Right at one third of my hubs have been idled over recent months here on HubPages. As I look at the numbers and reflect upon the time spent creating this unique material, I am sadly disappointed.
It is unpleasant to look into the future with so many people having this same problem and folks leaving HP and taking their unique material with them.
When I browse hubs I find so much spam and poorly written content and wonder why hubs of quality are being basically "killed" by HubPages. Not just mine, but 1,000's of others, yet the spam and terrible stuff remains featured and can be found in searches.
I would say my hubs average 700 words. All words are keywords in the eyes of Google. So....HP has killed approximately 27,300 "keywords" by idling my 39 hubs.
Again, I am at a loss why a site would demand unique material, get it, and then kill it.
This ongoing idling process may eventually kill the site. My thoughts on all of this.
Dale, Sorry to hear this is happening? I wonder if you think a certain category or categories of hubs are being idled, like it is topic related? Just an idea, but don't really know why.
In previous posts, mentioned I was feeling "pagan related, natural and holistic" articles were being focused on as those are the most that are being idled.
I've got Pagan-topic articles, and they're not idled. Not high traffic, never were, but idling definitely isn't an issue.
I also have holistic (herbal) articles. They are in no danger of being idled... (for traffic, at least I don't think they are... I believe they are well over the thresh-hold.)
In addition, I am a rater. I have never been told to rate Pagan/Witchcraft/Holistic-alternative hubs low. I've never been told to rate ANY topic low. I would stop rating if TPTB told me that any religious topic was to get a lower rating just because of it's subject.
Objectivity in the QAP process- at least as far as rating and idling- appears to be fair. Raters- in general- don't care what the topic of the hub is, we are rating on the writing/organization. Idling for traffic also doesn't care what the topic is... if the hub doesn't hit the magical number then it is idled.
So basically, if a hub fails for quality it is because it is low quality (as per the "rubric")... it doesn't matter if it's about purple spotted tigers or the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. If a hub fails for traffic, it's because it's not getting traffic. So either it's not being searched for, it's in an overly saturated topic or there is some reason Google hates it.
I know the feeling, I am very disappointed, also
Earlier today, I flagged several newly published hubs, which were either obviously spun/machine translated or overly promotional.
Obviously, these had all gone through the MTurks and been graded as high quality, engaging hubs!
It really disgusts me how bona fide, long-standing hubbers are being punished while garbage is still going through with no problems.
Sure gives a new meaning to the word "quality" doesn't it? What a joke this system has become!
It really disgusts me that they are using Mturk to rate hubs. Think about it... mturk is the domain of desperate "How To Make Money Online" seekers who are willing to work for 17 cents an hour... and whereas they may be "neutral" in the sense that they don't have an active affiliation with HubPages, it also makes them highly susceptible to "quick clicking" in order to make sure their 17c/hour income doesn't drop to 15c/hour...
1. Made 11.78 last hour rating hubs on mTurk. In my nightgown... with my child asleep in my lap.
2. Maintained a 97 percent accuracy.
3. Possess a BA in English.
Be disgusted all you like. All the "dross" that everyone is talking about? Yeah, I've probably helped to remove about 6,000 or so of those hubs. What have you done to help?
And at least some recognize that. There's been an awful lot of total BS about Turkers and the system, mostly based on total ignorance of the requirements of either.
Thanks - whether you're paid or not some do appreciate the effort.
236.5 hubs reviewed in one hour? That is what would have to be done at a nickle a review for you to make that kind of money...That is what was being paid when I did it, five cents a review How did you review that many in an hour?
Melissa can verify, but you don't. Instead you get your own accuracy way up (97% she said) and earn the bonuses which will pay even more than the base rate itself.
Okay. I will take your word on it. This is the first time I have ever heard of such earnings, no matter the means. Just caught me by surprise. Thanks.
Understandable. There have been an awful lot of posts denigrating the Turkers - they are uneducated, stupid, and willing to work for 10 cents an hour because they aren't capable of doing anything else.
The truth is quite a bit different - successful Turkers are none of those and put considerable effort and ability into becoming successful.
I did not got there to be successful.. I am that on Amazon.com as a seller. I attempted Mturks to get a "feel" of what everyone was talking about.
Mark Ewbie posted a link to a Turkers forum - rather interesting as many seem to having trouble earning anything under HP's requirements. It obviously isn't as easy as it sounds.
http://mturkforum.com/showthread.php?56 … g-Hubpages
Most interesting. Thanks for sharing.... At least I know others who had a disappointing time there now, lol. These are the Mturk professionals!
Presumably so, and even they are having a hard time providing what HP wants.
This isn't something thrown together off the top of someone's head. Right or wrong, too high a standard or too low, there's a lot of thought and effort that was put into it.
I particularly liked one comment that "opinions aren't valued" or something to that effect. No, they're not - HP knows exactly what it wants and an opinion as to the quality of a hub other than their own isn't it.
Well, at Robin's suggestion, I did some work on my last idled critter, the Kindle hub and republished it. The overall content can't really be added to, so I added four video capsules for the four Kindles I reviewed. I reckon now it is a wait and see on this Exclusive titled hub, lol.
However, after reading that forum post you shared from the Mturk workers, well, I doubt if they will take time to view the videos! So their rating of the hub will probably be about the same. It is long in content as well, more time they would have to spend on it. But, I will give this one a try.
I may not watch a 20 minute video in it's entirety(unless it's a video hub... then you kind of have to) but I at least scan through them... 1. To see if they are on topic 2. To see if they add value or are spam and 3. Because I'd prefer not let "Debbie Does Dallas" through
You have to remember that thread of MTurk workers are the ones that are pissed off because they were losing qualification... You didn't see any of us that are happily trucking along. If they didn't take the time to read an entire hub then yeah... they probably lost their qualification.
I am getting a better understanding. Thanks. I did not imply that anything was being done wrong by folks not reading a long hub and then sitting back watching the four videos probably for a minimum of 30 minutes combined. I am seeing where a time restraint is involved and how that could have a negative impact on the reviewers.
It would be interesting to see the options offered on Mturks, when you first set up an account to have material reviewed. That, however, I will never see as I am not a company with material to review.
I would imagine that HP has put considerable effort into this review process with Mturks and that they would be aware of the workers there not being too happy. How to change it? Well only Mturk and HP would be able to work on the process. Maybe change is in the future.
My understanding of the workers there, now, has changed quite a bit and I realize that there are many there who take the job seriously, but have problems with the HP rating system.
And that's the damn truth
There's a bit of wiggle-room, but not a lot. It does make for consistent QAP numbers though.
Transcription on MTurk can pay up to 18-19 dollars an hour if you are a fast and accurate typist.
There are some other requesters that can range between 14-16 dollars easily.
There's a learning curve to MTurk... a rather sharp one... and those who know how to do it are unwilling to make the helpful tips well-known as they are competing with other workers for the jobs available.
LOL. With bonuses they come out to .31 a piece. I had done 38 of them the hour before the post.
Sadly it's the way the web is going - Squidoo have just implemented a policy to review every lens too. It takes weeks to get articles on Constant-Content (and heck you get shot down for using the wrong font on there).
I like the idea of a QAP process but it seems to have huge flaws at the moment.... it'll be interesting to see what happens over at Squidoo!
The only way HP can ensure quality is to employ editors - but as this costs money there's no chance of that - unless they can get money through 'crowdsourcing'!!!
There are now 3 Content Quality Managers on the staff list!
Weeks to get articles on CC? Mine have been taking a few hours - sometimes less time.
yep just got a prompt when I was on Squidoo regarding this- (frankly most of the "lens" on Suidoo are just blatant product endorsement (I mean a min of 5 amazon products have to be featured do they think writers we are stupid.) but to topic yes it seems many sites are cracking down.
As far as I am aware, Squidoo's new initiative consists of automatic filters to find empty Amazon capsules or spun content.
Question: I believe HP has confirmed that "quality" hubs with low traffic (on a topic that's simply not searched for very often, for example) don't drag the site down, only those hubs that google sees as low quality do. If this is so, why would a hub that has passed through QAP ever become idled/un-featured?
It seems to me that there should be either QAP (which prevents low-quality hubs from being indexed) or idling (which removes indexing from low-quality hubs), but not both. With the QA system in place, shouldn't idling only be needed short-term, to process older hubs that have never gone through QAP, after which idling would be phased out?
I understand that the QA system is still being fine-tuned, which is hopefully the reason why so many bad hubs are making it through. Once this system has been refined, however, idling no longer makes sense, unless idling is concerned only with traffic, not quality.
Sounds good, but you're making some assumptions that are not warranted.
1) The QAP will be 100% effective - nothing will slip through the cracks, and no one will ever learn how to "game" it. The first will obviously never happen, and no matter what algorithm is used someone will always try to game the system. We've already seen dozens of posts from people wanting to know the absolute minimum traffic to stay featured; why would they want that unless they're looking to just squeak a hub by the process with minimum "quality"?
2) You're assuming that the QAP knows what google defines as quality (it doesn't, it is just a guess) and that google will never change it's mind and define it some other way, making all the hubs that already passed now suspect. Google changes it's definition almost monthly, with every update.
