It looks like Hubpages is milking the pool of users for free editing and evaluation services. While I do think it appropriate, to some extent, for Hubpages to use us to police the site for violations, what the new hopper requires of us is far beyond simple yes/no or good/bad flagging. There are 2 main problems I have with this whole thing:
(1) The amount of work required to evaluate an article in the hopper deserves payment. I don't know about other people, but whenever I have been called upon to do this kind of work I have been paid. I'm not going to spend my time grading articles for Hubpages for free.
(2) Not everyone is qualified to grade others' grammar and style. Considering the sizeable contingent of non-native speakers on this site, how accurate could the aggregate results be? People who themselves don't understand the finer points of English won't be able to accurately measure another writer's skill.
I don't agree.Hubpages gives such a user-friendly ,professional and well-moderated forum for writers-hopping is the least we can do in return and is all that is expected of us.It provides more information to use a grading system-simple as that.
Kate - I appreciate your kind-hearted and generous attitude, but this a two way street. HP gets a great deal from us!
They provide the writer's platform and templates that we need ..... for free. But we hubbers provide HP wiith enormous quantities of content - material -hubs in which to place revenue producing ads.....for free. And if you look at the personell being added to HP each year, it is quite clear that thry are doing very well financially.
I don't thing Hub Hopping is the lest we can do...we already do a great deal. If they make hup-hopping simple and reasonable I am sure that many of us will continue to be helpful. But the onus is on then, not on us.
+1 I totally agree, and it seems that most of us who interact a lot here on HP feel the same way. This new hub hopper seems to be "using" us to critically judge others' hubs, but now instead of the context being "find new writers you'd like to follow," it's based on "work for us for free as an anonymous, unqualified editorial machine."
HP's decision on this, and whether or not they realize that we are what comprises HubPages, will determine whether they're about to sink or swim. It'll show us which way the wind is blowing.
ok phdast 7,point well made.I just hope this is about the hopper and not just a reaction to not being consulted which it seems to be. I don't like the new profile but there is no point in moaning about it.This is a community but Hubpages have the right to run it as they see fit.It wouldn't work any other way and they do a good job. It is a pity people couldn't try it without shooting it in the foot out of fear and for the sake of doing so. We are given a choice about the new profile and this is just a tool.Thanks for your reply and we will agree to differ,ok? :-)
It might give newer pages a leg-up and also be an advantage to people publishing regularly. I don't see a problem with that. If you suddenly lose a huge number of internal links then will be the time to complain about losing a huge number of internal links.
I appreciate all the tips on how to make money on hubpages and write the hubs that people are searching for. That's marketing. Find out what your customers want and give it to them.
But some of us write because we want to make our readers feel something - evoke a response - not just fuel a search engine. Yes, your grammar was perfect. Yes, you are well organized. Yes, I'm bored to tears. I could read most of this in Wikipedia, which is where I suspect most of it comes from.
Yes, have a scale for creativity. Please. That is why some of us write.
Respectfully, Kathleen Cochran
How do we improve our writing skills without constructive feedback? We are here to learn too.
Your points are very valid,Kathleen Cochran. the nature of freelance writing is creativity.I respect that in others because I can't write like that myself.
You are right about the scale for creativity-there needs to be a scale to be fair.
Does the scale that's there apply to your work?Maybe creative writing is the same now that I think of it-orgaization is the awkward one for poetry and short stories,isn't it?
Please do not take away our ability to rid the site of below standard hubs. I like a dual process where we look for the bad stuff and then say "this one is special". Is that an Impossible goal? I do not have the time to evaluate good hubs or featured hubs. I spend my time on efforts to write and be a part of community. I would like to help make this site rate higher than other writing sites. That would make my day!
Never saw a below standard hub yet except one with a blatant list of links and nothing else.Some are better than others but I think they don't get published in the first place so that moderation of content is already done.
Guess you don't look at 'hubs > latest' very often then.
Some of them are dreadful, obviously translated or spun nonsense, yet they get published and it is up to us to flag them.
I don't get opinionated about other people's work-only have time to do to do my own and contribute to the hopping system as a matter of loyalty and a way of learning how other people write.Thanks for your feedback anyway:-)
I take it then that it doesn't worry you that the whole site can be pulled down when poor standard hubs are allowed to remain published?
Panda affected HP very badly, and a lot of writers suffered because of the poor standard of a few, (or quite a lot actually come to think of it!)
We may be on standalone subdomains now, but we are still linked to the bad stuff, which can pull us down.
I don't like the new hopper because it asks us to grade perfectly acceptable hubs.
It is the trash we want rid of, and we really have to read those hubs to see how bad they are, even if on first glance they look OK.
getting rid of trash????That is a disgraceful attitude to have towards your fellow-authors. I won't reply again so post away and get the last word if you must-this is my last word.
You obviously have no idea what brought this site down before, and will again if we allow it to.
Some people write trash... like this:
"Plumbing certainly is the way of installing drinking water tanks, standard water reservoirs along with direction connections all over to make the availability of drinking water back and forth the very generating. "
"We've been accomplishing this for over 10 years and ego inside us routinely outperforming client anticipations by just developing concoctions which mix unconventional planning, cutting edge style and design and also ROI."
" This hugely relies upon the assignment plus the mood of the developers, but when in a very complete moon it is possible to snag considerably."
Many hubs look good initially, but when you read them you will see that they are spun or translated, or both. Would you like if every article on page 1 of Google read like this?
Kate, IzzyM is right on this one. There is indeed a large amount of "trash" on the site.
It is put here in violation of HPs rules with no effort to make a good quality hub. Very often it is published by software only, with no human effort at all.
What she is speaking of is not some struggling writer trying to write something that a reader will find valuable. It is trash being published on the site belonging to HP for the sole purpose of "gaming" Google into sending traffic to it and earning a few pennies.
