jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (103 posts)

What is the criteria for un-featuring a Hub?

  1. dilipchandra12 profile image76
    dilipchandra12posted 4 years ago

    On what basis a featured hub is going un-featured. Even when the hub is getting traffic from google, will that be un-featured?

    A hub of mine is getting traffic from google, it was now un-featured. Strange! What is the criteria HP is following to un-feature a hub?

    Now it is really a frustrating issue, after that hub is featured, there is no guarantee that the hub will be indexed.

    What is the criteria HP is following to un-feature a hub?

    1. Simone Smith profile image87
      Simone Smithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The best way to gauge the criteria is to look at the rating system that's applied to your Hubs in our Hub Hopper: hubpages.com/hop

      The most common reasons why Hubs (that get traffic) lose Featured status include:
      1. Thin content / not much value added
      2. Poor grammar
      3. Poor organization or formatting
      4. Little additional helpful media

      I hope that helps to clear things up! To shoot for Hubs with very high odds of being Featured, incorporate our elements of a Stellar Hub: http://hubpages.com/learningcenter/Elem … tellar-Hub

      1. profile image0
        summerberrieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Simone, I'm sorry but these are the types of answers that leave some of us hubbers frustrated and discourage. It really is a non answer, because most of us hubbers have experienced our:
        Valued content
        Excellent grammar
        Well organized
        Loaded with extra media
        Hubs to idle.

        1. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
          Marcy Goodfleischposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with Summerberrie - the main factor that idles a hub after it's been published and previously vetted appears to be traffic.  Hubs that have all the features mentioned here can still be idled.

          But - we are told not to delete hubs that have been idled.

          Question - how does Google view traffic in terms of ranking?  If low traffic on a hub that hasn't yet gained traction is not penalized by Google, why should it be penalized here? 

          And if new content is automatically subject to a penalty when it doesn't yet have traffic why write new hubs?

          The hubs on which I'm getting the most traffic have been around for a while & took several months to gain visibility. Meanwhile, several good hubs written on December 31st & approved by 'the system' were just idled today. These were Exclusives titles, which is even more confusing.  We need several months' time to allow a hub to get a history. No hub will ever make it if it goes through several cycles of being idled in its first few months.

          Can someone on the HP staff weigh in on the question about how Google views traffic numbers in terms of ranking?

      2. Marisa Wright profile image94
        Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Simone, could you clarify this post?  It's a bit ambiguous.

        In the past, you've confirmed that if an existing Hub (which hasn't been edited) loses its Featured status, it's because it's not getting enough traffic.

        But in this post, you seem to be saying that existing Hubs can lose their Featured status for other reasons, too.  If so, what's the mechanism that causes that to happen?  Are existing Hubs now going through the QAP?

  2. janshares profile image89
    jansharesposted 4 years ago

    Simone gives a much more detailed answer to this question in a forum I posted a few weeks ago. I found it very helpful as it clarified a lot of confusion. Put "Criteria for Idling a hub" in the hubpages search. It will be the first one that pops up. I hope this helps.

    1. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
      Marcy Goodfleischposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jan - I just found the thread to which you're referring. The answers there are still not detailed and clear. Saying things vary from Hubber to Hubber is subjective and not helpful for those of us who have hubs that have passed the 'quality' review, but get idled for traffic data.

      1. janshares profile image89
        jansharesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. It clarified and validated that it IS all subjective to an extent. Now that I know that, I know what to expect. I'm just waitng for the next one to bite the dust and edit the ones that I can. I haven't been here that long so the best thing for me to do is write more to get a better foundation of hubs that will survive as the others become unfeatured. I only have 35 right now. I predict that at least 5 of those will be unfeatured within the next several months.

      2. profile image0
        summerberrieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'd like to know too Marcy. No. traffic does not necessarily mean Google does not like your article. An article could be a well researched informative hub sitting on page one of Google with the search terms of sink holes which would not have an heartbeat until today. 

        The criteria stated by Simone for preventing hubs from going idle go idle all the time. So there are other factors at play.

        It seems HP wants lots of content which gets traffic from Google quickly once published ( I think the AP program is a means of doing this, WIT, ect...). It seems HP is trying to figure out what type of content Google likes using traffic as a gauge.  I think they are going on the premise "if Google is sending the hub traffic, then it is "featured" worthy because Google likes it and if Google is not sending it traffic then Google must not  like the content and it is not feature worthy.

