A quick scan says this looks very good! No time to test it now, but I will later. I'm one of the curmudgeons who asked for something like this, so I want to help support it, if it has brought about effective changes. Thanks!
I noticed that on 3 of the hubs that I recently read in the hub hopper, the comment boxes are not displayed. I found it odd; because I don't believe all of those authors left the comment boxes out of their hubs.
I like the sliding scale; but I also noticed the 'interesting,' funny, etc are also gone. I know its work in progress just thought I would make HP aware of the layout on the hubs.
The author information is also missing but I also give this a thumbs up overall. Nice to see something exciting once again on HP.
I noticed the comment boxes missing as well as AE & thought it odd for all to be missing! But I think the sliding scale allows a more accurate rating on each hub...nice change.
But how do we comment? And how do we know whose hub it is if we want to follow them?
I preferred the old one, it was faster and easier to use. Also the "stop hubbing" button was missing, at least it was for awhile earlier today.
My first impression is that there is a problem if you view on a laptop, which I do. I can not see the bottom of the tool on my screen. I have to drag the page to my external monitor to see the bottom of the tool. Once dragged, I then saw I could collapse the explanations and this brings the whole tool into view on the laptop.
I also preferred the older one. What happens if you want to skip a hub without reading it properly? This happens sometimes when someone writes on something I know absolutely nothing about and have no interest in, such as motorcycles or advanced electronics. I can't judge if the content is good or not. If I just skip it will it look as if I've scored it zero?
I have the same concern. The older version allows me to skip hubs/topics and read the ones that I am interested in.
I also don't like that I'm forced to read and rate a hub I have no interest in just to get to the next one. When I seen how it worked I just closed it instead of reading stuff I could care less about.
Totally agree. I am new and tried to look at at least 10 hubs a day but not now. You have to get out of the hub they drop you in and hit "hop hubs" again only to be dropped in, and unable to get out of, another hub your not interested in.
My feelings exactly. I "hopped hubs" with the former version and enjoyed doing it. It is not a pleasant experience with the new version, and took me only one time to develop a strong aversion to its "forced" method. Not every change is an improvement, and I don't consider the new hub hopper an improvement--my opinion, of course, but it's shared by other HP members. I keep wondering if the HP staff pays any attention to the views of hubbers who don't agree absolutely with the changes and sing their praises, because I haven't received any responses to my thoughts about the new profile design. It's as though the ideas and thoughts of anyone who doesn't agree with HP's arbitrary change-for-the-sake-of-change (or so it seems to me) doesn't count with HP. I find that curious because those who disagree yet are good writers and whose hubs feature good content should be perceived as valuable....or am I "wrong" about that, too?
Good to see that Hubpages is trying to further Hopping effectiveness AND popularity. I'd like to see a bit of an incentive, though, for users to partake. Not because I wouldn't want to help Hubpages, but because I feel, like I think many others would, that there would be no particular use to me.
Call it lazy, if you like, but it probably is a prevalent view. Anyway, this is progress!
bring back the comment boxes, apart from that absolutely fine!
might it be worth having a separate rating system for creative writers. Something like Creative of the day.....
Needs to be a way to bypass a HUB that you are not interested in evaluating...
So far, using the Back button to Reverse Hop will let you do that (bypass a Hub)...and that's the ONLY reason I'll EVER Hub Hop again.
I totally disagree with you, Paul, that "Hoppers think of Hopping as primarily a way to find violations" (that may be paraphrased). When I've Hopped in the past, I've flagged a few, yes--but only the most egregious. I'm not a cop interested in writing tickets for jaywalking and have ALWAYS been most interested in finding pieces worth receiving a Comment and a Vote Up, etc.
In fact, when I see a Hub with no Comments section available, I NEVER read it.
And I don't like being told, "Hey, you MUST rate on our sliding scales."
No. I must not. What I must do is quit Hopping while I fume poison gases from my vent holes and ponder whether to beat myself into compliance with the rigidity of the new system or not.
That said, I'm painfully aware that some people LIKE being told what to do and how to do it. So maybe you'll get more Hopping Hoppers and the changes will work for you.
One can hope.
I've hopped in the past not to find violations but to find what's new. On the way, if I found violations, I'd flag (an easy process). But that wasn't my purpose.
So, today, I took a hopping tour with the new feature, found a number of hubs I'd like to comment on (as well as some amount of trash), but also found that I had to do entirely too much work to comment on a hub -- copy the title, paste it into a separate HP window, search for the hub -- too much work.
As Ghost32 said, I never looked at hopping as a way to find violations. I looked at it as a tool of discovery and was happy to flag garbage (clearly defined by flagging options) when I saw it.
So, this beta tool is, for now, gathering data, with the purpose down the road of having hubbers make recommendations about hubs that should be featured? Did I get that right? So, hubbers would be the judges of quality, and if so, to what standards? The only guide I saw about standards on the new hub hopper feature is a set of definitions about what sliding scale values indicate. Hubbers would also have to be well-versed in standards of excellence found in the learning center. That's asking too, too much.
I'm looking forward to seeing what comes out of this "beta" version. But for now, I'm not participating. I don't have the time. And I'm also sorry I'm going to be missing a good way of including in my neighborhood "Hub" community good hubs and good writers that are new to me.
I don't like this new version either.
I doubt most of the hubbers will take their time to fully think over which values do the hub in front of them reach, so how should they rate it on these new sliders. An hour ago I hopped a few hubs but it was a pain in my behind to be frank . Till today it took me about 3-5 minutes to read a hub and vote it up/down and hit some other buttons to rate the content, but now I spent at least 2-3 minutes ONLY to find out what to give on that particular article. This is way too much .
And also I was kinda fuming when I was unable to comment on the hub I actually liked. Yep, I do know that I can copy-paste the url into my browser, but I simply refuse to do it after spending minutes just to rate a hub...
I hope this will get much, MUCH better, as in my opinion, barely anyone will use this tool anymore.
So, the way to to hop to the next hub is to back-browse? Ridiculous. I just discovered this 'new' feature today, and was instantly turned off by it. In order to proceed one HAS to read the hub and comment. So, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Who's minding the hen house?.
I agree that the ability to skip a hub without ranking is a must..
I completely agree... I hop to find hubs that interest me... Forcing me to rate everything single one is not an option, what if I have no interest at all? I still have to read
Hi Paul, I like the changes in the Hub Hopper too. Keep up the great work!
Pros: I like that we now have some criteria by which we can judge the hubs we are reading. I sometimes wondered before whether I was being too harsh or too generous in my assessments.