Google doesn't like it and considers it trash, HP doesn't like it and considers it trash, and hubbers that are trying to write quality material (whether they actually succeed or not) doesn't like it and considers it trash.
It needs gone from the site we all use and appreciate.
I've hopped a thousand times, and the amount of "trash" out there is enormous, and it really is the right term for it--trash. Trash isn't badly-written hubs (usually), but hubs that are unintelligible, spun, badly translated, against HP rules, and unreadable, etc. There is no place for that stuff here, because it takes up bandwidth, wastes people's time, gives a bad name to HubPages, and generally brings the whole site down. This is all obvious if you hop. However, I don't recommend hopping on this new system!
I agree with Izzy - a quick trip through the 'latest' hubs is a real eye-opener. It was also interesting to view The 'latest Hubber's' back when that was an option. If the site wants to raise the standards of quality, that's the best place to start. In addition, finding a way to filter out some poor content that's been around for a long while would help tremendously.
I just noticed this: "All new and updated Hubs will be added to the queue to be Hopped."
In other words, you tweak your hub, it's going to get hopped. That could be a good thing or a bad thing... Just saying...
Exactly, a good thing or a bad thing. With this new hopper thing, I'm wanting to keep a low profile. I update my hubs often to make sure their links are working and they are pointing to the newest info available, but frankly, I don't want to do that if my hubs will show up in that hopper for someone to pass judgment on them, someone who doesn't have the language skills I do. *friggin' sigh*
I agree I don't want my hubs in hub hopper. I believe it will cause trouble with hubs that are already established. I'm always changing my hubs. I just don't see the reason for this.
I think we will start seeing our hubs go down in scores just because they have already been viewed. People will give a fast score just to go on to another hub.
I thought hub hopping was for new hubs not old ones.
it is good,keeps us on our toes-necessary for learning.No-one wants to tweak or edit but it is just as important to maintain your work instead of publishing new hubs ad infinituum
Well, I just took a ride on the new hopper, from a real computer, not the iPad. I really don't like it, so far. It's far too easy to just move the slider part of the way and leave a substandard rating by mistake. Also, I found myself fiddling with the slider to the point that I wasn't really reading the hubs that thoroughly.
But worst of all - you are literally trapped there. I had to get out of the site completely and log back in just to get to another part of the site. I don't have time to do that, and I suspect it will discourage people from hopping. So far, I prefer some elements of the old hopper (the ability to jump off if you needed to do something else on the site, the ability to leave comments, and the simplicity of rating).
The 'plus' on the new one is that at least we can rate substance, mechanics and other factors that make a quality hub. The downside of that is that too many people on the site may not know what those things are. Also, what makes a hub an 8-10 for those qualities compared to a 2-3 or something? No guidance at all to help people know what is being asked of them.
I don't like it at all. There is not one thing I can say that is good about it. I won't be using it takes to much time. No place to leave comments.
New Hub Hopper...rating scale...-1.
I don't like the idea of being forced to rate the Hub on page before I can read others. That just means I will not Hub Hop. Too busy with others things for that.
What is to say that people will not just throw any kind of rating out there just to go to the next page without really reading the hub?
Th old Hub Hopper was better than this one.
I must say... I don't often poke HP with a stick, but I must do so now.
You (HP) need me. A good portion of my programmer experience was in sales & marketing and psychological engineering.
HP has repeatedly failed on the psychological engineering front, including the HH. I have no interest in a programming job for the simple reason that I am obsolete in that area. However, I can be useful to you in other areas, particularly sales & marketing and psychological engineering. I have no interest in being an employee, just an advisor.
I imagine HP are doing some sampling to see what kind of pages come out with thumbs up and thumbs down.
If you trust algos more than you trust humans to make assessments and assume your fellow hubbers are incompetent they should get some data to confirm or refute this.
Traffic is the best measure of a hub's success.
This stuff is far too subjective.
What value can be really assigned to random opinions on random topics?
i WON'T BE HOPPING ANYMORE.
Upgrade the current tests to check for better compliance with the rules. After that "let it be" - Different people have different ways of doing things. Traffic is the only real measure of success + Google analytics - bounce rate, time on page etc.
Do a little test search for a keyword phrase such as 'making money online' add 'hubpages' and compare the 'quality' of the top 5 hubs. SERP position has very little to do with 'quality' as hubbers assess it. So what's the point of a 'quality' assessment. The proof is in the pudding => traffic, popularity. The mystery of G's ranking remains. There is no point in trying to emulate G's measure of quality - it is a changing feast and far too complex.
I sort of agree with this, traffic is the best measure of quality. At the same time, many kinds of very good page still take months or even years to mature and get traffic.
I reckon you need to encourage newer writers with featured hubs and you also need fresh pages to encourage the Google bot.
Its sad, but many of the very best, highest quality pages will get no G traffic because of failure to choose the title and keywords that slot into a vacant niche to get traffic. They may get a lot of internal traffic by being 'featured'. But what if G hates what HP calls 'good' and downgrades the pages.
This process is heading for standard templates - just plug your photos, videos, text into these and you will have the perfect hub. This approach kills creativity and is counter-productive in promoting the need for a 'WOW' factor that makes a hub really stand -out from the crowd and generates traffic, natural links and earnings. Its equivalent to judging the diving by the loudness of the applause of the audience rather than the ratings from expert judges. What the non-expert masses like, and judge to be high-quality, may be very inaccurate in terms of what the judges are looking for and will work for traffic. Ultimately hubs that work are the ones that are good landing pages that attract traffic, hold the reader and encourage them to make clicks on the ads. Hopping and traffic are divergent paths - the assumption that a quality hub will get traffic is flawed at conception.
