We see HubPages as the ultimate place online to publish long-form, media-rich resources. To make sure that people who visit our site get the same impression, we are doing everything we can to let our best Hubs shine.
Our latest development regarding this effort has been to run Hubs through a Quality Assessment Process to help us find the best Hubs to Feature. This involves incorporating reviews given through the Hub Hopper by real readers and Hubbers.
There is a more thorough explanation of this update on our Blog, so be sure to check it out!
This is depressing. If my Hubs are going to be assessed by someone who's being paid 5c per assessment, I have no confidence that assessment is going to be either thorough or accurate.
It's in my interests for them to be careful and unbiased: it's in their interest to be fast and make snap judgments, otherwise it will take them all day to make a dollar. That's a real conflict.
It just goes to reinforce what I was already thinking: if a Hub goes into idle, I'll be moving it elsewhere. Why should I waste my time trying to guess what the sweatshop workers on Mechanical Turk might like?
I agree with the fact that someone might breeze quickly through a hub and not rate it accurately and fairly. As for idle hubs...is there a way to let us know exactly what they may be lacking? This way we can make the changes neccessary for that hub to be successful.
But I do have hubs that bounce back and forth from the idle status, so I am assuming it changes with the search patterns for that particular hub...
I am just concerned that if someone is not interested in
the hub or they are just trying to make a quick dollar that their ratings will only hurt our hubs status.
Jill, we're working on that element (letting people know what they might add to a Hub to boost its chances of being Featured), so rest assured, we know this is an important thing to address!
And do keep in mind that we really are careful about the ratings that come in, so rest assured that your Hubs aren't getting arbitrary, biased, random ratings from careless strangers.
Quote: I am just concerned that if someone is not interested in
the hub or they are just trying to make a quick dollar that their ratings will only hurt our hubs status.
This is a valid concern. People who are underpaid (and 5 cents per hub is very underpaid), aren't going to particularly evaluate something well. In addition, what criteria are they using?
I'm not even sure if 'Idle' exists now Marisa, certainly the definition of a 'Zzz' has (currently) vanished from the bottom of the 'My Account' page. A bit confusing as I haven't seen any announcement of this being withdrawn.
I'd think the same exact thing, Marissa Wright, if I did not know everything that has gone into the Hub Hopper rating process.
We have actually taken great measures to ensure that Hubs are rated fairly and accurately. You can read about those meausres in this Learning Center entry.
Thanks for bringing that up!!
I have a question which is bothersome to me. I have at least three hubs, including the one published today, on which Adsense ads do not show up.
Two of the hubs had Adsense ads until three days ago when I edited them and just changed the location of the Amazon capsule. The hub from today also does not show Adsense.
This is not from HP filters and I am at a loss as how to explain this.
Anything you can ad is welcomed.
Bard, as we have both been here a few years I'm sure you remember as well as I do the arguments that used to go on in the forums about whether this was a writing site or an internet marketing site.
Well, I think that what has been happening lately demonstrates that the internet marketing lobby has won, and that there is no place here any longer for creative writing or writing on topics because you are interested in them, regardless of what traffic they may or may not bring in.
I used to write or try and write a mixture of both, but since my traffic dropped catastrophically and only recovers occasionally, I have tended to write on subjects that interest me as writing to get traffic on my account is a waste of time. They tend to be on history, are long hubs and reasonably well written, but they are getting idled because they have never had traffic (I notice there is just a blank space now rather than the zzzs or swirly things). Now I will also have to contend with having any hubs being reviewed only by Americans unless it is on HP, who will more than likely give it a poor score because I spell differently and write on topics they don't agree with or are not interested in.
Google says jump, everyone here now says how high and starts writing, and there are some very good writers here that are skilled at writing such hubs. But what if writing about how to remove biro stains from school uniforms or what Britney Spears eats for breakfast just doesn't turn you on? It used to be that you could write anyway, knowing full well it wouldn't be a money maker but your niche audience would appreciate it. But now that niche hub won't get featured and receive that patronising little message hovering over the button telling you what a good little hubber you've been,
I think there is a much bigger picture here, well outside the bounds of HP which is a business designed to make money after all, where large corporations and institutions are closing down on what information is being made available to people, and anything beyond mainstream views and bland household tips will be increasingly marginalised.