Cons: I hate that there isn't a skip button. I don't think we should be asked to assess a hub that we have zero interest in. Additionally, I'm sad that we can no longer leave comments or even see who wrote the hub. As a fairly new hubber I found some of the early comments I received to be very informative and encouraging.
Suggestion: If we're going to go with this sort of format to assess hubs, perhaps there can be another feature similar to the old hopper to allow us find new hubs and hubbers that we might not have otherwise come across.
I dont like this new Hub Hopper at all .
This new slider option is the worst, as according to my experiences people did not usually really cared about hitting the previous buttons (like 'Interesting', 'Funny', 'Useful', etc.) either, now they won't even care to read the description on the slider and judge according to that. Plus, till today they were at least able to vote the hub up, now noone can.
Also, I know loads of people who will just randomly select something on the sliders and hit the submit button, just to be able to read the next hub.
Now we can't skip a hub or comment on it, although these functions were and ARE essential in my opinion.
The one thing I actually like is the fact that now you are not able to see the writer. I was never influenced by the writer while judging a hub before, but still I say this is great.
In my opinion it would be the best to 'bring back' the good old Vote up/down and other judging word-buttons and integrate them into this new one instead of these sliders. And finally add a flag button already please!
Thanks to this change I no longer hop Hubs because you force me to rate Hubs that I have no interest in.
After getting over the initial reaction to change, I enjoyed my hopping, although I couldn't "see" how to stop hopping...Just wish I didn't have to be a critic.
I agree with having a skip button because I would have read more hubs with it and not been locked into having to be a critic. I wonder how the ratings will show up to the hubber.
Will Hubbers be able to see the ratings received by their Hubs?
I'm concerned that if the information isn't available to Hubbers, their Hubs could be dropped from all the "featured" areas (like related Hubs) and they'd be unaware of it. Even if they did notice it, they wouldn't know what the problem was.
I really like it! A lot!
Except I do wish that I could skip a hub I wasn't interested in though.
I do wish I could follow a hubber, if I hop a hub I'm interested in, but I also like how the anonymity allows for fairer judging. So I see the good and bad to either way.
Great job! You are definitely moving in the right direction, but I wish there was some changes.
I am not sure you should publish my comment but I enjoy hopping the hubs and reading what is of interest to me...but the new rating system I really can't "Hop" perse unless I am doing it wrong and I don't feel qualified to rate on some of the issues...the last 2 I just did were incredibly short compared to some of my writings...I don't see how that makes for a good hub myself...but what do I know? Just saying all this...to say...I am not sure I will be able to hop any more if we are forced to rate the hubs we read...some I could do easily and happily but most don't fit categories I enjoy, so i wont read it.
Kind of like the technical part.
Finally figured out that I could hop without voting by hitting the back button.
I feel hub hopping has been depersonalized.
Since the author is unidentified ,you can't leave personal comments, you cannot follow the author if you think they have potential either.
I think there is good potential in this mode, it hasn't reach its fullest yet.
I tried to do a little hub hopping this evening and it was all screwed up. I read an excellent and delightful hub on children's outdoor gsmes, and there was no place to give the author feedback, to vote Up, to comment, to share, or do anything helpful. There was just some slider gizmo with no instructions that I ignored. The notion that you can critique writing with a slider doesn't make sense. It didn't even say if the all the way to the left default position is best or worst. If I comment on a hub, that says it is interesting enough for someone to comment on it. If I move some slider a little this way or that way, that says nothing. And there was no where to click to stop hub hopping. I tried to get back to my account page by clicking my browser back arrow, and I kept getting more hub hopping hubs with the same slider gizmos. It was a nightmare. The only way I could escape was my clicking an external link in my Firefox Bookmarks toolbar. I sure won't do any more hub hopping if it is going to be for mathematicians only. And hub hopping was one of my favorite hubtivities. It was always exciting to discover someone interesting. I got my first feedback and first followers at the start when I was hub hopped, and that was very helpful and encouraging. Why is that being taken away from new hubbers?
It is open to manipulation by the biased. It is a conduit for the mind numbing mediocrity of the status quo, and the induced neurosis of those who are concerned about it.
It would be great to have a comment capsule back and the name of the hubber so we can follow them if we like them. Can this be done?
Comments on the new Hub Hopper from :Concerns About the New Hub Design: phdast7
What I DON'T like is the new hub hopper. Won't be doing that anymore and it was fun.
But, the Hopper is a lost cause, much too time consuming to deal with.
I will no longer Hop Hubs because I don't want to read every Hub and have to "grade" it before going on to the next one.
I find the new hub hopper evaluation bars confining and irritating, by the way, though I did discover that hub hopping backwards trick you mention above. Sometimes I just don't want to read what's there, sometimes I'm just not gonna read what's there.
I had asked the question a couple of days ago, "What does everyone think of the new 'Hub Hopping' processs?" And it was unanimous - did not like at all, and will no longer hub hop.
I also decided that I will not be Hub Hopping anymore because I cannot skip the Hubs that don't interest me. I didn't sign up to "grade" Hubs, but to read those that I find interesting and useful, and to encourage the writers.
If the "powers" are reading these comments I hope they will reconsider the new profile and the new Hub Hopper. I would guess that they will lose many Hubbers if nothing is done.
I really like the hopper.It is much better than the old system of voting as it provides focus for us when we are hopping.It was great to be able to give 10 on most hubs for grammar,spelling and punctuation. The standard of work on HP is very high which is why I like hopping hubs . Thanks :-)
Paul is clearly asking for feedback, and he's getting it, so hopefully concerns will be addressed. I'm really impressed with the unanimity expressed here. The message is loud and clear.
I tried out the new hopper, but do not like being coerced into "grading" each hub I read. I think it's possible to give feedback about a hub without resorting to the "new" method, which is too time-consuming and takes the pleasure out of reading.
I tried it out, and was a strange experience indeed but interesting. It will take some getting used to with trying to 'slide' where we want it plus not sure what ' between # and #' means - other than yes, it sits between # and # ?
Here are some of my thoughts
-Back button on my mouse takes me to a different hub, instead of the hub I'd last visited. I would like to be able to go back to a previously viewed hub in the case that I've later decided to share or flag it.
-Would like to see flagging tools on the hopping bar (just my personal taste.)
-Would like to avoid voting in a particular category. For example, if I'm not really sure about grammar or mechanics of a particular hub, it would be nice to have the option of just not selecting a rating in that category.
-Skip a hub. There are some categories I am not interested in an would not like to read/rate hubs in these categories. It would be nice to "hop out" and move on to another hub. This would also be helpful when flagging hubs... if they need to be flagged, they probably don't need to be rated.