Lets take an example. Large image at the top of the page. HP has pushed this as being 'desirable'. However there are trade-offs in terms of traffic and earning because it pushes the main ad down the page. Just about everyone now believes that is required for visual impact and any page that does not have it will be scored lower by hub hoppers. Someone who does not believe that this works in terms of traffic and earnings will be condemned to never get 'featured'. The jury is still out on this method and its merits, and yet because most writers believe that it is desirable, because HP told them so, it is pushed as a desirable feature.
What if Google hates it and downgrades the pages because there is not enough text above the fold - the featured hubs become templates that have lower ranking and lower traffic. This process kills creativity and variability and pushes people to follow templates.
of course it is subjective-one cannot control that but it is less subjective than voting so it is better.
One easy way to get to the next hub without reading or rating a hub you have no interest in is to hit refresh on your browser, F5.
I used to enjoy hubhopping. It was a great way to read new hubs that didn't flash up on your wall. I really don't want to have to think deep. I really want to read the ones I want, pass on the ones I don't, follow the ones that I really like.
Took out all my fun on this. Sigh.
The new hub hopper is terrible. It's taken all of the entertainment out of hub hopping. I think we should at least have the option to do it the old way.
Yep, that F5 really works. Zipped through a bunch of hubs in no time. Then I got this: "We've given you a lot of Hubs to hop recently! Please take a break and come back later."
I've used a large image at the top of my pages for a long time, get good read times, traffic and click through. So I won't complain about HP advice on leading images. Also, as Paul Edmondson has pointed out a few times, pictures are content.
The real thing to do is test the new hub hopper (as it is, with all that terrible shock of the new) or in a modified form and see how it goes.
Has anyone checked their page rank? I found some 3s and 4s for profile page.
Right on. What is HP page rank? I thought it was a 4. @Patty I love your profile background.
I think HP was ranked at a 6, but not 100% sure. @brakel2, Thank-you so very much!!
HP is a 6.
Here's a PR checker site for those who are interested. Unfortunately they have one of those damned anti-bot things though...
I just checked a bunch of random Hubbers...I either received N/A as an answer, or 3 for page rankings....I haven't come across any 4's....lol
Marye Audet and Marisa Wright are 4 + several others
Also Habee and Pamela99 in my random check. Congrats.
I just checked mine and got a 4 but:
1. PR doesn't mean diddly now
2. The tool isn't necessarily accurate
3. You can be a 2 and make more money than someone else with a 4
Mostly, who cares? That was a side convo in this thread...not worthy of paying it more attention. If that's what you want to do, start a new thread.
HP, ban me now!
Just to add, Facebook is ranked at a 9...I wonder what it takes to be a 10...LOL
Cool! Thank you. I'm a 3. No idea what that means...
A couple of months ago I appeared to lose mine altogether. Now, just like magic, it has reappeared as a 3, just as it was before. Odd.
???Page rank? What is that and where do you find it???
At first I thought it was a great update for the Hub Hopper. That quickly changed.
I hate the new format. Most writers on HP are not professional editors or grammarians, and I fear for my hubs being judged so intensely and intricately by people I don't know.
We can no longer comment or rate the hubs we're hopping, which was an enjoyable way to see new content and find new writers you want to follow.
They've taken away everything that was good about it, and replaced it with, basically, a labor-intensive job that we don't get paid for. No thanks!
I'll still hop once in a while, but I give this change a disappointing 2 stars out of 10.
A+...+1...I've said the same thing as you earlier in this thread. Just letting you know I agree with you.
I thought this page might be helpful to folks.
We are working on incorporating the feedback in to the hopper and will have some of it done in the next few weeks.
Good for that. You've received excellent feedback from the community. There's a lot wrong with the hopper. Glad you are paying attention.
Paul, if the Hopper's ratings need so much explanation, they won't work. When it's first introduced, peole will take the time to read something like that - but once it's established, most Hubbers won't take the time to read and learn the criteria. If you can't make it obvious right there on the page where the slider is, people won't read it.
At the university where I teach, we use a similar scale to assess how well as student has fulfilled the learning goals of a course. I can see how these critera are appropriate and useful for a team of staff editors to apply in reviewing hubs, or even a team of carefully selected 'volunteers' who are willing to go through a given number of hubs as a way to support the site. Many of us truly care enough about the site to donate some time we might otherwise be paid for in a professional setting. But I don't see hoe it can or should be a viable tool for public input on a site that lets anyone in the world sign up to be a 'writer.'
I feel there are several things to consider in trying to implement this grid or matrix on a site-wide level by anyone who happens to jump on the hopper.
1) Ability to universally comprehend what the critera means (I know for certain there are many members here who won't understand these terms and also won't know how to determine if a hub is any particular level).
2) Subjectivity. Since people will have varying degrees of knowledge about those criteria, there's way too much room for inconsistency in ratings.
3) Unwillingness to participate. Some very experienced Hubbers, who apparently have the skills you need to properly assess content, are too busy or disenchanted with the new hopper to use it. This means the majority of reviews may end up being done by individuals who don't have the skills in using this type of tool.
These are just a few considerations. As I mentioned, we use a similar scale at my university. Even with faculty members who all have masters degrees or higher, there can be significant contrasts in how the scale is interpreted and applied. It worries me to think our work will be 'graded' by literally anyone who takes a spin on the hopper, regardless of their credentials, professional backgrounds or writing skills.
The old hopper, even with its flaws, was/is more of a like vs dislike vehicle. It doesn't pretend to ask people to rate content in the manner you're proposing. How would people feel if term papers at universities were 'graded' by anyone walking through the door, whether they knew what they were doing or not?
Our hubs are our work products. They also are the essence of our online reputations, in many cases. Please ensure a review process using the sort of scales and criteria you're applying here is only done by professionals.
Long post. Whew!
