|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.|
This forum is a place for you to post hubs that you think are clearly of low quality and need flagging.
Committed hubbers should follow this forum and check these hubs posted for quality when they have the time.
If a hub has been clearly copied (for example from a PDF file that the plagiarism checker cannot search) then it should be flagged with a link to where it was copied from.
Please ensure that you provide the link to any sites that you think were the source of the copied content.
Can you tell me how to do this from the new hopper. I was "shocked" yesterday went I visited the new hopper to find several articles less than 100 words that made no sense at all. How were they even published I wondered.
Anything can be published - in 'theory' they won't ever be featured - it's when they do become featured that they become a problem!
Lizam1, anything that is on the hopper is still going throughout the quality assessment process that decides whether it will be "featured" or not. If they are shockingly bad they will get very low scores so will be no-index and won't be available for Google. So just rating things that are bad low should be enough.
But hubs that were published before the QAP was introduced don't go through the hopper unless they are edited. In theory most of them should have been idled (got the no-index tag) because of lack of traffic. The big question is whether enough of them remain in Google's index to still cause us a Panda penalty.
I have also suggested that everyone commit to reading two to three articles a day on hub hopper. Since there are so many people, if we all did that it might really make a dent in the low quality hubs without causing anyone too much time or trouble.
It seems that being proactive could benefit everyone including us and the long term reputation of HP.
If we all did this for the month of March, we could see if it truly made a difference and got some of those bad hubs out of the system.
Some of us are not willing to waste time on the stupid scoring system in the new hopper so we are boycotting it.
My motive for hopping hubs used to be to get rid of the crap: the illiterate, spun, machine translated, word-impoverished crap. That does not need a complex three-scale score. It is obviously crap from the first sentence. I can process 20 or more such hubs in 5 minutes. Hubs that are not obviously crap do not need "quality assessment". They should be left to stand on their own. Whether they contain three videos, ten photographs, a map and a poll is, in my mind irrelevant; in fact, I back out of such hubs immediately because I find this redundant dross masks whatever real information might be present. If they are written in literate language and contain information that somebody may seek, they fulfil their purpose without needing any additional irrelevant bells and whistles.
As a professional translator, I am also frequently asked to proof/edit/review work by other translators. I do this when I am simply required to make the necessary corrections/suggestions for improvement in the document using track changes. Other agencies expect me to waste time filling in a QA form, where each error has to be analysed, categorised, the remedy described, yadda, yadda. I refuse those jobs on principle. Even though I would be paid about $30-40 per 1000 words checked to do it, I still consider it a stupid and unessential waste of my time.
As such, I am hardly likely to agree to do stupid, unessential scoring on 3 scales in the hub hopper for no payment whatsoever!
I would not say I am actively boycotting, but I am not interested in trying to use it. It makes no sense to me.
You do realize flagging bad hubs is useless, do you not? Why waste time flagging hubs for nothing? The mods ignore most of them, you know.
We only disregard reports on Hubs for which we have no legitimate grounds for taking action. We truly value Hubbers' reports.
Hmmm. That seems strange, Simone. I could have sworn some of the stuff has been flagged several times by some of us before it was finally removed. And by the way, I have hub which has been in the pending stage for over 21 hours now. Didn't someone say the times were much shorter now since you guys worked on it?
Now where did she get off to? Like a Cheshire cat at times!
she went to clear your hub from "pending" - and make it idled! ;-)
Ha! You're probably correct as it is now over 24 hours since I published it. Who cares? I show all of my hubs on my profile anyway. I think I'll simply do the opposite as what staff recommends and perhaps my traffic will reverse.
I was gon'na check, yet too long to peruse. I'll have to await any misgivings, jealousies, or the verifiable errors, which are simply errors and not mischievousness nor deceptiveness. I thought that anything that attracted a reader to hubpages was good opening doors and offering windows to peer through for all hubbers.
Somewhere I must have read those hubs by veterans incorrectly a few years back. I guess starting over researching and documenting 'how to hub' excerpts as done in the past is worthless? I couldn't get passed the second page and a hot dialogue or two honestly. I got lost on what the subject was. Where is that list of hubs so I can check.
Even though I have been at HP near two years, the relativity of the matter is it is really only near to a year with time invested compared to pros. I ponder will there be a time constraint on learning just what the whys and the whens will be for newbies? I have met some who have been at hubpages longer than myself, published maybe a hub every two or three months. They connected to an audience and a readership and those few hubs are featured hubs all the while being a professional in life - homemaker and mom, have a career, volunteer here or there, or entered a second career within retirement age, although may defy retirement.
Also, sharing, I realize the 'now' of profitability is of importance, yet I am investing for later as far down the road as two years. Modern or contemporary SEO is dynamic and fluid. What I learned two years ago of SEO is dead space now and lost to technology, of which I am archaic either way.
Editing hubs constantly with an axe more than likely it is the experience I seek and closer to that of a holistic experience of the entrepreneurial adventure. I am not sure of many things like grammar many times. Correcting errors of simplicity for those of that educational background is daunting for those of not or is it naught?
Yet, like I have shared give me a spatial matrix problem or a puzzle and look out. Offer the help of mathematician and maybe there will be magic without illusions. Allow the imagination to run and I will try to turn a football game into clash of titans with a tad of poetry in the mix. Niche? Only that elusive SEO will share that - sometime in the future.
There is a great book written through the Gallup Organization about engaging as a manager. We each manage our hub profiles first and then seek to engage with the entrepreneurial spirit of others as a fellow hubber. Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman of the Gallup Organization present an alternative view of success and rules with publication 'First Break all the Rules.' I question if that is what hubpages as a entrepreneurial entity are attempting and we the same with Hubpages. Backlash is the term given when that occurs with a mechanical device or engine.
Follow that up with David R Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. book Power vs Force concerning "the Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior" and possibly purpose is discovered for the hubbing adventure for some and not all. The creation of a hub marketing plan does mean knowing who the competition is. Eliminating lesser or 'poor' hubbers will not gain market share. That is fact proven by the economy year in and year out. The competitors are not hubbers of any level. It is any and all who publish on the World Wide Web - squidoo, Wiki this or that, independent blogs, professional forums, and etc.
I know it sounds like I am ranting. Maybe? However I feel fear from most of the posts here causing me to ponder do I continue my effort seeking goals here at hubpages for a future and not today. I was impressed with articles by Relache and the others on the hub entrance page. She said she hubbed since it was a beta over five years a trail led to her success. I am impressed with most if not all the 'A's enough to write a lament of the 'A.' Since I have not the luxury of time for that attribute of distinction as both a learner and teacher I do envy the 'A's while seeking their knowledge offering both value and more importantly worth. Why else would I study them.
Okay, rant is over. Back to fixing my hubs with errors of haste. I have to input more CC-BY-ND's here and there, add a summary intro, clean up grammar, and sharpen my axe to use like Paul Bunyan and then spread some seeds like Johnny Appleseed. Those Disney creations offer a bit of wisdom still today. Disney shared once the animations of those late forty's and early fifty's were as much for the parents relearning as the children learning. Some call that revisiting . . .
For reference, here is our guide to reporting Hubs: http://hubpages.com/learningcenter/Flagging-Tips
Hubs that simply aren't great won't be unpublished- it's better if those are 'handled' through the Hub Hopper, as low quality ratings will prevent a Hub from being Featured on the site.
Unfortunately, the Hub Hopper only applies for hubs that were published after it was introduced (so I'm told) and therefore many copied and low quality hubs are still very present here on HubPages!
Is there any reason to not just flag it when you see it and move on. I think one flag is as good as a dozen.
Unfortunately, it seems that flagging one hub just once is not enough to have it taken seriously.
Just recently it took over five of us to flag a hub that had been copied from a PDF file about alcohol for it to be taken down. We provided the link to the website that it was copied from.
I imagine that the more flags, the more prioritised the hub is to be seen? Perhaps Simone has some insight.