And yes Gordon, before you leap on me to berate me for not being a good little cheerleader, I am gradually deleting my hubs from this site and have been doing for months. It's called voting with your feet.
Some good points raised here and potentially lost, merely as a result of not understanding what many of us Non Americans, are saying to you! We don't think or speak the same... and maybe, we don't listen the same, but we try to.. and find your accent as difficult as you find ours! You guys tend to completely misunderstand our humor (humour) and for some reason take offense to things we say, when you 'think' we are being negative! We are generally only being objective (in language other than yours) and to us.... Loyalty is an extremely important factor, that often requires (for us) far more transparency than perhaps you feel is necessary....
If you understand what you are doing in regard to International Marketing and developing the full potential of international writers, alongside your own countrymen (& women)... then you understand exactly what I'm saying and why I'm saying it
Well, if it makes anyone feel better, the hubs that I had RECENTLY published, all have the nice "H" next to 'em. There's one (the Star Trek shirt hub) that I had forever, promisingly got an H,too
I think putting H to show the Hub is featured is a much more positive approach rather than using ZZZ's. ZZZ's bothered me because they were so negative.
I won't comment on the new changes about checking quality until I see it in action.
Everytime a hub is edited it will be put back into the review queue? I predict everybody will edit their hubs like mad the next few days and never touch them again.
It will indeed! I don't know if that will happen, but we'll see!
BTW, I love your Profile photo. Tres witty.
I hope the no-ads plan works in preventing G bot seeing 'NOINDEX' while pending because that is a major penalty - 'War against the willing'
Is there an appeals process? One person's gem is another's dung.
Can you publish the criteria or the 'quality ratings' so we can know how we are going with a hub. [Is it 3,4, 5? What?]
Is it related to hubscore?
That's why we did it, janderson99!
The appeals process really involves editing a Hub so that it is re-considered by the Quality Assessment Process.
Every time a Hub is edited, it gets a new shot at being Featured.
Public Opinion is a vital asset, yes, but peer-to-peer is much more valid, vindicating/justifiable and should take precedence. Granted, volume-to-hop ratios seem to be difficult and so, the necessity for exterior [hopefully temporary] assistance.
However, it should be explained//emphasized as to how the "reviews" are being entered or managed. For example, how are public reviews entered into the QAP -by questionnaire//polling, textually or just the slide-o-rater? How many reviews per hub are allowed//exist? If the volume of reviews per hub is high or low, how does this effect the quantified determination during the pending process and then afterward, if edited? Once out of the hopper//pending period, how can the hub become featured without extensive editing or a reload of the same//previous assessment? And how does this effect the Exclusivity element?
I get the Rating//Priority Scale, because it is very useful when feeding links//content into external engines, via hubber xml. Am just wondering the balance between quality-efficient assessment and quantity-editorial volume.
BTW, the link on the blog post to view the Rating Scale returns 404. Here is the clean link
My overall response to this is:
If the MechTurks reject my hubs - I'm outta here!
I have nothing against Turk or PPC-For-Reviews [reminds me of paid surveys or paid proof readers really]. My boggle is why 44,000 able bodied Hub Pages Writers [not including 2-3 ghost accounts] cannot handle the volume of new or reassessed publications, in addition to the kick @ss algo HP built. There are not 44,000 pubs being entered daily, else HP would have in the `hood of 440 million pubs, annual. My guess is 1/1000 of that: about 1,200 per day. I, myself read nearly 10 articles -start to finish daily, which is above average. Still, a meager 600 Hubbers per day covers the load entirely @ just two articles each. Add the algo and you have peaches-n-cream.
On the other hand, I see your point John: one-hit visitors to boost traffic does not really make much sense for hubs in queue//pending because once out of the hopper, the assessor will probably never see that article again.
