Pssst! HubPages is announcing an exciting new service today— check it out in our blog.
I read it. WOW!
As long as I'm allowed to continue my own editing, I'm amendable.
An update. I see that we can.
For the reasons Marisa pointed out - I'd be really concerned about someone changed my text in my articles about guitars and guitarists. So far as layout goes, well, in that case I would trust you people to know better than I. I think communication is going to be the key here.
We recognize and respect that you are the expert on your topic! We won't be changing things that are crucial to your message and if we have questions, we'll ask!
It is amazing the work put into making this site such a long-lasting success among user-generated content sites. I think this is a good idea. Looking forward to seeing how it makes the site even more of a success in the long-term. I think it will polish things up even more and make HP a very sophisticated brand among revenue-sharing sites.
I understand others' concerns, but as usual we've been allowed great freedom in this endeavor and it looks to be a collaborative thing in which we ultimately still have a say in what happens to our content.
If this is definitely going to go ahead, you NEED to add an opt-out, or some way to "lock" your hubs individually if you don't want them edited. Personally, I don't want anyone else interfering with my hubs if I don't ask for it.
Ultimately: sounds good in theory; it won't go so well in practice.
We just published a FAQ on the HubPro Beta! Check it out here: http://hubpages.com/faq/#HubPro-Beta
I see that you also managed to get the FAQ section about it in.
This is exciting news I would LOVE help in this area. Maybe one day my traffic will improve enough for this benefit. I will keep plugging along trying not to disappoint too many with my lack of editing ability. I am a self-published author and, believe it or not, a motivational speaker. My dream is for my writing skills to meet that of my speaking skills in sharing my stories and truths. I look forward to hubs on the basics of editing and improving my hubs.
I'm anxious. This is a nice idea in theory, but it caused a LOT of bad feeling when it was introduced at Helium.com.
The problem is that editors can't possibly be knowledgeable in every subject. If they start editing Hubs on specialist topics, they can all too easily change a word or expression that affects the meaning of the Hub, simply because they don't understand the jargon of that particular subject.
It was worse at Helium because if an editor changed something, it wasn't easy to get it changed back. Here, we have control over our own Hubs so that's not a problem - I guess it depends how irritating it gets!
I think the blog post has been changed since I read it!
I see the process includes sending a before-and-after report to the Hubber, so that answers that concern.
However, I'm not sure how I (or any other Hubber) will feel about a complete stranger making unilateral decisions to:
- Update the information in Hubs
- Add supplementary capsules
- Obtain high-quality media assets (illustrations)
If the HP staff goes in and adds a supplementary capsule that does not fit with what the author of the Hub wants, can the hubber go in and delete it?
For instance, several people have mentioned adding the Sarloos wolfhound to my "Seven Dogs that look like wolves". If HP does so, I would want to delete the capsule since the dog is actually a wolf hybrid, not a dog.
Will capsules change hubs that much, or will you only be adding a photo or video?
That's a great example of what I'm worried about. A well-meaning editor could add information they think is relevant, but unless they really know the subject, they can do more harm than good.
Marissa....Thank you. Your concerns are quite valid and I'm sure shared by more than a few of us. In fact, after reading your comments, I thought immediately about a hub or 2 of mine that fit your description. It's a relief, as you noted, to be informed of our "ownership" privileges.
I was in the Pilot program that tried this out. I don't think there were any major additions to my hubs, like the ones you are suggesting. I think a couple of my hubs got a table module summarising the information already in the hub, as a 'new module'.
Plus I remember getting an email or two from my editor with questions and possibly updates on what was going on. I imagine that if an editor wanted to add a whole lot of new information to a hub, that they would ask you about that before they did it.
But actually I think this is unlikely, because as you point out they are not the expert. Yes they might fact check etc. but I don't think the editing service includes doing in depth research on the hub topic.
I was pleased with the experience (not least because it cleared out a mass of typos and other untidiness, which I was rather embarrassed to see I had in my hubs). My traffic really improved after the editing. Most probably this was just the 'freshness' effect, but it is nice while it lasts.
I was in the pilot program. For one of my hubs the editor wanted to remove a couple of capsules that I felt strongly should remain. So the capsules remained, no issues. Also if they do remove a capsule, they don't delete, they hide it. So on your own you can restore it. You can also delete anything they add. You are perfectly free to still edit your own hubs.
What I also found helpful was to ask the editor why they may of felt the need to make certain changes. Once a explanation was given it made me more open to certain changes. The editor I was working with was very easy to communicate with.
Well, I was in the pilot and the editor did a really good job. They took my images and modified them to make them look really cool - great designers they've got there.
Got a report of all the changes made, it was colour coded to make it easy. Just go through it and undo any changes if required - I didn't have to other than adding an Amazon capsule back which was actually one of the best sellers I have here on Hubpages.
All in all an amazing experience.
If you guys want to check out some of the illustrations I got from the team, go to my profile and search for:
Aalite, if you dont mind could you show us which hub of yours was edited (I just wanna see those images )
Well I didn't have any images added, but that is probably the type of hubs, which were edited, computer hardware-stuff.
Here is one hub that was edited: http://hubpages.com/hub/Best-IPS-Monitor-for-Gaming (I'll see whether the link can survive, if not it is about IPS monitors for gaming). The table was done by the editor.
The one thing I wasn't sure about was making the images and especially the Amazon capsules full width. I know that is done because this is how they appear on the mobile version, but I think the Amazon capsule looks much better half-width. I haven't reversed them though, it doesn't seem to affect sales.
Yup it's probably done because on the mobile the capsules put on the right actually come above the text box and in your case the product before the review
The issue of full width images interests me because we were originally told that it is not a good idea to use full width images because they interrupt what is being read.
Also, if you use them at the beginning of a hub, it takes more time for the article to load.
After looking at your edited article, I am now more confused than ever.
What did they tell you about that?
It's recommended now, purely because of people viewing Hubs on mobile phones (I hate it and I'm not changing, but more on that later).
Apparently the old layout didn't look good on a mobile, so HP has created a mobile view that converts all capsules to full-width.
If you don't make the capsules full-width yourself, then the half-width capsules automatically turn to full-width and they appear above the text they were next to, which may not look right. So the recommendation is to make them full-width yourself, to be sure they're in the right place.
Personally I'm not changing any of my Hubs yet. All sites are contending with an increase in mobile views, but I don't see other sites just making everything full-width as a solution. It seems like a quick and dirty fix and HubPages will probably improve on it in due course - and then I'd have to change them all back again!
I put a lot of thought into my layouts and they still look fine on tablets and other larger screens, so I don't want to undo all that work for nothing.
I know the trend in web design is to have large "Hero Images" on the home page that take up the full screen on most desktops with almost no text.
Yes, and it beats me why. How does that engage the reader?
It's not meant to engage the reader. It's to entice the buyer. It supposedly works well
I've noticed this also. It necessitates us to click and enter the site. It works.
A trend I loathe. I feel something is being thrust into my face when faced with images like that. It makes me feel that my personal space is being invaded, which makes me feel very uncomfortable and automatically makes my feel more negative about the site that is forcing this on me.
During the editing you are able converse back and forth with the editor. You can see how the first one looks and if you decide that you do not like it, then you are able to go to the Edit Profile page to opt out, but you may not opt back in for 60 days if you change your mind.
Or you can just opt out right now and it will be a non issue. You won't have to worry about anything being thrust in your face or feeling that your personal space is invaded. No one is being forced into this program.
True, but if others rant and rave after she does, then she cannot opt in for 60 days. If she gets 1 Hub edited then she only has to wait 1 week to opt out if she chooses.
But if it is anything like the pilot program they will select more than one Hub to edit (they selected four of mine), so I'm not sure if you can opt out after the process has already started. Plus once you have had Hubs edited I am suspecting it would be a really long time before they get around to you again. So if you really feel strongly against the program, and feel that it is being forced on you, then you might just make the choice just to opt out. Either way, it is only a small handful of Hubs they are editing, so doesn't really hurt to give it a try. If you are really unhappy you can change the Hubs back and opt out. But if someone feels strongly against it, I would understand why they just might want to opt out right off the bat.
Spartucusjones, this is the trouble with reading the threaded version of these forums. The chronological version includes the text of the original post in the reply, so you can see what's being replied to.
WriteAngled was replying to a conversation about the growing trend for sites to have a single huge image as an entry point, forcing you to click on it to enter. Nothing to do with the HubPro program.
Did they tell you it was better to go full width with images and ads? If so, this is a total reversal of what we were originally told to do with our articles. Please share asap. Thanks.
This sounds fantastic. I can't wait to see how it works. I like the option to opt in or out, like Editor's Choice. One question though: will a hubber be able to edit the edits? Just being a curious one.
I was in the Pilot program too. I suppose that, on average, the changes were good. I appreciated the grammar and spelling improvements, the link-checking, re-arranging paragraphs, layout changes, and so on.