I have heard that HubPages finds it difficult to get through all of the flagged content. What is the precaution put in place to stop hubs that get flagged once by someone who doesn't like the author getting the same amount of attention as hubs that are genuinely of low quality?
One has to assume it is the number of flags.
In any case having a forum will deter people from copying or writing substandard hubs.
So you really think that dragging a hubber's hub into the middle of the forums to discuss how crappy it is is the best decision?
No bad feelings there.
This is really not a good idea. Unless everybody wants their hubs brought into a public forum to be critiqued by everyone with an opinion.
Never did anyone say that's what this forum is about, it's about the obviously poor hubs that shouldn't be up.
And no one in these forums writes bad hubs?
And no one in these forums has ever has ever failed a dup check?
I've flagged hubs by faces we see every day in here. Do you think we should pull them into a thread to discuss them?
How would you feel if it was one of YOUR hubs that got pulled in here?
I understand why you are frustrated but goose hunts aren't going to help.
I would welcome free criticism of my hubs. You can't be afraid of the public if you plan to write for them.
So if someone brought up the hub with the picture of the naked woman in the shower that you wrote and labelled it soft-porn it wouldn't hurt your feelings?
The caption under the picture?
"Looks enticing doesn't it? The shower that is!"
So you knew it how it could be seen...
btw, that photo has no attribution.
You will find some try their best to keep the dross on site. Just as HP has apparently done. I have no problem with my hubs being put here if they are indeed substandard. Most writers know their work will be critiqued, and it is simply considered an occupation hazard of the craft to get critiqued. Any real writer understands this I would think. Good luck with this attempt to get rid of the inferior hubs!
http://randygodwin.hubpages.com/hub/Goo … ges-Forums
Has personal attacks in the comments. A blatant violation of HP TOS.
Oh no! I am rebarassed! Flag it and bag it, Melissa!
Yes, but it is a "quality" hub according to Simone. What makes it quality? Going on 10,000 views in less than 2 months. And it's "engaging". Over 2,000 comments and counting. Does it have a heartbeat? Of course!
But still, have at it as I can simply write another one. Carry on with the flagging!! Do I sound like I am devastated by your posting my hub? I rather expected it from you, Mellie.
Now that I've done away with your silly theory, let the flags begin!
Actually, my point, which you seemed to have missed, is that almost any hubber could theoretically be brought into a forum like this.
Which is why flagging and all disciplinarian actions should be done behind the scenes. It's just common decency. No one likes to be pulled in front of the class and chastised.
It sounds like you are speaking for other people, Melissa. Too bad you don't have the power to do that here. I just proved I'm not embarrassed, devastated, chagrined, or any other of the predicted things you claimed. As I said previously, it's an occupational hazzard of any writer. Next excuse?
You know what Randy, whatever. I mentioned it because I don't like to see people hurt.
If you do, then please go right ahead and pull them out here.
I'll be walking away from this conversation with you, but will continue to post in this thread if I like. Enjoy yourself.
It's great you don't want to see bad writers hurt, Melissa. I wish you cared as much about those who take pride in their well written work and don't wish to see it lumped in with junk.
Melissa Barrett forgive me but HubPages should not have its first worry as being afraid of "hurting people's feelings," It is a writing site and prides itself on its high quality content.
+ What if I find a very racist, very hurtful hub that predates the Hub Hopper, my one flag will not take it down as fast as 20.
All of my hubs are up for review, lol. I have had 27 idled over the past few months, so HP thinks they are below standards apparently. Of course they now reside in new digs and are doing quite well, thank you.
I sincerely apologize for the phrasing. I'll edit it now.
I took my first response sentence down due to your edit. Now we will really confuse folks, lol.
LOL, I'm sure your hubs are fine quality wise... It's a traffic thing, which is different.
edit: And to make things worse I replied to the wrong post of yours.
In the past I used to flag quite a bit in order to help the site out, but when I did things like that, my Hubber Score dropped each and every time. I have stayed away for a week and come in and my Hubber Score has went higher.
It would be interesting to have a way find hubs that predate the Hopper, however.
Again, we can't take down old Hubs that may be copied/duplicate because we can't prove that they themselves are not victims of duplication. It's a frustrating quandary. @_@
You are correct, one flag is just as good as a dozen. We certainly appreciate the time people spend flagging, but I think it would be more productive for each person to do their own search and simply flag the Hub once rather than piling on to Hubs that are already flagged.
If you guys will remove them when they are flagged by a single person multiples would not be necessary. They seem to be ignored unless they are posted on the forums in many cases. Why is this?
I flagged a very inferior hub . The person wrote like a first grader. When it was never removed, a suggestion came up for several to flag it. I emailed a hubber to look at it. It was then taken down. I think this is the reason for several flags. Does this not help if several people flag it for the same reason? i think people get upset to see such inferior content be on the site for four years like this particular hub.
What do you think?
Oh, I thought Melissa was referring to the infamous bathroom photography hub.
The picture doesn't bother me. It's a fairly standard shower picture as seen in ads everywhere. However, Melissa does have a point about the fact you have not attributed the source. That applies to other images you use as well.
With all the bad blood I see here anyway I cannot think this is a good idea.
I'm actually surprised HP mods haven't shut it down.
I'm actually surprised HP hasn't shut it down either, simply because it gets rid of the dross they seem to want to keep.
I agree with Eleanor below as that has been my life's lesson so far in my 56 years.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't."
Here I am! Let's do this instead. Let's put up links to really GOOD hubs and spend at least 24 hours focusing on something positive and wonderful!
In the spirit of peace, love and cotton candy:
Here's one that's awesome... it's a bit older so not completely hp compatable, but even without the "rules" I think it's a stellar hub:
http://julieannamos.hubpages.com/hub/Ma … -the-Incas
And here's a great fiction piece from a really talented writer.
I'll call him:
From a bringer of joy and immense wisdom...
http://angiejardine.hubpages.com/video/ … ng-happily
Great news for some of you guys. I'm going back to my self-imposed exile from the forums. It's obvious to me it's futile to try and improve the "quality"--my definition of the word, not HP's--of the site. I wish you all the best and hope you don't have the same experience here many of us have. You deserve much better.
Good luck Randy!
I also have such a self imposed rule (I mean they're such a waste of time), though I make an exception for this forum.
To be honest - as someone who has sparred with you in the past, it' s a shame to see you go! While we may not always look at a situation in the same light, I believe we both have a common purpose and that is to see HP succed! One thing I have always understood is despite your argumentitave tone and seemingly 'anti-hp' attitude, the truth is that you want HP to succeed - and your biggest frustration is that things are not working the way you feel they should.
I personally think that HP needs people like you and me who can argue a point and have differing views while still having the same core values! I wish you luck on HP and hope that you will grace the forums again! You certainly have a way of stirring things up - and sometimes that is needed!
I'd so much rather hunt for goodness than hunt for witches. There are threads I love to see here. Take a look at this one.
Wow, "witches" being hunted again. Folks need to remember that that was a time in history that many of us who are witches don't really like, lol.
That time is over now, I can speak for everyone but I personally love my friends that are witches... And generally witch hunting for me now is tracking them down so they can babysit
Edit: For those who want to know more about witches, here's a great one of YOUR hubs. I read it a while back but thought I would share!
http://dalehyde.hubpages.com/hub/The-De … Witchcraft
Oh, Dale! I SO hope you were not offended. That was my commentary on what this forum thread is about. I kinda see it as a figurative '"witch hunt." My reason for trying to direct it toward more positive and beautiful things.
Please accept my apology if my intent was not clear. I did not intend offense at all.
@HP You want a whole bunch of hubs that need deleting...?
Then click here.
Good grief. One occasion when I won't be drawing a picture.
And here's another one, if folks want to go on a flagging fest. xxx
I see that the filter kicked in on my last one...
Essentially, just put any awful word you can think of in the above search box, and you are off to the races...