@Marisa Wright - We've heard concerns that folks are worried about the quality of the ratings via MTurk. It's a very robust system that continually assesses the quality of the ratings against a known set of ratings to compute accuracy and weight we can give each rating. Bonuses are paid for accuracy. So far, we've been able to qualify a set of people that can do HITs for us. Feel free to give it a shot. In the app, you can see your accuracy score and get a sense of what it takes to do it well.
I'm pretty excited about the ability to get good data quickly. We are getting significantly more and better ratings now.
@Janderson99 - We think in several cases the initial crawl is triggered by the Google ads on the page. There are other ways Google picks up links to new content, so we'll have to see how this does in actual practice. The overall internal crawl data for Hubs getting recrawled is pretty high. We've seen reports that some folks don't see crawls after the first 24 hrs. It's a small percentage, but we want to see if this helps.
I can't give it a shot because I'm not American. However I'm pessimistic about this for the reasons I explain in this post
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/105853? … ost2253418
This sounds promising. Any change in the direction of improving quality has to have some positive outcomes. My only concern based on my observations of hubber relationships is bias, coupled with monetary compensation. For example, if hubber "A" has a history of conflict with hubber "B" in forums, and one ends up rating the other's hub, can they be objective? Conversely, can hubber "C" and hubber "D" who are good friends be objective with each other? Maybe with thousands of hubs, this really won't be an issue but the possibility does exist . . . I would think.
So is 'Zzz' no more as I see it is no longer included on the 'key' at the bottom of the 'My Account' page?
Looks like it and -and- has been replaced with the "H" icon, meaning the hub is featured!
This is nice. Me like!!!
I see the "H" now on most of my hubs... What about the hubs that have nothing? Do they still have a chance of coming up in the search engines?
The featured icon used to be a small green square and now it is the (better in my opinion) large 'H'. This does not replace the 'Zzz' therefore.
Yep! Honestly, getting Featured is something we wanted to visually celebrate more, and the whole concept of "Idle" seemed unnecessarily negative.
Glad you like it, jacharless!
And only the Hubs with "H" icons next to them are Featured, JillKostow. BTW, congrats on having so many!!
"...the whole concept of "Idle" seemed unnecessarily negative."
Really? All of that hullabaloo about idling is gone now? No more arrows in circles? No more hubs removed from google search?
Pardon me if I'm a bit confused.
Well I still have one Hub which is 'arrows in circles' that I edited yesterday when it got idled. From reading a couple of the most recent staff posts I am guessing that 'Idle' still exists, it is just less obvious and hubs still get the 'NOINDEX' tag if they are underperforming/are not 'featured', but if we edit them they still get quote 'a shot at being featured'. As far as I can tell therefore, nothing appears to have actually changed apart from what we see on screen, i.e. 'Zzz' or a green block for 'featured hubs' (now 'nothing' or a large black 'H'). To me this seems to be a change that is purely psychological, and that in reality nothing has changed (other than aesthetically).
If I'm reading the responses right, Sally, if a Hub isn't Featured it will be removed from search results. Waiting to see what Simone's response is.
I have no problem with this at all. It dovetails perfectly with the type of content I hope to bring here. I'm excited about the new system and how it will protect our efforts. I've tried to read all the HP staff suggestions about content that works well here. I'll keep refining my Hub content until it works for everyone concerned.
@Mistyhorizon2003 We did put a new icon in to show which Hubs are featured. It felt more positive to me and I really appreciate good energy. You can still sort by the column and get the exact same information.
@janshares - That's a good question. Hubs in many cases need several ratings to be accurate. It's a fairly complex system, but the ideal rater consistently rates good hubs high and bad hubs low. So, in your example, if you rated a bad Hub high (because he's your friend) and other trusted raters all rated it low, your trust will go down and we won't count your ratings very much. Also, if you sometimes rate things accurately and sometimes you don't, your ratings will have such a variance that it's difficult to trust them, so we don't count them as much either.