Marcy, I agree with you 100%, and this post is very well elucidated. +1
I have to say Marcy you make some really good points...I was thinking about that same thing when reading a hub this morning that had so many spelling mistakes, it was almost hard to read! Please I don't mean to be critical because I think this is a fantastic site to learn to write but, but I really don't think everyone who writes here should be rating others, I would never have conceived to do that as a new writer...I think Marcy you are right it's def a job for experienced or professional writers like yourself, Paul or Simone etc and it gives Hubpages more credibility...having said that I am more than willing to help with this, and this is just my opinion...cheers
Thank you Marcy. Excellent comments and observations. Somewhere in thie string I left a compilation of Hubber comments about the Hub Hopper change. They were responding to my HUb "Concerns About the New Profile design." Thanks for weighing in/
This rather comes under, "If you don't understand, no explanation will suffice." You have to work really hard at it to make things so complicated. I am reminded of goofy envelopes that must have "instructions for opening" printed on the outside...Seriously? If it's not easy and intuitive, it's useless!
K.I.S.S. PRINCIPLE, folks!!
Some of it works out well, but I agree that it takes entirely too much effort to read and rate each hub before you can go on to the next one. I used to enjoy Hub Hopping because I could see some new hubs of authors I might not be currently following. Some were good, some not so good. Now I'm forced to rate each hub before going on to the next one, and, frankly, it discourages me from the whole process. Sorry, I don't want to read or rate specific sports type hubs, mathematical equations and explanations or some other topics! So I just exit.
Another thing that I don't like about this system is that there aren't enough kinds of ratings. O.k., a hub might have substance (detailed mathematical equations) and organization (step-by-step solutions) and good grammar. BUT where is the button that says this is just plain boring to 99.9% of the readers?
Also, it would be useful to have the comment section back.
I can see why the hub author is kept anonymous to obtain more objective ratings, but now we do not have the option of following the new hubber unless we perform all kinds of search contortions.
This new Hub Hopper makes me feel like a teacher grading essays - it sure takes the fun out of it!
That's true but it is a good measuring tool-better than subjective opinion. I find it uncomfortable to use for the reason you mentioned but I look at it as a vote of confidence that we are able to use it and would get used to it.If the majority prefer the old hopper so be it.There won't be a word about it in a week's time either way anyway
I agree that the new system is too technical for some to use it correctly. I backed off when I saw it, as I have no wish to sit in judgement on other people's work at the level required.
This system may be more attractive to those less likely to use it correctly, as they may not 'get' fully the judgments they are making. A slider is not the easiest thing to place accurately, as it is not like answering yes or no.
The old system was simple and could be used at different levels. For example if you were short of time, you could hop and just flag the blatant spam and spun articles for the attention of a moderator. If you had more time and skills you could check through the hubs in depth.
I am not sure that this is new system sits well with the everyday expert theme.
I'm a great believer in the human unconscious. The snap judgement of a human being is worth more than the carefully calculated algorithmic analysis of a machine.
Just don't alienate the humans. Let them say, yes this is good enough to feature. Or no it isn't.
as right.Hub hopper is more objective so it is better-it is as objective as it is possible to be.Voting is just an opinion not a proper tool for measuring and a machine is handy because it can support this tool.You are right about not alienating the humans but the majority of hubbers aren't here anyway so the view is biased.It is hard to have the confidence to use it but I like it.
HUB PAGES: Are you READING, "LISTENING?" The majority dislike this new hub hopper intensely! Some are expressing outright hatred!
This is not a good idea, or good for your site. Stubbornly insisting on forcing the use of applications no one likes is no way to "...win friends and influence people..." to partially quote a famous book title by the late Dale Carnegie.....
Please put it back the way it was, post haste!
I totally agree with you about this! However, if they had wanted our feedback, surely they would have asked us for it in a beta test before rolling it out! This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not sure whether I feel more sad or offended or used, but these are all very prominent in my mind. How they handle this will determine whether or not the web site is on the way up or out.
I am guessing here, but I think they are listening. At the same time, I am wondering WHY they felt this new hubhopper was needed. None of us know the direction HP is going. All these expensive changes are not for nothing. They have an ideal, a way to go, but is it the right way? As it is not out site, have we the right to suggest otherwise?
It may not be our site, but at the same time, we kind of "are" the site as well. Without our content, they would not be making money, and they would not have a web site. That's why I think many of us are sort of offended by this whole thing.
Disrespect for the writers opinions and ideas by HP has become an art form as shown by the layout changes, profile changes and other changes. You get the feeling that HP has stopped listening and responding. The HP community of writers has lost the sense that 'we're all in this together'. HP knows best and acts in the best interest of HP.
Whether they do or do not act in their own best interests, they will always think that they do and they will tend NOT to think that the site members opinions matter all that much. Unless they do something that causes a wholesale exodus (and this certainly would never cause that), they are correct: our opinions are of far less importance than their own.
I'm going through something similar with a company I represent. I'm usually their biggest reseller, moving two to three times the volume of their "good" resellers. You'd think that my opinions would matter to them, but they don't, because although I'm the "big kahuna" there are a lot of little fish and their aggregate sales dwarf mine. Therefore, they really don't care that I think they've made some really dumb decisions this year. Even if I packed up and took my business elsewhere, it wouldn't matter.
I think that's pretty much what we have here. HP may realize that they made a mistake, but it won't be opinions that convince them and at the end of the day if it doesn't hurt income, they likely do not care. They tried something, it didn't work, oh well... they'll move on.
Sorry for only quoting this part of your reply, but I was a member when Panda first hit the site. We had many hubbers then who knew what they were talking about, and HP staff chose to ignore them.
Most of those hubbers have since either left, or have left their most productive hubs here and moved forward.
HP staff have their own agenda. Their aims and ours aims should be co-productive, but are not necessarily always so.
I have learned, and am still learning, that HP usually do have the best ideas in mind for both the writers and the site.
The new hubhopper puts too much pressure on us.
Keep it as it is (if you must), but allow us the option to skip individual hub reviews.