        With this premise in play this is  what the criteria is  for un-featuring hubs.

        Well written hubs passing the QAP will be un-featured if they do not have x number of Google views in X number of days.

        How do you make sure your hubs remain featured
        HP does not know what hubs Google will send traffic to in x number of days==but good luck.

        This is why I THINK traffic should not be a factor in the feature/no feature algo. I think Quality hubs should stay featured once they pass QAP.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think the correct answer is to write content which will draw Google traffic.  That's it!  The other BS is just fluff.  All of this stuff about what to write about, and how to write it, is merely guesswork.  NutPages in a HubShell!  roll

        2. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
          Marcy Goodfleischposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I absolutely agree that traffic should not be a factor for hubs that have already been through the quality check. That would include all AP hubs produced during the six months, (IMO), since they were scrutinized from the very start. It would also include all hubs produced and vetted since the idling process was implemented.

          And, the number of Hubbers given the 'free pass' should be expanded.

          1. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
            Marcy Goodfleischposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            One way to determine who consistently produces good work is to find all those who have produced X number of hubs over a certain period of time (six months? three?), and who have never had a hub kicked back for quality. That should tell the staff that those writers can be relied on to produce good work, and they're productive Hubbers.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Implicit here is that HP knows what google thinks "quality" is and therefore does not need to use traffic as an indicator of that unknown.  Or that google will not downcheck a site for poor quality - something they have repeatedly said that they do.

            I cannot agree - I don't think anyone but google knows that and they aren't talking except in even bigger riddles than HP is.

            1. profile image0
              summerberrieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Deleted

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Check the link Marisa gave a little bit ago from Simone.  HP is determined to get rid of "bad" hubs that google might penalize us for.

                Google will not send traffic to any hub it considers bad; if you get rid of all low traffic hubs you have solved the problem.  Obviously, this cannot be a solution, but it would work, and when modified to an acceptable level of "collateral damage" (I hate that term, but it is accurate enough in this case, just laden with emotion) it is a starting point.

                Basically, then, it seems to me that HP is saying nothing about low traffic hurting HP, just that some low traffic hubs are hurting.  As that is the one thing that being "bad" virtually guarantees, HP will use it while continuing efforts down other roads as well - the QAP, the AP, the expanded hub hopper and who knows what else as their algorithms are not public knowledge.

                I see you replied to Marisa with much the same idea, but I'll leave this anyway as the two are not identical.

                1. profile image0
                  summerberrieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wilderness, I think it is a starting point as derek pointed out. A drastic one at that but a starting point. I hope Hp does not settle with its emergency reaction to Panda as something final. I think HP can do better over time with sorting the wheat from the shaft. Once HP has recovered, maybe they can address ideas presented by hubbers here and incorporate them in their handling of content.
                  There have been lots of good and reasonable ideas which require little staff.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If I thought that the existing QAP/idling process was a forever thing I'd be pretty upset.  I don't.  I think (an assumption here) that HP has worked long and hard on finding a solution and this was what they came up with, but only as a start.

                    There have been lots of ideas, but none I couldn't punch gaping holes in right off the bat.  I don't ignore those ideas, but don't simply accept them either.  Someone proposes an idea my concept is to try to figure out why the uproar over the QAP/idling won't happen again (it won't hurt anyone) while doing some good at the same time.  The ONLY thing I've seen proposed that's any better is to hire a cadre of people to examine each and every hub and even that's questionable as HP doesn't know what google wants.  I also noted in Paul's speech that they've had to lay people off as revenues fell - that not only rules out that cadre but anything else that is costly to implement.

                    SimeyC said it in another hub and he's 100% right - if anyone could provide logic and programming to accomplish what needs to be done they'd be an overnight billionaire.  I see the low traffic as something that HP needs to fix and fix pretty quickly while using minimum resources to do so.  Let this continue for too many more months or consume too many resources and there won't be an HP - it will join the other content farms that Panda murdered.  IMHO.

  3. Marisa Wright profile image94
    Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago

    Here's an explanation I wrote on another thread, which Simone confirmed is correct:

    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/109894#post2338785

    1. profile image0
      summerberrieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think the key phrase here is "we had to do something drastic".