Back to just say, "It's hopeless to try and rid the site of the dross." HP won't allow it! Later on, dudes and dudettes!
wow I just clicked on your link. How on earth did these hubs ever get published with titles like that. I rarely visit the forums because I find the dialogues are mostly disrespectful and rarely funny. Now that I have read the titles in your link I am wondering if I should even continue being a hubber. Very Disappointing. Thanks for making me aware.
For reference, please keep in mind that reporting a Hub multiple times does not help it get moderated faster. If we can moderate a Hub, we can. If we can't, we can't. The volume of reports regarding a Hub makes no difference. Just wanted to make sure that's clear! ^_^;;
I'd rather watch paint dry slowly and count sheep with my third eye!
I'd rather hunt witches than carebears, here's a few I think are against the toss for your flagging pleasure.
http://ashokar23.hubpages.com/hub/Ayan- … rics" not in english
http://bocarejuv.hubpages.com/hub/HCG-d … tion" is duplicate of a wordpress blog
(space after http:// to prevent back link)
http://dharmayuvi.hubpages.com/hub/Resu … ationpart3 this one is only 79 words
Actually, that last one is a bit more than 97 words. The formatting is messed up. Check the bottom of the hub.
But it's awesome that you brought him in here for a formatting error that likely wasn't his fault... as you can't even purposely do that in the HP creation system.
At the risk of being jumped because I am one of those nasty horrible MTurkers, I have been watching the latest hubs section... just for my own curiosity.
I rate and I flag. Sometimes I've had to rate a hub high enough technically that I was sure it was going to pass QAP. I've also known that there was a problem with the hub. I've flagged those hubs. Those that I've flagged rarely show up in the latest hub section. (Some ones that I thought were purely personal have gotten the green light). So flagging really is working on some level.
You can either believe me or not...
In addition, just since I'm throwing myself out here for public ridicule anyway, I have been counting the number of latest hubs and I personally am QAP-ing more each day than are being published.
*edited for embarrassing and unfortunate typo.
Damn, you're right! That witch does have almost 500 words. Never came across that kind of formatting problem before.
Are you sure you wanted to write "pubic ridicule"? Honestly I am not being hostile, scout's honour. You must admit it is a funny typo.
I have often wondered what percentage of new hubs actually passes the QAP. I think what you're suggesting is that most of them don't? But if so many new hubs are published daily, I don't see how HP will ever get around to clearing the site of the bad Google angering content on site already. So people flagging old bad hubs is actually helping the site.
OH DEAR SWEET JESUS...
I'm not sure I can find a care bear for that typo.
I'm saying that I QAP between 100-200 hubs a day and I see about 70-100 new hubs a day on the latest hubs section.
I have a vague idea how many pass through the MTurk queue a day, although not any hard numbers... It is well, well over 100 hubs deep. As a matter of fact I've not seen it under 100 in a couple months.
I think flagging does help and I think we all should be doing it... I'm just saying that bringing them into a public forum might not be the best way to do it.
Actually, you can't NOW, because HP stopped allowing capsules below the comments section, but they allowed those hubs that already had them to remain.
This is an old hub.
Thank you and congrats to aalite for getting the fist two articles (linked above) removed, presumably by posting them here.
BTW, the third one, which is still up, appears elsewhere on the web three times (in part and in full), although I don't know who put it up first:
http://www.globalguideline.com/articles … _in_resume
http://www.globalguideline.com/articles … _in_resume
Again, reporting Hubs multiple times does not make a difference, and long-published Hubs that appear to be duplicate may have been originals that were subsequently copied, so we don't have grounds to un-publish them (unless we have concrete proof that they are indeed copies).
Simone, the older hubs with multiple copies that I have seen typically have many other problems besides just being copied. Do you consider any of the ones that were flagged to be high quality?
Will it get better traction to flag it as a low quality or spun article?
When a Hub that is reported is reviewed, it is carefully examined for all violations. So, it doesn't matter too much which reason you use, but it does help us prioritize and also saves us a bit time if you use the right reason and where appropriate include brief comments that point us to the violation.
Thanks for the info Paul. I guess we are interpreting HP's rules on the number of ads and "quality" much differently than your teams. It would be helpful to explain where we err in our assessments so we quit flagging hubs we consider to be low quality or excessive ad hubs - but are not by HP's standards.
Was this thread ever about dragging hubbers who love to write here and contribute to the community into the limelight for some public ridicule? As Melissa said we have all written some not so good stuff and made plenty of errors in our time.
But there are hundreds, if not thousands, of low quality hubs posted by hubber accounts that only have that one hub or a couple of others. Many are copied, spun; low quality etc. Flagging does not seem to get rid of them unfortunately.
Does anyone honestly think that we need hubs like this on HP or that the long-gone poster is going to care that I have posted them in a forum?
http://sherryhuang00001.hubpages.com/hu … ridge-chip
Most of these have been posted purely for the backlink and probably in the belief that they would be taken down when looked at, so why is everyone so keen to protect and keep this dross?
Surely we can all tell the difference between a genuine hubber and this kind of spammy thing? This is the kind of hub that I call low quality, not the genuine effort of a hubber who struggles a bit with their English or is having a bad grammar or spelling day (which I have plenty of myself!).
Thanks for bringing the thread back into focus CMHypno. It is about these types of hubs you have linked to and not typo errors that conscientious hubbers are trying to address.
Stellar written hubs which have gone through the MTurks QAP but go idle due to low engagement only find themselves returning back to MTurk for review after a title has been changed or a photo added, while hubs like these remain on the back burner. It seems like they may never get to the backlog of these hubs because they are creating a new backlog of tweaked hubs.
Mind you, as far as I can see that hub is idled. If you look at the hubber's profile it says he has no published content. So this is a case were the idling program is working. I think.
I don't think anyone is trying to protect dross... but so far at least two hubs were brought into the forums that didn't need to be.
AA's was a formatting error... which was odd. And I don't blame him at all for missing it. Summerberrie brought one into another forum by a respected hubber that ALSO didn't need to be brought in. That one was a well-researched and written hub that happened to have an off-topic.
It's bound to happen again if we declare open season.
I don't remember who said it, and it doesn't exactly fit, but the quote is somewhere along the lines of "I'd rather free 100 guilty men than imprison one innocent man"
It's kinda like that.
I'm a "she" incidentally. I guess it's hard to tell form the stick figure.
But HP is already "imprisoning" lots of "innocent hubs", by idling well-written stuff that took honest writers (by honest I mean writers who honestly want to provide value to the reader, as well as earn a few bucks) many hours to write.
I wouldn't mind, if it did improve traffic to my surviving hubs, but we are yet to see the traffic improvement promised. My hubs aren't doing any better since idling was introduced in August.
The other thing is, we aren't putting the hubs in prison, we are reporting them to the police, who will then decide whether to unpublish them. As I understand it they have to be against the ToS to be unpublished, so people flagging hubs because they don't like the person, or the topic, isn't going to work.
I really think this thread was started to isolate the hubs that really need to be removed from the site, spun, spam and adult material, rather than a place to carry out vendettas. Of course it can be misused, but I would wait until the misuse actually happens before being against it, it might not.
I am sorry about the gender. I honestly wasn't trying to be insulting.
Not jail maybe but public trial... and like I said before there's already been two innocent.
I know I'm not going to stop anyone, just wanted to make my opinion known. I still don't think it's right.
Well we are talking about hubs not people, but I think that if hubbers drag their personal vendettas into this thread that it will soon be spotted and it will rebound on them.
Quality will always be a very subjective thing, but there are some hubs that fall so far beneath the bar that they are just clutter. Get rid of them and lighten this place up. Idled or not, just clear them out.
So many hubbers are moving perfectly good hubs to other sites as soon as they are idled, that HP could become a site that contains nothing of any interest or depth at all.
This used to be a tolerant place where writers could pursue high traffic/high earnings. write on topics that interested them knowing that the traffic was not likely to be high or do a combination of both.
