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?
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
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:
Loaded with extra media
Hubs to idle.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here's my suggestion:
=>Spell checker + grammar checker - Use license to www.grammarly.com
It generates a score out of 100. Set the pass mark at 50 say
For your post above =>
Grammarly found Spelling (1); 22 critical writing issues and generated 21 word choice corrections for your text.
Score: 37 of 100
Hubbers could use Grammarly to improve their hubs!!!!
=>minimum number of words say 400
=>minimum number of text capsules or H2 headings say 3
=>minimum number of images / videos say 1
=>minimum number non-advert capsules say 2
OK; I said I could poke holes; I will.
Several of my hubs are written to a particular audience, one that is not highly educated. They were written in the vernacular and language of that audience and I highly doubt they would pass any grammar checker. These hubs are searched out, read with long time on page numbers, rank well, collect organic backlinks and are getting 100+ views per day. All dead with the plan. I just lost 30% of my total traffic.
Poetry won't pass it, either, and neither will photo or video hubs.
3 H2 headings in a 3,000 word hub isn't enough, and neither is 1, 1/4 size photo at the bottom.
A video hub doesn't need a photo unless there is considerable text to go with it. Unless you mean one or the other?
Your #4, I'm not sure of - do you mean poll, table, map, etc. capsules? Very few of my hubs can make use of a map or table. There is often no reasonable video, and I don't make my own. That pretty much leaves poll and quiz - sometimes they work for me, sometimes they don't. Of course, if you include photo and video then I'd have no problems.
Outside of poetry, video and photo hubs, 400 words is too short for real quality - leave those for question answers. Make that 700 instead and infuriate hundreds of hubbers when you do. Including me - I'd like to see it at 1,000.
What about 15 outbound links in the 400 words? Do you want that?
Do you allow lots of bolding/italics? Or one in nothing BUT bold/italics?
Spell checkers - do they accept European and Australian spelling? Is "colour" enough to unpublish a hub? Or "nappie" or "pram"? Heck, what about "bloody" in an informally written hub? Same thing for the grammar checker - does it work for Australian, British or other English users?
Finally, grammarly flunked my post. OK - it's a forum post and not a hub, but...did you have trouble reading or understanding it? I wrote it for hubbers, not the general population and used appropriate (I thought) terminology and formality. Given a different topic and perhaps writing style appropriate for a different audience I would find little wrong with it. Lots of ESL people can't do that well, but still are accepted here - will you end that?
Lots of good suggestions for improvement there - Great stuff!
Grammarly also has a great Plagiarism detector, and importantly provides a score which could be used as a rating --- perfection not required.
Thinking about your post and mine, 2 things come to mind (I know - should not have use the "2" ).
We both have different things we're concerned about - you with grammar and me with appearance and length. I'm sure you are much better at using proper grammar than I, and know far more about Grammarly. I may be better at the use of photos and making a conscientious effort to increase time on page (of which length is a part). Neither of us has any real idea of what Google thinks is important.
The point is we need to be pretty careful in defining that illusive "quality" thing ourselves, and keep those points in mind. While we both might want to see top quality on HP, that isn't the purpose of the site or we would be submitting to world class editors to have every hub proofed. The abilities as well as what others think of quality is something we need to remember as being important, too. Just looking at your post and mine shows that we both care, but also that we think "quality" consists of those factors we're personally good at.
I hope that makes sense.
Another point is that my emphasis is on finding a way to define a 'minimum' standard to remain indexed ( say 50%). I really don't see the point about rating the 'good', once the 'bad and ugly' have been defined. I am starting to suspect that HP wants to be able to say to Google - we have lifted the standard of articles. Here's the facts Mr G - ALL articles have a grammarly rating above 50% - I think this makes a lot more sense that saying all the hubs have a QAP score above 50%, when rated by calibrated MTurks. I know while I would find the most convincing. IMO.
PS I ran my last article through Grammarly and only got a 68%!!!!! But I passed! I now know what to fix!
No, there's no reason to rate anything above the minimum necessary to be published.
I'm not at all sure that Big G cares that much about grammar though. Some of course, but I think there are more important facets to them. Time on page to start with, which goes back to what I said about individual definitions of "quality" - grammar is very important to you so it must be to G. It's not to me, so G doesn't care much either. Silly, yes, but also very human.
I see grammar as a defacto test for spun articles and poorly constructed ones built from copied stuff.
How much would a grammarly licence cost for a site the size of HubPages?
