Sorry, I find the stats summary for "HubPages hasn’t sold me on the benefits of the program". very confusing and unconvincing. The changes appear to be relatively small within the groups. Looks like the major shifts are for Hubs which originally had a high score (7-8). If so the benefits would appear to be marginal (people already love them). What about traffic? Why not show raw stats summaries for ratings before and after changes were made grouped by original ratings so we can see the raw data. It also depends on QAP scores or other criteria the Pro team is using to target the hubs to change, the traffic level and user satisfaction. Sorry I remain unconvinced of the benefits.
If you think of the score as an index of -100 to 100, that may give you more of a sense at the improvement. Moving from 8 to 25 is substantial.
Also, a 7 and 8 is considered passive. 9+ is promoters.
The bar graph depicts the movement of people. What's happened is people are moving from detractors to passives and passives to promoters.
This is one of the core metrics we use. It correlates strongly with QAP scores and QAP scores with Panda 4.1.
I had some of my Hubs Changed by an editor and I must say it was a worthwhile experience that I would love to repeat with the rest of my Hubs, My Editor was friendly and professional and she asked my opinion before any changes were made to my Hubs.
I have noticed an increase in visitors to those Hubs although I must admit I am not really that hot on counting percentages. maybe someone at Hubpages could take a look at those Hubs over the last few months and show some kind of a graph just to Highlight that the program works.
once you have completed the program with your editor you have the choice of sticking with your original Hub or accepting the changes.
it was fun and informative and I have made similar changes to some of my other Hubs with positive results.
A lot of people have indicated a fall in traffic since the recent Panda update but it has actually been the opposite for my Hubs and I have seen a steady growth in traffic and earnings.
Thankyou Hubpages and Thankyou Anna my editor it continues to be a pleasure writing here.....jimmy
Thank you for posting your positive experience, Jimmy.
I edit my own articles, but always appreciate having a second pair of eyes and another opinion about how something might be improved. Quality is the cutting edge that will assist in keeping Hub Pages a notable content site.
How about this problem: my highest producing hub was getting 500 or so views daily until something happened, long before all of the updates and changes, and those numbers fell down to around 40 per day. I know this is a good and well liked article, yet it lost ranking overnight. Now that the numbers have dropped, HubPro will not qualify it for help. What do people like me do in this situation, even if we are dying to get some help right now?
In my humble opinion the Hubpro program could be better focused and is unlikley to provide overall benefits unless the poor quality and 'thin-content' at the bottom end is addressed. Panda targets sites that have an unreasonable portion of Poor Quality and Thin-content pages. Making the good stuff better is not going to lift the Panda penalties. Looking at the list of 'Latest' hubs, which are featured, shows that there are still far too many poor quality hubs being accepted and featured. I suggest the following:
QAP - improve QAP by introducing NEW rules for ALL pages that are not Poetry, Creative Writing etc. (new pages and edited pages)
=> 400 word limit
=> at least one photo for each 400 words
=> minimum of at least 4 capsules (including 1 photo capsule; capsules not capsule types)
=> increase Amazon and Ebay limits to one per 100 words
Topics, Layout and Ads
=> shift to a fully responsive layout that delivers a full width display on PCs, but fabulous layout for mobiles with efficient ads
=> show warnings for saturated topics when titles are being entered.
=> remove the Related Search 'Ads' to relieve the excessive ads problems
Get an editor to work with promising authors and to suggest changes to ALL their published pages rather than individual pages. Most authors follow their own formula. Changing that formula would mean that the quality of a suite of pages could be improved by consultation with an editor. Focus on authors who are actively publishing good hubs.
Defeaturing for low traffic
Stop defeaturing good quality pages with hubscores about 60. Defeaturing quality pages is counter productive, as Hubpro is designed to lift quuality. The assumption that Google sees any page with low traffic as having inferior quality is poor judgement. IMO - Its a pain in the proverbial.