There were several things I was unhappy with though. My editor made a pretty serious mistake on one of my hubs that I didn't immediately spot, and might never have spotted. She had duplicated a list item so the text was appearing twice. When she realized the list was now too long, she didn't check to see what had gone wrong; she just removed the last item on the list. She clearly didn't give the hub a read-through after making the changes, and was rushing to finish. One careful read-through would have found the mistake.
Also, I appreciated my editor's good intentions, but she knew absolutely nothing about football (soccer). Unfortunately, some of my best performing hubs are about football, so two of the four hubs she was editing were on that topic. She made some changes to the text that made little sense, and the polls she added showed a lack of understanding for the subject. I had to completely edit both polls (questions and answers).
I was also a bit annoyed with the turnaround time. I wasn't able to respond to my editor's 1st email for 24 hours. By that time she'd given up, said she was finished, and asked me to email the team instead of her if I had any concerns. Thankfully, she was nice enough to respond to me personally when I did contact her.
Finally, I was very upset when some changes were made to one of my hubs after the program was finished, and while I was making edits at the same time. Apparently, this was a member of the Hub Team (not my editor) who was trying to do extra things to my hubs that the editor had neglected to do. I reversed these changes because I didn't like them, but the Team member went right back and put them in! It was like I no longer had control over my hub. I also wasn't given the before-and-after versions, so I wasn't given a choice about whether to accept. Apparently, this whole episode was a "misunderstanding".
Unlike other people, I didn't get any new images for my hubs. One of my existing images was too pixelated to go full width, so this hub team member (not the editor) had deleted it rather than letting it stay half width (very annoying!). I ended up having to find a new image by myself, edit it, and put it in, all of which took a lot of my time.
Perhaps some of these things have been ironed out since my experience. I gave detailed feedback, and I hope the Hub Team took this on board.
Overall it took a lot of my personal time to communicate with the editor, and even longer to correct mistakes, reverse, or change things in the hubs after she'd gone through them. There was a lot of frustration involved, especially when the Hub Team member started making changes without my permission or notification. I accepted 90% of the changes made by the editor though.
Contrary to expectations, my traffic to those hubs hasn't gone up "17%". They've actually gone down noticeably since the changes. It seems that other people have fared better though if the average increase is 17%.
Hmm my hubs have just regained a few positions - just the everyday up and down. Don't see any major changes due to the edits. Don't expect to see any changes too, the main purpose is to improve the user experience which can lead to more shares and eventually higher traffic (Personal Opinion).
It's sad that the editor wasn't a football fan, that's one area the team should look into if this has to be successful. My editor was really nice, she kept me in the loop and once she finished editing I got the same message as you "contact the team directly" but that didn't mean she wasn't going to reply. I thanked her and asked her about a change and she responded immediately.
This concerns me. One thing I don't like is unnecessary work. Hoping it's ironed out, like you said.
Thank you, Thomas, for your thoughtful post. Your account was one of our first to be edited, and we learned A LOT from your feedback and interaction. We also changed many of our processes because of it, e.g., we now have another editor proofread the edited Hubs before the account is finished. Thanks for being a part of the Pilot and helping us shape the program. While we are still only in the beta, we are committed to creating a sustainable program that affects how readers view Hubs and HubPages.
Thanks Robin. I'm glad you took my comments on board. Proof-reading by another editor should avoid mistakes, improve confidence in the system, and reduce the work that authors have to do (in terms of checking everything). Though you didn't mention it, I apologize if I sounded a bit harsh in my criticism. I do think HubPro is a good idea and it's quite admirable that Hubpages is doing it. I would have opted out if I thought otherwise. The reduction in my traffic was probably seasonal. School's out for the summer, and English football takes the summer off too.
I am concerned about this as my hubs are definitely photo-dependant and not illustration dependant. My grammar is just fine in Australianspeak (although maybe better keywords could be added - do the editors provide this service?)
I also really like to use separation image lines to aid readability and I know HP doesn't like those, so we'd have a little issue there.
However, I can see the potential for this program to benefit hundreds of hubbers who might not have any pictures or structured layout in their hubs at all - this program would help them immensely.
Looks like for me, it would be worth watching from the sidelines to hear how it all goes. It's good that Hubpages are constantly looking at ways to improve the site!
I am concerned about this and the way it will work for several reasons:
1) Do they just start working on a hub without telling you first? I don't want to wake up and find I have a revised hub I didn't know anything about and then have to do the work checking it regardless of what else is going on.
2) I'm English and so write using English spelling and sentence constructions. I expect the HP editors, who I'm sure are all very good at what they do, are all Americans.
3) I mainly write on some fairly obscure subjects - history, archaeology and the paranormal. Will the editors really have the time and knowledge to fact check these?
I think it is a good idea to have the resource, but that it should be more of a referral system where a hubber can submit one or more of their hubs if they feel they want some help or need some fresh ideas.
I will probably opt out because I feel it is very intrusive for anyone to just start editing one of my hubs. While no where near perfect, they are my work and I don't want anyone working on them unless I know it is going on.
Also is this just going to create another tier of elitism in HP. All the resentment and argy bargy over apprentices was bad enough, will it now be over who gets their hubs edited and who doesn't?
Hey CMHypno, good idea about submitting hubs. I know there are about 4 of mine that I would like edited, the rest I want to keep the same. There are often forum posts from people wanting this type of service for their hubs, maybe submission per hub would be a really supportive and helpful idea....
I understand your point about submitting Hubs, but HubPages seems to want to focus on your high traffic Hubs. So if the Hubs you are submitting are lower traffic, HubPages probably don't want to spend a lot of time editing Hubs that are not getting traffic.
I thought the whole idea was to help lower performing hubs become better so that traffic would grow? Silly me!
No, they select your higher performing Hubs. With me in the pilot they selected my top four highest traffic Hubs. The feeling with HubPages and editing (which I believe is explain in the FAQ about the program) is that it is good to work from the top down. This would be in line with the 80/20 rule which states that 80% of your results comes from 20% of your efforts. So it could be more productive keeping the small portion of Hubs generating you traffic constantly fresh than wasting a lot of time on Hubs that may never generate traffic (regardless of how good they are).
You'd be asked before they edit any hub and you can always opt out if required.
1) You will know ahead of time, and based on my experience as a pilot tester my editor was very good with communicating with me about any possible changes. 2) Also I had a similar issue with being Canadian. I actually try to use the US spelling because I realize most of my readers are from the US, but I am inconsistent with it. My editor actually decided to consistently apply Canadian grammatical rules (which I believe is basically the same as the UK). Being American she may not of been 100% accurate, but she was more consistent than what I probably was. 3) Concerning your point about obscure subject, my editor didn't really add anything the way of additional research. There was one fact that she was trying to fact check, that she couldn't find, but she asked me where I got my info from, so she could verify the source. She didn't do anything on her own without consulting. All four of my Hubs were about music, and she acknowledge I knew more about the subject than she did. So most of the editing in my case was grammatical and cosmetic.
So my experience was positive, but if you are unsure, you can always opt out.
Really like your points and suggestions here. Though I like the idea of the new editing feature overall, I definitely prefer not to have my work controlled by anyone else.
We will send you an email before we begin editing along with the Hubs that will be edited.
We are all Americans, but we retain the British/Canadian language structure-as SpartucusJones stated. Thanks, Spartucus!
We are mainly fact checking out of date information or information that jumps out at us as completely inaccurate. If we can't verify the information, we trust the author. I don't think your Hubs would fall into this category.
This would be an amazing service and perhaps something that could happen in the future, but right now it doesn't meet one of our main goals: to impact as many readers as possible.
You are free to opt out at any time, just remember that you can't opt back in to the program for 60 days. Also, on HubPages, you always own your own content and can edit it after we finish--in fact, we hope it ignites a fire to start editing regularly. We give you a detailed document showing what has been changed and the reasons why we are making the changes. We hope that you retain the edits, but ultimately, it's up to you.
I hope not. We should be helping each other and working together. In the beta we are only editing a small percentage of Hubbers, and we hope that editing these Hubs will be a positive move for the entire company. Improving Hubs that have many readers should impact the entire site and improve the HubPages brand. This is just the beta though, our hope is to extend the service to as many Hubbers as possible.
Thanks for taking the time to voice your concerns, CMHypno. Let me know if I missed anything!
Just a thought, how about making it a referral service BUT we are only allowed to submit Hubs with traffic over a certain amount?
Thanks for all your answers Robin and taking the time to give me the feedback.
I'm sure the editors are doing a fantastic job, but I'm going to opt out for a bit to see how it works out.
Perhaps a little off topic, but I find this quite ironic.
I recently added some new and very relevant information to one of my hubs, and its score dropped from 90 to 82. What is the point of introducing a program like HubPro, with one of its aims being to encourage hubbers to 'start editing reguarly', while, at the same time, you're causing hubbers to feel petrified of touching their hubs for fear of temperamental hub scores? I don't understand the logic.
Of course I know we shouldn't take too much notice of scores, it's been said a million and one times by many of the 'cleverest' people here, but the scores do exist, they cannot be ignored, and prove extremely annoying if used arbitrarily, which is how HubPages seems to be using them nowadays.