We are very excited at how well it's going. We still need more scale to rate everything, but we are getting more good raters everyday!
Sounds good then. Thanks for the reply. I will check it out. I'm glad to see huge steps being taken in the direction of quality assurance and professionalism.
So what happens now if a hub is not getting sufficient traffic or is considered poor quality? If the 'H' means 'featured' what will show for 'non-featured' hubs?
Hubs that aren't Featured are just Hubs, but it still remains true that only Featured Hubs are made available to search engines and on Topic Pages and Hubs.
So the answer to my actual question is that nothing will show by them in 'My Account' but an 'H' will show if they are featured?
So if a Hub is not Featured, does that mean it has a "no index" tag attached to it?
Thanks for asking for a Straight Up answer to this issue MW....
I agree with you and I suggest that we both know the factual answer
- but still wish to hear it directly from staff..
On another issue: Poetry
On numerous occasions you have stated Simone "That poetry doesn't drive traffic"
That comes across as if (appears to intimate) for some reason that poetry hubs are of little significance to the overall HP 'strategies' then in regard to their traffic/earning potential.
79% of my traffic has always been SE based... In the past (old system) HP had 'featured' 95% of my hubs, and used that standing to help 'drive traffic' to the entire poetry/title community... my hubs actually ranked well with Google....
I write at an above average level - both in content and quality - Not blowing my own trumpet.. as that is my professional/personal work ethic... and many others have similar standards...
I also NEVER write just a poem and publish it as a hub...
I write hubs that are: Unique, creative and thought provoking - contain a minimum of 700 words (usually 1000+) - contain accurate and informative information - contain interesting images - contain perfect grammar - maintain a 5 star reader involvement.... AND Also contain A Poem that ties the whole hub together!
My hubs fall outside the basic boxes used to assess basic hubs.... when I joined this site.. that is what Paul Deeds had asked for from new writers on the site and promoted the hubscore of 75 as being regarded internally as excellent writing. The 'basic boxes' have shifted.. but his promoted basic assessment standards still remain relevant and I guess to many of us (of that era) we keep that in mind when producing a document for publishing!
My works are regarded here as poetry.... they are also clearly rated internally as poetry!
I USE poetry to emphasis the message my hub is conveying... if I publish my hub in anything other than the poetry section...
then for some strange reason it gets no traffic (internal or otherwise) - sometimes gets reallocated into some other obscure irrelevant subject - and effectively has then become 'idled'
- interestingly, other less informative hubs fill those subjects and take priority over mine (that's why I wrote on the subject!).
Is that because mine are regarded as inferior or irrelevant, because they contain a poem and therefore provide less traffic potential?
If so, who is driving/judging the Quality Assessment of hubs such as mine?
How is Poetry going to be assessed fairly with the new system?
Who is sufficiently qualified to judge quality poetry within your new system and how will the likes of allegories be assessed if they fall outside of the rating formula used for a product review for example?
I am concerned about this as I'm sure others who write poetry are too.
Please take the time to give some positive thought to answering these questions... Cheers
Does this then mean that 'pending' can still be the kiss of death?
I know you are keeping ads away to discourage search engine visits but this seems to just shift the risk a little. It becomes Russian roulette rather than certain oblivion.
I mean, if removing the ads genuinely prevented crawls why not keep the ads off all newly published hubs (without the no index) until they pass quality control? Better to have a few undeserving pages briefly indexed in Google than to knock many perfectly good pages back for weeks (or ever, as it seems to me, on purely the evidence of my own experiences).
All of my Hubs show that they are "featured." Can't wait for one of them to snooze.
I do have a question. When a featured hub is edited and it goes back under review, is it unpublished or no followed?
Unless this has recently changed, Paul mentioned before that editing a featured hub does not change its status. I hope that it remains this way. I edit one of my hubs with weekly updates.
"After being edited, Hubs go through the Quality Assessment Process once more, hence each time a Hub is edited, it is given a new chance to be Featured"
It sounds like all hubs that are edited will go through a review process, and how wonderful it will be to once again become a featured hub. huh?