HubPages has said that the reason for introducing the Featured/idled process was cost. They concede there are other solutions which would work better, but they are too expensive. I'm guessing Grammarly would fall into that category.
That's the big question, isn't it? That, and could it replace the MTurkers or would it just be another hoop to jump through and hopefully catch a few more.
Hubbers could replace Turkers... If enough of them would hub hop.
Grammerly wouldn't do it because it can't read substance or organization... I don't think it would catch those rare hubs that are grammatically correct but still don't make sense. It also can't get the 7,8,9 and very rare ten that have a lot more to do with quality of writing rather than grammatical correctness.
Once again, to those hubbers that hate turkers, take our jobs... hubhop. Really. The faster HP gets through the new hub queue (and the cheaper it is) then the faster they can get through the old stuff.
I wish hub hopping worked consistently. For example, I think the below statement (from a 2 year old hub) is low quality and spam and shouldn't represent the minimum required quality of the site. According to HP, I am wrong. If it were posted in the forums, would it be allowed to stay? No. But on a hub that is earning revenue? Yes.
This hub has been flagged several times, but remains published.
We know it's getting views because it hasn't been idled.
It goes to show that hopping doesn't work. We have a different understanding of the minimum quality needed to be published on HP.
Flagging is not the same as hopping. Old hubs for the most part haven't been put through QAP yet. There is some question whether flagging for quality will get a hub idled. Failing QAP certainly will.
Melissa, are you saying that there are two different quality standards? One for the human review that occurs after a hub is flagged and one for the human review in the Mturk process?
Your post makes sense if the quality standard for a review of a flagged hub is lower than the Mturk quality standard. But that premise doesn't make sense to me.
I am not sure I understand your statement.
From the "rumour mill" staff will not act on flags for poor quality unless there is a violation of TOS. I cannot speak to the validity of the rumour mill. However, hubs going through the hub hopper/mturk (same system) will be unfeatured/idled/not featured/whatever due to low QAP scores.
However, right now it is mainly new hubs/edited hubs that are in the hub hopper until the queue reduces enough to sort through older hubs.
I had not heard that, but it does seem to align with what is happening. I really hope that is not the case as it would leave hubbers thinking that it is ok to publish junk as long as HP and the hubber can get revenue from it.
I can't imagine that HP's leadership endorses that, but I am curious what the explanation is.
No, Melissa, I don't think hubbers could (or would) do the Turkers job.
You guys work hard at providing answers in line with what HP wants to see. Few hubbers will do anything but give an answer based on what they think is good irregardless of examples or directions. They aren't willing to be trained as to what HP's standards are and are unlikely to suppress their own personal feelings if they are trained.
ooooh! I suppose they aren't in "the group" either! You kill me, wilderness!
I'm not the only hubber doing turk ratings. I'm just the only one who has poked my head out of the sand. Can you blame the other ones?
I think hubbers are more suited to do the rankings... IF... they can rank objectively. It's hard sometimes, but it can be done.
You may well be right about hubbers doing a generally better job at it - we are far more familiar with the capsules and what can be done there if nothing else.
It's that "objective" part that will disqualify most people, I think. You either bury your own ideas on quality or your ratings are worthless.
I don't get that either... Professional writers bow to their publisher's desires all the time. You don't write an article to your specifications and then complain because it isn't what they wanted. Editors do it all the time too (the ones that don't own the publications anyway). That's how "real" writing works. Yet there are people who are supposed to be "real" writers here that don't seem to realize this.
I've written hundreds of articles about topics I wasn't in the least bit interested in, was told exactly what my word count should be, was told exactly how the point of view should be stated and smiled while I was doing it.
Maybe that's why it's easier for me to accept "This is how we're doing it" "This is how we want it"
As a freelance writer you are going to deal with that on a regular basis. If you argue, you just won't get the job.
That's not kissing the ass of TPTB, that's how the world works. If PE says he wants it a certain way then either write it that way or count guardrails. This, afterall, is HIS site. Yes he needs writers, but he doesn't need any specific writer. There are dozens of hopefuls waiting to take the place of every writer on HP that throws a BF and walks off.
I hope the axes are well hidden - you certainly put your head on the block that time!
You're right, of course, but only if you consider that we're "professional" about our writing. Most of us aren't - witness that it's taken me nearly 3 years to get a copyscape account to protect my own income. How many times have you seen gripes here that "You can write anything you want, but you can't write anything you want".