It seems almost as though HubPages is using scores to play games with its hubbers. I actually take my work here very seriously, so don't appreciate these games at all. (I guess the more seriously a hubber takes her work, the more vulnerable to the effects of score changes she is.)
Am I wrong in thinking that playing games with scores is counterproductive, considering your intention that HubPro should '... [ignite] a fire [for us] to start editing regularly'?
And aren't these games detrimental to HubPages' success? You're actually making hubbers afraid to improve their hubs!
Perhaps I'm completely wrong, but I see this as an irregularity. Shouldn't this irregularity be addressed before you think about introducing HubPro? Or is it your intention that once hubs have been edited to your liking that hubbers should think again before daring to edit or tweak more to their liking? Is this your scheme? Is this why scoring is becoming increasingly nonsensical? Scores have, after all, proved to have quite an immense psychological impact.
Do I indeed understand the logic? I sincerely hope I don't.
But hubbers who edit their hubs for improvement are hubbers who take pride in their hubs and care about HubPages, so why are they being penalized? Penalizing people hurts them by evoking negative feelings, yet these hubbers have done nothing to deserve it.
And while I'm on the subject, your scores, whether hub score or hubber score, should (if sincere) reflect your hubbers' performance on HubPages accurately. If they already do, your hubbers should be able to understand exactly how in order that they have the opportunity of improving. Surely such transparency would be beneficial to all parties. Why is your scoring system shrouded in such mystery?
But are your editors qualified to be judges of this? When I write on biomedical topics, I write on the strength of a PhD and years of work experience in the field. If your editors cannot match these qualifications, I do not want them within a 100 miles of my content.
This, I suppose, isn't particularly my problem with the Hubs I have left (or even any I may write); but I figured it's worth sharing a concern on behalf of the site (for what's it's worth or not worth). That is that separate from a very specialized area (like yours, WA), there remains the problem that editors/fact checkers still would, ideally, need to understand some subjects enough to recognize, say, a well written Hub with mostly accurate but incomplete information (which pretty much amounts to a Hub that can be misleading to anyone who assumes the research/information is more than just one aspect (or a partial aspect) of the subject.
I just ran into the kind of issue to which which I'm referring. It's a subject I've spent a lot of time researching/studying up on; and the Hub/information would look great to anyone who isn't as familiar with the subject as I. Fact-checking may/may not reveal that the info is not complete (and it looks like the author is a "research-only" kind of author, or at least one unaware of the broader pool of information/facts that are out there. (If s/he was aware of it I guarantee that x percent of the Hub would be shown to missing information, and another x percent (a smaller percentage) would show that because of that the whole Hub is kind of "off-kilter with regard to accuracy.
Here's what I think someone may want to consider (or not - makes no difference to me): While someone like you, WA, knows that you have a "heavy-duty-specialized" field for which opting out is probably a good idea; the individual who writes the kind of Hub that isn't quite as "heavy-duty-specialized" may be satisfied with research that remains incomplete (and then base a Hub on it).
I think editing is great, and I think fact-checking is great. I have no concerns about those (again, on behalf of the site - not me, personally). But, if quality information is also the aim (and I'm thinking it is), there is still that thing that people who are not extremely familiar (truly, solidly, familiar) with a subject (beyond personal experience with it and a little reading or researching), the people who either don't know or don't care that they they don't have a solid enough familiarity with the subject (years of reading/researching for one reason or another) to recognize that the Hub's information is incomplete enough to make it at least x percent misleading, or even inaccurate.
If HP has something set up (or were to set up something) by which people who are experts in some subjects would go through and look for incomplete information/inadequate research because they know the subject "super-well"; I'd think that would be something worth having (because while fact-checkers may spot bad facts I'd think fact-checkers/editors alone aren't as likely to detect missing information and the "skewing" that can result from it. Without that kind of thing if people who DO know a subject read a Hub, recognize that someone only researched "so much", and generally has accurate enough facts (while the message of the Hub is skewed/inaccurate/incomplete), and essentially notice nicely presented "off" information. This kind of stuff will keep falling through the cracks, and who's going to notice why it is that - for as "professional" as it looks - at least SOME Hubs (on serious subjects) have pretty flimsy information.
I don't know... I still think that there are some types of subjects that people on here should stay away from unless they're going to use an approach that doesn't suggest solid information from research when it just isn't that. All the rest of that aside, the best format and grammar that "pretends" to be well researched (and, yes, condensed - but there's a difference between "condensed" and "incomplete"/"inadequate") is only going to look like quality, solid, information to the author (or editors) who don't know any better; and is otherwise going to look really, really, bad to anyone who knows a subject better. Google's bots may not recognize the kind of thing I'm referring to, but human readers will - at least those who know the subject better than the Hub would suggest the author/editors do.
It's not my site, and not my business really; but at least with some subjects (and sometimes the kind of subjects that matter most, and I've seen several of the type I'm referring to over the last how-ever many months) it's still looking as if flimsy quality is going farther and farther "underground" on here; and - I don't know - I can't see how that could possibly be good over the long term.
A couple of years ago I tried to flag a couple of hubs that had dodgy or misrepresented medical information. They were never removed. I stopped bothering.
This is a good point applied to things of a purely technical nature, like auto mechanics and maybe nuclear physics. However, I think in some fields in which people are supposed to be "experts", a generally dubious term as far as I'm concerned, someone who is keenly aware can be just as much of a so-called "expert", if we have to use the term.
One of the things that makes the Internet extremely valuable is that it has to a great extent broken down the barrier of elitism that is generally accepted in the social order. For this reason, people decide which products on the market have value, on the Internet, rather than those products being hyped and fed to us as valuable by advertisers and corporations.
I am wary of anything that takes away people's ability to have a say, that is borderline elitism and that only counts as experts those with acceptable and formal credentials. I would be very careful in that territory. It could snatch the whole thing away from us. And then the Internet becomes like everything else in which only certain voices are heard and then we're back to square one.
NateB11, I very much agree with you about thinking the Internet should not be limited only to the voices of "official" experts, and I think the famous Google list of what might be considered "quality" (which includes "enthusiasts" and not just experts) goes along with that thinking too. My main concerns are with the social-sciences-related subjects. It's not elitist to suggest that some subjects need to be dealt with more carefully than others; and it's not elitist to suggest that it isn't enough to say (hypothetical example here) that your ex-boyfriend had ADHD and was a narcissist - and then to go on and write an inadequately researched Hub (because you don't know the subject thoroughly enough) so you add your experience to some too-shallow research and present the Hub as an "information/facts-only" Hub as opposed to a different type/style of Hub. To me, at least with SOME subjects, the person really needs to stick with the subjects on which he a lot more experience than dating a guy (even for twenty years) who showed all the signs of "whatever", or even someone who told you he was diagnosed by a professional with "whatever".
To me, only one thing can eventually happen if too-shallow "information-only" (with or without first-person "extras that still don't add up to solid enough understanding of the subject) attracts more and more traffic to the site; and that, I'd think, will be more and more people who have searched because they've already been dealing with one subject or another in their life (because solid writers know to do their research somewhere other than on HubPages, at least when it's, say, psychology-related); so searchers are either going to be people who are already familiar with the subject, are looking for more understanding/insight than is out there is the "OTC" research that's "everywhere", or else people who may not be "higher-level-research-inclined" and may actually hope to find solid information about the subject (and take it seriously) on this site (which is aimed at "regular people").
It's one thing to write a super-well researched Hub about, say, "everything there is to know about Boston, complete with pictures and whatever else). It's another to select, as one of one's many different subjects, to write a Hub about, say, narcissism or ADHD and present as an "information-only", researched, Hub (with or without the story about the ex-wife or even the one child who has been diagnosed with ADHD but insufficient other (deeper and broader) understanding of the subject) to think a searcher won't recognize the shallowness of it and/or to think disappointing/making angry/misleading yet more searchers by attracting more traffic initially.
I don't know what I'm doing with whatever Hubs I have left, or what Hubs I may write in the future; but for my own purposes I stay away from all subjects that I don't have a particularly solid background/set of experiences/research efforts in. The person who doesn't know his subject, or doesn't know it as well as he thinks he does, or only knows it because he's done some Internet research without knowing what to search for (because he doesn't know the subject as well as he thinks he does) is only going to produce a Hub that looks good to anyone who doesn't know the subject at all; which means such a Hub will look great to a lot of people on HubPages and any searchers who don't enough to recognize flaws, inadequacies, or even misleading information - and that's not offering solid-quality material to searchers.