Yes except that you are utterly wrong if you want to pretend that accusing someone of having a bad hub and then it turning out to be fine is the same as "imprisoning" a man. In that analogy, it would be "accusing a man"
So unless you want to say '"I'd rather free 100 guilty men than accuse one innocent man and then let him go freely and happily" you are entirely mistaken.
Way to go Melissa. You must be a fast rater. I can't sit at computer so long to be rater QAP. I know if you edit a hub, it goes through QAP. At least it doesn't get idled at that point, hopefully!!!!!! I know sometimes they might.
Based on the link posted earlier about where to look for bad hubs - this thread is indeed needed.
It does get frustrating when folks abuse the system.
Compare http://mikegike1.hubpages.com/hub/Worlds-biggest-carp to ht tp://www.anglersnet.co.uk/News/giant_carp.html or ht tp://www.anglingthailand.com/news.asp?id=49
I can't help but think that there are other cues that can help identify poor hubs. I have found hubs with no capitalization, titles that wouldn't come close to passing a spell check, super short hubs with tons of photos of women, etc. It also begs the question that if an author has one hub like this, are there more?
I am glad that the new system stops new hubs from getting published, but imagine what some short term temporary hires could do to remove some of the old junk.
It is definitely better than it ever used to be!
That Carp Hub is a complete copy of the link that you sent to!
For all those people that are claiming that the new system doesn't allow for these hubs to be featured, the carp hub is very much featured!
It even uses the exact same picture from the website!
Very frustrating indeed.
http://dawallstreetkid.hubpages.com/hub … make-money <--this showed up on the feed as being published 2 hours ago. How can that be?
So much for my earlier statement thinking that these don't get published anymore...oh well...
It showed up on your feed, not n the main HP hubs feed.
It's not yet featured.
Open the hub, right click and click on 'View Page Source'. Then hit the keys Ctrl + F. A search box opens top right of your screen. Then put in the words "Noindex" without the quotes.
If those words show on the hub, it is not featured.
Deserves to be flagged, all the same, IMO.
I flagged this one, too - the other day, I believe (I remember the Hubber's name). Just flagged it again, for good measure. The person either wrote it on a cell phone, with major typos (nah - even auto-correct does better than that), or cannot write in English. It's drivel, poorly written and horrible spelling. The writer says he is from the US. Sad stuff.
I found it and flagged it too. It is a very pathetic hub with poor English and may be spun.
Flagging is useless. You guys are wasting your time doing this.
And yet...it is gone now, along with the single other hub that that "author" wrote and I flagged. Funny how that happens.
Hey wilderness - want to flag this blatant copy from the web I posted in a forum today - http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/109901#post2339158
The offending hub is still up, so no-one listens to me.
Izzy, it is not a copy. Four separate checks for copied phrases found nothing.
It is quite similar - not spun, just re-worded - but I'm not sure that either HP nor google would consider it a duplicate. Same information, same general layout, but little in the way of actual duplication or copying. Copy/pastes into google search of:
"work during world war II.And computer ethics deals with the various security like",
" Physical security
now we can discuss about the different security in computer ethics in detailed" both show no copies.
"Physical security refers to the protection of hardware,facilities,magnetic disks,and other items that could be illegally accessed,stolen,damaged or destroyed.Thjis is usually provided by restricting the people who can access the resource." shows multiple copies, but only if the misspelling of 'Thjis" is corrected.
That's something I'd like to see HP comment on - is it considered duplicate? Would they like to see it flagged, or is a waste of time?
If nothing else, the site should examine the poor writing in the summaries (which only appear on the profile page). The summaries are not written in the same style as the hubs, but there are mistakes in both. If this person's work passes all filters here, then the standards are pretty low.
There are a few more words in the hub, but to me it is a copy. Many phrases and word orders are identical. Obviously putting in a few spelling errors is a Get Out of Jail Free Card, so something is wrong with that system.
That's what I mean. I found some duplicate phrases, but some that are not as well. Plus, of course, the misspelling, presumably from typing it over rather than copy/paste.
I'd like to know if HP counts it as duplicate or not. I probably would, but they're the ones making the rules.
Guess they do.
The offending hub is unpublished.
Thanks for your help
Izzy (and Wilderness) - that Hubber has been banned completely! Proof that this thread is serving a purpose! Several of us flagged the hub (this refers to the hub by iamvijay, right? I even flagged his profile, because all summaries were poorly written and in a different style from the content of his hubs.
You are right - this thread, and others like it, is serving a purpose.
It's just such a pity we have to hold these hubs up to ridicule to get action. A simple flag or ten should do the trick, but doesn't, frequently.
Good to know, and pretty much answers my question as to whether it should be flagged! Something I'll keep in mind - I usually make a quick check for copied material (although I would not have found this one) when hopping.
In HP's FAQ, look at #13 in the section "Publishing Rules and Policies." It links to a Wikipedia entry on the subject of "substantial similarity," which may be the situation in the Hub described here. As I understand it, a Hub that contains substantial similarity to other material on the web should be flagged, even if there is no actual duplication or copied content involved.
well, definitely time for me to stop looking. I came across this masterpiece:
"Micro-sub-Kai's death, his brother ascended the throne in micro-sec-, micro-Zhong shall be the ancestors of Confucius."
Bonus points for the person who can translate this...
Ginny, flag it. If its not readable, it is either spun or translated. Native English speakers tend to have problems with grammar or spelling, but it usually can be read phonetically.
Just to prove a point, check here: http://hubpages.com/hubs/latest/
You'll see where Wayne Brown published a hub only a short time ago and now it's featured on the front page. you can go to his profile and see it was featured instantly, whereas mine was just featured after having been published 13 hours ago. Mine appears nowhere in sight even though it was published 12 hours before his was. Certainly not blaming Wayne for this sorry state of affairs but then why is his work given special treatment? Both of our hubs are CW in nature but his gets instant recognition while mine will be placed way back in the listing for no reason whatsoever.
I'd like a reason for this from someone. Not a vague answer but something I can really buy into. I think we all are deserving of an answer, as far as that goes. This is hurting all of us, people!!! Unless we demand some answers nothing will ever change here for the better!!!
I'll have to agree with Mr.Hat about the total lack of communication from staff on this. I know you are reading this Paul E and Simone!
Same answer you've been given over and over:
No answer at all, IMHO! I desire something concrete, something we can put a bit of trust into. as has been mentioned several times the amount of trust in HP decisions lately leaves something to be desired, especially as there is simply no reason for it to be otherwise. This smacks of simply refusing to to answer the question the first time around. It's not as if I am trying to game the silly system in the first place, wilderness.
I suppose I'll have to start a new thread to get a plausible answer. You saw how that turned out last time when you were making all sorts of guesses on your own and how contentious the thread turned when the questions were simply ignored. Want to go through that again where several folks got unnecessarily banned?
But, I suppose a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. The rest of you can simply make excuses for their refusal to cut to the chase and get plains answers. No clear communications from the top. Nothing new, nothing clear, nothing believable, nothing! You can swallow this BS, not me!
Whether you find truth or lie in Paul's statement is up to you of course, but it's the answer we've been given.
You can also find in the forums where the general reason was given as a test in conjunction with the QAP; you've been told that several times as well. I don't expect him to provide detailed information on just how or for what specific purpose it was done as that would undoubtedly defeat the purpose and neither should you.
But certainly, open another thread if that's what you gotta do.
So how would explaining the concept defeat the purpose, wilderness? Please elucidate if you aren't simply guessing as you are prone to do.
Sorry, Randy, but if you can't figure out how making that public would destroy it's effectiveness (without knowing the details, no less,) I can't help you. (hint: think about the "blind" in blind studies)
No I don't get it, wilderness. How does trusting those who are known for creating honest content endanger anything? And lets not fool ourselves, If HP doesn't have enough info on those of us who have been here this long then I don't know when it will. It apparently has enough on those who haven't been here as long according to the latest hubs page.