No, many write for fun, for a few dollars on the side or something else, but few treat HP as a truly professional career or even part of one. We don't want to recognize that we all have a boss of sorts (HP), which is why I say few hubbers would be willing to bury their own ideas on quality to effectively hop and make it worthwhile. I've no doubt that hopping is valuable to HP, but not in the same degree that you Turkers are.
HP has never been, nor ever will be my boss! The idea is horrendous to me in the extreme! I think I'm beginning to see the problem.
I don't give a flying f at a rolling doughnut about the axes.
And I know there are lots of people here who do it for the fun. I'm actually one of them for the most part. I write about things I actually care about here... rather than the stuff that makes me rip my hair out other places. Honestly, my writing here likely wouldn't sell anywhere as I'm not as polished when I rip out a hub... which is obviously something I should work on myself.
BUT if you are wandering around here bragging about how good your writing skills are and expecting to be treated as a "professional" then you need to act like one. If you are going to pass judgement on another amateur's writing then you better be ready to pull out your credentials.
If you are going to be a Diva, you better have something to back it up with.
For me, however, I'll just keep plugging along. If PE wants me to write 1200 words per hub, I'll either listen and publish or not listen and take it somewhere else. I'll not argue about his rules in his house.
But thank you for saying how valueable we are. I've got plenty of self-esteem, but some of the others not so much. They are honestly trying to help out and don't deserve the crap they are reading on the boards.
I'll go back to prostituting myself again Others can keep flagging 'em and putting them in forum threads for free. We're both doing the same thing... except I'm making money doing it. So while that might, indeed, make me a whore... I wonder what that makes those doing for free...
I must've missed something on this thread, Melissa. I've observed no one bragging about their writing ability, nor acting like a Diva, for that matter. Simply because some of us don't like to allow "low quality" (my definition of HP's term for "high quality") articles to be featured is no cause for you to make personal attacks against anyone. And if you can point out where someone referred to you as a prostitute" or "whore", then I think you have grounds to have whoever did that banned.
But if no one has actually said this about you, then this appears as you trying to inflame others on the forums. Wanta rethink things a bit?
Oh I think we both know who said it
Someone pretending that they are too good to do something that no one wants her to do anyway. Not being able to give away for free what others are good enough to get paid for.
Must remind her of her high-school days.
Go ahead and hit the report button... I'll take the ban
It doesn't do a lot of good to harangue the "workers" about not following the bosses rules, does it? Or to not follow them yourself, for that matter - much like spitting into the wind.
But, yeah, Melissa, you and the other Turkers are appreciated. It looks to me right now like the future of HP may be riding on your shoulders - at least I've heard of nothing else waiting in the wings to try, although I suppose there could well be something.
When I think that you can scan a hub in just a very few minutes, grading it with a 90+% accuracy according to rules that are rather generic it's amazing. It's also so far removed from the gripes that all the Turkers are ESL or worse, are basically too stupid to do real work and that they get paid only 5 cents a hub so must be from Nigeria or somewhere outside the states that it's unbelievable anyone would believe it.
I agree that Paul E absolutely has the right to set standards for this site. But writing here is different from regular freelance writing (I've written and published freelance pieces for many years - at least 500 pieces, so far).
With regular freelance work, you write what the editors want. They dictate the word length, the topic, style, whatever. With HubPages, we are free-agent entrepreneurs. We share a portion of revenue generated from traffic to our work with the site, in return for being given a venue, technical support (if the site goes down, they fix it, etc.). The partnership is intended to help both parties.
So, if quality standards here are lex, it directly hurts writers, not just Paul E. If systems are installed that create barriers for our work to be seen, it affects both parties. In a straight freelance world, it would not matter - the writer gets paid, and if nobody clicks on the site or buys the magazine, it does not affect the writer.
Again, Paul E has every right to establish standards and to filter out work that doesn't meet those standards. But if quality standards are overlooked or compromised, it most assuredly affects the good writers on the site.
How does Google bot assess 'substance or organization'? Why does it matter in terms of a pass mark.? If the hub lacks substance and organization it will lose popularity. You can only measure substance / organization via the word count, number of capsules, number of H2 tags. If the hub has 500+ words, 3 text capsules with headings, more than 2 non-advert capsules and has good grammar and few spelling mistakes surely that is good enough to index it! How would Google not consider it OK? Doesn't these criteria meet what Simone has listed above?
"1. Thin content / not much value added (too few words)
2. Poor grammar (tick)
3. Poor organization or formatting (too few H2)
4. Little additional helpful media (not enough non-advert capsules)"
How long will it take to work through 1M hubs via MTurk?