      Part of the catch 22 is using traffic as the criteria because
      High traffic does not always correlate with High quality
      Low traffic does not always correlate with low quality

      Hopefully, this issue of valuing/devaluing hubs based on traffic was just that a drastic measure.

      Hopefully, this means over time HP is looking for a better way to remove the low quality content from this site that is dragging down HP. And not treating high quality hubs which passed QAP the same by placing the no indexing tag on this content. Hopefully, this type of treatment will be a temporary measure.

      There has been numerous discussions about the repercussions of idling these hubs and I'm grateful HP is extending the period for new hubs to gain traffic.

      However, it would be nice if traffic was taken completely out of the equation when trying to remove low quality from HP.

    2. dilipchandra12 profile image76
      dilipchandra12posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I saw the explanation. When there is no traffic the hub can be un-featured, i totally agree. There is something wrong with the hub and it has to be modified or whatever.

      But when there is traffic what is the need to un-feature that hub. Un-featuring a hub with low traffic won't hurt anyone. What does it mean? I agree it won't affect anyone but that affects the author who has written the hub and discourages the author from writing more.

      Low traffic - how much traffic is considered as LOW TRAFFIC??? Can i get an explanation for what is Low traffic?

      1. profile image0
        summerberrieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Your hub might have just got caught in the crosshairs sort of speak. Might just email HP to take a look at it so they can be more specific. Just glancing at your hubs I would be hard pressed to think it was un-featured due to "thin content", ect....and if it is getting search traffic then it might have just been a mistake on their part. It has happened before.

        I think idling hubs based on traffic low or high can "hurt".

  4. dilipchandra12 profile image76
    dilipchandra12posted 4 years ago

    Sorry to say, my question is still unanswered or answered without any clear information.

    When a hub is getting traffic from Google, what is the need to un-feature it? When Google only has not un-indexed a hub (and is attracting traffic), why that is getting un-featured over here on hubpages?

    When a hub is getting traffic from Google and if that is un-featured here, again it takes a lot of time to get indexed back in Google.

    Answer for my question, What is the criteria HP is following to un-feature a hub? STILL UN-CLEAR

    And there is another issue HubPages team should answer. When a hub is featured, it means it is a quality hub and HubPages accepted the same and featured it.

    When that is accepted and featured by HubPages, what is the need to un-feature that hub again??????

    1. janderson99 profile image85
      janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My guess from dealing with a lot of idled hubs is that the magic number is 1-2 hits per day
      => 60 hits minimum after first 60 days
      => 30 hits minimum for last month
      => 90 hits minimum in the last quarter (3 months) for an extended period
      => 450 hits minimum for last 12 months

      something like that.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If I understand Simone's posts, those numbers for the month and quarter can be considerably less for a seasonable hub.  What I've gathered is that recent changes include the idea that a hub might get, say, 400 hits in December and then "coast" until the next December.  Or something to that effect anyway; there were surely no numbers given.

        1. janderson99 profile image85
          janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No number were given. I have a large flock of 'H's that I am ShepHerding and after a while you get an idea of the numbers. I had 4 to deal with today including an exclusive. Ho Hum! All had less than 365 hits in the last 12 months. The horrible freshness factor probably means staleness will threaten them all as time progresses.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well, that shoots down one theory; that the algorithm was run near the end of each month.  I might have agreed as I had 2 a few days ago but yours are dying in the wrong month.  Oh, well.

            If you're right about the 450 then I've got another couple that will hit soon.  When they do, though, they're both gone.  One is a photo hub about a yearly event from a year ago and the other I never did like anyway.  Not much sense in keeping either one.

            1. janderson99 profile image85
              janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I also think they 'reduce the pain' and limit the number of 'little gems' they send out to hubbers to <5 per day. I probably have a backlog. Ho Hum!

              I must admit if I was running a business with 100K of articles getting an average of one hit every 2 days say,  and someone said they have to be dumped, I would resist it. That's a loss of 50K hits a day.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol  Don't say that!  'Cause if it's true, I have a backlog myself - I'm waiting for quite a few from last fall to topple over in their death throes.

                1. janderson99 profile image85
                  janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If you double click 'Featured' you can see all the little lovelies all lined up - I take a pragmatic view and let them go idle because when edited they have a longer amount of time before the grim reaper visits again.
                  Enough of this stuff. Down Scope!