-Comment box - It would be nice to be able to comment on hubs you like.
-No author names. The HubPages gangs won't prey on hubbers they don't like or vote up hubbers they do like. I like how the quality of the hubs should stand on their own... without the influence of "oh, I feel this way about this hubber." Just because someone is nice/mean doesn't mean the write great/terrible hubs.
-I think this is a good way to rate hubs.
-I like this more than dislike it. I want you to know that just because I have a lot of cons doesn't mean I think it's bad. They're just thoughts.
Overall, I think this is a good addition. My main gripe is the navigation. I would really like to go "back." Even though I'm addicted to opening like a quadbillion tabs in my browser, I feel trapped in the new hopper.
Absolutely. Without "skip", I simply won't do this.
As Melanie said, certain grading sections might also either be skipped or marked "No comment" also.
Good idea, though - needs work.
The learning curve on it is pretty short. I like it, but I think some of the rating descriptions will need to be further customized as it develops. The creative writing hubs seem to fall outside a lot of the criteria (and in the four hubs I hopped and read, 2 were creative writing. I skipped a couple too.). I'd love to see a good system for this, as I think the blind-rating is a great idea, as was mentioned above. The right system of evaluations might help HP capitalize on the ebook phenomenon if they had a way to gather up what's actually good rather than what the most socially active writers produce.
I agree with Melbel on the "skip" button, as I came across a couple that I simply wouldn't read. I know truly open minds will read anything, but I wasn't about to read a big long Christian spiritual thing. But, just because I don't care about that stuff, doesn't mean it might not be good by the standards of people who are into that, so, there should be a way to jump off. Otherwise, people (haters) are just going to bomb it with bad ratings and move on, which would be a shame.
I agree with the other comments here, especially melbel's. I do want to respond to Dame Scribe, though: when you hover your cursor over the rating box while it's sitting on an even number, there is a pop-up description of the characteristics of that level; the odd numbers are only described as being in-between two even numbers.
I found the descriptions to be very helpful, myself, and in some instances they helped me to rank a Hub higher or lower than I would have without the description. [Side note: in one of the boxes, there was a misspelling - it's was used in place of its.
I think it might be easy to overlook the "Flag" icon on the Hub's Header, until we've gotten over the slight learning curve. It might be more noticeable if it appeared in the Hopper itself.
Like the others, I would like to have a clearer way to skip to the next Hub (maybe by using the Back button?) and also a clearer way to exit the Hopper.
It may be just my browser, but the lowest part of my screen was cut off. The Submit button was only partly visible, and the last sentence of the "Organization" pop-up box was cut off. By reducing the screen size to 75%, I was able to see everything.
I like the Hopper quite a bit, so far.
I had the same problem with the size, except that the submit button was gone completely.
These old eyes need a little help, and I run the size up a little - the long dead space in the ratings box made the submit go completely off the bottom of the screen.
Takes more time and effort to review a post now. I'd rather be writing my own than spending all this extra time to rate other posts. I lost patience with it pretty quickly.
What really bugs me is that I can't leave a comment from the Hopper. I used to comment on any posts I liked. I would also follow the Hub writer then. Now I can't see who wrote it.
I don't think I will be using the Hopper for the above reasons. I like contributing to HubPages by giving some feedback. But, we can't actually type in anything now. Just number crunching. Too automated and impersonal now.
I really miss the skip button too. I can and will read any topic and judge it based on the set system. But, after reading a few Christian and/ or travel and recipe posts in a row.... I really had enough.
I agree! There has to be a better way to skip. I miss the comment box, too. Wonder why the Author's name doesn't show???
I and many other Hubbers are in complete agreement with That GrrrrL's observations. The new Hub Hopper is an odious obligation which most of us will be completely avoiding.
+1 I'm in total agreement. This makes me feel like an automaton pumping out detailed ratings on hubs I can't connect with in any real way. Instead of taking an active part by commenting, rating, voting, and possibly following, it's now impersonal, disconnected, and honestly, pointless.
You have described it perfectly That Grrrl..."too automated and impersonal."
The new hob hopper looks very interesting, but without the ability to skip hubs I do not see it getting much use from me. Without being able to skip hubs outside of my interests I would be stuck reading something that would be boring to me and this would leave me with a negative opinion going into the Hub.
The sliders, lack of hub author, and no comments section makes it perfect for looking at a piece of work solely based on it's merits, so this could be a great tool for the community.
I would prefer to be able to leave a comment on the hub I like, and to skip the hub I don't want to read. It makes more sense to be able to skip to what I want to read and not sit through a topic that does not interest me, that's enough to make me quit hopping.
I agree with Lady Rain. People will either quit hopping or give a bad rating because they're annoyed.
If we are able to leave comments, it might inhibit the anonymity factor. Authors would then leave comments, which would tip their hand. But it would indeed be nice to be able to leave comments.
I agree that there needs to be a "skip" button The first Hub I came across was about a subject
I have no interest in-- I didn't want to read it, and I would have no business rating it.
It also looks like it is going to take a lot more time.
A bit of feedback - it's very awkward to use with an iPad. If you have the new update on Google loaded, you can't use the sliders, because the entire screen slides when you try to move the button (the new Google app has sliding screens similar to Twitter).
Also, it wasn't immediately evident to the viewer that the sliders are there as part of a rating system. It would be easy for someone to check the box about creative writing and click submit with the slider still all the way to the lefthand side, and that would be their rating. Since I couldn't get the sliders to move without the entire screen moving, I just gave up and got out of the whole thing.
I do most of my Hopping on the iPad, and the difficulty in using the new set-up would deter me from hopping. I didn't try it on Safari - I'll give that a go, too.
As for the ratings, I like the idea of rating for substance, but some readers may not know what that or other terms would mean. Also, as has been mentioned, it would be so helpful to have a 'skip' button that does not reflect negatively on the author but allows the reader to move on rather than rating something that doesn't interest them.
Thanks for letting us preview and give feedback!
I'm afraid I have no idea what mechanics are in relation to a page. Is it something to do with layout?
Also, couldn't there be room for aesthetics (or 'visual impact', or 'appearance') instead?
Mechanics has to do with capitalization and punctuation.
Different culture. One of the major writers reacting to the Industrial Revolution in the UK, Thomas Carlyle wrote long tracts attacking the poor aesthetics of mechanically produced factory goods as opposed to those produced by individual craftsmen.
He also declared that human beings were becoming mechanized in thought. feeling and action as the machines dictated their lives.
Now, I can't say I entirely agree with this. At the same time, hearing the word 'mechanics' applied to language makes me wince.
I know, I'm a snob. No need to tell me.
