I've just gone through quite a few 'latest hubs' and as I do I notice there are things slipping through that simply shouldn't. I suggest that as part of the design process there are some checks and balances that would stop a Hub from being published.
Headings - all headings should at least start with a capital letter.
Photos - all Photos must have some attribution
Amazon Modules - the rule that you must have 'x' words must be applied and stop hubs that break this rule from being published.
I'm sure there are other rules that can be applied before publishing - as long as these rules are listed up front and center, no one should have a problem with them!
LOL, while all heading should start with a capital letter, I'm not sure it should be a make or break thing for a hub... and it's something that can be addressed through manual QAP but honestly if the rest of the hub is ok grammatically then it's likely not going to idle it. I agree that photos should have some kind of attribution out of politeness if nothing else, but some photos aren't required to have attribution in their licensing. Another problem I have ran into with photo attributions is the links on individual photos have made the hub look over-promotional when they all come from the same source... (four photos from the same source, linked, is four links to same source... hence overpromotional.) Automatic filters should be picking up on the Amazon modules... if you are seeing them in new hubs, then someone needs to report it as a technical issue.
I've always thought that attribution at photo was ridiculously ugly as well. If I had my rathers, there would be an "attributions and sources" capsule available that we could place at the end of the hub-under the comments section if we like. It would be a space to list all references and attribute photos without messing up the format of the page.
1) I agree with the headings - it's more about a matter of branding for me - in a way it's a quality issue - but forcing users would at least create a constant look.
2) Amazon - I know there's a warning - but I didn't think it stops you publishing - perhaps I'm wrong - a couple of hubs I saw looked like they were borderline.....
3) "but some photos aren't required to have attribution in their licensing" - agreed - but how are HP going to check this - a simple - 'No licence required' would at least help the QAP process.
I just feel that there are some borderline issues that will appear on hubs that then comes down to the opinion of the 'rater' - why not standardize some things? This allows the rater to concentrate more on content, grammar, spelling etc. I know that style is a factor - so making capitlization mandatory will increase style...
I'd love to see more standardization. I'd LOVE for manual raters to have something a bit more in-depth than the FAQ guide. I've suggested it a couple times, and to be fair many of the specific issues that I've ran across while rating and asked directly about were included in the FAQ... honestly MOST were. They really have been listening,TPTB handling the ratings really ARE responding to feedback.
I find photos to be a problem. I ran across a hub today with three photos from one site; a site that had a very plain statement at the bottom that "all rights reserved". I don't believe for a second that the hubber got permission to use them.
One of the three was also linked and attributed to a second site, where it was not even available, presumably to avoid the over promotion from linking three times to one site.
That's theft, plain and simple, and do different than having our hubs scraped. I just don't know what can be done about it.
Zujava insists that every single photo has an attribution statement, whether it's legally required or not.
Like Melissa, my only problem with that is that it looks ugly. I've never put my attribution in the photo capsule. I always put all my credits together in a separate text capsule - which also gets around the overly promotional restriction, because you can say something like "all images courtesy of ...." In fact, when writing a Hub, I try to get all my images from one place for precisely that reason - it looks so tidy!
If HubPages was to ask for an attribution for every photo, then they would need an automated way to check it, so the attribution would have to be in the photo capsule.
I don't think it can reasonable be checked at all. I may have permission, or use my own photo, but HP can't be requiring proof of that for ever photo. Anyway, how do I prove it came from my camera - I don't even have a negative any more!
I do like the idea of a central location - a special capsule, maybe? - for attributions. It's all by the honor system anyway and it would certainly look better.
Excessive links to one domain is still a problem on older hubs.
As well as unrelated links on new hubs. I recently flagged a hubber who added a link to their 'let me provide back links for $' site on all their hubs (the hubs were not on that topic)
There is an automated filter that catches more than two links to one domain, so how can that be?
HubPages removed the restriction on having multiple Hubs all linking to the same domain. So your example is legal under the new rules - except that in that particular case, it's illegal due to the nature of the site he's linking to.
Marisa, the automated filter also catches hubs that violate the 50/1 rule...but there are still a lot out there. The hub I flagged had 6 links to the same website in the first 2 paragraphs. It had not been updated since 2010.
I do not know why the filter didn't flag them for removal. Your guess is probably better than mine.
A second hub I flagged was by an author who wrote about wood flooring, but at the bottom of the hub, a link was inserted that went to an SEO link building service. The same link was on other of this author's hubs as well. The issue isn't that the author had multiple links to a site, the issue was that the links are unrelated to the article (violation of TOS). These were published in the past few weeks and I assume it went through QAP, but I can't be sure.
I'm sure it did go through QAP. However, manual QAP does not check for TOS violations.
Flag it. That's what the flag button is there for.
Melissa, I appreciate your guidance to "flag it. That's what the flag button is there for." ---but I thought that my previous post is clear that I did...maybe I wasn't as clear as I had hoped?
I was replying to Marisa's point that the automated filters should be identifying those. I thought that it should be doing it as well, but there seem to be some hubs that the filter is missing.
As an example, here is one that has 3 links (and yes, Melissa, I flagged it).
http://toresa.hubpages.com/hub/Sensual_ … or_Couples
So therefore manual QAP does not aim to get rid of QRAP????????
In that case, why is it being imposed?
What purpose does it serve if it cannot extirpate spun, machine translated, over promotional, devoid of content, or ESL Engrish garbage?
Yes, because not being required to check for TOS violations is exactly the same thing as not getting rid of low quality.
Just like it's somehow the fault of raters that hubs that no one wants to search for are being idled for low traffic.
