I'd like to suggest that "normal" Hubs should have an exclamation mark next to them on our account page.
I think there's a very high risk that new Hubbers will misunderstand the normal/Featured system. I've already answered one enquiry from a Hubber who has misunderstood it.
He assumed that "normal" means a Hub is fine, and "Featured" means it's exceptional. Whereas as we know, a Hub which is "normal" is not satisfactory and requires attention.
So I suggest an exclamation mark next to all "normal" Hubs, which is universally understood to mean "needs attention", without having the negative connotations of the "Idle" word.
I agree that idled hubs should not be treated as 'normal', as having hubs sitting there wasting space is NOT normal.
I actually don't like all those big black H's beside featured hubs.
It is now really hard to see which hubs need attention and/or unpublished to move elsewhere.
Before with the Zzz sign you could see at a glance which hubs were idled. Now they are hard to see and easy to overlook, especially when one has a high number of hubs.
Exclamation marks would not stand out next to those ugly H's.
But they would if the H's were removed and left blank, as surely featured hubs should be the 'normal' and not the other way round.
Double click the "featured" button at the top of the column. It makes it pretty obvious which ones are not featured.
That's all very well, wilderness.
But it isn't easy for newbie to know those things either.
It seems I have two more idled hubs to unpublish and move.
Yes and no, Izzy. A newbie with a couple of dozen hubs won't have a problem finding which ones are "normal" and I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone with hundreds that hasn't already figured it out.
It is confusing, though. I suppose one could say that the goal is "featured" and that the black HP sign should indicate a hub is special. One could even say that it would be obvious to a nube that it something to work for. The problem, though, is that the large majority of hubs will be "featured", which means that "normal" is not normal at all.
I don't really care for it, either, and would rather have something pointing to a "normal" but somehow defective hub rather than to all the normal "featured" hubs. If that doubletalk makes any sense to you!
I actually liked the zzz symbol but recognize that if HP is going to put them to sleep for other than traffic reasons it may not be real appropriate.
Why not use something tame like a question mark beside hubs that need to be revamped. This way they'll be easy to see but won't have such a negative connotation as the zzz's.
This is my suggestion.
Why not color code the Hs and place Hs on all the hubs. The featured could remain black and the not featured could be green, orange or blue. Some thing bright and easy to see. The pending circular thing also needs a color other than grey, something like green since it's on the go or change it to an H with the color green.
So black for featured.
Green for pending
Amber or Red for Zzzzz
Something similar to the broken links would be fine. At the current moment there's no symbol near the non-featured hubs. I guess it would be better if we were just informed about the ones that are not featured rather than the ones that were featured.
At least get a symbol like marisa says to help us (Who know what it means) find out which aren't being featured as well as to let new hubbers know.
For myself, I don't want any symbol near the hub title. I have none, which means that anytime something pops up there it needs immediate attention.
On the other hand I have a couple of sleeping hubs that I'm quite content to leave asleep for now. Putting a symbol for that near the title will make it more difficult to find problems with a real quick scroll through the titles. If it were colored something different (yellow, maybe?) I could get used to it I guess, as I've learned to ignore the red and blue arrows already.
I don't think it matters, at all. Everyone complained about the zzzs, so they've changed them. It doesn't matter what you call it or what the marker is for it. The hubs are idle, they're marked not to be indexed by Google. We all know that, they're still Idle hubs. It's just rearranging the deck chairs.
Sherry, everyone complained about them because of what they stood for.
Not because they had an ugly symbol beside them or whatever.
Now, they are harder to spot. That is the only difference because they are still there, and getting added to daily.
Yes it is "rearranging the deck chairs" as you put it.
But not for the better because idle hubs are now harder to spot.
I agree with you, Izzy. I also find it difficult now to see if I have hubs that were put to sleep. We complained about what the idle status because of what they are doing to our hubs, not the look of the zzz symbol.
HP got it all wrong... or, they are trying to trick or delude us .. "Wow! I got a lot of featured hubs!"... instead of "Omg, I got some idled hubs!"
HP says they want to stress the positive instead of the negative. Ok, great! But leaving the idled hubs blank? What does that suppose to mean? Leave it be?.. let it die?