Fair enough, wilderness. No system is ever 100% effective. But aren't the QAP and the featured/un-featured system attempting to do the same thing? If so, their definitions of quality should be the same, and a hub that passes through one should pass through the other.
You're correct that google's definition of quality is unknown and changing, and HP may also update their own definition periodically, so having a 2nd process to re-check already passed hubs makes sense to use whenever HP's definition has changed, but as an ongoing process it seems redundant.
I don't actually think that the occasional bad hub slipping through the cracks would hurt HubPages. With a site this big and with so many pages, Google is looking at ratio of high to low quality pages. Normal websites also have some pages that are thin in content by design.
In this way idling a lot of good content, but low traffic pages actually hurts HP.
Google's changing algos are I think a reason why HP has invested in human review. Google is trying to be more human in its way of rating pages. So if the QAP is trying to stay ahead of Google by using humans. Assuming the QAP works well (which HP assures as they are achieving by constantly rating the raters), the pages that pass, read well to humans. If they fall foul of some Google algo, the algorithm will be changed.
I don't think G requires a site to be perfect to avoid being panda slapped.
I agree with this, Doc Sonic. If a hub is of high quality, and high-quality but low-view pages don't hurt our subdomains, why not allow them to stay? Once all the old spam is idled, HP could just do away with idling. If it passes QAP, then it gets to stay whether it gets lots of views or a little. But that assumes that the QAP is catching the crap.
I think you've hit it on the head. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to program things such that a Hub which had been through the QAP process was made bomb-proof (provided it wasn't edited). However, that assumes HubPages has total confidence in the QAP and I don't believe it does.
This news is saddening and alarming and disheartening. Sorry this is happening to you all. Guess it will happen to me soon... I started publishing Hubs in December. Gah! Wonder if I should continue...?
I now have 20 hubs on idle, old hubs but they were doing okay until the last google panda attack which saw my traffic plummet.
One solution to the much-hated idling program is to give us the writers the option to permanently revive our idled hubs or de-list them ourselves. Not everyone will want to revive their hubs and there will still be thousands of idled hubs from hubbers who are no longer active or barely bother to check their hubs or haven't the brain power to realise there is an option to re-list their hubs.
You're also assuming whoever makes up the QAP knows what they are doing. A real stretch going by the recent past.
Yea, lots of assuming. I don't even think HP believes the QAP is 100 percent effective. Anything that has "collateral damage" needs perfecting. Hp needs to establish its own standards for quality content and not try and second guess google. Allow only stellar hubs to pass thru QAP and then the only collateral damage would be those hubs less than stellar. Of course that might mean standing on a principle and have to idle less than stellar hubs that google sends traffic to and keep stellar hubs featured that don't get traffic. But at least it would be Quality and isn't that the purpose? No, Quality is also about traffic and in my book that deems it as less then 100 percent effective and always will be as long as they equate quality with google views.
Yes, this happens on HP. I simply monitor my hubs and slightly edit them as soon as they become un-featured (except the seasonal ones, that is). They become re-featured the next day and everybody is happy.
A challenge - how many of the last 30 or 40 hubs published on HP shouldn't have been? Just looking for a quick straw poll on how good or bad the QAP is doing...
What are the biggest problems you see with the hubs that shouldn't have been published? How can HP address these issues? Be stricter? Simply never allow them to be published?
BTW I know this doesn't address the idling situation - but if the QAP is the benchmark then getting that right should be the priority followed by applying the same rules to the older hubs...
"if the QAP is the benchmark then getting that right should be the priority followed by applying the same rules to the older hubs."
Exactly! That's what I was trying to say in my post above. QAP should be the benchmark, and once a hub has passed it, it needn't be reexamined unless the benchmark changes.
The only caveat on that is there is always going to be a traffic element - so perhaps hubbers should get a warning that their six month old hub hasn't had much traffic in the last six months and is in danger of being idled......
Yes, a warning would be an excellent idea. I do think they need to change it (if they haven't already) so that making even the most insignificant edit to the hub no longer puts it back into featured status. Talk about having an easy way to game the system!
Why not sort by the 30 day column and assume that anything under 50 is in danger? You're probably pretty safe by doing that.
I do think that the easy edit is something that needs looked at, especially in older hubs.
The problem with that is that you then have to ignore recent hubs, seasonal hubs and unpublished hubs. So it's not an exact science.
If I got an email weekly saying "the following hubs will go idle in 2 weeks" I'd be more likely to review!
I refuse to take my material and change a few words to get the material featured again. That is wrong all the way around, and should you do it very many times you will even lose the "theme" of your material. So.... I move my material from the site.
But why should there be a traffic element? HubPages have said that low traffic Hubs definitely do NOT hurt the site. The only reason they idle low-traffic Hubs is because they don't have the resources to base their decisions solely on quality.
That's why I also question the value of these endless threads debating the QAP and idling process - I feel like we're going in circles, and I'm positive HubPages isn't listening. Community threads aren't monitored by HubPages staff.
HubPages have said they don't have the money or staff to do any other kind of quality checking right now. I think we all have to remember - they admit idling because of low traffic is a far from perfect way to manage quality, but they feel it's the best they can do right now.
So if you're going to come up with ideas on how to do it better, then those ideas need to be no more labour intensive and cost no more than the current model. And you need to make those suggestions on a thread that is monitored by staff.
"Hubs definitely do NOT hurt the site" - I've seen conflicting answers from staff.
and I did make a suggestion on a thread that HP are supposed to monitor.
What I am trying to do is to get people to examine recent hubs to see if there is a problem with the QAP or not. If the last 30 or so hubs are poor then there clearly is a problem!!!! Shoot - gotta go home - write more later!
I recall when the idling/featured process was introduced, there was some talk about low traffic Hubs hurting the site.
I haven't seen anyone say it again - not since Derek's landmark post in which he admitted low traffic was not a problem, but they had to resort to it because it's the best they can do right now.
So personally, I think the original message was the "official line" and Derek wasn't supposed to let the cat out of the bag - but since he did, the idea that low traffic is damaging has not been repeated (or did I miss a post?).
Besides, the important thing is not what the staff say, it's what the rest of the internet says - and I've never managed to find a single internet guru or webmaster forum which says that low traffic posts do a site any damage whatsoever. And believe me, I've searched. As you know, I've said that many times on these forums, and invited anyone to provide a quote or a reference to prove otherwise. No one has ever been able to, including staff.
My interpretation only, but...
google doesn't like a hub => it's "bad" somehow.
google won't send traffic to "bad" hubs. Being "bad" => no traffic
Removing all no traffic hubs will also catch the "bad" ones. The "cost" is minimal; "good" hubs getting no traffic aren't earning anyway. The "good ones caught are the collateral damage mentioned.
Exactly right. That's why HubPages has decided it's a viable approach.
It still doesn't mean low-traffic Hubs hurt the site. It means a low-traffic Hub hurts the site if its low traffic is because of poor quality.
For Hubbers who are here to earn money, it's easy to say, "oh well, those Hubs weren't earning money anyway, it's not significant". However Hubbers have many other motivations, and I'm realizing there are many Hubbers who were happy so long as their Hubs got a small, steady trickle of readers - and they are the ones who are unhappy now.
Besides, about a third of my Hubs have been idled and although they were earning very little, over time the pennies do mount up. It has taken some of my Hubs five years to earn $30 but it's still $30!
Agree all the way.
The only question, then, is what the "bad" hubs have cost you by remaining on the site. The ones that would be caught out by idling all low traffic hubs.
When Panda hit, had HP already idled everything with low traffic, "good" OR "bad", would it have seen the precipitous drop? Subdomains were supposed to put a stop to site wide penalties, but I'm getting the impression that that is only partially true and if that is so removing the "bad" stuff should help us all.
We're getting off the point here. I'm not disagreeing with you. I understand why HubPages made the decision it did.
The point I'm making is - I'd hate people to delete articles (e.g. on other sites or on their blog) which are good quality, and contribute to their overall portfolio, because someone here told them "low traffic posts hurt your site". So any time I see someone make that statement, I'm going to challenge them!
We all know Google is looking for "authority" sites these days and authority refers to both quality and size. If people pick up on this idea that low-traffic posts have to go, they will delete perfectly good posts off their blog which were contributing to their overall Panda score and improving their authority on their topic. More posts = more keywords and more interlinking, even if some of the posts aren't getting much direct traffic.
Because google has not sent a hub traffic yet does not mean it will not ever send it traffic, Think about the next update: some idled hubs may have stood a chance in the new update and be shuffled up in rank but now they are taken out of the playing field.
There have been a couple of hubs which I wrote in the beginning that took a long time to gain traction with google and now do very well- I've even at times thought about deleting them because of low traffic and now after a year they have taken off. They are my Charleston travel hubs. If these hubs were subjected to this program in the beginning then they would have been idled due to lack of traffic.
Also, HP has admitted this flaw and they have stated new hubs need more time to gain traction.