It's not that tough to either stay away from subjects one doesn't have a super-solid (even if not "official") background in or else present the Hub in a style that's different from "straight-research/information/facts". There's a difference between writing a Hub like, "Challenges Of Dating A Guy Who Had ADHD" from an personal-experience point-of-view, and then, maybe even adding, "..and here's a few facts about ADHD"; and instead writing a Hub like, "How To Tell If You're Boyfriend Has ADHD" and then listing a bunch of traits commonly associated with it (and presenting that as a well researched Hub) (and the examples I just gave are hypothetical examples that I made up. I've never seen any Hub similar to that on ADHD; so if there are any that all resemble the examples, honestly, I selected examples that I thought were hypothetical BECAUSE I've never seen any Hubs on that subject that are like that. If they're out there I don't know about them. I'm keeping the real-life examples I've run into on this site to myself in order not to embarrass anyone. And, by the way, my own subdomain, in its current upheaval and cleaning-up stage embarrasses me; so it's not like I think people should write the kind of Hubs I have on that.)
I don't think it's elitist, though, to be a little more careful (no, a lot more careful)about who writes what kind of Hub on SOME types of subjects(specifically, some of the subjects that can have the most impact on the most lives). I just don't think (no, it's pretty obvious to me) that the "pick-a-card - any-card" (or "pick-a-subject - any-subject" ) approach to writing "straight, facts-only, information-only" Hubs works with all types of subjects on this site. There's always "say whatever you want to say about the subject" if you're not presenting it as a researched, information-only, facts-only Hub. With SOME types of subjects (like psychology-related ones) it's just trickier.
It's interesting that you chose psychology as a subject to talk about because that's exactly one of the subjects where I think the so-called experts and the official information on the subject is generally flawed. I'm liable to trust someone with direct experience and keen awareness on that subject, in many cases, more than someone who relies on that particular field's work and experts. I've known, unfortunately, some very "well-trained" people in that field who are full of the "right" information but I wouldn't trust what they say about almost anything. I'm not saying that angrily, hope it doesn't come off that way, because I'm actually just telling the truth.
Put it this way: There are people who are the best singers in the world and have had no formal training and don't know the "right way" to sing. Whitney Houston, for instance. There are people who have been driving for 40 years and I wouldn't want to ride in a car when they are driving. There are people who are aware, sensitive, and can see right through people and can evaluate someone's motives better than anyone who has even laid eyes on a psychology manual.
The central issue to me, then, is who is going to determine what is valuable? As far as I'm concerned it is people. The visitor. If what you've conveyed is clear, reasonable and speaks to truth, especially to what people have actually lived, it's going to resonate and open up answers; better than something dry, watered down and condescending.
I give people quite a bit of credit, I think they're smart to see what has value, for themselves, and also that they are smart enough to look around, shop around, so to speak. Not just take someone's word for it, whether it comes from Average Joe or a supposed expert or from the accepted research.
I agree with you on this. I could see if it was something potentially dangerous - how to rewire a house for example and someone got it wrong; potentially causing someone to start a fire, but personal experience with a great many subjects is preferable in my opinion. I want to know that others have been where I have. The empathy factor is a good thing. Most subjects do have room for personal stories and experiences. I never trust anyone blindly, even supposed "experts", because in life there is truly no such thing. Most people do research more than one source for important things.
Opted out already and having this option is the best part I appreciate about this programme. Thank you HP team.
I just hope this always remains optional, and I'm never, ever, forced to participate. For now, I'll probably do what I did with Editor's Choice and opt out for some accounts and in for others and compare.
It would be more palatable if we could choose what we need help with. For example, I'd appreciate someone checking over for typos, spelling and grammar errors. Otherwise, I'm not so crazy about the idea of someone meddling with my Hubs.
In any event, I always appreciate how hard HP staff works to come up with innovative ideas to improve the site. Hope this works out for the best.
I'm curious Eric, how did that experiment work out?
Do you mean the Editor's Choice? I've come to the conclusion that for mixed-topic accounts EC doesn't really hurt, and might help a tiny bit. But, for niche accounts, its better to keep everything indexed under my subdomain. Of course this is just based on my observations of my own accounts, and HP may see something different looking at the data.
The biggest negative points re: EC for me involve reporting limitations in Webmaster Tools, Analytics and Adsense. I just can't see all of my information, since it isn't all under my sub, and that limits my ability to make decisions.
I also don't like how the EC results show up in search. If I'm trying to build a niche and a brand, I want to see my name there in the results. So for this account it really doesn't matter that much, since I write on various topics, but for my niche accounts it does.
Don't want to make this too long and derail this thread, but if anyone wants to start another thread I'd be happy to chime in.
Wow, this seems like a big change. I'm both excited and nervous, but as long as I get to make the final decision I guess it can only be a good thing really.
This is so exciting! I really like the idea of getting suggestions from an editor.
Are the changes already made - and published that way - or do we get to approve them before they go live?
At least during the pilot, when the editor was editing the hub we couldn't edit it ourselves (it was locked). We weren't given the option to approve before it was made live. It was made live and then we were free to do what we wanted with it.
The edits that we make are made directly into the HubTool; there isn't an approval process. Unfortunately, we are trying to get through a large number of Hubs with a lot of attention and care, and the process of approval would be very difficult. That being said, in the pilot this didn't seem to be an issue. Hubbers were free to make changes to their Hubs after their editor finished the edits. In most cases, minimal (if any) changes were made by the Hubber after the editing was completed. Our editors are incredibly talented. I think everyone will be amazed with the talent we have hired for this service!
I like the idea of an editor checking hubs but would prefer it if we were offered suggestions instead of having the changes made without consent.
Not happy with this at all!
I write with my voice and stand or fall by what I write. I do not wish anyone else to interfere with my work.
I share this sentiment. I don't like the idea that someone else has the ability to make any form of change to my content without prior consideration and consent by me. Especially with no knowledge of the subject matter.
I don't believe this at all. If an article attains top position in search engine results pages and remains at that position, the amount of traffic is dependent purely on how many people search for the keywords that rank the article there, and the click through rate of those searchers from the results page through to the article. The idea above largely applies to social media where it takes trial and error to spark viral sharing. This should not be the primary means of attaining traffic. Social media is an adjunct traffic source, whilst high search rankings and the flow of organic traffic is the ideal way to guarantee long-term profit and reduce fluctuations.
Furthermore, editing by third-person parties to an article that is finely tuned to rank for specific high-paying, low-competition, volume-oriented keywords is likely to result in disruption to the SEO of the article and knock it down from its current position. This means that traffic drops, profit drops, and it can take weeks for the article to regain traction once these changes are reverted. A loss of profit to writers is a loss of profit to Hubpages too.
I appreciate the idea that Hubpages maintains continued efforts to engage with its writers and improve their experience and potential profit, but I don't believe this method will benefit the majority. There are some who could certainly benefit from such an editing program, like the alarming number of writers who do not speak English as a first language and seem to struggle with grammar. This is a situation where the editing program would improve their experience. For those of us with SEO familiarity and niches that require inside knowledge however, the program will do far more damage than good.
Super-long post alert (obviously, don't read it if you don't want to), but I can't imagine I'm the only Hubber on here with this particular type of set of challenges (as far as editing, not-editing, quality, etc. goes). (I considered turning the post into a Bubble , but I thought it may serve more use on the forum here. )
On the subject of editing, I don't think I plan to opt out (at least), but I pretty much don't think most of Hubs are worth editing; and that one reason what's left of the once-300-plus Hubs I had are just kind of sitting until I figure out what, if anything, I should do with them.
I took out a couple of hundred Hubs that I thought just didn't fit on this site, now that big, elaborate, researched, information-only Hubs are being emphasized.
What was left was a handful of "mediocre-but-informative" Hubs, many that I'd written in reply to HP's Answers sections (and hadn't bothered much with perfecting any titles) (so I do have, largely, a big collection of Hubs with really poorly designed titles). So, by getting rid of my couple of hundred Hubs (that may or may not have remained featured if I'd left them), I killed off a bunch of views I may have been getting from anyone who did make their way to HP's site and browse for the kind of writing I'd been doing.
I've gone back and forth between whether I should leave what's here (as long as it's published and featured, or even if it isn't featured) or whether I just trim my account down to the handful that may get search engine traffic (because they're old, in most cases); of whether, if I do that, I'll kill off any search engine traffic by stripping my subdomain down to fewer "quality" Hubs than it has now (which isn't many).
Or, whether I should just write more Hubs, keeping in mind "the latest" in terms of what HP (and I) think is "quality", and aim to at least build back up to where the occasional human follower/browser may show up and let the views (and Hubs) build up more slowly.
I'd imagine if editors run into some of those Hubs-in-question they may say something like, "Either fit this up or delete it", in which case I'd know what I should be doing.
There was a time when I did best on here with Ad Sense only, and then, eventually, it became clear (before and after deleting the 200 or so) that HP ads and views were the better way for me to go. So for me, personally, there's that conflict of whether I should aim for Google traffic, get rid of everything else (and just go with Ad Sense only again); or whether, at least on this site, I should forget about search engine traffic, aim for (few as they may be at any given time) human HP browsers; but aim to offer human readers something to read if/when they do come looking for the kind of writing they tend to want to read. (I don't fool myself into thinking that a lot of followers actually want to read what someone writes, because as soon as anyone gets the idea someone gets any traffic to speak of they're likely to follow for reasons other than actual interest in the person's writing - but that's the point here).