Put back the zzz's, or some other symbol... like Marisa suggested, a punctuation mark, at least.
You know that, because we've all been talking about it. What happens when a new Hubber starts next week, or next month, or next year? They won't know, and they'll assume "normal" means OK. But in fact (as janderson says), "normal" means "hidden away where no one can find them".
I think a system which lets newbies keep writing, thinking they're doing fine because their Hubs are "normal", is unfair on them.
Mostly i dislike the pretty ineffective psychological manipulation, there is nothing "normal" about a revenue sharing site putting a no-index tag on a page.
Also this could really backfire in terms of what new people writing on this site will think. A featured hub is really not exceptional! It just has to be a decent length, written in English and properly formatted etc. If a new hub ends up being not featured, it is not "normal"! It obviously has something wrong with it.
The way things are stated now, a new Hubber might have hubs that don't pass the M'Turk and think that they are ok. Having featured hubs is not exceptional and something to be proud of. Having hubs that actually make significant money is.
This is obviously a response to the huge outcry about idle hubs. At least the Zzz was vaguely amusing. HP should have either stuck to their guns or changed their policy. This feeble language manipulation is unbecoming.
That looks like an old-fashioned lamp shade on a standard light. LOL
Me, too! Maybe we both need to take a class in using excessive violence?
I can see what Marisa is saying and think it is a good idea! People need to understand that 'normal' is not a good state for a hub to be in.
That's exactly what I'm saying, Bard. The word "Normal" is positive - if your blood pressure is normal, that's a good thing. If your weight is normal, that's a good thing. But if a Hub is normal, it's not a good thing - how is that not confusing?
I didn't know what Marisa was referring to until I read the blog. Normal means it's not featured? I think this is confusing.
I agree that it is misleading to call normal hubs "featured". It's like they don't want us to know which ones are idled.
Sorry "normal" hubs are NOT featured (which is probably what you meant). Its NORMAL to have hubs hidden away where no one can find or see them.
I am referring to the fact that non-idled hubs are now classified as "featured" on the accounts page. Instead of leaving them undesignated and calling idled hubs "zzz".
No, normal non-idled hubs are not actively featured in any way, but they are called "featured" by hubpages. That is my point.
In my opinion it is normal to be available for Google indexing, thus non-idled hubs are normal hubs. Being idle is abnormal and so should be the status that is flagged on the accounts page.
Quite. We complained about hubs being Zzz-ed. Just not labeling them as Zzz-ed but still doing it is not "fixing" anything.
Thanks for your suggestion Marisa.
You might be surprised to learn that getting traffic and earning ad revenue is actually not the most common reason for publishing content on HubPages. For those authors that don't care about traffic, there is little disadvantage to not being Featured so it's confusing why we would make a big deal out of it, they don't care. When we do make a big deal out of it, it makes it seem like we're saying they should care about it and we distract them from their true and possibly more valuable intrinsic motivations; love of writing and keen interest in the topic. If we create a system that focuses on getting Featured then we encourage gaming the system and distract from the real goal of creating great content that readers will find useful, informative and enjoyable. We'd instead like to create a system that helps people create the best content they are capable of. The Featured threshold simply provides a safety net for that.
@IzzyM, I'm curious, are you able to take content that does not get featured garner significant traffic with it unmodified on other sites? Instead of "How dare you judge my content" reactions, we'd like to encourage you to simply edit the content to make it better. We don't think it's unduly difficult to improve content so that it gets Featured. It seems that adding a picture or two is easier than moving the content to an entirely new platform, so curious if there are other factors.
Hi Derek, Thanks for the feedback.
Why does an article written to 'stellar' quality standards by an expert on the topic get 'Idled' because of low traffic. This means that it disappears from view, its not listed for the topic, etc, it does not appear in the search results, and there will be no link to it anywhere on the site unless the author chooses to allow it to be shown on their profile. Isn't this a real downer in terms of a writer's "true and possibly more valuable intrinsic motivations". Writers who want to be read have to worry about traffic.
Sounds like "an article written to 'stellar' quality standards by an expert on the topic" is exactly what we'd like to feature. If you can paste a URL of an example I'd like to look into it and see what's going on.