I agree. Sometimes the use of photo's, polls, videos and other techniques override some minor grammatical errors, at least in my view. It would be helpful to incorporate some of these for measurement.
I am, however, in favor of a new "hopper" and also would like to see a "skip" function.
Thank you for the effort!
If I'm missing the point please help me understand!
We broke out "substance" for that very situation.
Something with minor grammatical errors would still rate in the high range. Basically, we are trying to ask two questions:
Did spelling, capitalization, or punctuation errors interfere with your ability to review the content?
If yes, by how much?
@Marcy - there's actually a built-in possible hand-tipping factor, and that is in the links to the author's own hubs. My guess is that (in this current HubHopper version, anyway) there's not really an attempt to squelch all possible knowledge of the author, but rather simply an attempt to make the author's identity not very obvious. But if I'm wrong about that, and the idea is to make it totally impossible to know the author's identity, then all links to the author's own Hubs should not be live in the Hopper.
@Will - there is an explanation of each criterion, when you hover your mouse over the bar or over the square when it is located on an even number (and that actually explains the meaning of that rating level). But I did not find that in my first pass through the Hopper and it is really not terribly intuitive. I would like to see at least a fine-print suggestion to mouse-over for the purpose of seeing those explanations.
Also, I'm very much in agreement with your suggestion for a separate rating of the esthetics of the page, especially when that has been emphasized so strongly here in HP.
Oh I see. Still, mechanics is a strange word for syntax. Obviously, they have never read their Carlyle.
LOL. I'm heading off to Wikipedia now.
I think some of these terms are American inventions and may not seem quite as strange to us as to the world at large. I know - wait, I think I know - that one of the more recently used terms (in schools anyway) is "conventions," to describe what we used to think of as "standards."
Some of the changes in terminology are likely attempts to keep up with changing vocabulary in a school system that no longer emphasizes classical languages; but some of the changes may be the step-children of "political correctness" in some way.
Oh cool This surely is a great feature. BTW I don't have the time atm to go through all forum posts; but, there's no option to skip a particular hub and go to the next. That would be really useful
I tried it. I prefer the old hub hopping system. I don't think I would be hub hopping from now on.
It was a little intimidating. I wanted to skip some Hubs I knew absolutely nothing about (computer games) but had no idea how to do that. And when I wanted to leave I had no idea how to get out.
The submit button was hidden, at least on my screen it was too far down on the page to see it. If I change my screen resolution so it fits on the page I can't read the print (too small).
There was no slider for feedback on artwork or illustrations. But after taking another look, I see I missed the 'mouseover' explanations. This would be under 'substance' I guess.
I felt that I was not qualified to judge the 'mechanics', without an English degree, the bar seems to be set pretty high. But again, after discovering the 'mouseover' explanations it seemed more reasonable.
I'm not really comfortable with the slider. I think every increment should have its own set of criteria, maybe just takes some getting used to.
I still don't know how to get out. Help! Where is the exit?
I gave it a try; I prefer the old system. Basically I agree with all of the cons stated previous to my comment. In addition, we worry how our own hubs will be judged and affected because as others stated we like the skip feature - it's better to pass on a hub and let another judge it sometimes for many reasons.
Back from another try at the hopper I finally discovered the exit button by clicking on the Hub Pages logo. And the back arrow is the 'skip' function. Sorry guys.
I'm thinking if the voting box could scroll up and down it would be easier to use. That way the submit button, and the rating criteria would be visible when the screen resolution is set a little higher for those who need it.
Still not sure about the slider bar.
I looked at it briefly before going to bed. Offhand, I don't like it. There doesn't seem to be any way to skip ahead without filling in evaluations even if the hub was not of interest and you didn't want to read it through.
With the old style, you just hit "hop" again, and went to the next one in the queue.
This new design seems to force you to read every hub in order, whether or not the topic grabs you, as it says 'evaluate' to hit submit and proceed. (Or similar language--as I said--this was right before hitting the hay.)
I just went and looked at the feature again, overcame my negative reaction to the 'mechanics' issue and tried using it.
Someone has put a lot of work the rating scales and it can certainly be used to rate a page pretty thoroughly.
I am wondering if people can really be expected to use it properly, though, without a lot of practice. I had a string of recipe hubs which were easy to rate. All a recipe hub needs is an interesting intro, clear structure, decent pictures and lack of spelling/grammatical errors.
On the other hand, more complex articles on serious subjects are tough, especially if you are not really interested in them.
As people have said you need the option to skip pages and only rate those you want to read.
With any luck, it will appeal to some hubbers. That kid with the gun probably wouldn't have made it onto the front page if this was in place.
Something simpler might be better though.
90% of my time hear was spent hub hopping,not anymore.This is to clumsy,stops the continuity of hopping.Maybe I don't get it but I'm done unless it changes back.First your changes made it very difficult to publish,now this.
First impressions: HATE it. Reasons: back arrow takes me to next hub, not the previous page. I can't leave a comment. I can't skip. Oh, and where is the submit or exit button? Did I miss it? I'm scrolling all the way down and still can't see it.
I used to hop all the time....I don't think I will now.
I'm not all that taken with it either, though to be fair, I didn't much like the first hub-hopper either. To me, the whole point of hub-hopping is to weed out substandard hubs, not to judge how good or otherwise other hubs are.
In order to flag a really substandard hub, you had to come out of the hopper anyway, then hop back in and see all the hubs you had already looked at before you found new ones.
For months now, If I want to hub-hop, I go to Hubs ~> latest, and from there you can usually tell just by looking at the hub summary or title whether or not the hub is up to par.
Possibly not the best way to weed poor hubs out, as the summary and title could be perfect, but on opening the hub it is possible that was all there was, which is definitely sub-standard, but I'd have missed that.
Oh and I choose not to look at poems, and the hub hopper forces me to.
Ditto. I won't rate poetry either as I have no qualifications for doing so.
Poetry, and the appreciation thereof, is entirely subjective, and therefore not truly "rateable." (I think I may have just coined a new word! LOL)
I write poetry, and I like to read some kinds..but there are also a lot of types of poems I don't like, and don't care to read....I understand there are many 'tastes' in poetry, and that some people hate it. That's fine. I'm not offended if someone chooses not to read my poems--I would be offended, however, if they left a rude or harsh comment, or poor rating, just because it is not "their style." If you don't like it--just pass on along--like most of our Mothers taught us, "If you can't say anything nice, keep quiet."
This new hopper doesn't allow us to do so.
Select 'creative hub' (or synonym) and are you asked no more. Those fiends who write for fun or aesthetics are consigned to the oblivion of non-ratingness.
