There are times where established hubs that have been active and have SERP rankings are moderated. Perhaps they were created before some of the stricter rules were implemented and are now only just being caught.
I feel for hubs that are 6 months old (or perhaps less) that ‘break the rules’ they should be flagged for ‘moderation’ but to avoid the hub being de-ranked, the author should be given a limited time to fix (24 or 48 hours) before the hub is unpublished.
This will ensure that an established writer who perhaps has several hundred hubs doesn’t get penalized for one ‘slipping through the net’.
Additionally, if a hub is moderated by a Human user, there should be a small ‘paragraph’ explaining why the hub has been moderated in addition to the normal generic email….
Thanks for the feedback!
Our rules haven't changed much in the past 6 - 8 months, but I understand your concern. We are certainly more lenient with old Hubs by non-problematic Hubbers. However, if an established Hubber demonstrates a failure to comply with the rules (especially the same rule over and over again), we aren't going to treat them more gently than a new Hubber.
It is a good idea to take a look at the Learning Center's Index of Hub Rules when you have an opportunity, and confirm your Hub content complies with those rules. If you want feedback on a particular Hub, feel free to contact us.
As relache mentioned, we have suggestion emails for Hubs with very minor rules violations. We've been testing out this process for a while now, trying to determine if this has a meaningful impact on the number of Hubs we have to unpublish. Unfortunately, most of these suggestion emails are ignored or otherwise don't result in positive changes.
For most automated moderations, there is a delay between when a violation is detected and when the content is unpublished. For prohibited domain violations, that delay can be quite lengthy. These would generate warnings on the Hub and a red skull on your stats page.
Not important for this conversation, but I'd also like to mention that the number of moderations by the bot is just a bit over the work of one efficient part-time moderator. The bot focuses on rules that are the most straight forward to detect, where adding a paragraph of context is probably not going to be helpful.
I'll look into how much extra time adding a sentence or two of explanation to mid-level moderations would add to our workflow. Thanks for the suggestion, and thanks for your feedback everyone!
I've actually had this happen: I've been notified that an older Hub had a problem, and then was given time to fix it without it being unpublished. And the notice I got was just like what you are requesting, a form letter but with a note added that said exactly what needed to be fixed.
I was sent a message similar to what you have described.
I don't think all newbies realize there's a reason for having a 'email' addy it's for 'communication' purposes. HP and author(s) have a relationship which requires coordination and cooperation. I think it's annoying when complaints are made and they didn't even check their emails. It's one of the first things I do turning on my computer, check mail notices are sent and the only thing really annoying so far is finding emails saying I have comments, then log in to HP and find nada
I was more concerned about hubs being 'unpublished' at the same time. I've seen quite a few established members complaining about this. I agree that new hubs, or new users shouldn't be given the same consideration as established members.
HI Simey hope all is good with you. Yes, I've had Hubs unpublished and other ones with a little warning at the top but still published, and I do fix them but only find those particular Hubs most often, by chance. Maybe a little 'mark' like they have for broken links and those 'skulls' should be shown next to a Hub in question, therefore allowing time for that quick fix. I agree.
by sunforged5 years ago
I used to like to bring the silly moderation messages to light, in order to hopefully get better explanations of the new rules that HP created throughout 2011.Eventually, the lack of definitions by HP just became...
by Cagsil6 years ago
Hey Staff,Please get your moderation team on the same page. I am beginning to get PISSED OFF at their incompetence.Last time I checked, RSS Feeds are allowed to be ON hubs and must be relevant to the HUB.I am getting...
by Lily Rose6 years ago
I thought I read the new rules about word count and Amazon links, etc. and I put in the time to fix every single hub that was on the list that HP emailed me. Apparently some hubs didn't make the list and now I'm...
by Sheila Craan6 months ago
Lately, I have had 11 hubs unfeatured due to Quality Issues. I have assured my hubs do not contain grammatical or spelling errors. I have included relevant video and changed the titles and added new supporting texts and...
by Eric Dockett2 years ago
I don't go around looking for Hubs to flag, but when I come across something with glaring issues I try to be a good HP citizen and alert staff. They have, after all, continuously preached about the importance of...
by tritrain6 years ago
We need an indication of what link is causing this error.Either that, or a list of sites that are prohibited. Expecting us to go through every link HOPING that we find the offending link is a waste of our time.This kind...
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.