Exactly so! Without us authors, THEY are nothing!
Hi Izzy - I appreciate your thoughtful comments and questions. And no we do not own the site. However without the hubs and content that we produce for HP for free , tHp would have no place for its revenue producing ads. They are providing us withe "free" writing platform. We are providing them with an tremendous amount of content which produces a lucrative money stream for them, for free.
Its is and should be a two way street. We absolutely should have input and they should be responsive to the concerns of the majority. Faceless is right, we "are the site."
As to why the new Hopper may have come about: I'm just guessing too, but I have a hunch that they tried to combine several different ideas that had been suggested in the past.
I know that a peer editing program was mentioned not too long ago, and I have not heard anything more about it. Not a thing. (But I was out of town for a while, so I may have missed something.) Maybe this new Hopper seemed to be a good way to incorporate the peer editing idea into an aspect of the site that was seeing a lot of use. Who knows? As I said, I'm just guessing.
But the idea, however it came about, has clearly backfired and needs to be revised seriously and very soon. I'll repeat the suggestion I made way back in this thread: instead of scrapping this new one entirely, add back into it the features of the old Hopper and allow the Hubber to choose which method to use - a simple yes/no or the rating system of the new Hopper (with each method disabling the other possibility). Over time, the data will show whether anything valuable can come from the few Hubbers who might choose to use the rating system.
Here's a little historical perspective to add to all of the furore: When the (previous) Hub Hopper was initially introduced, it was not intended as a way to discover new Hubbers, comment on their Hubs, and follow them; it was intended specifically for Hub-dom to help weed out the substandard Hubs that were swamping the site. It has evolved into something else over time, as things have a way of doing.
[EDIT: My statement was based on my memory of a rereading of Paul Deeds' post when HH was first introduced. But I have re-re-read it, and he actually did mention both reasons for Hopping, including discovering new Hubbers. My apologies for the incorrect statement!]
HP is trying to emulate Google's assessment of Quality (which counts about 20% towards rank). The best insight into the origins of this approach are from a Paul E post on one of his own hubs
" think you're right, Google has made an editorial decision on what they think is good (at least a rule set). Humans pick content that they think matches that editorial preference. Then Google build algorithms that can find the content that people like. I think that's one way of describing Panda.
So, I've been thinking about how we can have people editorially pick content that has attributes like very well written, very useful, insightful analysis, original research, excellent instructions, well laid out.
The challenge is how we can combine the community, moderators, and automated metrics to do this at scale. Analytics data isn't all that useful for this type of editorial analysis.
I think it's going to take us two or three steps to get there, but we are working on it:"
"It has to be on a Hub by Hub basis. We don't think about earning potential when judging quality. We leave topics and how commercial a Hub is to the author."
It is a good principle all the same to measure on three parameters. It guides the hopper and feeds back more information which adds to the efficiency of the process.HP don't need us-they monitor well themselves in my experience but we get the chance to be more interactive and involved with the new hopper-why are people afraid of it?
I agree, but the new Hub Hopper doesn't do that - because it asks you to rate, not to flag.
I think you said you were one of those who asked for a peer review/rating system. Can I ask, why? Did you mean a system where people gave feedback on Hubs to the author, or did you mean something like the new Hopper, where you give feedback to HubPages but not to the author?
Is the flagging option still available? The flag button is visible on the hub being hopped; but I haven't tried it yet, and so I don't know whether it is functional. I wonder too whether, in the Hopper, a very low rating on each scale of a Hub (1's across the board) would cause it to be moderated, essentially flagging it even if not being called that.
I've been trying to locate some of the forum conversations from those weeks when it seemed to be a hot topic. I know there were other threads that I couldn't find, but here's one I did find: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/83815 . My recollection is that there were several ideas being tossed around, focusing on different ways to address more than one quality issue, including the need for more or better copy-editing.
Yes, the writer does need to receive feedback which recommends specific ways to improve, but there is more than one way to provide or route that feedback. The most efficient procedure, I believe, would be for the same data (or what's appropriate) to be directed in such a way that both the writer and the HP staff can learn from it what is most useful to them. I don't know that the new Hopper is designed or will be used in such a way as to make that possible. But I'm also not sure that it can't become that type of instrument.
Paul has said the Hopper will be used to decide which Hubs appear in the "related" or 'featured" Hubs section. There has been no mention of Hubbers being given feedback from the Hopper (and I asked the question of Paul but got no response).
If I'm reading you correctly, you seem to be supportive of what the Hopper could become, not what it is now.
The more tweaks they make; the more changes they roll out; the more bandwidth and memory is taken up...and THE MORE OFTEN THE SITE CRASHES!! I have already quoted my husband once on that matter--with him wondering if something is so wrong that they are desperately grabbing at straws to keep from going belly-up!!!
I wanted nothing to do with this New Hub Hopper since it was first introduced. And, I still don't. So this is a permanent bye-bye to Hub Hopping for me. I have better things to do with my time than screen Hubs this way. This new system is certainly not the best way to lure new writers to the flock, so count me out.
Four words to begin with: Change IT BACK - PLEASE!
More words: Please change it back.
Well, let's hope that those who like the new way of hopping hubs; like it enough to take up the slack for the reduced number of people using it.
You are a much nicer person than I am 2uesday. I am hoping that HP management is listening and realizes they made a mistake and make some adjustments along the lines of what the majority of Hubbers clearly prefer and are willing to use. This is not to attack you 2uesday, but to state my viewpoint.
To put all this in a balanced perspective:
1) -- HP supplies us a "free" writing platform...and we are grateful.
2) -- We Hubbers supply HP with an enormous quantity of "free" content (our individual hubs) where "revenue- producing ads" can be placed; HP should appreciate what they get from us.
3) -- This is a symbiotic relationship where both sides give something and both sides receive something. We are not the beggars lucky to get the crumbs form the table of King HP.