@Izzy - I have hopped via the list of latest hubs, too - it's a great way to spot problems that need to be moderated, and to find gems you want to follow.
Doesn't it make you mad when you find a brand new hubber that you want to follow, and then they publish a load of really crap articles after their first great one or two hubs?
A big turn-off for me is when they go all religious on me, or write hubs are if they are blogs.
They get a friend or two on HP and start writing about their personal problems in their hubs. I can think of several hubbers who have done that.
Thank God there is an unfollow button!
But yes, checking out the latest hubs on the site is a great way to find both interesting hubbers and hubs, as well as the worst of the worst.
We all have problems. We use email to discuss those. Hubs are for the general public.
To paraphrase Jake Blues and his response to the question, "What do you say, is it the new Bluesmobile or what?" - Fix the skip button.
Though, when you select "Hub is Creative Writing" the sliders go away. Why would we not apply the same standards across the board?
I agree with several things already said:
Bring back the skip button! I enjoy reading other people's hubs, but would prefer to be able to select those to read that are interesting or useful to me, not be forced into whatever subject the hopper presents.
Really glad the author isn't posted anymore since it does promote equality, but I miss the ability to see who the author is to possibly follow or see more hubs. What about allowing author name to show after a rating is posted? That would keep it neutral but allow you to follow a hubber if you like the article.
Don't like the slider when using a laptop touchpad. The buttons were much more user friendly.
Look forward to seeing the changes as the bugs are worked out.
I like this new Hub Hopper. (I do not remember the earlier one too well )Firstly, the name of the Hub writer not being mentioned takes off the chance of any regional or otherwise bias. Secondly, the details on the scale are helpful for the Hopper. I don't know if it is going to become too complicated- but when there are minor grammatical or just typos, a highlighter would have helped- as I was anyway reading the hub closely, I could also have marked out what needs to be edited. That would help the overall quality of the hubs or otherwise the Admin to check out.
Something about which hubs should be flagged can be mentioned on the left hand side to help Hoppers; so we can identify one when we see it.
Another thing I noted in my Hub Hopping session is that there are some hubs that are informative, maybe talking of a hobby or some historical anecdote, but the style of writing is imaginative and tinged with the personal. I felt these should not entirely be considered creative. Maybe there is a discord between the hub topic and the subject. How do you propose to help the hopper indicate that?
I prefer the old way, its faster, easier, and I feel efficient enough..i hope they change it back or I will not be Hopping any Hubs, also I was able to read all the new hubs quicker the old way...too much info on the page with the new Hopper.
Agreed--I'm not going to be doing anymore hub-hopping under this new format.
I also agree. Not only are we not qualified to judge others' hubs in this strange manner, but the whole fun of discovering new writers is gone as well. It's sad, but I have no reason to hub hop anymore, either.
One thing I have enjoyed about the Hopper, is its semblance of StumbleUpon browse, vote, share. A very powerful, effective and all around fun tool.
The Hub Hopper, in my opinion, only needs a little spunk of style as it looks kind of -well magoo. lol. Besides this, really like the sliding scale for rating and the in-tab back browsing function to keep seeing more hubs, versus the older version of pushing the button for the frog to hop. Granted, it might distract folks who want to 'get out of the loop' and navigate elsewhere. Perhaps a solution is dropping a: return to your profile or account button in there, for a quick escape.
I love the sliding scales, and how each step is clearly defined. It's a great change, and a much-needed one.
However, I couldn't figure out how to "Stop Hopping," there was no way to rate or comment on the hubs, and the whole thing seemed a little bare-bones.
A great start, but please tell us how to stop hopping!
Left-click your browser's back button and hold it down...choose the page where you were before starting to hop.
Update: I hate everything about it. After using it more, I've discovered that I'm being used as an editorial laborer, yet have no qualifications to be thrust into this position. It's no longer a discovery tool, is not fun, and really serves no useful purpose. It's kind of horrifying that the people running HubPages agreed this would be a good change. On top of that, they didn't do a beta test and didn't collect feedback. I don't like the attitude, I don't like the decision, I don't like the hub hopper, and I don't like being used as a slave laborer. This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. No Thanks!
Honestly can't say I like all these changes without not having something come up on my feed, or heck, even being able to vote on these changes. But with some education (you will provide it, yes?), I might consider using this tool.
I agree with Sally, to expect a Hub Hopping Hubber to make these kinds of quality judgements is a bit much, it's a lot of work. I wouldn't feel comfortable or qualified doing it. I'm curious about what is going to happen next with Creative Writing, this should be interesting.
I don't want to bother with this new system because I don't want to spend the time rating Hubs this way. Who am I to comment this way on someone's Hub? I'm no editor, so no more Hub Hopping for me. Writers of all skill levels are on HubPages, so count me out. I am not in the business to critique a person's Hub, so see ya!
I know what you mean. Although, (since I do proofreading as a sideline), I am at least somewhat qualified to make judgements on spelling, word usage and grammar.
That said, there seems to be an increasing number of writers for whom English is a second language, and it is blatantly obvious in their writing.
Would we mark them all down severely for their egregious errors in syntax, thereby possibly discouraging them from writing at all? Many of them do have interesting topics and qualified perspectives for their articles.
This is not school, and it is not a 2-way street; those so judged have no opportunity to respond to the criticism or ask for clarification as to what was the exact problem causing the poor marks.
I agree and I think, even worse, who are we to judge them when HP won't make that judgment, except, perhaps, by way of faulting them for unexplained reasons couched in terms of "substandard"? For sure, as you point out, the reason for any rating on our part would probably never be revealed to them.
I can spot an ESL writer right away, but I doubt if the general public can.
I don't 'mark down' (read 'flag') a hub with less than perfect English. I might not like it, but I don't rate it down, or flag it.
Not for that, but if the English is so poor as to be difficult to read if not impossible, I will.
I came across a 3 year old hubber today whose hubs were dreadful. Not just because of their obvious lack of grammar, but the sentences were so clumsy they had to be spun, as well.
Then again, as I've said already, I don't use the hopper.
I don't especially want to rate hubs in the hopper. I'm not qualified, and the hopper was never about rating. It was about looking for the obviously spun, translated and generally really poor quality hubs that HP had allowed to be published that brought the whole site down in Google's eyes when Panda came out.
They have software put in place to catch the worst; we are here to help staff out and keep the standards of HP high.
Not to rate everyone else's perfectly good but not outstanding hubs. OK some of them are outstanding in terms of writing, but Google is the ultimate judge, not us.