And as I stated before who would want to copy something from a failing enterprise? And HP is essentially just that at this point. I've just had several hubs idled which have garnered enough views to keep them featured, losing all of the links they've gained over the years, not to mention they've earned both HP and I money and I'm plenty pissed off about this now. Do I think I deserve an explanation for this while pure unadulterated junk is still being promoted on the site? You're goll danged straight I do! Now give me the trite "HP is a business line" as you are prone to in these situations. Better yet, don't even address me anymore, you have nothing to offer but platitudes.
Why are you losing backlinks unless you're unpublishing them voluntarily? Going idle (un-featured) does NOT mean unpublished; the hubs are still visible and any links still work. A link checker will find nothing wrong with the link, so I'm not seeing why they would lose backlinks.
You're right - you deserve an explanation. You got one, many times. That you don't believe it doesn't make it wrong, though.
I assume that if hubs go idle - sorry, *cough* unfeatured then they no longer function as dofollow backlinks. And that if your now-idled hub is part of a backlink chain, then it's effectively broken the chain by going idle.
Perhaps a nice staff member can confirm or deny what I've just said.
Looking at one of my own idled *cough* hubs I don't see a nofollow designation although it has several links to other hubs. (Do we get put in the corner for coughing?)
I'm not expert enough to know if that answers your question, unfortunately. Anyone else?
Keep it up, wilderness. I'm gonna be on your back when this all falls through. Count on it. Spin it then.
Actually, it was an honest question, a request for information just as yours was. I can't understand why you would lose backlinks from being idled - what is your reasoning there?
Do you have information, experience, data or is it just an unconfirmed guess like you accuse me of?
Have you lost backlinks to idled hubs that you did not unpublish?
I don't know. wilderness. I don't care to waste my time looking at this point. They can idle everything I have if they like. I'm gonna stop worrying about their silly system as I'm not going to put anything worthwhile here until I get some honest answers from staff. I don't think hell will freeze over anytime soon either.
"I've just had several hubs idled which have garnered enough views to keep them featured, losing all of the links they've gained over the years"
Thanks for the clarification. I won't be concerned about it then.
I'm not sure if idled hubs *do* lose backlinks, I Started a thread about it here and I would invite all of you to share your experiences and any studies you have seen: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/109932
This is my understanding about what they lose.
The ability to gain natural backlinks over time.
Idled hubs lose the internal links within HP while not featured. Or at least they are not linked to the featured topic page nor or they featured at the bottom of other hubs "you might enjoy"
I couldn't help but notice the handsome white hat Wayne Brown is sporting in his profile picture, you reckon that's why?
Your new avatar is a step in the right direction, Randy, as you appear to be wearing a head covering (is it a baseball cap)? Perhaps if you progress to something a little bit more chic and white.....
I have dark hats as well, but that's my summer hat. Sadly, someone has already registered www.HatPages.com - Quality erudition for those sartorially sporting dapper headwear!
LoL Paul, this will probably start a fashion trend on HP, all the avatars will be soon be wearing white hats! But, you will always be the original Mr. Hat.
Did you see my just featured hub listed on the latest hubs, aa? Nope it's still nowhere to be found unless it's 10 or 12 pages back. Meanwhile, one of the favorites has just instantly published another hub. One with less time here than me. FUBAR!! No, I don't expect a reasonable explanation for this because there isn't one.
Yep I have seen the featured list. And I'm not on it, even though I've published a "stellar" one about 10 hours ago. But really I don't think you will get any more answers from the staff than what Paul E has already given us. They are testing something, they've picked some people as test subjects for this, and they get insta publishing. That's it. They are hoping to be able to extend this program once they get more data.
I don't think we are going to get any more than this, no matter how many threads asking this question are started.
No, we apparently aren't going to get any straight answers from them, especially with some so up for making excuses for them. This is what I abhor about some of the titled hubbers. The same thing happened with the mis-titled "elite" program members. It seems to give some the idea they know more than they do.
Well I've decided to take my own advice and put on white hats as well. I await the special treatment!
This is totally unfair; this system is ridiculouos - I look terrible in hats!
My wife said I looked great in a cowboy hat - does that count?
Unfortunately, that was nearly 40 years ago...
Pull it down low over your face, Simey. That's where you've been messing up!
Perhaps you are on to something, aa. Now if I can convince myself HP knows what it is doing I'll start making excuses for them also.
And that is all I have ever wanted I don't think I've ever been an original *anything* before!
Just discovered my latest hub on page 4. I am so disgusted with this place and those running it!!
Yes, wilderness. According to HP's standards, you are definitely a "quality" guy.
Then either you or HP definitely needs to notify Google of that. They don't seem to understand...
Ha! Have you seen what the word "quality" means on HP, Wilderness? I hope none of my hubs fits HP's definition.
Overall, I would agree with their idea of a stellar hub. When they try to decipher what Google means, however, I've got to agree. eHow trash isn't quality and if that's all I could manage I'd unplug the computer and use it to beat myself over the head. If HP ever decides that's what they want even you will see nothing but my backside in the rush out the door.
http://narenare.hubpages.com/hub/clinno … it-or-scam
I still think a big segment of hubs can be systematically identified for more in depth review:
1) Hubs . with several punctuation issues . I recognize that people;make mistakes in writing,but the recurring use of these types of errors,however innocent,seem to be indicative of problematic hubs . .
2) numerous sentences that all begin in lowercase letters. irritating. in some cases, it might show that the hub needs further scrutiny.
3) Hubs outside of poetry categories that are less than 50 or 100 words, but have numerous photos may indicate that this is not a high caliber hub.
4) Hubs with numerous
paragraph breaks in the middle of a sentence
seem to be another clue that the
hub may not be of the
5) If a hubber has one hub like that, it is worth an additional review of their other hubs.
6) If there is a hub in the category "Eye or Vision Health" but there is no text in the hub that relates to vision, eyes or optics, the hub should be reviewed.
I do not advocate automatically deleting or unpublishing these, but they should be flagged for manual review. Let the humans make the decision on whether to keep it or not. I bet some programmers can find a way to check for some of these.
3) There is a category for pics with little text, so they're OK.
6) In such a case it would be a deceptive title, and against the rules anyway.
But yes, those are giveaways that it needs look at. Good list.
Hubs in ALL CAPS TITLES are another none-too-subtle clue that there may be an issue:
http://faucetman886.hubpages.com/hub/do … faucetIbuy
compared to ht tp://www.articlesbase.com/home-improvement-articles/does-it-matter-the-type-of-faucet-i-buy-after-all-i-have-granite-countertops-isnt-that-enough-669656.html
Sum total of hub text:
"Incredibleindiatourpackage. com offers - incredible india,tour packages,honeymoon tours,kerala tour packages,rajasthan tours, http:/ /www.i ncredibleindiatourpackage. com ,hotels in india,festivals in india and all tour,travel and tourism services."
Plus a crappy video lasting about 40 seconds .
http://umastone.hubpages.com/video/Incr … ur-package
Are video hubs allowed to have only the video and no text?
40 seconds of mainly out of focus video on what is a purely promotional hub for an Indian travel agent?
What I mean is, is it a rule violation that should be flagged? I've never produced a video, don't want to, and have never read the rules on a video hub. The bottom text might be flaggable if it had links as overly promotional - designed solely to promote that business but they're not links.
I looked in the learning center but found nothing - I don't know if there is a minimum word count necessary, or even a minimum video length.
I think videos with no text are ok according to HubPages. This is what they say no the rating FAQ at MTurk:
How should I rate an article that consists of a video only?
Watch the video and rate the video in this case. If there is no writing, then make your grammar and mechanics judgment based on how the person or people speak and the words that they say in the video. If there are no words, and thus nothing to judge, then just give it a grammar and mechanics score of 5 or 6.
I suspect that a rating of 5 or 6 is actually a pass in the current QAP system.