Again, just because google "does not send a hub traffic" does not mean it does not like the hub. Over time the hub will gain traction and back links to move up in the ranks. Hp use to claim this took three years. I still think it is true, but HP has decided to try a new scheme which involves throwing as much content at google they can and what gets immediate views they feature and what does not the idle. This is okay for HP. But it kills motivation of writers who are willing to write stellar hubs and have the stamina to allow them to meld over time before gaining views.
Placing a No-index tag on quality hubs which have low google views is NOT an ideal or perfect system and HP has admitted to it. Like Marissa and many, many more hubbers here, I'd like to see traffic taken out of the equation when it comes to no-indexing my hubs from google.
I have no disagreement here, either - I, too, have recently seen some hubs sit quietly for 2 years or more that are now beginning to see a little traffic (meaning 2 or 3 per day). It takes time.
And yes, because google doesn't send traffic most definitely doesn't mean that it is low quality, even in google's eyes. The reverse is true, however, and seems to be why HP is idling low traffic hubs.
I fully agree that it is far from a ideal or even a good system; it just appears to be the system that HP can afford. I very much like the idea of getting rid of trash - I don't think there are very many that won't - and very much support the idea of extending the time allowed to see traffic. I'd like to see at least a year, in fact, to get up to a view a day average and seasonal hubs are a whole different problem to address.
I will accept that it is all they can afford and respect HP for saying it is not ideal and unfortunately it results in "collateral damage".
I would hate for HP to try and give us hubbers the impression the new scheme is 100% effective when in reality it is not.
I hope it is a work in progress and once the bleeding stops they can move on to the more precise and accurate in their treatment of hubs.
I understand the need for the process. Personally, I just don't want to settle for it as a long term solution for the selfish reason I like my penny at the end of the year. It is like getting a sticker in the grade school - it motivates me.
IMO the quality of these hubs is improving!
I personally think so - but there are still problems - I added a new forum where we can all objectively list problems. This is the ONLY way things will get fixed - with objective critisism based on analysis....
,....if all 30 latest hubs are bad then HP need to know this...
Sorry I've give up trying to suggest things - Ran out of puff! The brick wall is so hard!
IMO it is time to focus on SUBs
Google Quality rankings for a min-SUB
96, 85, 75, 60, 56, 89, 45, 74, 79, 68, 70
Idled due to low traffic => 95, 85, 75, 79, 45 left Idle, or moved to other site
75, 60, 56, 89, 74, 45, 68, 70
This means that the traffic for remaining pages will decline because of the decrease in subdomain rank.
So deleting high quality pages from a SUB, because they have low traffic saves some server space for HP - BUT it has a major collateral impact on the SUB. Panda looms!
SO perhaps it is wise to focus on doing things where you can really make a difference - your SUB => Freshness, remove thin pages, interlinking, backlinking, social media, Pinterest etc. IMO
This is my main concern about the idling process.
Google assigns Panda score to each sub-domain individually - that's why sub-domains were created, if you recall. I'm still not clear how (or even if) HubPages' overall Panda score affects sub-domains, but that's not really relevant here.
Google judges a sub-domain just like any other blog or website. It's looking for quality and quantity. Google hates "thin" sites - sites with very little content. My sub-domain was always small, and now it's even smaller thanks to the number of idled Hubs - I wonder what the threshold is before I'm too small to be worthy of Google's notice?
I get tired of all the bitching and moaning, and I don't think there's anything to be achieved by repeating the same old complaints again and again, regardless of whether they're justified. If we're going to have a discussion on this, let's have it about the facts!
Good luck on getting the truth from HP! After all, that's all we're asking for at this point.
Me too, Marisa. The main key here is if HP is willing to jump on board and provide us with clear facts to discuss. As of now we just have what has been squeezed out of them or our own personal experience with how the idle program has effected our individual profile.
It would be nice if HP would open up a thread to address these issues by providing us factual information to pivot our discussions. Or provide a sticky tread of updated information.
Kinda' like Paul Edmondson is doing in another thread where he has forced idled one of his hubs to use as a control sample. It would be nice to have this type of information in one thread centered around the new process HP has implemented for our hubs go through. Maybe some hubbers could even volunteer hubs up as control samples. Or like when derek asked for examples of seasonal exclusive hubs going idle.
I think this approach would be helpful to both hubbers and HP.
OK, purely opinion, nothing to do with the QAP as such. Out of 10 hubs, I flagged one and found 3 more to be without real information; very low value to most readers.
Nearly all had photos not attributed at all, or done incorrectly.
One should probably been in the photo category rather than travel; mostly gorgeous photos and not a lot of text. Adequate number of words, but that was all.
Personally, I would find that all to be acceptable (except the one flagged, of course). Perhaps 4 of high quality, 2 more quite acceptable and 3 poor but again acceptable and as good as most of what you will find anywhere else.
The real question then would be do we need to raise the standards so that only 'above average' is published or is 'acceptable' OK?
Randy - what do you think? I know you are totally against the QAP system - however what criteria do you feel should be accepted? Objectively, out of the last ten hubs, how many do you think should be allowed to stay?
My view - probably six or seven should stay - a few need more content - only 2 to 3 would be considered perfect quality - I note that I benchmark based on my own work (which I consider is close to average).
You're asking for opinion, and mine would be "no". Yes, I'd like to see it, and yes, I think it would help my subdomain to be associated with a truly high quality site. But I don't think it's what HP is about, and I don't think that sites doing that are performing particularly well.
And the bottom line, of course, is that HP sets the standards and defines what the site is. Which is as it should be; I have plenty of options available should I want to be on either a higher or lower level.
I agree with keeping HP a site where (almost) anyone can publish. Clearly, it's HP's call as to what the standards are both for being published and for being featured. One item on my personal wish list, however (FWIW), would be that once a hub achieves featured status, it isn't quite so easy for it to lose that status. In my observation, that seems to be what's frustrating most writers these days.
It is indeed frustrating. The problem, as I see it, is twofold; the QAP doesn't match google's algorithm perfectly (and never will) and google's idea of quality is a moving target. Both are a problem with giving indefinite approval from passing through the QAP.
I'm certainly no mind reader, but idling hubs seems to be an effort to solve those problems, albeit an effort that no one likes.
Actually Simey, I'm against using the word "quality" as any part of the so-called assessment panel. Perhaps TAP (Traffic Assessment Panel) would be more appropriate as a moniker for this group. I hold out no hopes for this program at all. It stinks in its present form.
Randy - justify this by looking at the latest hubs - if you're not willing to do this then your opinion has no validity - if you can look at ten hubs and objectively say that 8 of them should not be published because of reason a, reason b, reason c - then HP may listen.
If you simply say -it's crap, it's crap, it's crap - I know it's crap - then no one will listen.
What I am trying to do is to provide valid analysis to give to HP - without that we have no legs to stand on. If we can give an objective assessment of what is getting through - (5 out of 20 hubs are poor because they are spun, have major grammatical errors etc.) - then HP have something to listen to. If after we've given them the analysis nothnig changes - then I'll be the first to concede that you are right.
Without an 'exact' dialogue between the user and HP, nothing will change. (if it does at all!)
Believe it or not I'm not trying to 'cheerlead' for HP - I'm trying to provide objective commentary for both sides......
Aren't you merely assuming someone is listening now, Simey? HP has its own agenda, and as we've seen in the past, they seldom change anything important on the whims of the writers. I'm doing nothing until I see some sort of improvement to the traffic supposedly caused by this brilliant program. Except for deleting idle hubs, that is!
I just added some more to my text as you answered.
What I am trying to do, whether HP is listening or not, is provide dialogue and feedback on the QAP process. With proper analysis and proper objective commentary, they either have to reply or they prove you right.
Either way you win - quality improves, or you've proved your point without doubt.
That's all I want....
I looked at the first five hubs in the "latest" category. Three were pretty good (well organized, lots of media, no glaring typos) and the other two were OK (one was an opinion piece with long paragraphs and no pictures which made it visually unappealing and the other had weak grammar and punctuation.) This is better than what I expected. Of course, five hubs is far from a representative sample.
Im sorry Dale to hear about your hub removing, must be extremely unpleasant and irritating..... Your hubs are truly inspiring...
Thank you Sam. It has been a patience thing. I have tried so many things suggested by HP to no avail. Very discouraging. Sure, I like to make money, but most of my hubs are focused on helping people on various levels. The material needs to be read. This platform worked well when I first started here about 14 to 15 months ago, then it has just went wild....downhill wild.
Beings the content here has to be unique, once idled, the masses can not benefit from what I may have to share..... so I feel led to move them so they can be viewed again.
Yes, we were led to believe from the beginning we would all all see traffic return if this program was instigated. Despite the "collateral damage" we sustained, this was clearly not true. Now we hear a different story telling us low traffic hubs don't hurt us at all. So how do we know what to believe anymore? I mean really, does anyone on staff really know anything for sure?
My patience is exhausted after a year and half of trying failing suggestions by staff. It seems no matter what I do things only get worse. There is nothing encouraging about writing new hubs at the present time, and everything encouraging not waste more time doing so. That's the bottom line for me. When HP gets their stories straight I will listen, but not until. I don't think it is any secret we have been manipulated with this program. How can we trust anything they say at this point?