One would assume that hubs undergoing the "Quality Assessment Process" are not picked up by search engines. Otherwise, what's the point of having a quality review process?
I personally wouldn't edit a healthy "featured" hub if it had to go through a review process which will take it out of circulation and miss page views!
A Featured Hub that is edited will remain Featured (meaning that it will stay published and indexed by search engines), unless the Quality Assessment Process determines that the quality of the Hub has dropped significantly. It is quite unlikely that a Featured Hub will lose its Featured status because of an edit.
So each time we make an update to a featured hub, it has to be reviewed ?? What happens to it before it's reviewed? This seems like it will discourage hubbers from making updates. I do a weekly update on one of my hubs that regular visitors check. I'm hesitant to continue this if I have to wait for a review.
Hubs might go through the Quality Assessment Process without being reviewed, though because we want to make sure that Hubs that have been improved get a fresh shot to be Featured, they also go through the QAP every time they are edited.
Did this just start this week or have edited featured hubs received a QAP review before this week? I'm simply curious. I'm wondering if this 'review' will affect the ranking of an already established hub. With the hub I'm thinking of, it's not so much 'improving' it, it's weekly rankings that I update.
It doesn't sounds like they're talking about hubs that were not featured, not that great to begin with. What about featured hubs that are updated, etc... ?
Yes, it's unlikely that a "Featured" hub will become non-featured after a a little editing. BUT these hubs still need to go through the QAP process which takes 24 hours, yes?
Do edited hubs that are featured have a no-follow tag while they go through the QAP process?
If I had fireworks I would light them up.Most of my hubs have the H.............
BTW I have to add that upon checking featured hubs in the entertainment and media/photos and videos, there are several hubs that borderline on "mature" and or have only photos. Most are from "hot Indian actresses" and so on..................
Question...when an "existing hub" goes through some editing, will it be taken down to pending (not seen to the public) to be reviewed? On seasonal hubs that would mean that I should never touch them then after the seasonal time hits! I usually do quite a bit of editing during this time of year to keep "fresh" information available.
Zoelle, that would go against the advice to keep your hubs fresh and up-to-date. What you quoted does not make it clear that a hub gets unpublished. If it was a hub in good standing there would be no reason to assume an edit would make it a lesser hub. I'm hoping staff will clear this up. That's all.
Quite true! Good Hubs aren't going to be penalized by being edited- it's a good thing to regularly update Hubs!
Good "Featured" hubs that are edited are not subjected to a 24hr Quality Process?
Or rather, they will NOT have "no-follow" tags? That is good to know!
I don't understand Simone. Why must I regularly update hubs? If the original content is good, then what needs to change?
Can you please clarify what happens to hubs that get 'unfeatured' 'blanked' because they don't attract enough traffic (lose engagement I think you call it now).
Lets say I have a fabulous Hub that rates a '10', but just happens to be on unpopular tropic. It goes blank due to low traffic. Lets say I amend it by changing the title, add another image and pin it, and get some more backlinks for it, to try to boost traffic. I guess it will be re-assessed for quality and passed.
How long does it get to strutt its stuff before its 'blanked' once again. How many hits over what period of time is needed to keep it 'featured'.
@Mistyhorizon2003 - That's right.
@rebekahELLE - It starts next week. We have some mostly automated filters that have been running the entire time, but this is going to be a big improvement. We will eventually get all Hubs rated, but that's going to take bit.
Thanks Paul. Your last line concerns me somewhat. Some of us have been writing here for years and these older, seasoned (featured) hubs may not have the various capsules, word count, number of images, etc. that HP now considers a stellar hub, but do well in search with key words. How is this included with the ratings? We've worked hard on these hubs, regardless of how many we have. And how does this play into a subdomain PR?
Every genuine Hub Pages writer has a vested interest in the site and its performance. The changes over the past few weeks/month or so have been phenomenal but equally they have been the same around different sites on the Internet. Such are the joys of our game!