So, I go back and forth between thinking I should, at least for now, leave the iffy/less-than-stellar Hubs up - at least until they're gradually replaced with closer-to-stellar ones; or else just stripping out the subdomain, leaving five (maybe ten, I don't know) "closer-to-stellar-ish" Hubs; and maybe aiming to increase my Google traffic (and Ad Sense earnings).
So, for now, with the exception of one or two Hubs that I don't want changed (and would rather remove them and/or combine them with other Hubs); as far as I'm concerned, I've got a big pile of cr*p on my subdomain; and if any editors want to "fix them up" (or suggest I just delete them), I'd be fine with that.
Ironically, when I removed that 200-plus Hubs that I was fairly certain (at least at the time) no longer belonged on this site (according to what was being said was wanted on here these days); what was left (again, with the exception of a very few of my Hubs) were essentially "crud-Hubs" as far as I'm concerned (in terms of quality Hubs). Even with that, though, the other "ironically" is, as someone else said above, information/insight/observations that I stand behind and can back up.
I tend to think the biggest challenge is for non-fiction writers who want to offer solid information/insight that isn't based on research-only.
Separate from my own personal dislike of pictures-for-the-sake-of-pictures ( particularly on no-nonsense and/or SOME serious subjects) (and I'm not assuming that the right Hub on some serious subjects would be expected to presented "iPhone Style" ), it's still not entirely clear to me what, exactly, belongs on this site these days...
OK, here's a really unpleasant example of where I think I may have something to offer the person looking for something on this subject; and where I don't think it would be right for this site - based on what is now being pushed as a quality/findable Hub: For some time now I've thought about writing what I thought would be helpful Hub to anyone who has to help their children get through knowing a grandparent has gone through bi-lateral amputation of the legs. I had to try to figure out how to present that to my kids, and what to say to them, first with their grandfather and later with their grandmother. (different reasons for both, neither survived more than days; but needless to say, it added "an element" to helping three kids of different ages deal not only with the loss of a grandparent but with the "particular nastiness" that led up to it.
Nobody searching for that subject (if they're like me) wants to be scrolling past all kinds of stuff, figuring out if they're reached they end (but, oops, no, there's still more yet again - but first an ad or a picture or whatever - and really, how relevant a picture is going to appropriate for this particular type of Hub?).
So, it goes back to the thing about whether that kind of subject even belongs on this particular site these days; and it goes back to whether I'd be able to, say, keep the Hub to few enough words (what, maybe under 1500?) to keep from having, say, 3000 words in the form of the dreaded, and very un-smart-phone-like, big block of text).
So yet another irony, in terms of quality material/writing, is that I have the writing skill to adapt to whatever any site or whatever else wants (or to any subject); and I, like a lot of people (particularly over a certain age, but even age isn't always the thing) have a certain set of experiences that I could, maybe, actually be helpful to someone on. Yet, I'm sitting on a meager handful of mediocre (at best) Hubs that survived only because they kind of/sort of don't conflict too much with the latest, stated, aims of the site in terms of quality/information.
I'm fine with editing, and I'm even fine with "these no longer fit into what HP wants on its site". I'm even fine with "HP is OK enough with your stinko Hubs that have a score of - like - 59 as long you know you won't get Google traffic or money for them; and shape up from here on." I think, if nothing else (and it won't be "nothing else" anyway) that editing might show up some of the Hubs that people write when they clearly don't really know their subject and have presented it from a personal-experience viewpoint that does highlight (personal experience or not) that they don't really know their subject. I'd also be fine if an editor contacted me and said (essentially), "If you don't do x with this Hub then please remove it because it doesn't measure up to what we want on here." With the exception of those very few Hubs that I care about for my own reasons and that I presented my own way and want them kept that way, I pretty much would appreciate it if anyone feels like adding or changing anything they want to any of the Hubs I have; because I don't care about most of them since I long ago deleted the ones I thought were the highest quality writing and left only those that, by some slim thread, may possibly be construed at having a shred of usefulness to them.
I mostly keep the "Lisa" account alive because I hate losing almost seven years' worth of history on it (and on this site). I do, though, have a three-year-old other account that I've been thinking of turning into my "real" account now. I think I could bypass the boot-camp thing that way (maybe?), and just let whatever happens to this "Lisa" (pen name) account happen. Either way, I don't mind "shaping up" with new Hubs I write, but I don't want to get all into a whole bunch of work, trying to fix up most of the stuff I have on here. Basically, my main question is does anyone mind if it stays "harmlessly" on here - or not? It's not spam, and it's not bad information or poor grammar. It's just not stellar as far as Hubs go.
I like this idea in principle, but not in the way it's being implemented. The basic idea of editing is great. Many hubs could be improved by a good editor. Offline writers often have to work with editors, so it doesn't seem strange to me that online writers should, too.
However, there is one thing that worries me very much about the way in which this program is set up. If one of my hubs is edited, the edited hub will still have my name on it. This means that readers will believe that all of the information, writing and formatting came from me. I'm sure that HubPages has chosen great editors, but if any inaccuracies or problems appear in the hub before I have time to check it, I am considered to be responsible, even though this isn't the case.
The HP blog and a previous comment in this thread says that the writer will be given a list of changes that have been made to their hub. According to the people in the pilot program, the writer can then discuss the changes with the editor if they wish. What I would like is for this process to happen before the edited hub goes live instead of afterwards.
I certainly welcome the addition of HP editors to get rid of some of the disastrous material I've encountered while hopping hubs. Having work reviewed and scrutinized is part of the writer's craft.
I agree with AliciaC and a few others that I want to see what the edits are before they go live. An editing misstep could completely change what was said. The addition of serious editing, other than for obvious standards violations, could put an additional layer of liability on HubPages. So I hope HP has considered the legal aspects of this effort.
Overall, though, I am glad to see this addition since it will only serve to validate HubPages as a site for quality content.
I think an extra set of eyes on our hubs is a fantastic idea. It will really help to create more professional looking hubs. And to get this service for free is absolutely AMAZING. Even the best writers have editors. I'm excited about this and will definitely stay opted in. I'm thinking that we can learn a lot with what they do on the edited hubs.
Perhaps Hubpages could post a before and after sample so we could see the kind of changes and edits that take place? (Or maybe they have and I missed it.) This might ease some people's fears.
This is much of my issue as well. And it works the other way, too. Once an editor changes significant text, graphics, whatever, the Hub has essentially become a collaborative effort. Call it what you want, but it's really no longer "my" work.
And what if I later decide I want to move "my" Hub to another platform, or my own website? Do these editors have any right to earnings from that material, or some kind of credit if the work appears outside of HubPages?
Editors in the publishing world get a cut of the action, and a credit. Don't they?
One of the things I love about HP, and one of the reasons I think it has persevered when other platforms have struggled, is how, because of the subdomains, you are very much captain of your own ship here.
I don't play well with others. Tell if I have a typo, but I'm not giving up my captaincy! :-)
But I also recognize that the reasons we have subdomains is because HP staff made some smart decisions. That, and other countless decisions made by management, are the real reason the site continues to flourish.
So, I don't mean to sound negative. Just voicing my concerns. I will remain cautiously optimistic, hope for the best, and see how this plays out.
It's still your work, and there isn't any difference in the way we treat your Hub or its earnings. Just like in the past, you are free to move your work and the edits as well as the images that we are having commissioned. We are just trying to provide a helpful service. The work remains yours. All published novels have editors; their names are not on the book as the author - neither are our names. Thanks for the comments, Eric!
This is true Robin. All major publishing houses have editors that are assigned to look over all novels. This advantage helps authors to become bestsellers. It's difficult to write a lengthy novel and edit, at the same time. Can't see the forest for the trees sometimes.This can be a problem for bloggers as well. A second pair of eyes helps to detect problems that the author can't see. Well-Known Authors benefit from the services of editors . This is a very considerate and helpful program.
I wholeheartedly welcome the help with correcting or eliminating broken links, because even at 0.5 to 1.0% of my Hubs having bad links at times, it's overwhelming because of the number. Links change or disappear so often when webmasters update either sites! -- I am learning to not use so many links.
Help with typos is awesome, too, because I've had keyboard glitch problems, and like a lot of people, I slide into dyslexia when I'm overly tired -- And some days, I could type a full 10-word sentence of all-consonants and not notice.
We can still edit our own Hubs and specialized information will be left to us, always.
For example, I gather Interview Questions from my experience and that of people I help with employment skills. Most employers are looking for a specific flavor of answers to certain "strange" questions or are looking for a range of innovative thinking in producing answers. They may not be looking for a PhD level info-bite on a physics problem, but something more creative in say, designing a bridge or calculating cooling time in a space-age refrigerator. If I know the employer wants a certain type of answer (a more nonlinear type, perhaps) and the editor gives a suggestion that contains too much linear thinking or too much depth and linear detail for what the employer really wants to access in the job candidate's style and skills, I can keep my own answer and explain it to the editor - or not explain it. Never a problem there, so far. I trust the program.