Given than QAP via MTurk is restricted to residents of the USA,
Given that the population in large parts of the USA is not exactly cosmopolitan or free-thinking,
I would expect hubs on pagan topics to fall under the axe pretty rapidly, as well as hubs on left-wing politics and hubs on topics that are not of direct relevance to the average resident of the USA.
Unfortunately, these same people are also letting through QrAP such as:
1. http://rainaevink.hubpages.com/hub/The- … troduction
"As some of you may already know, this book, along with a few others, has gotten quite a lot of attention for the movie with a similar name. However, I want to clarify that the book I'm reading is by Liam Callanan and is not the book the movie is made from. That one is by David Mitchell. Later, I may review that one as well, but I've got quite a few more books to get through first.
This book seems to be going very slowly compared to the others that I've reviewed. Slower than I expected it to go. The characters are being introduced one at a time over a very long period of time and are fully developed before another one is introduced. The story starts with a priest consulting with a dying shaman and is follwed by a story about the very beginning of his military career.
My only problem with the book so far is that there seems to be a lot of background information and very little plot development. The speaker keeps coming back to his main topic (a dying man), but gets lost and digresses often. It seems like the speaker is taking his time getting to his point and it's hard to keep my mind on it.
I have to return this book to the library on the 7th so I have to read it in the next two days or I'll never get it done."
That is the whole hub. Total word count: 243 Information content: nil
2. http://asp52.hubpages.com/hub/Five-inte … -Marsellie
Five interesting facts about Marseille.
Author does not even know how to spell the name of the place, let alone provide any real information about it.
3. http://jonturino.hubpages.com/hub/Marke … ages-Media
Three references to author's own web site, although the third is given as a URL without an active link to escape the filter. Nevertheless, still overly promotional in my opinion.
4. http://moneyonlinepros.hubpages.com/hub … ney-Online
Overly promotional, even though only two links included, in view of the exhortation: "Please link to us on our social sites, and follow us for daily updates of some of the most talked about information going around online today"
5. http://shaynadc89.hubpages.com/hub/The- … -Artist-Me
Purely personal, of no interest to anyone else.
6. http://poetasdsigns.hubpages.com/hub/Pr … h-5th-2013
130 words, nil content
These are just a few examples from a brief stroll through the Hubpages Latest Hubs hall of shame.
Add to the above many hubs that do not break ToS as such but contain totally vacuous content targeting high-value key words. Furthermore, I have not included several examples of excruciatingly bad poetry...
I am honestly not trying to be obtuse. A couple of questions:
-Context is very important - is this 6 out of the last 15 hubs or 6 out of the last 100?
-How high do we set the bar? As you pointed out you have set a case why each shouldn't be published - but there's a very fine line - a couple of changes here and there and at least 2 of them are good enough. Are we aiming for an elite writing site or a site where you can publish 'average' or 'above average' content?
-Purely personal - if a purely personal hub is top quality and doesn't harm Hubpages why should it be disregarded?
BTW thank you for actually going and looking at some hubs - of the other hubs, are you seeing an improvement overall? If overall quality is improving but some are still slipping through then that's a plus - if overall quality is not changing then that's a problem....
Paganism and Wiccan topics are big in the U.S. I could write several about Wiccan stuff on Wizzley, and they would all have high scores. These women take great pride in praising the Goddess, and buy jewelry and dress in black so it's known they are Pagan or Wiccan. Both overlap a little. Since I'm not Wiccan, I don't write about it, but I have had many successful hubs on other metaphysical topics.
Hi Jean, it sounds a little like you are getting 'Goths' confused with Pagans and Wiccans. We don't wear black any more than any other colour, nor do we buy jewellery in black any more often than any other colour. Most of us choose not to go out of our way to advertise the fact we are Pagans or Wiccans when out and about. It also isn't just women who are Pagans or Wiccans by a long way. Just as many men are Pagans or Wiccans as women are (give or take a few either way).
Just wanted to clear up a few misconceptions
Thanks Misty for the clarification. You are right. I certainly don't buy black jewelry or wear black clothing to let others know I am a Wiccan. Also, you are absolutely correct about Wiccans being both male and female. As you know, I am a Wiccan High Priest with a coven following.
The above also relates to Pagans (keeping in mind that Wicca is Pagan).
In the past I hid that I was of a Pagan Path, but now I do wear a pentagram ring as well as a raven/pentagram necklace. The necklace represents my totem and my guide. It is worn under the clothing so no one can see it.
It does sound like Goths are being described as doing the black thing. I like the appearance of the Gothic look and have even written about it, but Gothic has nothing to do with a certain path. Goths come from all paths, including Christianity from my experience in knowing quite a few.
All that being said, the reason this has come up was that I had stated that the majority of my 39 idled hubs have been about Pagan related topics and alternative medicine as well.
Thank you very much for putting me number one on your list. You have a lot of valid points, however, you failed to consider that people (me, being one) publish hubs while they're still writing and editing them. The content you quoted as from a hub that hadn't been fully completed.
For me, I use hubpages not only to put my personal opinions about the books I read out there for others, but I use it for a college course. I'm required to post a hub every three or four days. Sometimes, it only comes out with 200 words, but that's okay for my purpose. If you don't feel it's sufficient, don't read it. It's not for you.
Thanks for sharing. I guess that some have overlooked such situations.
I don't. That some college professor has decreed that their students post hubs of no value on HP has nothing to do with anything.
It's pretty well accepted that such stuff harms the site as a whole and individuals writing here as well. I not only don't want to read it, I don't want it here at all and, apparently, neither does HP.
Here's a copy/pasted quote from another short "book review":
"If anyone is interested in purchasing this book, I've added a link to its Amazon search down below. The summary is in the hub titled "The Changing of a Long Journey". As always, comments about personal experience relating to this book or suggestions for ones similar to it are welcome.
If you have any suggestions for more books I could review, I'm open to ideas or requests. Put them in the comment section below and I'll respond to them in the next update I do.
If anyone is interested in purchasing this book, I've added a link to its Amazon search down below. The summary is in my hub titled “The Changing of a Long Journey”. As always, comments about personal experience relating to this book or suggestions for ones similar to it are welcome."
Apparently couldn't fluff in enough words to satisfy the prof, so simply doubled one paragraph. The middle paragraph was actually a sidebar, uncolored and looking very poor as a result.
Either put it on a personal blog or complain to the college administration, but keep it off of HP. We don't need it here.
First of all, than you for pointing out that I repeated myself. I've fixed that. Second, you misquoted. You took the first paragraph of your copied section of my hub and put it twice. It only appears once. If you're going to quote something, please do it properly. If you don't want to see it, don't look at it. Simple as that. If the administration of hubpages has a problem with it, they can contact me personally and I'll take it up with my teacher. Until then, I shall continue doing what I have been.
Not sure I'm following you. It was a direct copy/paste from the hub:
http://rainaevink.hubpages.com/hub/The- … troduction
It is slightly different than the hub, because that center paragraph appears to be a separate sidebar capsule. Nevertheless, the first and last paragraphs of the quote are what is shown in the hub.
*shrug* I might do the same. You have no reason to care what traffic you get - it will always be very low. You aren't concerned about earning anything and don't care if your hub hurts anyone trying to make a living here. You've been ordered to do it in order to get a grade and HP has not complained yet. Why change?
I'm not very clear on this one part. How does this prevent other people from making money? Because hubpages gets a bad name? Or because they're looking at my stuff and not yours? On the hub, the section "If anyone is interested in purchasing this book, I've added a link to its Amazon search down below. The summary is in my hub titled “The Changing of a Long Journey”. As always, comments about personal experience relating to this book or suggestions for ones similar to it are welcome" isn't repeated. It's only on the hub once.
Because Google, which is what most of us depend on for traffic and earnings, looks at such stuff and downchecks the site as a whole. So yes, it gives HP a bad name with Google, which ranks our hubs slightly lower as a result. Lower ranking = lower traffic, which equals lower income.
As HP is currently fighting to remove poor quality from the site, and many hubbers have had their own hubs idled in the attempt as well as losing hundreds or thousands of dollars each month you can understand their irritation.
A second capy/paste. Block in three paragraphs (including the sidebar), right click and choose "copy". Come here, right click again and choose "paste". Do with it as you will.
If anyone is interested in purchasing this book, I've added a link to its Amazon search down below. The summary is in the hub titled "The Changing of a Long Journey". As always, comments about personal experience relating to this book or suggestions for ones similar to it are welcome.
If you have any suggestions for more books I could review, I'm open to ideas or requests. Put them in the comment section below and I'll respond to them in the next update I do.
If anyone is interested in purchasing this book, I've added a link to its Amazon search down below. The summary is in my hub titled “The Changing of a Long Journey”. As always, comments about personal experience relating to this book or suggestions for ones similar to it are welcome
This phrase "If anyone is interested in purchasing this book, I've added a link to its Amazon search down below. The summary is in the hub titled "The Changing of a Long Journey"." is only on the hub once.