4) -- On something this is important we should speak up and they should listen. If HP creates an inhospitable or even hostile environment, there are plenty of people who will pack up and move on. That would be sad..
I so agree with all of your comments! There are so many negative reactions and responses to the new system, people really don't like it. One person commented that it's like the new facebook timeline change, most people just don't like it. Hopefully some type of compromise can be reached and HP will listen to constructive comments!
lol. Outlook for the teacup this week: storms, followed by a storm.
very good Will Aspe-right answer lol-not even a calm before the storm lol.
very good Will Aspe lol-right answer!!
Not even a calm before the storm lol
Thought you were Irish too with a sense of humour like that and I was half right because I see you are in the UK.Good to meet you here online-no other Irish here so a neighbour will have to do lol
What I fear is that this new, time-intensive hopper will be made mandatory in order to receive payment, as happens on the odious Helium site. I discarded 35 articles I had there, because I was not prepared to put in the unpaid time. I will as readily discard my 21 articles here as a bad experience if we are forced to use this device. Earnings of less than $0.50 per day do not justify spending huge amounts of time rating hubs.
I am happy to sift out and flag trash. I am not prepared to use some artificial system to grade every hub under the sun. Furthermore, given that I use academic-level British English directed at the educated reader (i.e. graduate level or reader of the London Times newspaper), I would probably end up grading many "chatty" and populist-style US English hubs with the lowest grades possible, as I find the style they use ugly in the extreme. Naturally, many would disagree with my ratings, but what am I supposed to do? I can only grade on what I consider to be good style and usage.
As is said I do not feel confident to use the new system especially after looking at this table -
After reading this I have a general questions for those who are willing to hop hubs under the new system.
Looking at this table as you are hub hopping will you have a printed out version beside you as you grade them? At least until you have mastered what is required under the new system?
I know that I would find it difficult to recall that to achieve a 10 rather than another grade a hub would need these qualities under the substance heading - I quote from the table -
"Publisher's message is fully developed with complementary tone, noteworthy diction or visual techniques, and abundant detail
Media is exceptionally crafted
Supporting capsules enhance visitor engagement
If relevant, contains excellent step-by-step instructions or insightful analysis
Content is objective and includes concrete and vivid detail, and is not promotional. "
This is one of 15 'statements' that need to be evaluated before passing judgement on the three separate heading (sliders).
Note that to be a 10 in substance category the content of the hub - is not promotional.
I think the discussion here is valid as the more people leave or drop out over one thing or another the more it effects those who are left. I have seen so many changes in the time I have been here some for the good.
I do not expect to be consulted about changes, but this time it is about an optional feature.
Got notifications that there was more dicussion here about the hopper on the offchance there would be someone with something positive to say-no such luck so I am out of here.This forum is way bigger than this storm in a teacup on this thread and am busy hopping hubs anyway-plenty of good stuff to read in the hopper and other places on the forum or I can start a new hub or work on my blogs.....won't be back here anyway lol
Kate - Your attitude surprises me. Yes, this forum is bigger that the "hub Hopping" issue (do you realize how demeaning, critical, and unkind it sounds when your refer to an issue of great concern to others as a - storm in a teacup? would you want me to belittle you by referring to something you thought important as a storm in a teacup?), but we are all different, we are on HP for different reasons, have different skills, interests, etc.
We all have teacups that appear little to others and quite large to us, and they are all different. And not only is that OK, it is as it should be. How incredibly boring if we were all alike. I am not saying that there hasn't been plenty or critical and rude comments, there have....but I do not understand why you are determined that other hubbers feel about it as you do.
It is OK if you think its great and others hate it. We are not talking about world peace here. These are just personal opinions about changes in a system that most of us had gotten comfortable with. I wish you well. Whether you believe it or not, I wish you well.
I've seen Kate come here and post scathing remarks about the HubPages community, then run away and say she's too good for this place multiple times now. Just leave already. You obviously have nothing to add to the conversation.
We are genuinely affected by these changes, and they mark a turning point for us on HubPages. How they handle our feedback will determine the direction the site will take, and whether or not the site sinks or swims.
I realize you don't make money on here, Kate, but many of us make a good supplementary income every month from our hubs. The future of HubPages directly affects us, and it's judgmental and rude of you to downplay the effects this will have on us.
I am not as completely against this Hopper as many here are, but I do agree that it needs some revision, if it is ever to be used enough to be helpful to staff for whatever the reasons. I also do not feel totally in favor of it, but a lot of that feeling has come about because so many Hubbers have been so vocal in their dislike of it.
In response to your question about recalling what is on the linked table: there's no need to remember it (unless the Hopper has changed since the last time I used it). When you are using the actual Hopper, you can see the same information for each even-numbered level, when you move the square to that point (maybe when you hover the cursor over it, but I forget and can't test it right now).
I found that when I was hopping several hubs in a row, it was pretty easy to recall enough info about each level to know where I wanted to start. From that point, if I wasn't sure about the level, I just moved the square up or down to read the description. And I was surprised at how quick the process was, once I got into the swing of it. It didn't occur to me to treat it as an exact science, but rather as a way to provide more information than a simple "good" or "bad."
I understand the issue that some Hubbers have with not being able to leave comments. Since that was never something I did with the old Hopper, it doesn't bother me, but I do understand the disappointment and frustration for those who did. As for knowing who wrote the hopped hub - well, I have commented on that before. It's not necessarily impossible in all cases.
I do agree that it's important for these issues to be aired. Some of them probably need to be addressed by staff. But in some cases, it really only involves a change in the way an individual does things, like discover new Hubbers. There are many, many ways to do that.
New Hub Hopper. Sorry if someone already posted this, I just wanted to let you know that in the new system you can skip a hub without rating it and move on to another by clicking on the back arrow button in your browser.