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That's what I do - double click the featured tab.  And I don't edit before they go idle either (and sometimes not after).

      2. mistyhorizon2003 profile image90
        mistyhorizon2003posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Just before I saw this thread I started a new thread where I point out in my opening post that I have just had a hub go 'idled' (non-featured or whatever) when it had received 9 views in the last 24 hours, 24 in the last 7 days and 35 in the last 30 days. In the last 42 hours I have received (and answered comments from two hubbers). The hub topic is on the common mistakes new hubbers make (although I have now slightly amended the title in order to get it 'featured' again). This is crazy!

    2. Marisa Wright profile image94
      Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Did you read the link I gave you?

      HubPages has said that if your Hub traffic is too low, it will be idled, regardless of quality.  They admit that it's an imperfect system but they have decided it's the best option they have available right now. 

      They do not reveal the exact amount of traffic required because they fear people would try to create artiificial traffic to meet the threshold. 

      However, if your Hub was idled, it clearly was not getting enough traffic to meet the threshold, whatever it is.

      1. profile image0
        summerberrieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Marisa
        I miss read his question the first time too. His hub actually was un-featured even though it is receiving search traffic.

        Hence, Simones response High traffic hubs are usually idled due to thin content, poor grammar, ect...

        So Simone pretty much said your hub was idled due to poor quality and not traffic.

        I looked at his profile and spot checked about three of his hubs. They all seemed well written and organized.

        I think he needs to send a link to HP so they can look at it specifically. I remember somewhere in a thread someone had the same issue and Matthew Meyer had it checked out and come to find out the hub was high quality and received high traffic so he said they would fix the error. It is hard to say without actually seeing the hub. Who knows? Maybe he does need to fix grammar mistakes and add content. Maybe he will be willing to provide us with the link to his hub in question.

        1. Marisa Wright profile image94
          Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          He hasn't said how much traffic.  And I've just replied to Simone's reply to get clarification - because if she means what she appears to mean, then we need a further explanation.

          Every exchange I've had with HubPages staff to date says that if you have an existing Hub, and you haven't edited it, and it goes idle, then the cause is 99% certain to be low traffic - because those Hubs do not go through the QAP. 

          So how could his "high traffic" Hub have become idled for reasons of quality, if it didn't go through the QAP?  I'm very curious to see what Simone has to say.

          1. profile image0
            summerberrieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I was a bit confused too. I have not had this particular experience, so I can not add any insights one way or another. Would like to have some clarification, too. Thanks for asking.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Does not editing an existing hub send it through at least the software part of the QAP?  It wouldn't make much sense to send a hub through the system, let it be edited (porno added, or 3 links to a blog?) and never check it again?

          3. dilipchandra12 profile image76
            dilipchandra12posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The hub (that was un-featured) was published on 08/11/11 and that is getting a monthly traffic of 20 - 30 views. Even though if that is low traffic, it was indexed in Google and is getting traffic from there. In that case, what is the need to un-feature the hub. (Now that is featured back after a very minute change).

            I understood the point Marisa said (told by HP). But in what way un-featuring such a hub is beneficial? If that hub is left featured, what is wrong in that? Why isn't HubPages recognizing the best issue that the hub was indexed into Google and is getting from there?

            1. Barbara Kay profile image85
              Barbara Kayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I have a hub that got 48 views that month and got unfeatured. It is a about an over saturated topic though. They don't seem to like hubs about writing.

              1. Marisa Wright profile image94
                Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                On another thread, it's been suggested that internal HubPages traffic isn't counted.   If you look at how much external traffic you're getting, does it make more sense?

          4. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And there's the answer.  Several others have reported hubs getting around 30 views per month going idle, just as the OP's did.  Nothing unusual, nothing to indicate anything but low traffic.

      2. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
        Marcy Goodfleischposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Marisa - you hit on a very important point here - the issue of artificial traffic.

        It's one thing to post your hub in a public spot on FB, or Tweet it, or put it on Pinterest, but it's another to be in cliques on (primarily) Facebook just to get views from within that group.  I guess in a way that might be no different from 'followers' on the site seeing your views on a feed.  But either way, it's incestuous traffic rather than organic traffic.

        You're absolutely right that the site would see people generating artificial traffic if the secret number that causes hubs to go idle were to be revealed. And some people would generate the traffic through illegal means.