If HP is okay with it, then take it up with them. I'm not the only one who's been thrown under the bus here. I understand there are a lot of poor hubs with grammatical errors or topics that aren't researched very well, but I'd take it up with them not on a comment stream.
Sorry Raina, but that paragraph appears twice on your hub.
No, it really doesn't. I just looked at it. It appears at the end of my first block of text and reads "If anyone is interested in purchasing this book, I've added a link to its Amazon search down below. The summary is in the hub titled "The Changing of a Long Journey"." Then there's a second part that says "If you have any suggestions for more books I could review, I'm open to ideas or requests. Put them in the comment section below and I'll respond to them in the next update I do." If it appears twice in another hub that isn't my Cloud Atlas Introduction, I'll fix it, but as of yesterday, it's been changed.
Oh sorry, I was looking at this hub - http://rainaevink.hubpages.com/hub/The- … troduction
Which contains the same paragraph from the Cloud Atlas hub:
"If anyone is interested in purchasing this book, I've added a link to its Amazon search down below. The summary is in my hub titled “The Changing of a Long Journey”
Raina, it sounds like you're misunderstanding how to use HubPages.
There is absolutely no benefit in publishing a Hub while you're still working on it. If you do that, people will visit your Hub, decide it's not good, and will dismiss you as a writer. That's why it's possible to write and save a Hub unpublished, because that's what you're meant to do - you can work on it as long as you like, but you don't publish it until it's finished.
So as you've already discovered, you're only hurting yourself by publishing something before it's ready. Perhaps you could point this out to your professor.
We had an operational issue so Hubs were flowing through without getting the human part of the rating for over the last 24 hrs. So, if you were looking at mturk, you wouldn't see any hits, and the latest Hubs wasn't fully pruned. The hits just started back up.
We are certainly open to ideas on how to make the system better.
Do good hubs with low traffic hurt a site? Generally not (got this from johnmu). But no indexed hubs won't hurt a site, and they still pass pagerank (debatable how much). We think it's a safer way to go since it has little downside.
Google keeps track of pages that are no indexed. I'm running a test now in another forum where we no indexed a hub, waited for it to come out and then removed the tag. Previously they pop in and out in the same position in the serps. Even months later after no indexing, when they are put back in they tend to quickly go back to the same position.
There was a question about if this strategy is working. Shouldn't I see my traffic go up if it was? Well, I don't think you'll likely see a big swing up. Google has said that removing low quality content may eventually help increase the rankings of high quality content. So, we view this as a long term strategy.
Umm, no downside, except that they penalise the author concerned and remove the possibility for even the most minimal earnings.
Please, give us a rest with the doublespeak.
Do good hubs with low traffic hurt a site? Generally not !
So why does HP idle high quality hubs, including HOTD and AP grade hubs, sometimes when they have only been featured for 60 days. The only reason would appear to be restricted server space and lack of 'promotion resources/ budget'. I can understand why HP would want to put them at the bottom of the pile on topic pages etc., but this could be done easily using traffic, as is done for the existing hub score. Retaining quality pages indexed has many benefits for SUBs and authors, and it boosts the overal quality score of the HP url and Subs - You have said they cause no damage to the site. The only outcomes are a string of negatives including loss of long-standing quality contributors. I simply don't understand why HP deindexes quality pages due to low traffic when they do no harm. Please explain. Cheers,
Thanks for running the test! It takes the bite out of tweaking idled hubs for me knowing they do not lose any progress they made in the SERPs
A question: Is it possible to allow a hub which has already passed thru QAP but has been idled due to low traffic to go directly to featured status once they have been edited or tweaked?
It seems redundant and not efficient use of Mturk to have all these idled hubs which have already passed thru QAP to go back thru over again. Can you shed some light on this?
Why is it necessary? Is it too difficult to discern between what has been idled due to traffic or what is idled due to low quality?
Can there be a special code placed on hubs which are idle due to low quality which forces them back to the Mturks for re=evaluation after they have been edited while hubs which have passed QAP but are edited because of no heartbeat bypass re-evaluation?
Mturks is a laugh, lol. I have done it... I am one of them....granted, I only did it one day for HubPages there, but it is a joke. At a nickle a pop, one is just going to click what needs to be clicked to move on to the next one. Do they actually read the hubs....I feel no, lol.
I have done various other Mturk things, that require you read what is involved in order to respond to questions and such. However, those that make it mandatory to read, do pay more.
Perhaps HP needs to re-evaluate Mturks and how they are having their stuff evaluated there.
Uh oh! I feel sure you'll get a bit of guff with these remarks, Dale! Tell it all brother, tell it all.
I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and be nice. I think there have been so many good suggestions made about this idling and QAP that have been ignored by HP, It makes me think HP is satisfied with their results and to me that is scary.
It would be nice if HP would open an official thread and have people make suggestions on that tread with HP responding to the practical application of those suggestions. Will they work or not? Can they be implemented/not implemented?
I know the answers are scattered here and there, but it would be nice to have one official thread where HP answers questions based on facts and not threads where questions are asked and fellow hubbers answer based on intuition.
These types of questions are important because it dictates the type of portfolio we create here as writers.
I agree with this reasoning, and hopefully, one day, just possibly, such a thing will happen here on HP. As for the "monitored" threads in the forums, well I have been ignored in them several times, so I have given up on that, lol. I am not saying it was intentional, or that there was not a valid reason, but it has happened.
That would be my approach as well if I ever had to perform tasks for such low levels of payment. If I am treated with such evident contempt and my time is considered to be worth so little, I would feel equal contempt for the paymasters and would try to game their system to gain maximum pay for minimum effort.
Actually, we evaluate the Mturkers and you can't just click and go on to the next Hub without us knowing. I think that Fawntia, one of our engineers at HubPages, has done a really good job with her evaluations of turkers. I'm not saying that it is perfect, but we are working really hard to make it as good as can be. Do you have any suggestions on how we could make it better?
Please don't idle fabulous hubs after 60 days, just because they don't get your minimum traffic threshold. They need a chance to strut their stuff. There is no damage to HP by leaving them Indexed for a while longer. Every penny counts. What's the point of this. Please don't idle high quality pages.
I appreciate this comment; we are working on ways to make the process better and more useful to writers. Your point is one that we are working on and discussing at most of our Quality meetings. I agree that those Hubs that are high quality need time to shine. Hopefully, we will have come up with a way to improve, and we can update you shortly.
Thanks for that. Given that QAP has been going for about 6 months now would it be possible to get some stats published in a blog showing its effectiveness. I would like to see a graph of QAP score versus % of pages idled after 60 days. I would like to see figures on the boost to quality for pages published since they started going through QAP. I would also be interested in percentages of hubs idled after 60 days for all hubs, HOTD and AP hubs. I had a quick look at the HOTD for December last year and 7 of them had a NOINDEX tags (15%). I find this quite disturbing as many more may have been idled and edited, and so given a temporary reprieve.
I'm noting all of the suggestions and am planning on bringing them up in our next meeting tomorrow. I'm not sure if we are able quite yet to give these numbers, but I will ask. Can you clarify what you mean by, "I would like to see figures on the boost to quality for pages published since they started going through QAP."
Paul mentioned somehere that there was evidence that QAP had improved the quality of the site. Perhaps there are figures for average QAP score by month since QAP was started. Or perhaps there is some other data showing changes in 'quality'.
I can't speak for Paul, but I think he was referring to the fact that the overall quality (Hubs that are indexed) on the site has improved. I'm not sure if we are seeing less low-quality Hubs in the QAP; that is a very interesting question. I don't think any of you are refuting that the quality of indexed Hubs on the site has improved as we've cut a lot of low quality pages by Hubbers that wrote one Hub and left, etc. We realize that some Hubs that are high quality have lost their Featured status due to low traffic, and we are working on ways to prevent this from happening. I will add your suggestion to my list and see if we have any data to share. I appreciate the feedback.
"we've cut a lot of low quality pages by Hubbers that wrote one Hub and left, etc"
That's the kind of thing we don't hear, Robin, and it's much appreciated. I do wonder, though - do you refer to old hubs or newly submitted ones that deter a spammer from trying again? Either way I love it, though!
Hopefully it's both! I know the former is true, and I think it's getting harder for spammers to get through. It is amazing to see the "high-quality" spam that some try to get published. It looks like a good Hub with photos, video, etc, but it's complete spam.
Paul just got home for a Google event that he attended today. He spoke with a few sites that have broken free from Panda and they all did so by removing pages from the index or deleting content. One site had over 4,000,000 pages indexed and has reduced its indexed pages to 150,000 and another removed/no indexed 20%. All of the sites have recovered and are growing. The advice that he received was to remove from the index or fix up your content to improve your site's overall health: the purpose of the QAP. Although it was a difficult decision for us to Feature or not Feature Hubs, we believe it was/is the right one.
That's good news, that old junk is being removed, and something I didn't know of. Thanks!
I saw that Paul was out - somewhere I saw a quick report from him - but, Wow! That's a huge drop in pages - certainly hope we don't have to go that far. Removing 95% of the content would really hurt, even if most of what was taken out didn't get any traffic.