That is good to know MomsTreasure Chest. I noticed an exit button on the screen too for skipping hubs you don't want to hop.I try to hop them all the best I can because I like reading other people's content and learning from it but sometimes it is hard if the content isn't interesting to me.Cheers for that:-)
You are right Aficionada,it is worth trying out. thanks for pointing out about the comments-I hadn't noticed that and it is a good thing to use the slider instead of rather than along with comments for hopping anyway.It would defeat the purpose of the new hopper otherwise. The scores I am giving are high but that is because the standard is high and that is good to see.It is also good to find a constructive comment here-the negative stuff about fellow hubbers work is arrogant and nasty to say the least.I could go on about that but it is best ignored-have no patience or inclination for it anyway:-)I don't go along with personal opinion clouding one's judgment.
I hate change for it's own sake so I am pleased that I like this. I hop more hubs now than before because I didn't feel qualified to use the voting system.
Some other good comments here referred to the feeling of being like a teacher.I noticed that too and it is uncomfortable just because it is new.
It is understandable that people feel threatened by the new hopper because of the nature of freelance writing.
However,like it or not,there are basic principles that apply to all writing (except poetry)substance,organization and grammar/punctuation and they are comprehensively and fairly dealt with by the hopper.
Another good thing is that the creative writing is dealt with differently but I lke reading the poems too anyway.There was a great short story in the hopper recently as well which the hopper applies to as well because like all writing it has to have a beginning,a middle and an end-simple.
Kate, the comments about "trash" are not about the standard of people's work, but the undoubted fact that some people steal the work of others and post it at HubPages as their own. This content is either copied directly or poorly "spun". It needs to be flagged as it damages the site.
I don't think that other hubbers' concerns about this are arrogant or nasty. Indeed, these people are saying that they DON'T want to judge other people's work to the extent of critiquing their style - they simply want a quick method of weeding out the clearly duplicate and appreciating the stuff they like - the old hopper provided that opportunity quickly and easily.
Thanks for the information above 2uesday.It is not as simple as it looks but it is good to have the guidelines. I read the link and it was useful. Cheers.
Didn't you just say a few posts back that you wouldn't be back to this forum, yet here you are!
Quote: "This forum is way bigger than this storm in a teacup on this thread and am busy hopping hubs anyway-plenty of good stuff to read in the hopper and other places on the forum or I can start a new hub or work on my blogs.....won't be back here anyway lol"
Snort! Hoppa, hoppa, hoppa. LOL!
I just noticed that the blurb on the latest Hub of the day invites people to 'See photos of some of our catch including moral eel and puffer fish'
Perhaps you really can catch a moral eel in the Red Sea. lol. But I am doubtful.
Human editors. There is no substitute.
Hahahaha! I guess the Red Sea is home only to immoral eels. Shocking! - oh, wait, that might be electric eels. Goodness, what a slippery subject!
I totally agree about human editors.
It's also the caption of one or more of the images on the hub. I have a lot to say on this topic, but won't do so here!
I agree that human editors can be great. However, with the new Hub Hopper there are people of all types, including the nearly-illiterate, grading everyone else's hubs. I don't see how this is a good thing.
There is one aspect of these discussions that I simply haven't grasped yet, and so I hope someone will offer some clarification. Numerous people have objected to the fact that "people of all types, including the nearly-illiterate, [will be] grading everyone else's hubs." (I'm quoting Faceless39 only because those words are the closest in this thread and they summarize the objections of several Hubbers.)
In the previous system, we already had people of all types, including the nearly-illiterate giving a blanket thumbs-up or thumbs-down to Hubs. How was that better? The new system gives an opportunity for the reader to provide more clarity about that thumbs-up or thumbs-down.
I understand the objections of Hubbers who say that it will take too much time (I'm not sure that it will, but I understand the objection); that it is work they should be paid for (again, a legitimate objection which has been discussed in the past, in various ways); that they miss the option of commenting on Hubs while Hopping (yes, legitimate, but basically an inconvenience). But how is it actually a problem if the people of all types, including the nearly-illiterate are placed in the position of needing to support their thumbs-up/down opinion in some way?
I think one issue here is actually a matter of trust and fear. Do we have reason to trust the staff to be judicious in using the information provided by the Hopping process? Do we fear that this type of rating system may be a harbinger of the kind of change that has occurred on other writing sites? And perhaps, are the HP engineers capable of creating enough sophistication in the system that it can identify Hoppers whose ratings on Mechanics should carry less weight? And would we want that, if it is possible?
The objection is simple. The old thumbs-up/thumbs-down system didn't have a big effect on HubScore etc. But the new system will be used to penalize Hubbers, by preventing low-scoring Hubs from appearing in "Related Hubs" or 'Featured Hubs" areas of the site. And what's worse, affected Hubbers will have no idea their Hubs have dropped out of view, so they won't be able to do anything about it.
The way I see it, the difference is that I could employ almost anyone to sort a pile of papers into a stack of red and green. If they made errors then if they would be simple to spot. They are either right or wrong as in this is spam or a spun article.
However if I then let them to grade papers into tiers, that requires a knowledge of the subject; I would have to be more selective over who I let loose on the task of grading.
The moderators may have always been checking at this level but not Hubbers.
The 'quality' assessment should be done in two steps:
=> software is used to detect poor quality. The bad ones are flagged, the marginal one are referred to moderators
=> the moderators apply a 'quality test' and give pages a quality score, writers are contacted to ask for improvements. => deals with poor quality pages.
Having hubbers assess pages is nonsense - too subjective, too prone to errors and biases. Traffic is the real measure of popularity. If HP chooses not to feature a hub that is popular and gets lots of traffic (but moderate quality) in favor of a top-class page with high quality, but no hope of getting any external traffic because of poor keyword choices and title, it is acting against its own interests. The claim that the cream will rise to the top eventually, is fatally flawed. The cream pages will never appear in the top SERPS despite being featured on hubpages.