        I'm guessing that many of the really wretched hubs on HP (that have, I hope, been idled) have been lingering here for years and the authors haven't been on the site for 2-3 years.  If so, it's a very good thing to have had the idling program going on for a while. I would just like an 'enough already' system to kick in for those writers who are active, loyal and who produce good work.

  5. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago

    It's about time for the "too much information and some will game the system" excuse.  As if the system ain't gamey enough!  roll

  6. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago

    Okay, let's see if I have this right.  HP sets the bar where it gets most of the "non-quality" hubs and idles them.  Non-quality being those which don't draw much traffic, apparently.  These may contain very well written and concise articles, as well as, some which are grammatically deficient and lacking in information.

    This same system allows very well written and concise articles to pass, as well as, some which are grammatically deficient and lacking in information.  Hmmmm.  What am I missing here?  roll

    And HP staff are still pushing the Exclusive Titles for some reason.  This despite the fact we already know they are not much better--and perhaps not as good--as those we create on our own.  These same people are those who designed the test for the MTurks to decide what goes or stays along with other facets of Idle/Feature system.  Not very encouraging, is it?

    1. GinnyLee profile image91
      GinnyLeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't mind hubs being idled if they aren't performing.  It follows a paradigm of "that which does not help me, hurts me."  If you are idled, edit the hub and resubmit and if it gains traction, then great, EVERYONE wins!

      On the other hand, I do have a problem with letting the bad hubs that do get traffic to stay published.  That is short sighted and hurts the community.  Look for "Clinnovo" in the HP search box to see.  It is low quality, spam, copied, and its two links don't work - but it does receive views and is therefore earning money.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        But there's the rub!  HP has no way of knowing if a well written article will suddenly take off, especially if it is idled before it gains any organic links for the short period of time it is indexed.  I will never edit one of my sales hubs here again if it is idled.  I've already deleted some with thousands of views gained in in the past.  HP staff isn't smart enough to predict the future of any such articles.  It is a mess right now for them and for us.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          True, it's a mess ever since Panda.

          Your best suggested option is then to sit back and do nothing in the hope it will change some day?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sez you, wilderness!  lol  I'm not "doing nothing" right now, I'm deleting everything HP idles and not trusting them to do any better than they have shown they are capable of.  Why should I, for that matter?  At least I'm not making excuses for them as some do here.  roll

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry - you misunderstood the question.  What are you doing to improve the site/your subdomain?  Deleting poor quality is an obvious step, but you are very much on record as saying idling has nothing to do with quality.  So what are you doing?  Writing CW in the hopes it will improve things?

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry--you misunderstood the answer.  Did I say I was deleting "poor quality" articles?  Oh....I see....even you guys are using HubSpeak now.  That stuff apparently works on some people already  lol  I get it!  And why should I try to improve things here now as I've no faith in TPTB to do so either.  I'm merely doing what I enjoy with writing my short stories.  I have no chance against HP and their apologists to change anything on the site.  But you can have at it at your leisure as I don't need money that badly, thank goodness.  cool

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I didn't say you were deleting poor quality, just that what you are deleting you don't consider to be a quality issue.

                  I get it, too.  You aren't doing anything, don't care to help with constructive criticism and will instead fill your subdomain with stuff as far as you can get from the concept of a stellar hub or traffic producing hubs.  Good thinking.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Which definition of the word "quality" do you favor, Wilderness?  HP's, or the real one?



                    No, as usual you don't get it.  I'm looking out for myself, just as HP is doing with their "collateral damage" to those who weren't responsible for the Google slaps.  I make money on my CW in my own manner, Wilderness.  I know you would not understand.  And the whole "stellar" hub thing is a joke too unless you are sure they won't be idled also.  Are you sure about anything, or are you merely speculating as usual?  I suppose this must be the "constructive criticism" you referenced?

  7. Barbara Kay profile image85
    Barbara Kayposted 4 years ago

    Marcy, If you are referring to the writer's groups on Facebook, try posting a link there and you'll find out that almost no one reads the hubs of others. Since, I belong to one of these groups, I found your comment a little offensive. I stay on the group, because there is another hubber that writes really good articles about writing and I like to read those and don't want to miss them.. I rarely post a hub.

    I belong to another of the groups, because there are articles on other writing sites posted. Some of these are really helpful.