I think the feature concept is worthwhile as well, although I do think it needs some tweaking. OK - nothing comes out of the starting gate perfect, and as long as it gets fixed it could be of enormous value in the long run.
Agreed! Our intent is not to cut that deep, but I think that removing Hubs from the index was a necessity. We are working really hard to make the QAP as good as possible. Thanks for your support, Dan. We appreciate it.
Well, I know the whole thing is still a work in progress and always will be, for that matter. There's some hurt, yes, but if it actually cleans up the site we all use and enjoy it's well worth it. I do appreciate the work and effort that is going into that effort - it's not all on the hubber end, and HP is paying a price to work through the Panda as much as anyone. If not more.
I'm not sure what Janderson is asking for either, but some numbers that might interest a great many hubbers:
Average QAP score being submitted, passed and failed. If it wouldn't ruin the program, broken down into groups would be great - 2-4, 4-6, etc. I understand you won't want to give the pass/no-pass point, but this would be of great interest if possible.
Percentage of submitted hubs being passed - this is an important one. Are our (your) efforts paying off?
If any different, average score being submitted 6 months ago vs current score being submitted. Is the word getting out?
Best of all would be average QAP score site wide before and after the program. That obviously can't happen, but hubbers could get a pretty good idea of what might be expected in time just from the data listed.
Hi Dan! These are all great questions. I will add them to my list as well. I'm particularly interested in the data on whether or not the QAP has improved the way Hubbers are writing. Thanks so much for your insights and comments.
Hi, Robin. Been a while since I heard from you.
A last request, if possible - something like that, if it can be done, would sure be nice to have as a sticky. It gets lost so fast in the forums that few would actually see it and I think lots of people would be interested. It might even raise spirits a bit...
To hear that HOTD hubs are being idled is really quite discouraging.
If you edit a hub, have you added 5 more amazon capsules than your words allow? Added a paragraph full of grammar errors? Taken out the single photo it had?
In other words have you, intentionally or not, turned it into garbage? Hopefully not, but the gamers will quickly figure out that a decent hub can be changed into a TOS violation or just plain junk if edits aren't re-checked.
I suspect a well written hub which has passed QAP which went idle due to lack of traffic the hubber would not want to ruin his or her own hub. I'd think they would want to improve it. Remember the standard is pretty low. Maybe there would be a few slip thru, but think about the "million" backlog of those hubs which have not even passed thru once while other hubs pass thru two are three times and pass each time. Be reasonable. Most people whose hubs were featured but went idle do not do anything but change the title using the title tuner and are careful with their grammar if they add text or they would have not been featured to begin with.
Anyway this is why I asked HP to start a thread to answer these types of questions to have official answers.
Is what you say REALLY a problem or NOT? HP has the data not you nor me. I'd like to know if it is a possibility to help free up the Mturks to not have once featured hubs reviewed multiple of times. It was an example question put forth in a thread about the types of questions HP needs to answer to stop other hubbers from speculating on so we can base our discussions on facts and not what we THINK would happen.
Truth is I don't know I might be right (people who write hubs which go idle due to traffic only make minor adjustment and do not need re-evaluation) or you (there are enough people who even though they make it thru the first time but hubs go idle due to low traffic make such gross errors they need re-evaluation). However, wouldn't it be nice to know from HP, hence my hypothetical question to HP.See?
PS. Remember I'm not the one who is always talking about staff being overworked and there not being enough editors.
Problem is you can't get an answer from anyone at all until it is tried. Tell everyone there won't be a second round from editing and see what happens.
My answer is based on the huge number of hubs written for purely SEO purposes, to drive traffic to another article somewhere - that sort of thing. Tell those writers that they can game the system and I think they will do just that.
I also think that that kind of stuff could probably be caught with software, not necessarily the Turkers, but that would definitely be something only HP could answer.
If they could find a way to not to send minor edits through QAP, I would love it.
They could stop a lot of the scammers by putting it through QAP for adding links... that's mostly what they would be doing... right?
So how about some automation that kicks in only if a certain percentage of text is edited, a new link is added, or (possibly) new photos.
Even if you make it a 1% limit, there's not much one percent could do to significantly alter the QAP but it would weed out all those who were just making minor edits to get re-featured.
Exactly what I was trying to say - you just said it better, although if it's purely automated, let every edit go through it. Instant, no pending, and could catch something. Just don't go pending and wait for the Turkers or hub hopper.
And sure, I don't see why major edits couldn't be caught automatically and sent through the big process. Title changes, maybe header changes, change 5% of the text, etc.
The downside for HP is that an author whose overall portfolio is making money for HP may choose to take his entire portfolio elsewhere, because his low-traffic hubs keep getting deindexed. This is already happening.
Some topics don't appeal to the masses and will never get tons of google search requests, but are of great interest to a smaller group of people. An author who wants to provide information of value to these people can no longer do so at HP. A system that deindexes hubs based on traffic, regardless of quality, makes that impossible.
Because these particular hubs will never make much money, HP sees little downside in deindexing them, but that may be a short-sighted view.
I don't know why people are complaining about this stuff so much.
I've had hubs idle, and while I don't have as many as others, I go in and make a couple quick edits and it goes back to being featured again. Most times I found new content I could add, or edits I should make. I was thankful for those idle hubs. It keeps me on my toes.
So how long do they stay featured after editing? And do they then gain traffic after minor edits to them?
One drawback is these hubs have already passed thru QAP only to go idle a few months after publishing. Every time someone edits their high quality hub due to low traffic it goes back thru Mturks to be "graded" again. Remember HP can not get to the back log of older hubs which are poor quality due to lack of staff. So one issue brought up earlier in this thread is Why does a hub which has passed QAP have to go back thru QAP if it was idled due to low traffic. Why not save an overworked staff from doing repetitive work and hopefully they can finally get around to backlog. As it stands they will always be busy with new hubs or re-evaluating already passed hubs which come back their way because a hubber has changed a title or added a photo. I don't see this as complaining. I see this as a valid question which raises a valid point addressing a valid concern. I think hubbers bring these concerns up to HP, not to complain but because they care.
Paul is out at a conference today, so I thought I'd respond. One of the main reasons that Hubs have to go back through the QAP after being edited is because not everyone is as honest as the Hubbers in this thread. Spammers will find anyway possible to get their Hubs Featured, and they may augment their Hubs in a way that is not acceptable after the Hub has received a "pass". I think that you have a valid point, however, and it would be nice if we had a section of trusted Hubbers and their Hubs would not need to be reassessed. I will bring this up with the team.
Robin, I think your idea of trusted hubbers who don't need to be reassessed after passing through QAP is a great idea, and I really hope the team embraces the idea when you bring it to them. It would solve a lot of problems. Just be prepared, though, because there will undoubtedly be some "discussion" in the forums about who gets to be "trusted" and who doesn't. Trying to please everyone is hopeless, of course, but I think your idea would make a lot of people happy.
Hi,Robin! Nice to see you out here in the forums. Thanks for passing the suggestion along.. And thanks for the reply
I am not complaining. I am stating what is happening.
The "new" requirement of continually tweaking is not working in the long run. The hub will be unfeatured again. I have done as you when all of this first started, and those same hubs would be unfeatured (idled) once again after a period of time.
Whereas you may have much free time on hand to do as you do, many of us do not. I have never, and I mean NEVER, had to tweak material on any other site that was already published. That includes when I was writing news articles. Many of my articles do well in Google without ever having to have been going through a required tweak, lol.
You see, this is why I like Wizzley so much. They will not compromise on quality, the owners manually read through the first five articles of each new author; hard work methinks. The site has grown very slowly because of these manual reviews and refusal to allow garbage through, but it is growing steadily and attracting quality writers who no longer want their content to appear side by side with carp.
I can understand why HP would not want to employ loads and loads of editors to read the humongous amounts of carp that are offered each and everyday here. So why not just employ three or four to edit, approve or reject the hubs from new authors? Yes, less content would be published by new authors, but at least it would be quality stuff. The crap is still getting through. That's a massive big fail for the Mturk option, and rather defeats the whole object of the process.
Hollie - I keep on seeing that Mturk is not working - but no one has provided me analysis. I've asked several times "HOw many articles on the latest list should not have been published' - and no one has answered. I did my own personal review and I'd say that at least 75% were of average or above - but one point of view is not enough and is based on my own personal opinion.
If 5 or 6 or more people told me that only 25% of hubs in the latest list should have been published then I would agree - but so far no one has. Without objective analysis we will always have a shouting match......yes there is some crap getting through - what percentage?
Well, according to your data Simey 25%. That's 25% too high. But even if it were only 5%, still too high when this process is meant to eliminate the crap altogether, and not allow any through. We're not trying to cure cancer here, or climb Everest, the aim is to approve reasonably well written articles and reject rubbish. That's not a tall order, in this instance it shouldn't come down to how small the percentages are when it comes to rubbish getting through, but why there is still a percentage of rubbish getting through in the first place. Like I said previously, it's a straight forward task which should have been completed by those who are paid to do so. If it hasn't, which clearly is the case, the process is not working.