I look forward to continued good results. Thanks!
@Maffew James I believe one of the biggest misconceptions about SEO is if you have a top ranking Hub, don't touch it.
I'm going to stay out of the technical jargon as to why, but my analysis has brought me to the conclusion that the reader experience of the most trafficked content is critical to the health of a site. If you want to grow and preserve traffic, a good way to do it is to continually update and add content.
Hubs are living and breathing. HubPro takes great care in retaining the critical SEO aspects, but improves the experience for readers and puts content quality ahead of many of the world's best publications.
A critical part of the beta was making sure we didn't lose traffic (Hubs fluctuate every day) - but we have actually seen a pretty quick increase. As of today the average Hub increased even more than the 17% median we reported.
I hope people give it a shot. This is the first time a company is providing professional editing services (free). I've had several of my top hubs edited. I know what it's like to have aspects of a Hub tweaked, but after going through the experience, I know my readers are better off. So is my traffic:)
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I think this clears up the SEO issue for me if the editors will be working to retain optimisation and mainly focusing on increasing readability. My main concern was that editors would potentially change chunks of a hub and take out important keywords.
However, I hope Hubpages will continue to allow writers to opt out of the editing program after the beta phase ends. I still can't wrap my head around the idea that other people can change my article in whatever way they see fit, even if I can change it back. I'd actually prefer a system where either editors could suggest changes and we could approve them first, or like others have suggested, a system where we could nominate particular hubs to be checked over by editors.
As someone who was a member of Helium for years, it's nice to see that Hubpages staff actually care about what their writers have to say and will even take the time to reply to them personally, so thanks again for that.
What exactly do these editors know that they're able to increase traffic by 17%? I can't imagine simply fixing some spelling errors and typos would make that big a difference.
If they have some criteria they are aiming for in regard to layout, images, content length, or whatever, is there any talk of sharing that with the general HubPages community? Does it differ from the information already available in the Learning Center or the goals in the Hub Tool?
I try to build Hubs using the advice I've learned here on HP, plus things I've learned elsewhere that have seemed to work. But if there is more advice out there, and if it could increase my traffic my 17%, I'd sure like to know about it rather than wait for an editor to fix my Hub for me.
I'll surely give this a try, but I'd also like to know WHY they think their decisions are better. If I can know that to begin with, they may not have to edit my Hub at all!
Edit: Sorry if this post came off as snarky. Didn't mean it that way at all. I'm truly interested in learning more about how to succeed here, and if there is any info available I'd be interested.
If I had to guess the increase in traffic will come from getting rid of a lot of the garbage on Hubpages and increasing the overall quality of the site. You may already have quality hubs, but low quality hubs bring everyone down.
Even prior to being involved in the pilot program, at times I have seen nice traffic increases to Hubs after making edits to them. I think a lot of the increases come from simply keeping things fresh. That being said, a professional editor will inevitably notice certain things that I would miss on my own.
I do agree with you about understanding the reasons why certain changes would be recommended. I made sure to ask a lot of questions of my editor when I was in the pilot program. By taking in that knowledge it helped me decide how I would want to proceed with editing of my future Hubs. Also some of what I learn will be helpful with my creation of new Hubs. But I agree that some of those suggestions should be shared with everyone, not just those who are getting edited.
Thank you for all of your helpful insight and input, Spartucus! I really appreciate your help! We will be creating a Learning Center entry as well as a FAQ with more information on the changes that we are making so that Hubbers that aren't in the initial beta can improve their own Hubs.
Very cool. This is something everyone can win from. Is there a place where we can apply to become an editor?
I was in the pilot however no edits have been made to my hubs to the best of my knowledge. I received several emails that soon this would happen, so I am just sitting tight to see if in fact I am still a part of this program. I did agree and was accepted some time back.
Hi Dale, you have been so patient! I'm sorry it has taken us a while to get to your account; I believe you are next in the queue. Part of the learning process in the pilot was assessing how long it will take to edit Hubs, and we underestimated that a bit. We have hired four more editors though, taking our total up to seven. They will be on the About Us page by next week!
This sounds like a fantastic idea and will make hubs very in-depth, useful and it will really boost traffic. The higher quality the hub is, the more traffic it gets so I really like this idea. It is nice to get an outside perspective from an editor, things that we might miss.
I have one question, when will this be available to all Hubbers? I assume it will take the next few months to keep running the pilot.
Thanks, Susi! The pilot is just finishing up, and we will begin editing Hubs in the beta next Friday. (We are giving Hubbers one week to opt out, if they choose to do so.) If your account is in the editing queue, you will receive an email a week or so before we begin editing. This program is a marathon, not a sprint. It is going to take some time!
Do we have an update as to when it will be available to more hubbers?
I've had Hub Pro edits on two accounts. I'm not sure what it's based on, but I think they probably have a list of things which bring quality hubs to their attention which could be improved upon.
Right now, any Hubber with a high traffic Hub is eligible for HubPro - We are closing in on 2,000 Hubs edited. The process takes longer than we hoped, but the results are very good. I'd like to hire many more editors since I believe this is a critical piece of raising HubPages quality, but we will have to wait for the budget to support it.
It's pretty easy to do the basics of HubPro yourself. Everyone can spell and grammar check and that's one of the most signifiant factors we've seen to generate more traffic.
I have to say that the hub edited on this account was far better than anything I could have/would have done. Fantastic high quality images, complete re-order of contents, plus further info added.
Paul, can you tell me if HP editors are "correcting" what I think of as informal, advanced grammar - when writers deliberately break the rules for effect? It's popular with readers.
Like this sort of thing:
Am I going to switch to a less effective deodorant? Not. On. Your. Smelly. Life.
"I like going hiking. Sometimes."
I'd be interested to know if this kind of thing is being aggressively edited out, because if it is and the search engines like it better that way, that suggests Google's giving a lot of ranking weight to their grammar engines, to the point where it's better now to write for the grammar engines than people.
If you had an entire Hub with informal grammar, it is likely a Hub that isn't getting much search traffic, e.g., poetry, fictional writing. We wouldn't be editing this work. That being said, we try our best to maintain the tone and voice of the Hubs we are editing. All of our editors are also writers; they appreciate informal grammar and would only edit it out it if it took away from the message. The editors also communicate with authors to discuss the changes they feel are necessary.
Hi all HP staff, may I make a quick suggestion?
It is very concerning to me that you have to opt out of any latest development HP is doing these days. What happens if I go away for a year and I didn't know about opting out - do I come back to find all my hubs on the main HP domain and they're all changed around?
I feel that hubbers really want freedom of choice in this matter, to "opt in" to begin with, not "opt out". To me, having the opt out option says you are trying to get your hands on as many hubs as possible to do your latest thang, in many cases not even notifying authors. It is scary.
Apologies for the rant, but we writers can really object to any kind of control being taken away from us. That's why I thought HP was so good in the first place, because we were in control of our hubs (at all times, not sometimes).
I really believe that an editing service like this would be far friendlier if individual hubs could be submitted for improvement on an ad hoc basis, as authors submitting are likely to take the changes to heart and gain useful advice out of it. I'm also scratching my head as to why you'd go and edit hubs physically instead of just providing a report the author can work with to improve the hub.
Pair this service with an SEO improvement service in the report to the author and you'd have yourself a RED HOT editing service that all hubbers would use! I know I would use it if it was like this. It would also improve the site as a whole, not just focusing on high trafficked hubs, which people can feel rather protective about.
From my own personal experience in the pilot program, I don't feel a report would be as helpful to me as being able to see what the changes look like. Having a before and after comparison is helpful. Also they will email you prior to editing and let you know what Hubs they plan on editing. I would also suspect that initially they will be focusing on those that are actively involved in producing and editing Hubs. I don't think it would be worth HubPages while to edit the Hubs of those that are inactive. So I don't really see the likelihood of anyone getting edited and not knowing about it. The opting out would be a fairly simple thing to do.
Concerning your suggestion of submitting Hubs, I understand where you are coming from, but that seems to defeat the purpose of one of HubPages main objectives. They want to focus on improving high traffic Hubs. The idea of improving high traffic Hubs is in line with the 80/20 rule. 80% of the results come from 20% of the effort. So it is more productive to spend your time improving your small handful of Hubs that get you traffic than wasting your time on Hubs that may never get traffic (regardless of how good they are).
That being said, once again, people can opt out if they don't want to be in the program. No one is being forced.
Thank you for your explanation. I can see the larger benefits of this. People who might have found a great keyword and get good traffic, yet their hubs aren't very pretty so the reader vanishes instead of staying on HP longer (also to look at the author's related hubs)....this program will help that.
The beta testers all seem to be native English speakers and very competent writers. I'm wondering then, do you consider the non-native speakers and remedial writers to be more or less lost causes as far as professional editing goes?