Unfortunately, the events of the past few weeks have coincided with me being away from home quite a lot (short term) so I haven't had the same opportunity to write Hubs or be online. I have occasionaly managed to see what's going on and to be honest I haven't changed my opinion of Hub Pages in any way. Yes, I've suffered with traffic losses but I have also seen the expected support from staff on this site. It doesn't happen anywhere else...
Paul, Simone, Jason, if you want to reveal my drop in stats figures (approximately'ish! ) I'm happy for you to do so. I honestly believe it to be a mere blip and am delighted that HP are addressing the problem in such a positive fashion.
I think you'll find Jason is no longer employed at HP and has been gone for at least two or three weeks now. His 'Linked In' profile lists his former employment as HP. Micki has gone too.
OK, thanks, Cindy... Regardless, I'm staying...
I know that we collectively have had problems, Cindy, with drops in traffic but I genuinely believe in Hub Pages, the efforts that the staff are making and the future we can have with our content on Hub Pages. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but I don't think I will be...
Gordon, it is fantastic to have you back on the site!
We are indeed giving these developments our all, and though we know that change is never easy, we believe that the Quality Assessment Process and Featured Hubs will make a significant positive impact- not just on Hubbers' traffic prospects, but on our ability to make HubPages a more meaningful, helpful, well-known place to publish online.
Sounds like this rating will be developed for every hub will replace the 'hub score'.
("We will eventually get all Hubs rated, but that's going to take bit".)
Why not develop a rating out of 100 by combining:
=> minimum standards
=> algo score
=> human rating (3 components)
=> feed back score - comments, arrow up, etc.
=> traffic score
This new rating could be displayed to replace the old hub score.
Then state what the minimum score is to be featured - say 50
This would be a huge help in telling me how much I have to do to reach the pass mark.
=> 45 minimum edits required to get featured
=> 30 probably hopeless without a major update
It would also be very helpful for featured hubs that are not performing well in term of traffic. Lets say I had a hub that had rating of 70, but that poor traffic had caused the rating to drop to 55. This would be an early warning sign that I need to boost the traffic to keep it featured.
It would also help me understand why my hubs within a topic don't get a high ranking and appear on the front page.
This would be much more helpful than all the mystery now.
If you edited a hub you could instantly see how the changes you made affected the rating.
I am sorry but your constant whinging is one of the biggest pains on Hub Pages. Why are you still here if you hate the site so much??? Why don't you move on to - anywhere else but here, to be honest....
Your constant moaning and incessant whining and whingeing is to be honest a pain in the bum for all of us...
Gordon, janderson99 has as much right to express his opinions as any other hubber. You may not agree with them, but it doesn't mean that he should be stopped from expressing them.
He is concerned, as we all are, about what is going on with HP and as such his concerns need to be addressed by the staff
Well said Gordon, I also believe in Hubpages or I wouldn't have stayed her for 6 years, people come and people go and some even claim that they are going but never do.
There has been plenty of whinging and moaning through the years on Hubpages and this year is no different than any other but Hubpages has always pulled through in the past and I am sure they will find a way through this blip too.....jimmy
janderson99, we are factoring scores received through the QAP into the HubScore, but the score is very nuanced and complicated, so at this point it would be difficult to assign concrete numbers to specific elements of a Hub's success without re-building HubScore from the ground up.
We do agree, however, that it will be helpful to give people feedback on what they can do to increase their Hubs' odds of being Featured, and I can promise you that we are in the midst of working on a feature that will do this very well.
I can see some merits in the idea. It does explain why I have seen an improvement in views for the hubs I had been editing recently. The views probably came from the checks being run. I had thought it was because I had pleased the search engine.
I am curious to know if each time a hub is edited it comes off being featured; what exactly counts as an edit now? Is it each time you hit the edit button for whatever reason? Is going in a hub to fix a broken link counted as an edit? Or when you need to change a no longer available Amazon product or to add a photo to a hub?