Here's an explanation I wrote on another thread, which Simone confirmed is correct:
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.
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?
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".
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??????
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
It's about time for the "too much information and some will game the system" excuse. As if the system ain't gamey enough!
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
Sez you, wilderness! 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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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?
Personally, I like the terms quality and, for traffic, traffic. Let engagement stand for time on page. It's probably not the best way to go as HP will continue to use their own jargon and others will inevitably get confused, but I really dislike "quality" for "traffic".
You might be surprised what I "get" - I fully understand there are many ways to make money online. Some above board and honest, some a little under the table and some out and out black hat and theft. We all make our own choice as what we want to use. I have no doubt you can make money with your CW.
No, I don't believe I could guarantee that a stellar hub will not be idled, that it will gain either traffic OR earnings. But you know that, don't you? Anyone that thinks there is ever any guarantee on the net (except maybe that it will change) isn't nearly as smart as I give you credit for.
I wouldn't worry about not attempting to be a part of the group, though. If HP does succeed in pleasing google you can always ride along on their coattails while explaining how it's a good thing to foment mistrust and anger at those innocent of any wrongdoing.
I agree with using the real definition of words and I think HP is aware they are muddying the waters with this sort of tactic. And if this inspires mistrust in the site itself, then they are aware of why. Can you not agree with me on this?
Yes, I might be surprised. I've never written anything to try and "game the system" in any manner but it seems I am being penalized for those who have been allowed to. Do you know who allowed this to happen?
You brought up the "Stellar Hubs" as an example of perhaps something which may be beneficial. "May be" are the operative words. Ah, but you do admit it is speculation now, correct?
Which "group" are you referring to, wilderness? And who are you referencing with "those innocent of any wrongdoing.?" Would "those" be the same people who try to make things sound better than they are? Or those who change the meaning of words to try and make them seem different from their real meanings? You know, Idle...no, unfeatured.....no, normal. Quality.....no, traffic......lol!
No, I have my own ideas about what may happen and right now I don't feel a new hub stands much of a chance to do well with Goolgle having HP on their $hit list. I believe many of the idled hubs are never given a chance to do well because they are idled so easily. Why waste time bouncing new hubs off the wall just have them idled and then deleted. I'd rather wait until I'm assured of not wasting my time and energy on something which--up until this point--has shown absolutely no difference in my page views. And if Google indicates they are going to show HP some love again, then that will be soon enough to risk one's time, not until.
I'd suggest others take the same tack if they don't wish to keep jumping through the hoops for nothing. Besides, perhaps if not many new hubs are produced the staff can clean up the other old junk they've been ignoring for a couple of years. Aren't they always using the excuse they are overworked? See, I do have a plan.
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.
You're assuming that group is the only HubPages group on Facebook, but I think you may find there are others which are private.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Confused! Is that quality=quality or quality=traffic?
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.
Me, too, and Paul says they've almost got a handle on incoming stuff, with the backlog work to begin soon. I wish I though we'd see early results, but probably won't. It will take weeks or months to go through the millions of hubs and results will come slow as well.
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!
@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.
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?
@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.
by Luis E Gonzalez4 years ago
From what I have seen featuring /not featuring a hub does little for traffic and it appears to be a catalyst that is sending authors to other sites (Bubblews comes to mind). My understanding is that once a hub becomes...
by qeyler6 weeks ago
I've been writing here for quite a few years, I go back to the ancient era before the 'featured' 'not featured' declension.I have found that 'fixing' a Hub which is not featured is a total waste of time, as in a day or...
by Simone Haruko Smith4 years ago
Happy Friday, Hubbers!Next week we will be raising the quality threshold for newly-published Hubs (meaning newly-Featured Hubs will, on the whole, be of higher quality) and will also be giving Featured Hubs (for those...
by avan9895 years ago
I been on a couple of days and pretty much all my traffic is from hubpages. I get a couple from digg but that is about it. How are people getting their traffic from google and other search engine?
by Shauna L Bowling20 months ago
I recently had a hub un-featured for engagement, as the half-circle indicates. I think this is an unfair practice and should be eliminated entirely. Here's why I feel this way:Our hub traffic is often affected by the...
by Marie L B15 months ago
I have three Hubs about the 2015 Sydney Siege. They were all featured. They do not attract a great deal of views as these are about a local event. However, only one of them has been demoted a few weeks...
Copyright © 2017 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.