I don't think that's such a bad thing necessarily. Good writers will benefit most from the program because they can take away tips from the editors' notes and apply it to other hubs. The only thing that will really help non-native speakers is more practice with the language outside of HP, and those who are native speakers but have very remedial writing skills will just make the same errors over and over no matter what.
Is there a writing quality threshold that must be met before users can be considered for the free professional editing? Again, I don't think that's a bad thing at all. But I foresee a situation where someone's low-quality hub becomes unfeatured, and then the author complains that one of the pro editors didn't bring it up to standards to be featured.
I think this can be a good thing as I'm reading through the thread and learning more about it. I think a lot of people get nervous about editing as a sort of "critique" of their work. As writers, it's important to be able to accept that our work can always be improved upon.
I am certainly willing to give it a shot if the changes are flexible and if it will improve HP and our hubs both in the long run. I am kind of reminded of my college art classes when we'd have critique days and I would dread them lol - but in the end, I always learned something and often received a lot of positive feedback as well.
I'm anxious to see how this plays out and I do think it shows that the staff here have shown great initiative for improving this site and making it the best it can be. I'll give it a shot. Thankfully opting out is always an option for those who don't want to participate.
I have a few questions.
Will ANY of this editing process end up on MTurk?
I like the idea of partnering with a HubPro editor, but it sounds like they will make changes and then inform us what they did. Is that correct?
I assume I can still do anything I want to my Hub– even after a HubPro edit. Is that correct?
Is an edited hub still completely mine– I could unpublish it and do anything I want with it– even if extensive changes were made?
I think Robin answered some of your concerns further back in the thread, but the answer to your last 3 questions is definitely yes.
I don't know what you mean in your first question? Mturk has nothing to do with editing hubs.
Robin already answered your question as Susana has stated. She's answered your other questions too.
Regarding the Mturk question, well Robin did say they now have 7 editors against the 3 they first had. And to hire them she went through a few hundred resumes (hope I remember that right) so no, they're not on Mturk but in office.
I have read all this thread, and the Mturk question is a valid one.
The scores of my hubs do not matter much to me, but I have noticed when I put up even a small edit (like improving grammar or a spelling error) the hub might go down 5 or 10 points if a different Mturk person happens to evaluate. Yes, it always goes back up (in my experience) but for those people concerned about their scores this sudden drop is annoying.
To rephrase the question, if the hub is edited by one of the editors at the HP office, does it then go through the Mturk process again, like those that we edit ourselves? If the answer is yes, this means that the hub score will fluctuate.
If you're worried about score. Well I have nothing to say, because the score is in no way helpful, but totally useless in my opinion.
I agree. The scores are just disconcerting, and I'd rather not have to see them.
As for HubPro, I've opted out. In spite of what Robin and Paul E. say, I'd never in a million years mess with my best performing hubs, so there's not really much point in my opting in.
I edited my best performing hub just last week. Sure enough, got a nice visitor spike, and it's stayed up. True, I wouldn't go anywhere near the title. But adding information definitely does not hurt.
The temperamental scoring system really does annoy me. As I mention in a previous comment on this thread, and on another thread, I recently added some very relevant information to one of my hubs, and its score fell from 90 to 82, and it's still at 82! Of course, I realize that it's not important--only organic traffic really matters--but these scores exist for us to see. Many of us just can't ignore them, and are too sensitive to simply shrug it off if they drop.
As silly as it is, this scoring system has got me to the point where I won't even read through my high scoring and best performing hubs for fear of finding something that needs editing, which would cause the score to drop. Until HubPages does something about this, nothing is going to inspire me to edit my hubs regularly, which, according to Robin, is one of the things HubPro is intended to do.
I second your opinion and concern. I added a link to one yesterday and it dropped from 100 to 92. It makes me uncomfortable to make any corrections as they could all drop significantly, and I might end up with a hubber score under 85.
I can't understand what HubPages is achieving by doing this. Surely it's counterproductive.
The way you're talking it's saddening. You've been here 2 years and boast of 300+ hubs well you don't really know the place. Lower CPM's cause of the editors? Haha that's funny.
And regarding the score, just shows how much you know about it. If it helps you, 100 hubber score means you get 1000's of visits a second.
WHAT? I have had my hubber score at 98 and was not getting anywhere near 1000's of views a second. Closer to 1000 per day.
"And regarding the score, just shows how much you know about it. If it helps you, 100 hubber score means you get 1000's of visits a second."
A 100 Hubber score means no such thing.
I remember 3 years ago when I had a hubber score of 100 for a couple days. I ended up buying a condo in Aspen.
You obviously do not know what causes a 100 hubber score either.
The way you are talking is just saddening.
Not so fast!
I have had a 100 hubber score a few times and never have I ever gotten thousands of views a second.
Who in the world ever told you this?
I guarantee that if you're still here in a year or two you won't even look at your scores. They become totally insignificant.
I am not worried about my scores but one person, who has been on this site 2 years longer than me, is (concerned about her own scores).
I think Susanna´s comment was fair enough, but that statement from from lobobrandon was ridiculous. If he does not agree with my statement, all he had to say was "No, you are wrong, the CPMs are not figured that way" or whatever. Instead, he had to make a personal attack and tell me how my comment saddened him.
I can see why GM Williams put up that forum post about rude people in the forums.
I'm sorry if it was a personal attack, didn't mean to put it that way. Just that I didn't want others to have the notion that hub scores meant much. There have been plenty of other things that people opted out of just because of the score issues. If a program is going to benefit the readers and your traffic, I don't think you should bother about score at all.
Okay, thanks for posting this.
As I mentioned, I am not concerned about scores since I have so many hubs that even if the scores of a few drop after an edit, my hubber score never really changes. Since HP makes 85 a dofollow cutoff, however, a lot of people are concerned that the drop off after editing is a big concern.
Unless that is addressed, I think many people will opt out just because of the issue with scores.
If you mean me, I took three years off from HubPages, but I don't think length of time here has anything to do with the way I view the scoring system.
'Worried' isn't quite the right word, but drastic drops do evoke feelings of disappointment and annoyance, especially because I know I've done nothing to deserve such drops. It's immensely unfair that hubbers should be penalized for improving their hubs. It's as though HubPages is using score drops to discourage us from editing our hubs. So why does Robin say that one of the intentions of HubPro is to "...[ignite] a fire to start [hubbers] editing regularly"? It just doesn't add up. Who's going to edit regularly if it's going to cause hubscore to drop each time?
I was referring to your profile in that comment, but I have also seen many other comments in the forums similar to yours.
Most of the edits I have done have been followed by a drop and then the score goes back to normal. When I saw your comment, though, I went to my main page and saw that one of my hubs, that had a 100 last year, now has a 90. I had not even noticed it, and the only editing I have done to it is fixing spelling and grammatical errors.
If that makes people less likely to edit, it definitely needs to be addressed.
My sense is Dr. Mark is speaking of another, equally loved Hubber, who writes well and seems to be slighted by the system indefinitely. When your score is in the 90's or even upper 80's its easy to ignore it. When your Hubber score is perpetually in the 70's and you participate in forums and write good hubs, I can see how discouraging that would be year after year.
Knowing that mine fluctuates, I don't really worry about it, at least not until recently. Some days, I don't feel like writing, and would prefer to edit all of my hubs; looking for that sneaking typo or some new information that could be shared.
When hub scores drop for minor revisions; it stops me from working on any other existing hubs for fear of a free fall. Some of the hubs being down graded 8-10 points are Editors Choice, so I wonder why they are getting such a slap.
If there is some new evaluation criteria, I think it would be nice to share it with us.
I understand the feeling when HubScore drops, but ultimately what is important is how the world sees your Hubs. When you improve your Hubs you are giving your reader a better experience and they are more likely to read more of your work. When readers like your work, your HubScores are likely to increase. It may take a while, but it will happen. If your focus is your readers and providing the best knowledge that you can give, you can't go wrong. Thanks, Jayne, for bringing up the discussion. It's a good one!
My focus is on my readers. My hubs are based on firsthand experience and extensive research. I go out of my way to find out what information readers are likely to be looking for by scanning the Internet and by considering questions asked by my clients--I'm in the beauty business and most of my hubs are on that subject. I also try to include information that hasn't been covered by other websites. It goes without saying that the readers' interest should be at the forefront of any writer's mind.
I appreciate your reply, but I still fail to appreciate why hub scores should drastically drop after editing. According to my experience, simply adding a comma can cause a hub to drop its score by eight points! The hub I mention in my previous comments on this thread still hasn't recovered from its last edit. How can a hub that had already earned a certain position suddenly lose it because of a small edit? I'm left feeling very disappointed--utterly deflated. So what about hubber experience? Or doesn't that matter?
For whom are hub scores useful? I haven't so far come across a hubber who finds them helpful. Are they helpful to you as staff?
I, for one, would feel better if I didn't have to see these scores. They're distracting. Why not list our hubs on the statistics page according to traffic and omit the hub scores? That would surely put the emphasis where it belongs--namely on how many visitors we're getting, which is a more reliable indicator of how successful a hub is.