There certainly are a lot of exceptions (whether authorized by policy or not).
I still find many hubs with 16 amazon ads and one or two very short paragraphs.
HP still requires, as far as I know, 50 words of text for every amazon product (product, not capsule). 16 capsules would require 800 words, more if there are more than one product per capsule.
"required" - yes. "enforced" - ?
Look at some of the hubs shown...
Outside of some older hubs, don't think I've ever caught that particular violation. I've seen some that came awfully close - had to count photo captions and such - but never violated.
It would seem an easy matter to count words with software, though, and nearly all of the older hubs should have been caught when the 50 word rule went into effect.
Another complete text:
"You must visit Benidorm on 17th March because you'll have fun in the famous party of Saint Patrick Day. Starting at 3 pm, everyone wears green and enjoy this festival in the famous square of Benidorm.
As you can see from the photos, the whole street was full of people to celebrate this day. Between beers and laughter will spend a good evening.
Besides the weather in Benidorm for March is very good so you can make the most of this great party. Don't forget your costume!
So if you're thinking of coming to benidorm in your group of friends or family, this company www. cheaptransferbenidorm. com can pick you up at the airport at very low cost prices. It has up to 7 passenger vehicles so you can travel together."
http://vero4travel.hubpages.com/hub/Sai … n-Benidorm
Oh it has 5 photos, so I suppose that makes it a stellar hub
Boring Indian auntie pictures, all watermarked, all presumably stolen. No text.
I have flagged this garbage several times over the last few months, but it is still here and still featured, as is a second pretty well identical auntie hub.
Another one I have flagged numerous times, but still here.
Total Amazon adverts = 8
Total hub text = 292 words plus links to unrelated hubs presumably written by the same person
Breaks rules for word to ad ratio and for unrelated links, but obviously considered a valuable hub
http://miyakiya.hubpages.com/hub/Golden … ver-Clocks
The 50/1 ratio doesn't seem to be enforced uniformly.
http://niyazk.hubpages.com/hub/How-to-F … s-for-Sale
~400 words and 13 ads.
It makes me wonder why there are so many "exceptions" for the copied hubs, spun hubs, etc. I bet with today's computing power, it is possible to identify the hubs that have too many ads or other problematic characteristics.
456 words, but it should have 650. I count 96 in the capsules as well for a total of 652 but I always thought those didn't count unless you typed them in.
It's an old hub, though, and I know they didn't all get caught then. Which is the most likely reason for that "exception".
399 words; if you count the title (which I don't think you do) it's enough.
Two unrelated links; I would flag it even though there is a very tenuous connection for the links.
Do the HP staff write Hubs? Is there anywhere we can see them? Might be interesting to see what they produce in relation to this discussion.
All of these people must be so excited about the sudden surge in traffic =/
I've actually thought of that, Len - I wonder how many clicks these substandard hubs get just because people are reading and checking to see if they agree there's a problem. Oh well - if it rids the site of bad news, that's a good thing. And people who are banned probably don't get the payment, anyway.
I get just a teeny bit worried when I get 'direct' hits on my hubs, in case it is the QAP team deciding to unpublish or idle.
In fact, on the days my hubs get idled, there is always one or two hits from within HP itself.
I have almost another 100 hubs idled now, on top of the 150 already idled and unpublished.
Soon I won't have any content left
I feel bad now. This hubber contacted me via Google + and has more or less accused me of ruining his life. It's not my fault his English is not good, nor that he had copied content. But he says he is never going to forget what I did to him
I wouldn't worry too much about it. I think it takes some gall to publish copied content (basically stealing) and then make you feel bad about reporting that. Best ignored.
It is indeed a hazard of this kind of thread. With FB, G+, twitter, Linkedin, etc. we're spreading out and identifying ourselves as we do; we're traceable. We're also quite vulnerable to being followed and harassed if we upset anyone.
But without this kind of thread, HP refuse to act on flags which we can send anonymously.
So, in the interests of the site, I will continue to flag, report and bring to the forums hubs that contain rule violations.
Even if the price means I have to feel bad now and then, or risk getting stalked online.
It's not as if I use much social networking, so how much harm can they do?
Truthfully, Izzy, I don't know. The "Dan Gordon" in a different thread on internet thieves appears to be a good sized outfit, probably with more than one thief, and far more knowledgeable about the net than I am. Quite capable, for instance, of stealing everything I have 10 times over, putting out 10,000 backlinks to my stuff overnight, click fraud on my ads or who knows what else. We run a risk by going public with complaints - the question is how much risk?
Nor am I convinced yet that flagging doesn't help. The copied hub you referenced earlier you flagged, I didn't and it's still gone. So are a couple more that people complained weren't removed within an hour or so. We aren't making the final decisions and it can take some time for flags to be looked at - flag only for TOS violations and maintain your credibility there and it seems to me that most if not everything you flag will disappear within a day or three.
Well, then he needs to add several others to his hit list. Just because you know how to cut and paste content from the Internet doesn't mean you've 'written' a hub. And it's hard to believe someone here such a short time has had their 'life ruined.'
Gee, are you saying if someone has been here four years their life could be ruined by the actions of a few bored hubbers?
Izzy, how many hubbers have lost earnings over the last couple of years because someone has decided to scrape and thieve their content? If this person has copied content which belongs to someone else, then he is the one that has ruined a few livelihoods. Has he apologised to those people? Probably not. That's a classic deflection; blame others for your own wrongdoing. You, Izzy, have nothing to feel guilty about. You have probably prevented this person from thieving even more content from the rightful owners.
Don't feel bad. Apparently he didn't read the TOS about stolen content. That's not your fault. Anyway, he has probably already signed on to a proxy and started another account here.
If we incorrectly flagged a hub as being in violation of the TOS, then I would like to have that feedback so we recalibrate our expectations. Maybe some of those were legitimate and we erred in flagging them?
http://maudiojazz.hubpages.com/hub/Free … ower-bills
this is almost verbatim from at least 2 years ago.
The Hub was published before August 2010, so most likely that URL you listed was copied from the Hub rather than vice versa. If we don't identify duplicate content when the Hub is new, it's usually not actionable because there is no way for us to be certain which was the original source.
again - virtually identical
Here is another substandard hub of 255 words and containing no factual information whatsoever.
http://tommieg43.hubpages.com/hub/Ghost … You-decide
It was written yesterday and is featured!
It's idled though, if you look at his profile it says he's got no content. I don't think hubs are flaggable just because they are short. So this is an example of the idling program actually working.
Oh that's right, I thought I saw it featured!
I think the authors assumes HP is a blog - hopefully he'll come to the forums and we can point him towards the learning center. It may be short but it does look like he can at least write a bit - so there's hope!
It's confusing because even if they are idled, they still show up in the spotlight or whatever the slideshow of hubs is called.
Actually, yes, one of the reasons you can flag for low quality is if the hub is too short. If it is blog-like, that's another reason.
You are right Marcy, I now remember there is a "low quality" setting. Still I wouldn't bother flagging hubs that are idled anyway, unless they were truly offensive.
I'd disagree. I don't know if idled hubs (which google can and will see) will affect the "Panda rating" or not.
If they do, those hubs need gone. Plus, of course, they violate TOS.
I agree with Wilderness - it's the only way to keep the quality standards. And I do think those hubs count against our overall rankings in Google. We have seen how they affect our own subdomains, so why wouldn't they have some impact on the whole site? It appears to be less of an impact than having indexed hubs that are grossly low-quality, but there's still an impact.
It is featured. You were right first time.
This must be the QUALITY CONTENT we keep hearing about.
It is featured after all! Ahah.
It's still up too!
Help me out guys.
http://tommieg43.hubpages.com/hub/Ghost … You-decide
The hard part here is where do you draw the line? While it's not the greatest hub in the world it does have an opinion, it is written in English and the English isn't too bad. It's short, and it's missed the point of Hubpages but what exactly should be considered a featured hub and a non-featured hub?