    1. Marisa Wright profile image94
      Marisa Wrightposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You're assuming that group is the only HubPages group on Facebook, but I think you may find there are others which are private.

      1. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
        Marcy Goodfleischposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Marisa is right - and some private groups have the stated goal of promoting their own and each other's hubs.  They don't allow other postings, helpful articles, anything else.

        I did not say I wasn't on any groups - I'm in a few groups that do some sharing (I generally don't do that), but also exist to be forums for trading ideas, supporting good writing and exchanging professional advice, etc.  I was on another group that focused ONLY on getting views, and I dropped out of it.

  8. Paul Edmondson profile image
    89
    Paul Edmondsonposted 4 years ago

    I'd need an example Hub to see if something was getting traffic/engagement and than not featured.  It is possible that an existing low quality Hub gets un-featured, but it's not very likely because we have been focusing on new Hubs.

    Over the last week, the ratings have really picked up.  We are getting almost everything we want rated now.  We are putting the backlog of Hubs through the autorater and will begin to make progress on the backlog shortly.  We still want to make a few tweaks to the system and do more analysis.

    1. CMHypno profile image89
      CMHypnoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry Paul but I'm confused by some of this.  You seem to be saying that it is unlikely that existing featured hubs will become un-featured at the moment because you are concentrating on new hubs.

      But many hubbers are complaining that their hubs are becoming un-featured and four of mine have gone in the last few days?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, he said that existing hubs going unfeatured is almost certainly due to traffic, not quality.  While it could happen because of low quality, it isn't likely because few existing hubs hit the QAP program.

        1. GinnyLee profile image91
          GinnyLeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think the standards for quality has to be pretty low unless a hub is worse than:



          Yup, that is the entire hub...still going strong since 2009!

          1. GinnyLee profile image91
            GinnyLeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            or the highly anticipated sequel:



            ---again, that is the whole hub---

            So I can't imagine how a hub's quality as part of the idling system can play a factor if these are not addressed as part of the algorithm.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Ginny, what's the URL there (without making it a link!)?  I wonder if they've managed to post a hub full of hidden text.

              1. GinnyLee profile image91
                GinnyLeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ht tp://fourmyrvna.hubpages.com

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Interesting - I did not see a blank page.  I didn't find any hidden text, either, but flagged all three for being too short and of no value to anyone. 

                  HP isn't really interested at this point in flags for quality, I know, as they will be checking everything in the near future, but I did it anyway.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Confused!  Is that quality=quality or quality=traffic?  lol

                  2. GinnyLee profile image91
                    GinnyLeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I really hope the review of bad hubs starts soon.  It has been about two years since poor quality old hubs became a topic of big concern (post-panda).  I am excited to see how this quality review of old hubs works and how effective it will be.

    2. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image93
      Marcy Goodfleischposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi, Paul - I'm really happy the system is at the point of putting the backlog through the ratters (the old stuff, right?). 

      Can you clarify whether, once quality has been reviewed across the whole site, we will still have hubs idled for traffic?  The way I'm reading your comment, it sounds like that's still a factor. Thanks!

  9. Paul Edmondson profile image
    89
    Paul Edmondsonposted 4 years ago

    @Ginny Lee the acct you pointed out was moderated this morning. As far as I could tell (on my mobile) it hadn't gone through the QAP, but it had auto ratings that would have prioritized it highly to be reviewed.

    Thanks for flagging.

    As for the backlog, I'm anxious to make progress on it as well.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Paul, some guidance here?

      Should we stop flagging the less egregious violations, or those that are a quality issue, and quit wasting your time on things that the QAP will get anyway?  Or will our (and the moderators) efforts speed up the effort to get rid of it all?

    2. janderson99 profile image85
      janderson99posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The morale game

      http://www.a1niches.com/snn.jpg

      1. GinnyLee profile image91
        GinnyLeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        awesome!  That is extremely creative - nice job!

  10. Paul Edmondson profile image
    89
    Paul Edmondsonposted 4 years ago

    @wildnerness Keep flagging violations.  We hope you find less as the QAP gets ramped up.  The mods really appreciate when the clear violations are flagged.  With those, it's more efficient to have a mod act than to put all their Hubs through the QAP.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      OK, I wasn't sure of the internal workings.  That answers it pretty well - will continue to flag clear violations and leave the questionable quality for the QAP.

      Thanks, Paul.

 
working