Basically I suppose I am asking this, will any edit action remove the hub from being featured? If so will this lead to people deciding to leave them as they are rather than update and improve them?
I'm glad to hear that, 2uesday!
When Featured Hubs are edited (and thus become Pending for approximately a 24 hour period), they are still Featured.
Every time a Hub is edited, it is, indeed, re-evaluated by the QAP. So long as the Hub has not experienced a negative change in quality, it should not be negatively affected (save for some unusual edge cases in which a Hub's ratings were right on the edge and new ratings leave it under the threshold).
It is far better to edit and improve a Hub than to leave it alone.
Simone, sorry I'm a little slow here. I often edit my hubs to add or delete something. What does it mean by edited hubs becoming pending for 24 hrs, but are still featured? Does it mean the revisions to the hub will not be seen by viewers until re-approved, but the original stay featured?
If I am following right then my concern goes to those of us who write about certain topics where others can simply not like because it is of a different opinion than theirs. I mean I write about politics, religion, and civil rights. What happens when I get a bunch of very conservative reviewers?
If people rating your Hubs let personal bias factor in to their ratings, that deviation will likely show up. We have done a lot to make sure that:
1. Our criteria has nothing to do with a person's opinion of the actual subject of a Hub he or she is rating
2. Our system corrects for bias and inaccurate ratings.
More here: http://hubpages.com/faq/#hopper-credibility
Nice link. One problem I've had with the rating methods I've seen is that they appear to award mediocrity in some ways, even with the Gold Panel you described. If a neurosurgeon writes a complex piece about "the interaction of synaptic processes with organic compounds in the body" there's a good chance that a high percentage of people won't understand it well, but it may be an extremely valuable article for other neurosurgeons. How does HP ensure its raters are familiar enough with the subject and skilled enough with grammar, etc. to provide quality feedback?
HP says "write evergreen content," and this article might well be important, durable information, but it's written for a very niche market that's likely to produce fewer Google searches in the first place - albeit a higher likelihood of purchases of relevant materials may also exit. This forces the hub to rely on the ratings methods, which may punish this type of writing and boost the ones that cater to the mass majorities who aren't the intended audience.
I'd much rather see a way for people who find their way to the site via Google to provide rating information than MTurk or other hubbers. Instead, I'm seeing entertainment value outstripping substance in many cases here. It's disappointing.
Exactly. I used to write for Helium, which has had a ratings system in place since it was founded (around the same time as HubPages). They have had several years to refine that system and they do say they're continually improving it. Yet it is still not that reliable, and the example you give, Jellygator, is one of the reasons why.
If Helium still can't perfect a ratings system after all these years, I'm sceptical about HubPages managing to get it right in a fraction of the time.
I think we can try to address this issue in 2 ways.
1, volume. The more ratings that we can get, the less that individual biases due to rater prejudice or niche content will be a problem.
2, perfection is not required. QAP may not be able to differentiate between the neurosurgeon's exceptional article and their mediocre article, but it should be able to identify the exceptionally poor articles and keep them out of the index. So we make the problem much easier by avoiding the need to "get it right" because you're right, that's not an easy problem and we won't get it right the first time out of the gate. But for this iteration we really only need to avoid getting it horribly wrong, and that's much easier.
...but the result of that is that there will be collateral damage, i.e. good articles which will be penalized wrongly. In the example given, the neurosurgeon's exceptional article will not be featured, for instance.
That won't hurt HubPages but it's bad news for the author concerned.
As long as the present destructive effect of 'pending' is eliminated, I will be a lot happier.
The problem is, this has been such a lousy year for HP with so many mistakes and false starts it requires a huge act of faith to believe it will end quite how it is intended.
One thing for sure, the intention is immeasurably better than Squidoo's dupe content filter which generally only allows empty (but unique, lol) nonsense through.
Now, it is just a question of seeing how close the reality comes to the intention. Fingers are crossed.
I agree Will, it's getting so I have to look over my metaphorical shoulder all the time, waiting for HP to come up behind me with another change. Hoping it's all for the better in the long run, but I'm certainly not putting all my eggs in this basket.