Scores, notes, grades etc. allotted to my work will always influence me, and the way they're awarded on HubPages has turned into a big problem as far as I'm concerned. As silly, irrational and counterproductive as it is, I am very, very hesitant--almost afraid--to edit my hubs.
I was going that since you feel so strongly about it, you should add your voice to this thread:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/107466? … ost2521209
But I see it's been closed to reply. Which is odd, because only last week when I suggested the same thing to someone else, it was open. It seems that HubPages wants to shut down discussion on the topic so I wouldn't hold your breath for scores to change any time soon.
Hey Marisa, they can't really get rid of hubber score because it's what's used to determine the no-follow links. My score went from a constant 93+ for the past 6 - 7 months to 81 in just 3 days. I've done nothing and traffic has actually risen. So, beats me how the score is calculated. Only thing I've done is talk more on the forums the past 3 days.
It's not "Hubber score," the number on your profile image, they are concerned with; it is the actual hub score that you see on "your account" next to each of your hubs that is of concern. We assume that the hub scores greatly influence your overall Hubber score. But no one knows the formula for generating your Hubber score, which can lead to no follow links when it dips below 85.
Right now I think that hub score doesn't affect it at all. Because my score drooped down 14 points whereas my average hub score is 89 which is still constant. Traffic rise and everything
I was replying to the link Marisa added which stated that hub and hubber score should be done with
Very odd. It does indeed seem they don't want us to talk about it.
I recall you mentioning the thread to Brie Hoffman last week.
Very good point! I cannot imagine anyone resorting to MTurk for earnings having the knowledge, qualifications and experience to work on subject-specialist material.
I cannot see an opt-out for this anywhere.
I DO NOT want people without qualifications equivalent to mine messing with my writing, I also do not want US English editors messing with my writing.
Is there any way I can preserve the integrity of my articles apart from deleting my account here?
I cannot see an opt-out anywhere on my profile or on my statistics page.
I really cannot be bothered to keep checking these continuously to block malicious interference. Is HP going to be upfront about this unwanted initiative or do we have to delete our accounts to prevent it? It would be good to get a response from the staff employed rather than guesswork from amateur users of the site.
Robin has posted throughout this thread - including the ability to opt out of the program. Go to where you edit your profile and scroll down and the option to opt out will be towards the bottom. It will say "My hubs are eligible to be edited with HubPro". In red is a statement about only being able to do it once every 60 days.
Click 'Edit Profile', then go to 'My Hubs are eligible to be edited with HubPro' near the bottom of the page right beneath the EC option. There you can opt out.
I've also opted out.
Your tone, by the way, is disgraceful.
Lobobrandon, I tend to agree with you about the scores, as they make no sense whatsoever. I have observed hub scores dropping ten points easily in just a day or two---well written hubs. So, the scores do not seem to reflect the quality of a hub, rather traffic seems to be the qualifying agent. If HP wants to use scores, they should at least separate the quality rating from traffic rating. Traffic rating is the only thing that should fluctuate. As for hubber score, that makes little sense, either. Someone who writes quality hubs, actively participates at the Hub Pages community, and attempts to promote their hubs at social sites should be judged by a simple 3-star rating. The present numerical system is too complicated and fluctuates. I think some kind of system can help provide an incentive, so HP doesn't necessarily have to eliminate them entirely. HubPro will have to prove its worthiness. In reading its description, I read nothing about traffic or SEO techniques. We'll see what happens.
Hey Maria, as a Pilot Tester of the HubPro programme I can tell you this:
Here's what they don't do:
They aren't aiming to increase traffic due to some SEO changes nor are they going to help you out with keywords/phrases or anything of that sort.
Here's what they do:
They rearrange your content, add pics, videos, polls etc to make the hub more interactive. - This entices the reader to stay on, read more, click more (on ads) and hopefully buy (Amazon and eBay). Apart from this a happy reader is more likely to share what they read - the new share icons which are really good, can't really work if the content on the page isn't up to the mark. Again we're not saying that the hubs you have are bad. At present they're just taking the good hubs to make them even better - everything can be improved, you can do it yourself if you want to. They're just helping out.
(Eventually - Increasing Traffic, without any real SEO work)
They go through your text for any grammatical errors that may have crept through (Even the best of writers do use editors - don't they?)
They fact check etc and a lot more as you see on the blog post and the FAQ page.
No one is being forced to enter (That's the wrong notion most people here on HP have). They can opt out any time. Also, if emailed and they don't reply probably, the HP staff won't proceed with the edits - I need clarification on this part though.
Why should traffic influence hub score? We know how much traffic we're getting, and that's what tells us how successful our hubs are with search engines and readers. The score should only reflect hub quality if it's to be helpful, and it would be an added incentive for hubbers to produce the best quality hubs they can and edit regularly.
A star system to replace hubber score is also a great idea.
I guess the SEO aspect of the editors' job is one of the things HubPages will be training them.
I took a look at Lobobrandon's HubProed hubs and I had some questions about the HubPages images that were added.
First of all, the added images are illustrations. I like them. In the first hub I saw, the illustrations were added to the photographs that were there. What do people generally think about illustrations and photographs in the same hub? It seems to me that they are a different style and mood, and therefore don't really go together very well. I think I would prefer one or the other.
In the second hub, there were only illustrations, and they looked really good. If he does decide to unpublish the hub and move the hub elsewhere, can he take the illustrations with him? Were they specifically made for that hub? Are these illustrations specific to that hub? Can he use them on another one of his hubs? Can anyone else use them for their hub as well? What are the [copyright and other] rules regarding these illustrations?
The illustrations on the green apples hub were made out of pictures I originally had. The tomato hub illustrations were created without replacing any pic
Will have to look into the pics and illustrations thing you mentioned. I may keep the pics too if necessary.
So they made these images specifically for your hub? Were they giving you illustrations to replace images that were copyrighted?
Lol shasta I know better than putting copyright protected pics on my hubs. Nope that wasn't the reason
I didn't ask for the pics. But I loved them. I guess they were made specifically for my hub. But others who have similar hubs should be free to use them I guess
Sorry Brandon, that was worded badly. I wasn't trying to imply that you would knowingly use copyrighted pictures. I was just trying to figure out why/when they decide to provide images. Maybe the illustrator likes drawing tomatoes and apples. I liked the illustrations too.
I find it interesting that we are not allowed to watermark our images, but the ones they added has the HubPages logo on them.
Haha I was just joking I know u didn't mean it that way.
Btw I think we can Watermark our images if we do it like the way they did it. There was once a hotd that had images watermarked. It was a bun baking hub if I remember right.
If they do go ahead creating illustrations we should suggest they create a database so that we can find images to use on our hubs. Will benefit the entire community
That's true, an image database has been suggested in the past. I think, though, that if other people also start to use the same image, then that would take a bit away from your hub. People remember the images and if they see several hubs with the same image, they may confuse which one they liked.
I have been locked out of updating a hub that needs to be updated several times a day dealing with tropical storm and hurricane activity. The message I have been getting for the past 16 hours is "Sorry, you cannot make changes to this hub while an editor is working on it."
Please contact me on this issue as I am part of the pilot project, received no notification that this hub would be edited, nor that it would remain "open" in edit mode where I can not update and edit it.
http://dalehyde.hubpages.com/hub/Hurric … tic-Region
I sent you an email, but thought I'd update you here, too. Alison sent you an email yesterday when she began editing, but I just talked to her and she has finished it and unlocked it. She knew that it was a Hub that would be updated frequently, so she edited quickly! Thanks and let me know if you're not getting emails from us; she just sent you another.
Thanks Robin, all has been resolved. I did get the email, but I did not see this post until this evening. The email I got was from you and a follow up from Alison. Not sure what happened to the original email from Alison to me.
On a side note, I do love the ability to see all of the edit changes, improvements, etc., in the link provided in the email on the edited hub. Well done!
Thanks for the tip that illustrations/photos could/will be procured and added - I missed that when scanning the announcements.
Robin - Can you say what kind of licenses these images typically have, and where they are procured from?
I'm way open to being in the program if HubPages is interested in choosing my hubs. Haha.
Well, I opted out early in this discussion, and now I am not sure what I was afraid of. I think I would welcome another set of eyes on my hubs, but I will have to wait another 56 days to change my settings.
Speaking as a reader, I hate it when I show up at a website and have to go looking for the text. And to make it worse, the scroll and pagedown don't work until all the pics and ads load. Not talking about HubPages. Yahoo news links and Huffingtonpost are good examples of major offenders; and I'm talking about their subpages.
Very interesting idea! I look forward to seeing how this is going to work on a larger scale, can only mean good things for HubPages!
Since HubPro focuses on particular hubs and Hubbers, is it possible for the rest us to get updates on how it is going? Just some stats would be good - this week we updated 15 hubs from 5 Hubbers, that sort of thing. I am just curious as to how fast this process is going so I can correlate that to the improvement of the site's traffic and so I can guesstimate when my turn will come up.
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.