BTW I'm not saying this should be featured, I'm just trying to get a consensus on what should or should not be flagged.
Yep, sorry about that, it wasn't when I checked, maybe it was still with Mturk. So they basically pass something like this.
So this is either an example of Mturk not working every time, or the fact that, as a staff member said somewhere, the threshold for publishing is set very low at the moment (presumably until the iron out all the problems).
I'm also not sure about where to draw the line Simey. Personally I prefer flagging hubs that are more obviously bad than that one, although I agree it is not what should be published here.
It seems to have none of the criteria that is required for a hub, it is just an announcement that this hubber will talk more about ghosts in the future.
I feel like a hub that contains no factual information at all, no creativity, and promotes some sort of future work is far below the line of what should be on HubPages!
As far as flagging goes, does it violate the rules and if so, which one?
That's the problem as far as I see it. Bland, vacuous content with no helpful information will pass the QAP here, because all that matters is for the MTurkeys to rate in the same way as HP staff. According to their forums, some MTurkeys have been chastised and their pay rates cut for being too strict. Personally, I would give them a medal for attempting to judge by true quality criteria. However, as in so many other contexts, it's those that lick the orifices from where brown stuff originates that get the money.
We have already been told that for us non-Mturkey plebs, flagging on the basis of quality will not be acted upon. Our flags will only work if the tripe in question triggers other alerts such as spun text, illiterate text, pixelated/watermarked images. Fortunately, the losers responsible for the crap will often breach those other guidelines. It is probably better to flag on these criteria rather than on quality. Unfortunately, quality on HP simply means traffic.
People already scream to high heaven when a hub is unpublished for a clear rule violation; can you just imagine the uproar if HP did it for unspecified "quality" (meaning real quality, not he HP use of the word) issues as defined by them? Like that "Bland, vacuous content with no helpful information" you mention?
You don't like it, I don't like it, but how would you feel when the hub you wrote so passionately on was declared by HP to be bland and vacuous?
You know as well as I do what I mean by vacuous. I recently saw something very similar to what follows, contributed by one of our oriental friends. It was probably just over the word limit, targeting what the author hoped was a high-value keyword or else relating to his pathetic enterprise, and supplied no useful information whatever. Personally, I am unwilling to defend the purveyors of such garbage.
Sample garbage hub:
We are having the ability to network computers together. When we network computers, they form connections with each other. They form many lakh of connection. A computer network means that many computers are making work together. We are speaking with the computers in network protocol.It is important for "network specialist [hyperlink]" to network computers. ... " [continue ad nauseam until acceptable hub length reached]
This breaks no rules if links kept within ToS. It also supplies no useful information.
This is what I mean by vacuous.
I do, however, agree with you that quality criteria are influenced by those imposing them. Unqualified drones unable to find real jobs may well mark down hub content that is outside the narrowly defined confines of their education and geographical location.
We agree on vacuous, and agree that having someone else determine if our hub is "vacuous" or not is unacceptable.
You and I agree that what you quoted is vacuous; someone else could determine that what you and I have written is also vacuous. No thank you!
What rules there are for "quality" must be detailed, specific and common to all - never subjective. And that's nearly impossible with tens of thousands of writers from all over the world, all writing differently and on different topics. Making such rules is not a task I would contemplate doing; the best I would accept might be a general overview but allow anything not far, far below that level, which seems to be what HP is doing.
They do it all the time with a vacuous process that fades a 'H' to a 'blank' - no rhyme or reason stated - gutless!.
It is a judgement call but 'purely personal' and 'low quality' would be options.
General low quality is a category for unpublishing, and I suspect it sees use. Hubstaff get to make the call.
Unfortunately, we have been informed that mere flagging for low quality by people who do not wish to prostitute themselves in MTurk has no effect.
Writeangled - you constantly are insulting the Mturk population. Please see attached study by NYU showing that a large proportion of workers on Mturk have Bachelor's degrees or higher. (70% in India, 50+% in the US).
I work in a company that has a high proportion of Indian workers with Degrees and I can attest that their qualifications are just as good if not better than the US equivalent - they are also industreous and polite.
If you consider that the minimum wage in India is very low then you might actually realize that Mturk is a good place to earn extra income for them. I also find that most Indian's have a better command of English than I do.
Don't blame the Mturkers and have some respect for these workers you do not know.
http://archive.nyu.edu/bitstream/2451/2 … -10-01.pdf
Wilderness, I will have to disagree here. My exclusive titles were new hubs which derek said passed QAP but they went idle due to lack of traffic. Trying to figure out a pattern can send you bonkers. At least it does me.
+1000 on what Summerberrie said. I've had hubs screened during AP and also screened from the MTurk system (never needed quality adjustments), and then go idle due to low traffic. A hub only a few weeks old will, by nature, have low traffic.
The thing with HP is what they probably thought would happen in reality didn't happen. But they now have come to terms with reality and intend to extend the time before new hubs go idle.
Summer, I apologize - I said that backwards (and edited the comment). Older hubs that hit the QAP for the first time for whatever reason are probably being idled for quality reasons as they should be seeing that "heartbeat" already. Newer hubs have already seen the QAP, are OK and are probably being idled for lack of traffic.
Everyone has some valid complaints and experiences relating to the QAP system. So here's a challenge. Can anyone come up with a set of rules that would filter out everything the way we want to?
I've studied logic, mathematics, statistics, computer programming and I know I could not even come close to producing an algorithm that would do EVERYTHING we want it to. Google, with their billion cannot do it! So if you can come up with the set of rules - post it here - I'll steal it and sell it to Microsoft!!!
That's easy, Simey. The lowest quality that should be allowed is the same quality as my worst hub. Similarly, the lowest traffic should be the same as the lowest I get.
Everyone would agree, as long as it is their worst hub being used as the benchmark. Even the "Auntie" publishers would go along - no hubs that do not contain at least 5 bikini pics and no more than 50 words.
Seriously, I've considered this, and every time I think that maybe I've come up with an answer for a small portion of the general question I find something that would need an exception.
I am having trouble reconciling the "produce high quality hubs" advice from HP with the actual practices of letting these types of articles pass QAP and remain published.
I know HP wants authors to be successful and wants to have a site loaded with high quality content, but it seems like the real message to authors is to publish marginally acceptable content that can make it through QAP. With a bit of planning and luck, the hub will gain traction and you will get views to stop it from being idled. That appears to be the most efficient way to increase earnings based on the time it takes to write one.
Of course, it is a lot more palatable to have a hub idled when it took 20 minutes to write than one that took several hours or days.
I just don't see the actions aligning with their stated goals - or else our expectations as hubbers to what constitutes "high quality" are off base.
Once again, "high quality" equates to "high traffic" in HubSpeak. Not to do with the quality of research which goes into the hub, nor the quality of the grammar or info in the article itself. Yep, a bit confusing to say the least.
Randy, I am honestly befuddled.
As an example, I flagged this hub http://narenare.hubpages.com/hub/clinno … it-or-scam several days ago for being poor quality and for duplicate content. I am sure it was reviewed sometime over the past several days (hubs flagged after this were removed) and deemed worthy to remain published.
What value does this article offer to the reader? It is spam (or else we would all love to GET PAID TO LOGIN DAILY, GET HEALTH TIPS). Does anyone disagree?
The clues that this was spun are all there. There are lots of punctuation errors, capitalization errors, sentence structure errors, meaningless content, comment spam, and even the outbound link goes to a "500 internal server error" page.
Of course, if it was spun, you would expect to see duplicates on the web Google
And, as expected, there are several.
Since we know that this is a "high quality" article (it was reviewed after being flagged and allowed to stay published) then it needs to be looked at for duplicate content. The hub was last updated on May 31, 2011, but the link below shows that the exact wordage was posted to a forum (another spam technique for back links) on April 22nd, 2011. Of course, the hub may have been published before that and later revised.