No system will work perfectly ever but we should aim to narrow the error.
Without a baseline - 75% are good now, there's nothing to compare with in a month.
So if in a month it's 80% we would not be able to say there was progress.
This is why I keep on asking - we have to have objective analysis now, in one month, in three months etc. to see if there is improvement or not. Without this sort of benchmarking then you have nothing to measure.
I agree with everyone that there should be no garbage on hubpages - but there is - we all know this - nothing can change this - so let's analize and see if we can identify commonalities.
This is exactly what Google are doing - they have billions of dollars and they can't get it right - so how can we expect HP to get it right within a few months with far less - the whole process is a circle - implement - test - correct - implement - test
If it shows a consistent improvement then we know we're going in the right direction....
Simey, on a site that publishes as much content as HP does, in an age where slapped farms are desperately trying, not only to get rid of the old crap but also prevent new crap from being published, 25% is a lot of crap over time.
They are only going in the right direction when they have eliminated all new crap from being published. Over time Google will no doubt show HP, and everybody else writing here, what they think about a site with only 75% readable content. Particularly when they have already been warned about quality issues. Google will take no prisoners. We have already witnessed this first hand.
It is for this very reason I've kind of done my own thing, despite still having my hubs. As a professional journalist, I find it somewhat amusing.
I just launched a hub yesterday, so your post confuses and worries me. How does a hub "idle"? I don't want to lose any work I put into this venture, so any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.
HP now has a controversial system where it hides the hub from Google's search engine, essentially killing the would-be traffic. If your hub doesn't get traffic in a very short time it will idled. Not good at all!
Welcome to HubPages! Just to clarify Randy's comment, not all hubs are hidden from Google. The discussion going on here is mostly concerned with which hubs are affected, and when.
EDIT: I see that Randy added more info to his post, clarifying that not all hubs are affected. Sorry, Randy.
"Idle" is actually an older term. The current terminology is that hubs are either Featured (visible to Google) or Not Featured (not visible to Google). If you look in the Learning Center for info about Featured hubs you'll find more info.
I read your hub. It's funny (in a good way, as you intended). Good luck here on HubPages.
Not quite correct. In Hubspeak a hub is either Featured or Normal.
"Normal" means invisible to the search engines and not given any on-site promotion on Hubpages either.
My bad. Hubs that are not Featured are Normal. My term was wrong, but the effect is the same - invisible to search engines.
In a way it's kind of funny to see the enormous dislike of "hubspeak" in the forums here - it is the way of the world, after all. A world where the connotation and minor spin often means more than the word itself. From advertising to "political speak", even into the halls of higher education we see it everywhere; the connotation is what is actually being communicated, not the meaning of the word.
Is it because we are a community of writers, where the actual meaning of a word means more to us than most people?
Yes, partly because we are writers, but also because in this particular instance it is just plain ridiculous that the word "normal" means "not featured." It should not be "normal" for our work to be hidden from search engines. It should be "normal" that they are featured, and the exception that they are hidden.
But, see, "featured" means it's better; it's something higher to shoot for. "Normal" means everyday, common, run-of-the-mill. So, just as is done everywhere else in the world, the connotation means more than the meaning (normal=unseen in this case). You're not supposed to look at meanings, just the little spin of thinking that "featured" is desirable.
What's funny (I suppose) is that "normal" now means the exact opposite of what it used to mean. Hubs used to be "normal" (visible to search engines) or "idle". "Normal" now means invisible to search engines.
Ugh. It's ridiculous. Do they think we are children?
Well, in fairness to HP, I don't believe they think we are children. I can see that they're trying to keep Google happy while still maintaining a site where anyone can write about whatever they want (within certain standards). That's no easy feat. In retrospect, some of their decisions may not have been great (the "idle/featured/normal" thing, for example), and some criticism is certainly warranted, but I still believe their intentions are good.
..and also I don't think any writing site advertises the fact that there are strict editorial rules:
Wizzley, Constant-Content, Squidoo, Elance etc. do not advertise the fact that they have editorial rules. They want you to join.
All have this information (including HP) in their TOS and deeper in their site....
I think their intentions are good, also, whether their plan actually works or not.
I just find that idle/normal thing irritating and insulting. I guess it's my problem, though, since no one else seems to.
No - they're doing the exact same thing that everyone else in the world is doing anymore. Trying to convince you of something (featured hubs are better) that may or may not be true but fits into what they want to see.
There I was thinking HP had finally discovered what a crappy writer I am,and then I come here and find real writers having the same problem.
I spend 90% of my time hub hopping and have read many of ya'lls work which I considered very well done.To see you here having the same problems tells me it's the system and not my crappy writing that's the real problem...or is it?Hmm...
When a non-member arrives at the HP home page, one of the first things they see is this message screaming out at them:
Deeper into the sales talk, one finds the statement
"We’re passionate about discovering and sharing information"
plus all sorts of other hyperbole
NOWHERE in all this do prospective members get given the warning that it is highly likely a good part of what they will write will never attract readers, earn rewards, be discovered or shared...
... because it is going to be censored away from view.
I woke up to my one EXCLUSIVE titled hub to have been idled this morning. It NEVER even got off the ground. So much for those exclusive titles that were supposed to be SEOed by HP staff. It is not even possible to change a title on an Exclusive title. This was a basic hub....a review of various Kindles for students. I have maybe six review hubs, all much older than this one and none of them have been idled YET.
Number 40 has now been idled and then unpublished by me, lol. I will delete it tonight. In one thread a week or so ago, I had mentioned that this hub was on the hit list due to low views only. As I look now, it looks like yet another pagan related hub will be up for the next hit. The majority of hubs I have had idled continue to be pagan and/or alternative medicine hubs. I still feel HP has a list of topics that they do not want on the site and those two are included right along with poetry.
I think I would rather have HP tell me that they are simply going to continue to idle my material so I can just pull it all at once instead of idling two hubs a week.
I am glad that HP staff feels they are on track. Maybe eventually they will get a handle on what it is they are attempting to do. Sadly they will have lost a ton of UNIQUE material as well as members/authors.
Exclusive titles were never SEO'd by staff - they are merely titles that might do well and haven't been used yet. The learning center is quite clear that keyword research still needs to be done on them.
They can also be changed; drop a line to staff requesting it be changed to something else.
Pagan hubs and alternative medicine hubs are being idled - maybe because they aren't searched for instead of being on a "hit list" by HP? After you do indicate that you can tell there isn't enough traffic to sustain them....
I don't believe the Learning Center article was put up immediately when exclusive titles were introduced. I had the held the same belief (at least when exclusive titles were rolled out) that these titles had been SEO'd and were in topics that had been search-friendly.
I guess I'm just lucky in that I never got around to writing the ones I claimed. Is there any way to throw them back into the pool?
If you delete it will go back to the pool in 24 hours.
We recommend that you do/ask yourself the following things before writing a Hub - even an Exclusive:
- Is it a topic that I am passionate about or have unique expertise?
- Do I have something new to offer on this topic - this could be unique photos, videos, text, etc.?
- Check out your competition by typing your title in Google. What results show up? Can you beat them?
- Create a title that is search friendly. (Exclusive titles are likely to answer this question, but they do not answer the previous questions that are incredibly important for a Hub to succeed!)
This is the new world of online writing. It takes a lot of work to rank in search results today, but if our Hubbers followed the above guidelines and wrote Stellar Hubs, it is definitely possible to beat out the competition. Luckily, we have some of the best writers on the web writing on HubPages.
Thanks, LCDWriter, for answering!
I took a look at your Hub; I would be frustrated as well if this Hub was no longer Featured. I hope you don't delete it. If it were me, I would give it a second chance by republishing it and perhaps promoting it a bit.
We don't target specific categories; it is based on traffic. We have no problem with pagan or alternative medicine Hubs. Your wiccan Hubs are quite intriguing!
We have discussed this in past meetings, and I will bring it up again. You can sort your Hubs by traffic in My Account and this will give you an idea of what might Hubs might need a revisit.
We are on the right track, but there is definitely room for improvement. We have removed millions of low quality pages from the index - I am not referring to your Hubs. We are working on ways to better communicate our message with the community so that we don't lose our authors that are the backbone of the community and their unique material - I am referring to your Hubs!
Thanks for the response Robin.
I am glad you can sense my frustration. I have been doing my best to share quality material here. Granted, some of my early stuff was worth idling, but when I look at the quantity of hubs that have been idled, I get sort of depressed.
I can't spend the time tweaking all the time, that is for sure. I do know they are being idled by traffic and have sorted and viewed, hence I was able to call the shot that the Kindle hub would be idled soon.
I have not deleted that hub yet, nor removed it from Google search and cache, I have simply unpublished it at this time debating my next step. On this particular hub, I will take some time over the next few days and do as you suggest and see what I can do.
I will take you at your word that the subject material is not being focused on to be idled by HP, that would be the pagan related and alternative medicine. Thank you for your kind word on my Wiccan hubs.