Actually, I think that this idea (your point) was one of the original impetuses for some of the features of the new Hopper. I remember personally suggesting (and others probably did too) that it was a shame we could not find a way to indicate "the content is good, but the grammar is bad." I found myself, in such a situation, wavering between rating up and rating down an article, when there was some kind of unevenness in quality.
This new Hopper, imperfect as it currently is, at least moves in the direction of allowing us to indicate what we find good and what we find inadequate about a Hub.
Do they have that opportunity with the previous Hopper? I'm not challenging you on this; I truly do not know.
What I do know is that there have been some changes made at HP during my months here that have required tweaking; many times (although not all) the tweaks came about as a result of feedback from Hubbers, such as is being offered here. Among the tweaks: more precision in explanations of the reasons for unpublishing Hubs; more choices for why a Hub should be flagged (and an opportunity to indicate the reasons); more clarity about the quality that is being sought.
I remember discussions similar to this one about the previous Hopper being an attempt on the part of the staff to get us to do their work for them. And many of the answers to those objections could apply here as well.
It seems to me that opinion is currently fairly evenly divided (but I haven't counted yet), with very, very strong opinions on the Anti side and more moderate opinions on the Pro side.
I believe it would be possible to create a Hopper that unites the best of both worlds - theoretically, anyway; I'm not a software engineer.
- - - As pretty much everyone has stated, the skip and exit functions need to be more clearly indicated, no matter how they are achieved;
- - - the flag button shows on the Hub itself (is it functional?), but not on the Hopper; that needs clarification;
- - - could there not be an option for a simple rating - simply up or down - which would disable the sliding scales? The reader could make the choice as to which type of rating they feel comfortable with;
- - - Creative Writing, even poetry, actually can have some standards, and suggestions for the standards can be presented in a different post or a different thread.
But I think it would help everyone to remember that the new Hopper is in a Beta testing phase, and - no matter what the end result - there will probably be some sort of a learning curve when we get the final form of it.
Yes. In fact, you should be flagging them.
Most of the time, if you see an informative article where poor English is "blatantly obvious", it's not a real person at all - it's a computer. These spammers steal genuine articles (which is why the content is often good), then paraphrase them using software which substitutes words and phrases. Don't let them get away with it!
Getting you 'out' does not equate to skipping over any hub that is presented to you, however.
Agreed, Rochelle. Folks are busy, and their schedules are stretched thin. We don't need pseudo-improvements that take more of our already tightly budgeted time.....
OK-- now I see that you can skip by using the browser back button, but sorting through all of the criteria in each category is like taking a college exam in the art of judging... don't think I'm going to be doing any of that.
I concur with everyone's complaints about there not being a skip option. Without one, I feel like I need some sort of compensation for "grading" hubs. I like the idea, but not the implementation. I'm just not going to hop if I can't skip hubs I'm not interested in reading. No way, no how. I envision most people getting pretty impatient and not really investing much time thinking about the ratings they're giving. I worry it could breed unfair ratings as the rater is just trying to get onto a hub s(he) is REALLY interested in.
As I said, I like the general idea. But aside from helping HP discover HOTD candidates, I'm not sure what the impetus for the change is.
I miss being able to discover hub authors I might like to follow. I hate how you can't leave comments. I'm just not sure how this leads to the betterment of the site, frankly (aside from HOTD potentials).
I totally agree with this comment of yours ' I'm just not going to hop if I can't skip hubs I'm not interested in reading'.
And to echo other hubbers, if I have no interest in the topic, why should I be forced to read the hub in order to move forward? Eeek!
I liked the hub hopper before partly because it helped me find hubbers I wouldn't normally have seen. Now I can't tell who the authors are. I can see where that would help with an unbiased opinion, but it makes the hopper less useful for me.
Some use their real names; many do not (myself, for example). However, I don't hide, and it's not hard to find out who I am--for legal purposes, I put my real name in my photo credits....
In any case, there are enough people writing on this site that any "hopped hubs" are already fairly anonymous--if you don't already know the person, then their name, either way, means nothing to you--so why the sudden need for hiding the name?
To phrase that a little differently, if it is true that hubs appearing in the hopper are largely (or exclusively) "newbies," then it should not matter if their name is shown; no one already knows them, and cannot judge on that basis.
I agree that it is now impossible to follow one you might discover you like, and following folks whose writing you enjoy is half the fun of being part of Hub Pages.
The early data shows quite a range in ratings. We'll discuss the skip button. There's a lot more to come on this.
Thanks for the feedback.
Forget the mechanics like skip buttons or ways to leave comments on hubs hopped. Think more about what HP is asking its members to do. If HP can't monitor its own site for quality content, why should we be asked to do it for them?
For as much as I don't like what's happened with the hopper tool, I dislike even more the future implications.
In all fairness, perhaps HP hasn't yet explained its full intent and process. But right now it looks like we members are supposed to be "policing" this site. This is wrong.
How is it that twitter and fb survive and thrive without asking this of its members?
Good points, Sally--I hadn't even thought about that aspect, now or before! The previous Hub Hopper was preceded by the statement, "Help us out; hop some hubs!" ...and I see that is still there on the new format.. Interrrrresssstinngggggg.......
Whereas I was fine giving a simple yay or nay to hopped hubs before, the new feature has moved into the more detailed evaluations I do as part of my paid work life. I'm officially done now and henceforth moving forward with hub hopping.
I posted my "don't like this" comment this morning, worked on the ol' homestead for a number of hours, checked to see if my fuming had abated, and...nope. It's WORSE.
There are numerous posts from Hubbers who LIKE having the author identification removed. The more I've thought about that, the more it's clear I HATE not knowing who wrote what.
For me, Hub Hopping has for some time been a form of R&R. Late at night, with my Hub for the day published, I like to warm up the leftover coffee, sit and sip, and wind down for a while before heading off to bed.
That's now been elminated. Crushed. Shredded. Turned into the Totalitarian State of Hubrovia. Many a time I've been able to directly encourage a new, talented writer after finding a great Hub during my late night Hopping. That will no longer happen. Hub Hopping has become Hub Copping.
As long as this new format holds in anything close to its present form, I'm outa here--and I'm bitter about it, too.
As IzzyM says, I thought the purpose of Hub hopping was to weed out sub-standard Hubs, not to "rate" them.
This is not Helium.com.
It was irritating enough to have to leave the old Hopper to flag - now it's just plain annoying. I'm not interested in sitting in judgment of other writers, unless they are spammers (which are the ones I flag).
I agree absolutely. I will not enjoy hub hopping if I am expected to grade people's work like a teacher. It will be too much like my old job - and too time-consuming. Hoppers would not be grading using set criteria - everyone would have his own subjective criteria, so what would be the point?