What have we learned? This article is considered to be of high enough quality to remain published after being reviewed by both HP's algorithms and after a manual review due to the flagging. It gets enough views to NOT get idled (and therefore is earning the author and HP revenue). Even though this hub was copied numerous times in the first several days of publishing to sites like moneyfanclub, payingsites2011, and sharah-walker-opportunity-club, it apparently couldn't be conclusively determined that this was NOT the original, and therefore there are no grounds to remove it.
Is this the stellar hub that we would hold up to Google to prove that the Panda algorithm is wrongly penalizing us? It wouldn't surprise me if it gets removed now...it would surprise me even less if it remained published.
More than likely it gets a free ride--like many others I suspect--because it makes HP money. It seems a bit strange they are using the excuse of they can't find out where it was first published while being so strict on others which do not get the same courtesy. Yes, this is the controversy which has many of us up in arms.
Clearly some of our well researched articles are being given the old heave-ho while this junk remains featured on HP. Once again, HubSpeak enables the QAP to do this. It is a terribly run program and most of us realized this from the very beginning. We seem to be spitting into the wind.
Hey guys here is another new user who has clearly copied all of her content from just one website, I found this website in seconds on Google.
Just take 2 seconds to look at the following.
http://www.factsfornow.scholastic.com/a … a2002450-h
http://deanandrea.hubpages.com/hub/Inte … About-Bear
There are 25 others like this. Of course, they're all featured.
I have flagged this one twice (at least) in the past week and yet it's still posted:
http://oxbonda.hubpages.com/hub/In-some … l-students
Not only is it short and written in something that resembles "Engrish," this Hub also states that teenagers shouldn't have after school jobs because they should be having sex instead. A sample:
(Slaps forehead) I am mystified.
This hub is STILL published even after repeated flags. Why is it still here? Does the author have incriminating photos of HubPages' Powers That Be??
I'd be interested in the answer to your query. FFC!
This hub is not for real. I cannot believe the tone about sex over job could exist on a writing site. I flagged it. Others recently mentioned vanished. Yay
Hard to believe but the "teenagers should be having sex instead of working" hub still exists!! This hub must be bullet proof. I am more sure than ever that the author must have incriminating photos of the HubPages Powers that Be in his or her possession.
Somewhere in the forums in the past few weeks I've picked up that HP isn't real interested in flagging for quality reasons at this point.
The reason is they've started putting older hubs through the QAP and expect to get the low quality hubs that way - it's kind of a waste of their time to keep checking individual hubs that aren't in the queue.
They still want flags for clear rule violations, though - the QAP does not pick those up at all. Just quality.
I think the point is that this hub has been flagged for exactly that reason - rule violations. If a hub violates rules, it is by nature low-quality, because it does not meet the standards specified by the site.
I agree - any hub promoting intimacy among teenagers should be nuked.
Which rule? Overly personal was all I found and that was pretty much on the line to me; not clearly a violation.
My interpretation of 'adult content' would include a hub encouraging sex in teens. This hub says it's preferable that teens not work in order to have time for sex. Another hub says they shouldn't have to go to class.
The 'maturity' of the writer in all hubs suggests they might be in HS - and under 18. All hubs are low-quality, most are short, all are pointless and there are numerous errors in word usage or grammar. Not the worst I have seen, but not someone ready to publish viable content on this site. IMO.
Agree on the adult content as a rule violation, although HP may be referencing primarily nudity.
Low quality, though, is what I was speaking of - it's not something that HP wants to "waste" their time on as they are already working with the QAP to pick that up. Flagging for that just means that it takes extra time to have someone look at it when it will already be picked up without that person's attention. I don't know as I agree with that, but then I don't know the work structure internally as to the specifics of work assignments in the QAP, either.
Well - the 'Hubber' in question here has been on the site for only a few weeks, so their hubs already went through QAP. And, as with many we have seen, they're low-quality. If HP doesn't want this thread to be active, they can permalink it and it will die a natural death.
I know I am tough on how I rate grammar, etc., and I am probably conservative on the adult content thing, but all we have to go on are our personal interpretations of those elements when we flag content. There are some obvious issues that pass QAP - I flagged a hub the other day that was primarily copied from religious material, with a few additional sentences that were 'original,' but very poorly written. It had, however, passed QAP. After it was flagged (by me as well as, most likely, others) it was removed.
I highly doubt the QAP is looking for duplicate material - I don't recall anything about that in the hopper instructions. That's a rule violation that they don't catch, but flagging can and shows why flagging is still important.
The poorly written (low quality) - sounds like you and I would prefer a stiffer standard there, but we don't make the decisions.
I flag em when I catch em, as I suppose many of the other turkers do too, but I'm not actively looking unless one makes me feel hinky.
Remember the new bar has been raised, the hub in question likely wouldn't have passed the new standard (And probably just barely passed the old, according to my guesses on what that bar was and how I would have rated it). The adult content flag is fairly specific in what to flag for and this hub doesn't hit those specifics.
I wouldn't worry overmuch about the hub in question, it will likely be idled for lack of traffic (unless boosted by the backlinks and traffic from this thread)
Good point about the traffic from this thread, Melissa - and I have thought of that, too. We can check the profile if we want to know what's still out there.
I thought we had learned that only search engine traffic kept a hub from being idled? That traffic from links won't help?
Dammit this one is still published!! It's the Hub That Will Not Die!!
I can't figure out what is going on with these.
While they don't look bad, per se, there is something off. Hundreds and hundreds of them were posted in the past few weeks and they all look very similar (starts off with an attributed picture, has 3 ebay products, one link to another hub). But the spacing is off on a few of the paragraph and comma paragraphs which makes me think it was the result of a sentence segment spinner.
Does anyone know what is going on?
Of course, I could be completely wrong and this is an amazingly prolific hubber operating in numerous accounts.
After so many flags over so many weeks, plus the calling out of the article here, it seems like it would have been removed by now. Maybe they are not removing it because if this thread is successful at getting poor hubs removed, then the thread will continue. Maybe they want us to quit posting such ridiculous articles in the forums and calling attention to them, so they're not giving us any positive reinforcement.
It does make me wonder if some hubber's flags are ... well, not counted for some reason. Because if one flag should be enough... why is this not always the case in clear cut examples like this one?
Since several of us have flagged this hub, it appears the things we feel are issues do not rise (or lower) to the level the staff sets as the threshold for moderating the hub. I'm guessing it's just best to move on and address other issues.
Meanwhile - I have to say I'm detecting an improvement in overall quality of the hubs in the hopper - I just hopped several in the past few days, and only had to flag a few. In the past, there were times it was rare NOT to flag almost every hub. Things are changing!
by Sabrina Yuquan Chen (陈玉泉)7 years ago
There are two newly discovered hubbers who have only posted raw translations by using online translating tool, what they did was merely copy and paste the results without doing any further modifications. From the...
by Edweirdo7 years ago
I occasionally hub-hop, but most of the time I come away from it feeling like I haven't really accomplished much as far as "improving HubPages" goes.So tonight, just for laughs, I decided to type...
by Sherri7 years ago
The question of whether poetry Hubs should have 400-word minimums came up in this thread a few minutes ago:http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/70203#post1528809I've been puzzling about what to do with poetry Hubs I've found...
by Sabrina Yuquan Chen (陈玉泉)7 years ago
Not sure which category I should put this inI have recently discovered two interesting ways of writing hubs1. All gemstone jewelry hubs are written the same way, talking about only ebay buying, tons of wasteful and...
by Mikeydoes7 years ago
In light of the Google algo change, it is now obvious and confirmed that hub-hopping is VERY important. I feel that if you publish here, you should hub hop when you can. As it should hopefully increase our revenue and...
by James Paterson10 years ago
it used to be the case that when when you flagged a hubpage, you could comment with your reason for doing such to help the hubteam understand, i used the box to put links to websites that certain hubbers had copied and...
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.