I didn't even know about this new H deal until I happened across this thread, but seems my hubs are all H'd up so I'm a happy camper for now.
We are doing everything we can to minimize the amount of change to the community while also making much needed adjustments. Thanks for bearing with us, and indeed, Will Apse, we hope the change to 'Pending' will have the desired effect.
I only have one moan really. Its just that if it is going through a checking process, surely the hub shouldn't be seen by anybody until its passed? To publish the hub and see it without Ads and to be seen by our followers before the 24 hours is up is a bit strange to me. Without the Ads it looks unfinished, bit like wearing your outdoor clothes without your trousers! lol! seriously, I think we should go out into hubville passed and adverts with flying colors, not sneaking in with our ads missing, just in case we are going to fail because its a rubbish hub! anybody else think the same?
It certainly would make it hard to see if the formatting is right, if everything is not as it will be.
Plus the Hubber is missing out on possible revenue, especially on hubs that are expected not to make it big on the search engines.
We have put controls in place whereby if a Hubber gets tons of traffic to the Hub before the Pending period is up, we'll add ads in anyway.
Also, by using the "preview" button in the HubTool, you can see how ads will affect your formatting.
All of this sounds very promising. I am all for getting cleaning the scum from the bottom of the HP pond.
What are you doing for seasonal hubs? I understand that we can edit them to bring them back to life, but I would appreciate a way for them to be able to get traction on their own - maybe if traffic is picking back up on the hub because it is back in season, then it could be reevaluated again without having to be edited.
Nell Rose, I totally understand. The reason why we still make those Hubs available via URLs and feeds is that we want to keep some of that instant community gratification one gets from seeing comments from followers on one's Hub right away.
Despite being rather astounded by the new symbols it does seem that HubPages are addressing issues that we have been high lighting for over two years, namely poorly written hubs. Most of us will have hubs that are not featured, not necessarily because they are poorly written but simply because they are not read often. This gives the opportunity to refresh the hubs in this category.
I think it will mean the end of those awful hubs on topics such as "how to know if she/he is into you" and other such questions. Thank goodness.
There were be casualties amongst established hubbers (hopefully it will not be me) It is not the Hub Pages that I joined but times are a changing and we have to adapt to that change.
I shall enjoy reading the posts of others who are , or appear to be, more tech savvy than myself but I for one think that any move that clears the dross out without heavy manual intervention has got to be good for all on Hubpages and of course their profitability because they are a business after all.
Off the soap box now........time for tea!
Hi Simone... would you mind addressing the Poetry issues that I asked for clarification on a couple of hours ago svp..
I'm on an opposite time zone to you guys - like it's 6.30 am Friday here... Cheers
To address your post as succinctly as possible:
1. We really do value poetry and love the poetry community on HubPages
2. If your Hubs are engaging, useful, interesting, and well-written, I am sure many of them will be Featured
3. The QAP assess many different aspects of Hubs; traffic is just one small part
Are there any more specific questions I can answer?
I have a couple of issues that relate to how I format my hubs that have poetry in them...
Perhaps the format that I found to be engaging etc is 'too outside the box' for Larry Freeman's system..
Should I split out the poem from the article and create 2 hubs - 1 - just poem + 1 - subject info of 700+ words???
Clearly this would then work more in sync with what is currently expected 'box-wise' ???
- It would be a huge job, given the time frames discussed.
Hopefully those 'rating' hubs will have a broad mind and take all angles into consideration. Up to this point hubpages has been mostly fair and I think everyone has a good shot at having a good hub and having that good hub get a good assessment. Universal appeal is naturally something everyone is looking for, however, every hub should have its day if it is well written.
Simone-if I am writing a review of a service, not of food/recipes, how do I use the rating capsule?
Add the capsule and select "Your Rating" or "Audience Rating"
Here's the LC entry on the Capsule: http://hubpages.com/learningcenter/Ratings-Capsule
Copyright © 2019 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 Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|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.|