But hey, what would I know? I'm an ignorant ESL prostitute who lives in Umbobwinstand and works for five cents per hit. I also can't read English... so the fine points of two things being unrelated might be escaping my poor illiterate brain.
It would be nice to know that the QAP at least eliminates the spun/machine translated and purely promotional hubs that drag down this site. However, a quick look through the latest offerings shows this is not the case.
WriteAngled - out of the last 30 or so, how many were obviously spun? I flagged one - but without copying and pasting the text and checking in google, none of the others jumped out as being 'obvious' spun?
These are the kind of stats I'm looking for on the forum: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/110445
The more we can verify the problems there are with the QAP the better - and we need quantative facts - so if you feel 5 out of 30 are definitely spun then please list this in the other forum!
Purely promotional is a problem, as it isn't specifically addressed in the manual ratings instructions nor can it be picked up in the automated process. Raters can flag them, if they know that they should. Non-hubber raters don't know that though. Flagging instructions for raters don't exist.
Raters should be catching spun... but if it isn't blatantly obvious (once again non-hubbers generally have no idea what "spun" is) it's just going to affect grammar -and if it's bad enough- substance. If the average of all three (really four) ratings is above a certain number it's getting through.
That's why I suggest that HUBBERS rate.
Spun, machine translated or otherwise illiterate spam-ridden drivel that is void of all useful content is the first thing that needs to be removed from here for once and for all, because such ToS violations would be the most likely factor affecting the way in which Google and other search engines view this site.
Thus, it would seem expedient for any "quality" process to focus on extirpating this dross from HP as soon as possible.
Instead, HP is decreasing CPM paid out to genuine hubbers so as to be able to pay money for people to downgrade bona fide hubs on the basis of artificial and irrelevant scales.In addition, HP is censoring perfectly decent hubs from the search engines because these hubs are guilty of the unforgivable crime of not attracting an artificially defined level of traffic.
"HP is decreasing CPM paid out to genuine hubbers" this is a serious allegation - do you have proof? Are you sure they are not simply spending their allocation of income?
It is not possible to have proof when there is no transparency in the system.
However, I can see income decreasing as CPM decreases, whereas the content of my hubs has not changed.
I draw certain conclusions from my observations. Others may think otherwise. It makes no difference, because neither side can prove anything since no objective data are available.
All I know is that I cannot place any more trust in this site with the situation as it stands.
WriteAngled - you could be right, or wrong - I don't know. CPM decreases because of many factors - new year,poor economy etc. If you're concerned that HP Ads are screwing you by reducing the CPM then simply switch to Google Adsense....
I'd also like to see any site on the web that pays revenue give transparency - do Google give that to you, they certainly don't to me?
Machine translated, spun and "illiterate" material is being filtered out... by those "artificial and irrelevant scales". If it is unreadable, it gets low grammar ratings. If it has no useful content, then it gets low substance ratings.
You don't like some of the ones getting through? Tough. That's HP's call. If you think that they aren't being weeded out, then you are wrong. Are you going to agree with all of them that get through, probably not... but if you were rating, you would have a pretty good idea of how many AREN'T. I would say on average 40 to 50 percent of those I rate DON'T get through. That's by knowing my numbers and comparing them to the latest hubs.
Now, are raters responsible for flagging? No. I probably send 20 flags through a day though... just because I know what to look for. Of those 20 flags, I would say 17 or 18 of them wouldn't get featured anyway... because of failing those "artificial and irrelevant scales". The other two or three would likely get featured by scores alone because the QAP review process doesn't address those specific issues. THOSE are the ones that you are likely seeing getting through to latest hubs... because other raters aren't required to flag and possibly may not be aware of HP's TOS.
I don't know the number for pass/fail but I have developed a pretty good guess of what it probably is. Many of the hubs that are being complained about now are definitely right on that line. When HP "raises the bar" as we have been told they are planning on doing, I'm pretty sure you won't see them any more. I'm also pretty sure that there are many many active hubbers -myself likely included- that are going to have hubs go idle from it.
And the wailing and gnashing of teeth will start anew.
I know I probably have 150 hubs that I wrote a long time ago that would be right on that line - however if the bar is raised then I'll accept it.... I'll improve the ones that are worth improving and delete the rest.
There are some good ideas here - some (well, many) require some software of filtering changes that would be time consuming. But the issues they'd address are very real.
If we don't make money, HP won't make money. I truly think they ,the site owners & managers) would not want to drive off writers by deliberately reducing their revenue. I'd hate to see you leave, too, WA; you are one of the very experienced experts here, and you're widely respected. I hope you reconsider.
by Jemuel4 years ago
Hello fellow hubbers! I just want to know if I violated the rules in HP regarding over promotional on hubs. I usually have images from freedigitalphotos.net cause aside from the fact that they offer free photos, I...
by DallasColdLaserDR6 years ago
I noticed that when I checked my backlinks all of the ones from hubpages were 'nofollow' links. Should this be the case? (I've written several articles and I'd hate not to be getting the most out of them.) Or do I need...
by RanaKm2 years ago
So, I've had a hub unpublished due to HP claiming that it's overly promotional.The hub only has 2 outbound links ( which is the number of links we're allowed to put for the other external sites ) this is the only thing...
by Bryce6 years ago
Every time I upload a pic and read the message that the pic link counts in my hub links I get the impression that my hubs could get penalized. I went through the learning Center and the FAQ and I did a few searches...
by Sondra Rochelle2 years ago
Someone recently stated that there are limits to how much you can link to your own hubs. Does anybody know the limitations?
by Novel Treasure2 years ago
I just logged in and it shows every single one of my hubs highlighted in pink, to need review. The majority of these were well trafficked and featured hubs or editor's choice. Did something happen? I tried looking in...
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.