I like the rating system, because sometimes a simple vote up or down wasn't enough for me. I also like that the ratings are clearly identified so that we can all judge more consistently. Many times I wondered if I was too lenient or too strict. It will take a while for me to learn the rating scales, but I am sure after a couple of tries it will be old hat and I will know the criteria. Who knows, it may even help me rate my own hubs as I write them.
Some compromises may be in order. I really like knowing who wrote the hub and maybe meeting a new Hubber to follow, and leaving feedback. I understanding the reasoning behind anonymity, so is it possible to reveal the Hubber and comment section after the rating has been placed?
P.S. I also want a clearer way to exit and skip hubs, but I am confident the team will get that put in place soon.
You do know that the Hubber never knew whether you'd voted up or down, so presumably they also won't know what your rating is? Which means they won't have the chance to fix whatever you perceive as their shortcomings?
Good point, and another reason why this is not the job of the Hubbers at large, but that of Hub Pages staff, to weed out content/structure/spelling/grammar issues they deem to constitute a "low quality" Hub.
I am hoping that eventually we will be able to get these aggregated stats on our hubs so we can know where to focus our attention for improvement.
I love hub hopping, because I can get a quick sampling of all different topics that hubbers write about. I would like the option to skip a topic that doesn't interest me. I also used to like to leave comments on the hubs I liked. It's the most efficient way to utilize our time if we want to have time to write our own hubs, and still want to interact with the community and see what is getting written. I like that the names are gone, it's more fair, as some will just vote up their friends. I like to read in an impartial way, even though I have favorite writers here. I have found some really good writers on the hopper that I may never have found!
Yeah you find new writers, but now you won't know who they are.
I agree with this. If i'm not interested in the topic, I don't want to be forced to read it. I used to be able to hop through the hopper and find interesting hubs, now if I don't like the first hub, I'm outta there. It's a shame really.
More feedback - I tried the new Hopper on Safari on the iPad, and there's still a problem using the slider feature. With Safari, the entire screen starts moving around when you try to move the slider (with Google, your screen slides to the previous screen, such as the search results on Google).
I don't know how many people use iPads, but for those of us who have them, it's one of the main ways to easily access the Internet while chilling out (which is also when I hop hubs, answer comments, etc.). I confess I'd probably just get out of the habit of hub hopping with the new format. It doesn't work on the device I most often use for that purpose, and there's little motivation to make a special effort to go to my regular computer just to hop some hubs.
Also, it was frustrating to try to get out of the hopper (since I couldn't get it to work). I felt a bit trapped there, and I'm thinking many others would feel the same way. There's no immediately evident way to exit the hopper.
I'll try to hop while on my regular computer or laptop, just so I can give better feedback about the rating features. They look interesting - and I'm eager to (finally) try them.
I saw someone else mention this and so I have just now tried it. I didn't take the time to go through the entire rating (and submitting) process, but I did learn that on the iPad, if you just tap on the scale where you want the slider to stop, it will jump to that point. It may take some practice to be able to tap it just right, but it can be done - as far as I can tell right now, anyway. [Edit: and that's not necessarily a really intuitive procedure.]
In a different vein, I would like to see the descriptions of each level include - at the appropriate point - that an item may be missing. For example, the explanation for 6 could say something about the quality of the media used, or about the possibility that no media were present. (I found this with several I hopped today.) I'm not sure I've worded this well, so I may try again later to explain it adequately.
I tried that technique before I posted the above comment, Aficionada, but it didn't work for me. I'll try it again - maybe I need to improve my touch or something. As you mention, it's not real intuitive - I tried it in order to experiment, but if I were to get on the Hopper out of curiosity or to pass time, I'd probably figure it didn't work & then I'd try to get out of that screen and move on (not easy to do, either).
Getting the ratings hopper to work on the iPad is a priority for us. I'm sorry it doesn't work perfectly right now, hopefully it will soon!
I tried the new hopper. It's easier and smoother than the other one,which, to me, was kind of awkward in some ways. I don't want to be negative about something that a lot of people requested and now have, but I don't want to "grade" fellow Hubbers' stuff to that extent (and for a number of reasons). There's the time/effort now required, so that's a factor. Also, though, I really don't like the idea of that kind of "grading" being in the hands of people who may not particularly be in a position of being knowledgeable enough to be that specific about rating/grading something. All anyone has to do is scan the forum threads (posted over a period of time) to see the numbers of people who think they know their grammar better than they really do. Then, aside from grammar, some of what's asked is essentially a matter of opinion.
I know there may be the "general-consensus" approach to the new hopper; but we've all seen, time and again, that when it comes to what constitutes high-quality Hubs, general-consensus and "majority thinking" doesn't always work well.
What I'd like to see would be a new hopper that operates without the "weird black deal" that there used to be, and with whatever it was that made the old one slow; that would do much the same as the old one did, but that - maybe - had one button for something like "exceptional". In general (and from what I've seen on sites like this one), people generally recognize something horrible and generally can easily recognize something that stands out as exceptionally well put together/well written. It's that asking people to put a number to the different attributes that I don't think necessarily puts the selection of the best Hubs in the right hands. I almost think if a grading approach is going to be used, people could be asked to offer a simple "1", "2", or "3" to indicate exactly how excellent they saw the overall Hub.
I didn't notice whether there's the option to skip the "grading thing"; but I know I don't want appoint myself editor or teacher to fellow Hubbers, and although I know this doesn't sound very "own-weight-pulling" of me, I don't want to get that "heavily involved" in Hub hopping. I'd just think a hopper that let people vote "up", vote "down" and vote "really excellent" might do the job without having every over-enthusiastic Tom, Dick or Susie (without any particular credentials in English and/or web content in a lot of cases) start assigning numbers.
I mentioned that I found interesting hubbers on the hopper, so not knowing who wrote the hub will mean if I find one hub I like, I won't know who wrote it, so I cannot look up their other work. I only vote down if the article is written in very poor English by someone who is not a native speaker (and I usually write to give them advice). I don't like playing "English teacher" though, and dislike having to answer all those questions. It seems HP changes almost everyday now. I will stop hopping.
All the questions does kind of remind one of filling out a form - which most people aren't too thrilled about doing. I don't know... Now Hub hopping seems to be kind of a case of "no good deed goes unpunished" .
I think HP are trying to address the main problem that the site has- the lack of human editors. This seems to be only one small measure in that effort.
Simplify the system a little, perhaps use some kind of relative measure to take account of peoples individual rating styles and who knows? It might help the site.
One problem with having the door wide open for non-staff 'editors' is there are no standards in place for quality, substantive content, good writing or other things that are needed to keep the site ranking high with Google.