This was my latest hub to be idled – presumably to low traffic
http://janderson99.hubpages.com/hub/Doe … rsonalised
'I kissed it’ to make it better with some minor edits, changed the title to garner more traffic. Its not full ‘stellar’ but is of high quality on a useful topic.
It has 1670 words, multiple capsules, 2 large original graphics that have been pinned etc, etc. It has a hubscore of 77. Its had 190 views, 7 in the last 7 days (more added through edits), and has been ‘liked’ and has comments.
189 total views (+1 slide view)
Top Traffic Sources
Word Count 1673
Revenue Potential $$$
PS I think your 'views per day graphic is broken??
That's sneaky. Understandable, but still a bit shady. You are now catering to the great unwashed.
I've absolutely no idea why you directed this at me, as nowhere on this thread did I make such points.
My problem is not with idled hubs that get no traffic, but with new hubs that have to go through a 24 hour pending period, especially to authors who have been here for a while and have proven they are not spammers.
Or new hubs that get delayed indexing because the googlebot saw the noindex tag on pending hubs, then idled 5 weeks later through lack of traffic. Again, not a point made on this thread.
Folks like me with huge numbers of hubs need a symbol placed beside idled hubs just to see them, as otherwise they can slip in unnoticed.
I've unpublished all my idled hubs for moving, because they have already been edited several times and cannot get their traffic back, so they are as well somewhere else.
Again, I did not say anything about this on this thread, so don't know why you brought it up.
Well your response is helpful in any case. Thanks. Here's the post, though maybe I misunderstood what you meant. http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/106060#post2256402
You can sort the Featured status column so you can easily identify the Hubs that are not featured, but right now there's no way to tell which ones recently changed status. We've discussed sorting that column by the date they last changed status, which would allow you to see the most recent ones, but that has not been implemented yet.
Oh OK thanks for that. Yes I did mention unpublishing, but only because there is no longer any point in leaving them published. No-one read them recently, no-one will read them when they are idled - oh sorry, 'normal'!
Some of them have thousands of views from when they did do well, but these days are gone. Who is to say they won't do well elsewhere?
I haven't actually moved them yet. Too much going on in my real life just now to tackle it.
Thanks for your response anyway
I definitely understand what a busy life is like.
If you do move them and they do well on some other site I would be interested in hearing about it so feel free to let me know if you happen think of it someday. No worries if you don't though.
The difficulty, derek, is that without feedback on why a Hub "failed", we don't know what needs to be rectified. So we're reluctant to spend time making changes because we may guess wrong, not address the problem, and the Hub will just end up idled again in the end.
It may be more work to move it somewhere else, but once it's done, we don't have to think about it again.
If its idled due to insufficent traffic - its even harder to fix. It may take several months for a hub to start getting traffic. It is not immediately obvious whether the idle is due to low traffic or 'quality' or something else - so what do you do? I tend to do both - change the title, add images - pin them, interlink, social stuff, etc. etc. But its like working in the dark with your eyes closed.
There is not really sufficient incentive for individual hubbers to edit their 'normal' (non-featured) hubs, in my opinion. It's like Marisa said - it's a guessing game as to what was 'wrong' with them, so we may wind up putting a lot of effort into making changes, only to find the hub non-featured again. Personally, I don't earn enough from my hubs to make this sort of guessing game worthwhile. Instead I'm starting to feel like it is becoming more worthwhile for me to move my non-featured hubs over to another site. I am not 'mad at' Hubpages - I just feel like the system lacks incentive for hubbers to edit their hubs. I understand what HP is trying to do - remove spammers and very low-quality content, but I feel like this can be done in a more automated manner the way it was done for TOS violations.
HP is welcome to bring in the QAP and the no-index, but I think it will drive away a lot of experienced hubbers. For example, those who have a large portfolio of hubs may realize they have enough non-featured articles to make a decent-sized starting portfolio elsewhere (if they were to move only their non-featured ones). Yes it is extra work to move them across but like Marisa said, once it's done, it's done and we are not subject to the 'whims' of a QAP. Again, I completely understand ubpublishing hubs for TOS violations such as extremely poor grammar, etc, but the QAP process for featured vs non-featured is a different thing altogether. It's not a system which provides good incentive to edit our non-featured hubs, in my opinion.