I certainly am not "wanting" to leave HP. When I joined about 14 or 15 months ago, it was a challenge, but then things took off.....then the Panda strikes came along and since then it just has become frustrating. I do love to share what I write and would prefer to do it here on HP. The members are wonderful and I have a great time with many in the community. The atmosphere here, overall is wonderful.
I have limited time to spend here, however, due to working full time and on Amazon and such. To have so many hubs idled is overwhelming with my schedule. I know some do this full time, but to me, it is a part-time venture and a means to get my material available for those who may be seeking what I have to share. HP does draw views....the platform has gotten me a ton of views on certain hubs as I feel you have seen. One from last year, and the same topic hub this year, which is overall seasonal, has never gone out of season. The other is Chrome related, and never lacks for views. I attribute HP for the vast amount of views I have had on those hubs.
Overall, it is just hard to be patient for the continued weeding process to get to a point that quality hubs and quality authors are not caught up in the traffic thing and such. Solid material should never be considered for deletion due to lack of traffic. Over the years online, I have had pages on my site sit there for a year or more and suddenly sky rocket once a particular keyword or topic trends for whatever reason. Many time a trending will be started by current news events as well as a sudden amount of views from someone sharing the link on a well read site. I have no problem with HP idling material that lacks quality, even if it is mine. Overall, however, I don't think that many of my hubs that have been idled did lack quality.
Communication is a key factor as you mentioned, Robin. Maybe I am missing things as I simple can not spend a great deal of time here.
I would like something implemented like an automated email maybe linking to some hubs that may be failing and need something done prior to being idled....or even an icon on the hub listing on my account page. That would certainly give me more time and would be more friendly for me allowing me a heads up to do what may be suggested preventing it from becoming idle.
Again, thanks for your response and for listening.
I absolutely understand your frustration and we are working on ways to make it better.
Most Hubbers don't have the time to tweak all of their Hubs constantly. We recommend tweaking your Hubs that get traffic and making them better and updating those that are likely to lose their Featured status. We are working on a way to communicate to Hubbers if they have a Hub that is on the verge of no longer being Featured.
I think that's a good idea.
It is a great place to be and our community is the very best! Your input is extremely valuable, so I hope that you stay with us.
I agree that Hubs that are of exceptional quality shouldn't lose their Featured status. We are working on this. I just wanted to add that I appreciate this dialogue a lot, Dale. We truly want to know what is and isn't working for Hubbers. We can't always comply, but it is important to us to have this communication. I have been at HubPages since its very beginnings, and the community has always been a vital part of the plan. Thanks again!
Not sure what the hub bub is about. An idled hub is caught by filters as not having enough traffic. So go in and tweak one word or two, and republish and it's back up and ready for traffic.
when you have hundreds or thousands of hubs it becomes something of a chore. This was originally thought of as a passive income source.
LOL Passive income. That's what caught my eye early on as well - write 'em, forget 'em and get paid forever.
That most definitely died with Panda, if it ever was a viable concept to start with. There's a lot of ground between passive income and tweaking every hub every month or two, though...
You will find that is a temporary solution. Many have tried that and I am one who has. More has to be done to keep it featured apparently.
I agree, Dale; in most cases, more needs to be done. Having a Hub lose its Featured status could be an indication that your Hub needs some work (I understand that this isn't the case with every Hub). However, every Hub of mine that lost its Featured status needed updates. Some I just left alone (I didn't really care if they were Featured or not) some I deleted (they were Hubs I wrote seven years ago that weren't ever that good), and others I updated. If you want your Hubs that are no longer Featured to receive traffic from search engines, you will probably have to update them and make them better. It could be as simple as tweaking the title, adding a few original photos, or adding other meaningful, engaging capsules. The bottom line, having a Hub Featured or not really doesn't matter if you aren't receiving any search traffic. The end result is the same; you aren't receiving any traffic on that Hub from search. If you improve the Hub and promote it via your social networks, you have a chance of that Hub doing well in search.
Again, I realize that there are exceptions to this rule. There are Hubs that are no longer Featured that are of high quality; there are Hubs that are seasonal or are waiting for that big news story, e.g., sinkhole Hubs. If you feel like your Hub fits in this category, I still recommend adding a bit to it and republishing it. Ultimately, it's up to you - this is just my humble advice.
I have tweaked hubs, added a comma, change one word and yes, they go back to featured. So it can be done....BUT...
Sometimes a Hub is exactly what you want to say--a recipe, a poem - those things do not need tweaking. Often after I have worked on a hub, it is just how I want it--and to have to play with it, or edit it to regain featured status is just wrong.
Maybe if enough Hubbers protest they will change this ludicrous feature.
I just came from Squid land. Squidoo is really picking on their writers over there. Lenses getting locked here, there, and everywhere.
But what I found most interesting was how calmly the squids were taking it. If that was HP's forums, they would be screaming murder. There were a couple of people saying they were taking their stuff away, but with nowhere need the vehemence of hubbers.
And there's complaints about entire accounts just outright disappearing.
That link was an interesting read. Me thinks I'll stay away for the time being.
I have one hub-- Historic Architectural Treasures of Dwight, Illinois-- that has a 75 hub score (above dozens of my listed hubs). It's a perfectly legitimate hub, because it discusses a Frank Lloyd Wright bank and a train station by a prominent architect. But it's a small town, so it's no good from the standpoint of HubPages.
I understand the drive to improve quality on HubPages. But this particular article being quashed is a perfect example of an ignorance about article quality.
Perhaps you could bring it back to life by making the title about Frank Lloyd's bank, or the train station, which might be something people are searching for?
When hubs get idled for lack of search traffic, it has nothing to do with quality, it is about the lack of traffic. Sure I agree it is a very bad shortcut, but it sounds like it is here to stay.
personally I don't think Hubscores mean anything. I have a hub idled with a score of 80.
Hi e five, I'm no expert, but I think the formatting of your page could be improved. Opening with a map is not exciting. I want to see the 'treasures' you talk about in your title. The photos you use to illustrate are not exciting (for me). Can you use more photos? (Try to find photos showing detail of each site you present, showing different angles and views and a variety of sizes). Your telling me these are treasures is not enough, I want to 'see' what makes them so. I would use the map last.
This hub has been inactive for months, but it has a high hub score and (I believe) high interest.
I have a story about the 1980s new wave group Devo and the dozens of major film soundtracks produced by Mark Mothersbaugh that has a 71 score and 124 views that has become delisted. If this is insufficient content, I don't know what is acceptable.
The moot question, of course, is why this college professor could not set up internal pages on the college intranet for the maunderings of his students.
Could be he's limited in computer space, might want a "real world" setting or just might be too lazy to do so. Easier to have each student sign up here.
It was recommended that I do this so the hub will get put through the featured process more quickly.
Then your instructor is an idiot. Until it is featured, every time you edit it sends it to the back of the queue; resets the clock, so to speak, in how long it will take.
Calling someone an idiot does not make your point more valid. I have been instructed to do it one way and I will. The point of all my hubs minus the final review is for his pleasure only.
Sorry you have the attitude...but you are being instructed wrong. Every edit after you publish WILL push the hub back to the 24 hour wait... You should check out the Learning Center and such to learn more.
If my instructor was telling me to dive off a cliff, I think I would hesitate once someone pointed it out to me that it would be painful if I did.
Constructive criticism is a very important aspect of "real" life..... without that, it is a "fantasy" life.
Up to you. Certainly it's no skin off my nose either way.
My articles are getting views. I have select good topics and write article with quality.
Popped in to unpublish my newly idled hub. I am now down to 90 hubs actively listed here from right around the 140 I used to have. Getting close to having half of my material idled here.
Anyway, just popped in to check and share, now I shall go to Google Webmaster Tools and have the url stripped from Google search and cache and then move this hub to my blog and delete it here.
Have a great weekend everyone.
by Cindy Lawson4 years ago
How is it that a hub on the 'common mistakes new hubbers make' can suddenly become not featured, in spite of the fact it has had 9 views in a day, 24 views in 7 days and 35 views in the last 30 days? I only replied to...
by Steve Andrews4 years ago
I keep on getting hubs idled despite tweaking them, changing titles and adding better keywords. I have got used to moving them to other sites such as Wizzley, Xobba and InfoBarrel but it seems to be an ongoing problem....
by Shasta Matova4 years ago
I know that you can choose to display your idle hubs on your profile page, but I don't, because I don't want Google to see them at all and get confused by all those "do not follow." What this means is...
by Georgianna Lowery4 years ago
This is a two-fold issue. I know we're in the middle of a Google Typhoon or whatever animal is wreaking havoc this month plus the summer traffic is, well, obviously somewhere else. In January/February of this year, my...
by topclass4 years ago
Many good quality pages are Idled (become unfeatured) via ‘Analysis of the how engaged readers are with a Hub over an extended period of time’ – essentially because they get low traffic.It appears that this...
by Tessa Schlesinger19 months ago
As fast as I'm trying to fix up hubs that are unfeatured, the problem isn't that there is something wrong with them, but that they are being unfeatured as a result of lack of traffic. Isn't this short sighted? Some...
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.