There's a huge opportunity for subjective ratings that will not reflect genuine quality. Unfortunately, many people don't have training in writing and editing, and they don't even understand what 'substantive' might mean. I'm seeing these issues in college students (good students), so I'm sure we have members on the site who want to write but are still learning. Will they recognize and appropriately rate hubs with the sliding-scale tool in place?
Well, I'm guessing real editors are out of the picture for financial reasons and I doubt if many writers would be prepared to give up part of their income to change that.
It is the lack of editorial input, though, that is the biggest problem here and the main reason Google will keep tweaking us down. So something like this feature has to be worth trying.
If they are looking for new articles that are good enough to feature it might just be better to ask a straight forward yes/no question. Is this page good enough to go into featured sections? Those sliders demand horribly complex judgments.
I'm with Will.
It's all far too complicated and subjective.
A simple pair of yes/no buttons does the trick.
Easy questions with yes/no answers.
Perhaps a button you can click if it's spun or just a plain advert.
Perhaps a button you can press if it has obvious grammar/quality issues.
Then move on. Next Hub.
That's pretty much the way the original hopper worked.
Maybe that's the answer then. Get back to the original but add an 'is this page worth featuring?' button with a description of the criterion to be satisfied.
That's still very subjective (a NASCAR enthusiast might vote No regarding a hub about quilting, for example). Also, with the diverse skills and experience in writing on this site, I'd be a bit worried that ratings will not reflect uniform or consistent standards. The site is up 24/7, and the site's goals are to have hubs that are well-written and in English. This means there might be windows of time when there are more non-native speakers online than those who are native speakers, and they would be put in the position of rating the quality of a hub not written in their native language.
I would never presume to be capable of rating someone's writing in another language, and I'm not sure how I feel about having my writing evaluated by people who are non-native speakers. I truly admire (and envy) people who have become bilingual to the point of writing in a second language, but it's a bit of a leap to assume there's a sufficient command or skill to evaluate writing in that language.
No one at HP has said what makes a hub be a featured hub. They haven't even defined "featured." As you say, "...button with a description of the criterion to be satisfied" is not understood without lengthy sojourns into the Learning Centre. And even then, the "rules" are not clear when it comes to some Hubbers being flagged for god knows what infractions. Bleh.
I'm liking this idea. I'm not comfortable with the new Hopper.
There's a balance that needs to be met here. Hubbers are not going to be the official editors of HP (so many reasons...fill in the blanks). The "old" hopper thing gave you, HP, good information because it invited participation in a good way. This new scheme is asking hubbers to be judges, and frankly, they are either not interested in doing that (they could be judges, but there's no compensation for their work), or, they are not qualified to do that.
I hate the idea that someone who doesn't have the communications skills I have (over a 40-year career) is going to judge my writing or Hub assembly.
In case I haven't said it before, hub hopping is nothing, NOTHING, I'm going to do for you under this Beta plan.
Agreed. Especially if I don't get any information on how those judges have "voted".
Good Hubbers had nothing to fear from the old Hub Hopper, because there was no subjective judging going on. The new Hopper puts my earnings are at the mercy of other Hubbers, who could rate my Hubs low based on their own subjective opinions.
This simply isn't true. Featured pages are PR stuff, for internal and external purposes. Not getting featured will have only a very, very small impact on your earnings. It's people coming from the SERPs that matter, money-wise.
Will Apse has the best idea now that I've read more comments on the new system and given it more thought. Go back to the original system, and add the question, "Is this worth featuring?" I've seen many features that I thought were not worthy though, short on info and not all that interesting. But I do think the old system was better. Most people go on the hopper when they have a little time to kill, and want to see who's writing what. They don't want to judge, but will click "down" if it's a really poor effort. That's enough to say about something that wasn't worth the time to read. All the 4 line awful poetry was gone after the standards were raised a little.
Also, "I've seen many features that I thought were not worthy though, short on info and not all that interesting." I sometimes shake my head and wonder why HP considers them of worth.
Agreed, Sally-- and I've seen some (not often, but once in a while), even a HOTD that has serious problems with the English language, e.g., .incorrect word choices; faulty sentence structure; verb/subject disagreement; wrong tense, etc.
I have then asked myself, "How did this Hub get picked???"
I just tried it and I agree with many others who have noted the lack of a comment box or the ability to learn who the author is and perhaps wish to follow that person. I liked the old method where one could easily skip over articles that held no interest but still might have been good hubs. When I came across an obvious infraction, I occasionally flagged...but that was not my main purpose in hub hopping.
The old method let us have a say and contribute to the community in the process; it wasn't a lot of effort expended for having a good experience and helping the HP site, too. This Beta version is asking us to be editors (a profession requiring compensation) for free. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I always considered the prime purpose of hub hopping was to weed out the rubbish on this site, which is pulling us all down. Indeed, I generally found 90% or more of the hubs I encountered in the hopper were obvious candidates for flagging. Occasionally, the hopper would also throw up a hub I actually felt like reading, and if I enjoyed it, I would then consider following the author. From the comments here, it seems this latter process is no longer possible because the author remains unknown.
I have no interest whatsoever in participating in a long drawn-out review process. Similarly to Relache, this is something I do as part of my professional activities, and I charge my clients $40 per hour when I review translations. I certainly am not willing to put in the vast amount of time required by the new system if I am to get no financial reward for it.
Thus, in line with many others, I will not be using the new hopper. I will continue flagging rubbish as and when I have time to spare, and will use other methods to identify it.
I loved the old Hub Hopper because it allowed me to read randomly selected Hubs on many different topics and allowed me to find new writers to follow. If I had no interest in the Hub, I could just Hop away.
I personally only flagged 1 Hub because it was just an ad!
Granted I am still new to HubPages, however, I felt the old way allowed me to comment and vote the same way I could if I followed the writer and to contribute to writers that I was unaware of prior to Hub Hopping.
I am not an editor by trade and don't think that it is fair to rate articles.
Perhaps instead of keeping it this way, HubPages could go back to the old way, and then start a new program for those that are highly qualified editors to rate the pages the new way.
Wishing Everyone the Very Best!!!
I was in favour of the new hopper at the beginning but reading the most recent forum posts on this thread makes me realise it is not such a good idea after all,especially if it makes hubbers reluctant to read and rate new hubs which it seems to be doing.The grading,how time-consuming it is and the lack of a comment box all seem to be the valid reasons people don't like it
I just wanted to say Thank-you to HubPages for allowing the option of accessing the old Hub Hopper!!! I just didn't feel like I was qualified to rate Hubs with the new Hub Hopper. Thanks Again!!
Copyright © 2018 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.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|