If a Hubber isn't on HubPages to make money, then he's on HubPages because of a love of writing. Every writer's dream is to be published, so their work will be read beyond just family and friends - that's the reason they post on the net. An idled Hub will get very few readers, so even writers who aren't looking for money will still be unhappy.
I predict that in a few months, you'll have multiple posts on the forums saying "how can I get more readers?", "why isn't anyone reading my Hubs?". When seasoned Hubbers explain they need to be Featured to get readers, they'll be saying, "Why didn't you tell me?"
Yea, that's also something we're trying to keep an eye on.
We'd be in bad shape if we used the forums as our sole means of assessing what Hubbers think. Many of the Hubbers I've talked to shy away from the forums because they can be pretty contentious.
There have always been contentious forums on HubPages, but when I joined that didn't stop people taking part - because their design meant the Hub-related forums and the Topic forums were separated. The Hub-related forums were full of lively discussion and largely good-natured.
It was only when the two were combined that I discovered the mayhem going on in the religious and political forums. If they had been combined then, as they are now, I think I might've been scared off too. I wish they'd put it back the way it was.
Here's a good example, it's happening already:
Bumping this thread because this is getting annoying. I'm checking regularly so I can identify and act on non-Featured Hubs, and the current setup means it's not easy.
When you have a long list of Hubs which are nearly all featured, it's difficult to spot the non-featured ones as you scroll down, because all you see is a small gap and it's easy to miss.
I agree Marisa. Some other color, exclamation point, the ZZZ's or some other method would make them easier to spot and then tweak to get them featured again. Anyone else going blind trying to search for blank spots? When one has hundreds of hubs, this becomes like searching for a needle in a haystack.
Hi Marisa, you can actually sort by the featured / non-featured column. Simply point your mouse over the top of the column that has the #'s, and it will sort for you. This is how I check on mine. My number of non-featured hubs is still gradually increasing. I wonder if other hubbers are experiencing that too?
Sorry I meant you have to actually CLICK the mouse at the top of the column of featured/non-featured.
Click twice and the sleepy ones will be listed at the top. Click and wait until you see the down arrow and then click again to see the up arrow - Idle ones will be shown at the top. The ones shown immediately below the last Idle one could be yawning if they little traffic - they are the ones with lowest hub score - hint, hint!.???
I sort my hubs and that does help, but I still think there needs to be an indication and explanation to what it means, especially for new Hubbers. And they would be easier to find for experienced Hubbers.
Since exclamation marks might alert a Hubber, how about those little green dots we had that previously represented profiled hubs? They would not be alarming. And the key would say these were published but not profiled. In this way, they would be informative, but wouldn't cause undue alarm. The idle hubs would then also be easier to find.
I have been going blind looking for spaces. I will try to click at top to see what happens.
It is some what confusing to me in the first week that I started I thought The H meant you have a great hub, but in fact it means that your hub is normal not exceptional. I wish there was a distinguishment between the two.
by Mary Craig4 years ago
How high are your not featured hubs numbers?It seems like my unfeatured hubs are multiplying rapidly, exponentially...is anyone else experiencing this recent phenomenon?
by Nathan Bernardo5 years ago
How many times do you edit an idled Hub before deleting it? Or do you keep it idled so that links to it are still good? Also, for what reasons do you either leave it idled or delete it or still try to fix it? I have one...
by Dr. John Anderson5 years ago
The purpose of this post is NOT to moan and groan, but rather to better understand it, by sharing your insight and experiences. Obviously we now have to work using its parameters. Stayin' Alive Ha Ha Ha
by Lela24 months ago
Are 15 out of 271 featured hubs a 'normal' number for hubs? Or do I still need improve this ratio? What is everyone else getting, approximately?
by Dan Harmon5 years ago
I had a hub idled about a week ago, a dumpy old hub that I didn't like anyway. I've let it sit idled since then, trying to decide what to do with it. Sorting the stats screen with the "featured"...
by Missing Link10 days ago
I'm thinking the answer is probably yes?If you have hubs that have been deemed "not featured", for one reason or another, will that factor into lowering your overall score/rating as a HubPages member? ...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.