Do a simple test - choose a keyword phrase and add "hubpages" e.g. 'best diets to lose weight hubpages' look at the top few pages - Are they the best quality ones? I think in most cases they won't be, and in some cases they fail even the simplest test e.g. article length, layout. Google applies its own quality score, but uses lots of other stuff for SERP rank. There is no hope in trying to emulate Google. The focus should be on the bottom end - poor quality not to identify the 'cream'. IMO
Thank you for this analogy. It does help me to understand your point of view.
Unfortunately for me, I seem to have come across far too many "orange," "tan," "silver," "lilac," and "indigo" Hubs. To me, that makes the process of choosing between "red" and "green" difficult and inadequate.
Besides that, what do you do if a Hopping-Hubber is actually "color-blind"? or if their vocabulary for describing colors is different from the norm? My husband has a suit that he calls his "green" suit. When I look at it, I see fabric that is a sort of light brown with the very faintest, barest hint of an olive tinge in it. Who knows what someone else might call it?
The point is that even a two-choice system has its own flaws and its own set of difficulties, both for the person making the selection and for the ones trying to interpret the choice.
If the only purpose of the Hopper is to weed out the spam or spun content, the engineers would have done better to spend their time refining the algorithm for detecting it. I'm not convinced that is the only purpose of this new Hopper, though.
My guess is that if it appears to work well enough for the purpose that it was designed for, it will be kept. If there is not enough activity on it then maybe it will be modified in some way.
If it affects the Hubscore of the person who wrote the Hub that is being graded, then it would seem to have a different purpose to the former Hub hopper. I think it needs to be made clear to people how important it is that they use the Hub hopper correctly.
I just noticed. We can now access Classic Hopper. In other words, one can now choose between the new and the old.
Wow! That's great news! That gives me great hope for the future of HP. Woohoo! Thanks, HubPages..
I'm surprised there hasn't been some sort of announcement about this, really. I know quite a few people might start hopping again if they know they can use the old hopper. Thanks for pointing this out, paradigm!
Yay! SOMEONE apparently listened...but the fact that there was no announcement, leads me to believe that TPTB at HP would rather we did not know of this option, and prefer we not use the old one. It seems they would still like to push the NEW version...so, let's all use the OLD version.....and show them this was an error in judgement.
Now it's really important to use the old version, if we want to show that we are happy to hop the old way, but do not like the new way.
I haven't done any hopping since the new hopper was introduced, but went through a number of hubs on the old hopper just now.
Yay! Great news! I also think it is very important to flag questionable content on the old hopper. Many members expressed reluctance to flag anything, but clearly, the new hopper was designed to help identify sub-standard content (as well as good content). If we are not willing to bring the site's attention to hubs that need to be moderated, we have little room to complain about quality issues on the site.
Judgment is always subjective but the second option of hub hopping is more difficult to apply when deciding whether to flag or not. The old one is a little bit easier as reasons for flagging is itemized - clearer.
I like the old hopper, but at least there is a choice now!
You expressed it well, PDH - I think the flag mechanism still has options on the new hopper, but as with you, I prefer the old one, because you can vote down or choose to say nothing for a hub that isn't great, and you can flag for more specific or egregious issues. If the site wants a new way to rate hubs, I'd greatly prefer tweaks to the Classic Hopper rather than the new version.
Bah, Humbug! I won't hop another Hub until Hub Hopping becomes enjoyable for me (as in the past). Unless I am paid for my editorial work, don't count on me to analyze someone's Hub this way. I'm not gonna do it!!!
This new Hub Hopper version really needs to go away. Glad the classic is there now, but the way to get to the classic is obfuscated at best.
Its weird that no announcement was made by HP staff. The silence of the responses to the feedback that was requested is DEAFENING. Why? Many people don't read the forums.
I have been making the same point to everyone who will listen. I recently put a large easily read announcement about it in one of my hubs. I would encourage you and anyone else who prefers the original hopper to do the same ASAP Thanks.
I would encourage staff to keep out of these forums, wherever possible, for the sake of their peace of mind. The constant and often completely unprofessional torrents of criticism will take its toll.
Running the site is more important than soothing the pain that every tiny innovation seems to cause.
I have not seen any unprofessional torrents of criticism towards staff.
Paul E - "set this thread up to discuss it and to get feedback" for a post in the "Official HubPages Announcements". So you are saying HP should not respond to their request for feedback? Why ask?
Take off your rose-colored glasses and READ. This thread originally asked for feedback. So guess what? We gave our feedback.
I am not convinced that the hub hopper is such an integral and deeply felt part of people's lives as some here seem to make out.
So what is going on in this pack mentality? I am guessing projections and mischief making of all kinds.
A lot of users should take themselves off to the political and religious forums which are designed for those kinds of indulgences. It's a lot more fun too.
Recent changes to the Hub Hopper are a look into where the site is going. The site seems to be heading in its own direction without asking for feedback or running any beta tests first. Since we are interdependent, it makes sense to include us in decisions that directly affect us and the site's popularity. It's a little bit offensive, also, to expect us to grade fellow writers' works on such an intense and subjective scale system.
Who cares about convincing you about the pros and cons of the newest Hub Hopper system??? You aren't in the power to make changes, but ADM is.
My earlier comment about not announcing the old hopper became available once again was not meant to attack staff in any way. The fact it's restored shows me they are listening, in fact. I think it was either an oversight or they just haven't gotten around to it yet. I don't think the lack of announcement means they want us to only use the old one or are "hiding" the new one. They are busy folks, after all. I'm pleased we now have an option! I was only concerned people who don't hop hubs anymore wouldn't know it's been reinstated. Unless paradigmsearch hadn't pointed it out, I certainly wouldn't have known. That's all I meant, personally... can't speak for others.
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|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.|