressed not specifically to RedElf, but to several who have expressed similar sentiment. It is a disservice to avoid flagging a hub because you simply can't look at anything in that field objectively. (And yes, it's happened to me too.) If you find that happening very often, then you should consider yourself more of a specialist in a particular topic. Adopt that topic(s) and "monitor" the "latest" hubs in that topic. You will be catching those that were overlooked by HubHoppers who couldn't tell what they were looking at.

  27. AEvans profile image70
    AEvansposted 5 years ago

    I have found some really great writers in the hubhopper so not all of them are bad. The best time for me to hop is in the evening there appears to be a greater amount of hubs at that time that are good to read. smile I like Baptism and I really don't see anything wrong with his hubs, he provides passages and gives his opinion. It would be a little tough to get permission from the authors they are all deceased.

  28. Mark Ewbie profile image84
    Mark Ewbieposted 5 years ago

    Here's a new one on me.  Just wandering through the Latest hubs - I find it makes a change from hub hopping - and six copies of the exact same article (copied) from six different so called hubbers.

    I thought the HP software now did some copy checking?  These are all about the NFL lockout.

    edit: ten copies! Searched for NFL lockout and flagged the rest of them.  Most of these hubbers with scores in single figures.

    Why are hubbers with a score less than 10 allowed to publish anything?

    1. IzzyM profile image86
      IzzyMposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You published this 9 hours ago. (OK it's the weekend) but I just did what you did and found 13 copies of the same hub!

      1. prettydarkhorse profile image66
        prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That gives me headache, LOL

        The first article/news/opinion published about NFL lockout (same article)  by a writer (who asked permission from the original writer) at msnbc http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2011/0 … l-lockout/   then it was posted by apparently same  hubber with different username 13 times, http://hubpages.com/search/include:hubs+nfl+lockout
        one of the duplicate hub is already indexed by the G
        LOL, all flagged!!

        1. IzzyM profile image86
          IzzyMposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The original has been well copied - google shows 14 results for the first paragraph all over the web!

          Oh and one of the hubpages ones is at #1, outranking the original (on my google.com, which because I'm signed in doesn't mean it's the same as everyone else's).

          I learnt another way to identify spun or copied hubs today. By going though the hubs/latest feed, you can see the page tags listed without opening the hub.

          I'm finding a few with nonsense made up words like 'tgyyys' as tags. Obviously then the writer doesn't know any English, else the automated software doesn't understand tags.

          That makes it easier to 'hop' and immediately detect content that should be flagged.

          1. Howard S. profile image83
            Howard S.posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Some good Hubbers use a non-word tag to identify all of their own hubs or for similar uses. I would hope those wouldn't be flagged automatically.

            1. IzzyM profile image86
              IzzyMposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              yes that's understandable, but when there are only two tags, both made from nonsensical words, alarm bells sound.

          2. prettydarkhorse profile image66
            prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            thanks for the information Izzy!!

        2. Michael Willis profile image77
          Michael Willisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          OH my! I just followed your link Maita. I was shocked to see all of those that came up. Exact same title and paragraph. How could these even passed through the Hub Filter is my question?
          Guess I need to go read some NFL hubs.

          1. prettydarkhorse profile image66
            prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Even when you search for it in Google, there are a whole lot copied same news item.

        3. Mutiny92 profile image86
          Mutiny92posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I think the hub filter was busy hitting my hub that was only 349 words and 7 amazon ads instead of the requisite 350!  Now that is a serious, serious issue! 
          Just Kidding....

          Seriously though. the HP folks are busy with lots of tough items.  I bet they will take the info that FD found and see how that slipped through the filters, make the changes and head off the next issue!

          1. prettydarkhorse profile image66
            prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            right!

  29. tritrain profile image74
    tritrainposted 5 years ago

    Try just going up to Hubs, then Latest.

    This morning I pretty much wasted an hour going through page upon page of Hubs that were spun, loaded with scantilly-dressed Indian actresses, and one-capsule long advertising Hubs promoting some website or product.

    I only found 2 or 3 that were what should be normal, quality, unspun Hubs. 


    We need automated features that block or discourage this stuff.

 
working