Another QAP dropout

1. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

   Hi there,
   
   Here is a hub on a new reader feedback service that QAPped out.  Any advice about how to get it over the bar would be appreciated.
   
   http://psycheskinner.hubpages.com/hub/Inkspand

   replyreport
   1. 71

      My Mind Speaksposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I actually really enjoyed the hub!  I thought it was well written and informative. The only thing I could possibly maybe sorta think of is that someone thought it came across a little to "advertiser friendly."  I'm guessing it happens because someone didn't take the time to read thoroughly during the hub hopper. The only other suggestion I could possibly make would be maybe change the picture? In all honestly it could end up picking up traffic and being featured. Like I said I thought it was a good read and useful as well, so it's def a misjudgement on whoever's part.

      replyreport
2. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

   I hadn't thought of it looking promotional.  I will try and make it clearer that this is just something I came across online.  I only found one other post written about it.

   replyreport
3. 98

   wildernessposted 5 years ago

   It's a little short for my taste, but provides all pertinent information and should pass word count tests.
   
   First text capsule ends with a colon; although I do this myself I've often wondered if it is really acceptable.
   
   Second capsule is too short.  A subheading needs more than two sentences to justify it's existence.
   
   Some criticism on wording; take it with a grain (or pound) of salt as I'm no expert here:
   
   "Well the author pays $30 per review," could use a comma after "well" and none after "review".
   
   "(reading books, that is)"  While I find this perfectly acceptable, scorers may not.
   
   "either 2 or 4 out of 5"  Should the numbers be spelled out?
   
   "and I ca be pretty judgmental"  misspelling
   
   "you can return it (of course you won't get paid)"  might read "you can return it but of course you won't get paid
   
   I'm trying to get into the mind of raters, probably not very successfully, so take this for what it's worth; probably very little.

   replyreport
4. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

   Thank you very much for those proofing comments.  I appreciate it!

   replyreport
5. 94

   jansharesposted 5 years ago

   Hi psycheskinner. Sorry to hear, I know the feeling from recent experience.
   
   I read your hub and I agree with some of what others have said. I see how it could be read as promotional and it is rather short.
   
   The information is good and your writing is obviously good; but we know that's not the issue.
   
   I would add to the other critiques that it lacks visual appeal. Maybe add more images of books. Another suggestion is to add more text on the value of writer's reviewing each other's work as an opening paragraph. That would state the purpose of the article upfront and take away any misconception about you promoting the site.

   replyreport
6. 88

   Bill Yovinoposted 5 years ago

   A very interesting Hub that I felt is perhaps, too shallow a dive into the subject.  I agree with Janshares that it would have a better feel with additional photos or graphics. I would love to see this expanded, as I was not aware such a service existed.

   replyreport
7. 90

   Will Apseposted 5 years ago

   Paid reviews, a dodgy area.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't disagree, this is mentioned in the hub,

      replyreport
8. 97

   agilitymachposted 5 years ago

   I think everyone caught what I saw: Potentially promotional and minor grammar errors.
   
   If "overly promotional" isn't the real cause, the lack of media might be.  When hubs are graded, one of the three big issues looked at includes good images that relate to the subject and visual layout appeal.  You had one image, but I'd suggest adding more.  Improving layout and subtitles might put you over that "6" needed to pass QAP.

   replyreport