I'm assuming you mean a 400 word minimum, not limit. (Oops! originally I'd written 400 page. The perils of posting before coffee!)
Other than that, I agree with everything you've said. I also think it would help if more of us hopped hubs on a regular basis, and if the hopper instructions included how to rate thin content.
Or better yet, if the hopper had check boxes so that we could say what specifically is the problem: thin content, poor English usage, spun content, etc rather than attempting to figure out where things belong on the score.
Then perhaps a small part of the editing team could address some of the "promising but needs help" hubs.
I opted back in - in one hundred years some wise old witch will take a look at them and explain how much better everything could have been...
I've opted in, but I second janderson's view: given that Panda focusses so heavily on poor content, I would have preferred to see HubPages employ people to spend their time finding and removing the spam, than improving already good Hubs.
I'm a little concerned because I feel like we aren't communicating this as well as we should be.
HubPro exists to improve the reader experience and raise the reputation of HubPages as a whole.
Spam is getting removed by another team. Lots of low quality content has been no indexed. Think of moderation efforts as starting at one end and HubPro starting at the other end.
After our initial beta, HubPro now prioritizes hubs that are getting significant traffic and users appear to be under satisfied. The before score is 8 on average. This is a poor user satisfaction like score. These hubs are widely read. HubPro is significantly improving them. After HubPro the score is 25.
If you have been notified your hubs are eligible for HubPro, I believe you are at significant risk of losing your traffic if you don't accept the offer or substantially improve your Hubs. Opting out and doing nothing is hurting fellow Hubber.
Also, since we can't offer to HubPro all hubs today, if your HubberScore is under 70, you are much more likely to experience significant traffic loss from the last Panda update.
Lastly, Panda does focus on poor content. The most important content to remove or improve is the content that gets traffic with unsatisfied readers. HubPro is directly addressing this issue which I believe is the most important part of the Panda algorithm.
Sorry, I take offence to this:
"Opting out and doing nothing is hurting fellow Hubber."
My readers and I are happy with my hubs and the advice, insight and entertainment they provide (3 Million views). What's next - ban people who don't join? But enough from me.
It appears that the criteria for invitation is hubs that have high traffic but low reader satisfaction. If that is the case, you are indeed hurting yourself and the site if you don't at least see what changes are recommended with an open mind, especially since there isn't a requirement to accept the edits..
I know all about unFeaturing and QAP, Paul. However, it seems like you're missing chances to do some really simple cleaning up.
If I can do a simple search for "masturbation" (or any other prohibited topic) and bring up a raft of Hubs, why can't a staffer be tasked with doing just that - so those Hubs can be deleted wholesale and remove a problem in one hit? One person working full-time on it for a few weeks could make a huge difference.
Also, you go to great lengths to educate us about Amazon, yet HubPages rules still allow one Amazon capsule per 50 words. Would you honestly approve any Hub that had one capsule per 50 words? If not, why haven't you changed the rule? What message do you think you are sending?
I repeat, I have NOT opted out - if the program exists I may as well take advantage of it. I just think it's an inappropriate use of resources.
I think this is a really important conversation. How we apply resources is the toughest decision I make.
We have a group of internal folks reviewing new hubs and cleaning up queues for years. We can definitely do more and we will. This will likely be an effort that never ends. We are doing more here similar to your suggestion.
The product issue is one we have some pretty interesting data on. While new Hubs seem to rarely have excessive products, there are plenty that are still featured that do. The same nps like score we use can be broken out by words per product. It's pretty clear that on average user dissatisfaction correlates with less than 125 words per product.
We have been actively discussing the best way to address these Hubs. Some are at the front of the HubPro queue. We will do more here in the coming months. Nothing to announce yet.
I feel like we are hearing more and more to tighten our policies.
From a technical point, most of the things we can do at scale will identify false positives. We acknowledge this, but want to be careful.
Marisa, I'm glad you're in HubPro. I hope the entire HubPages community follows. My biggest concern is folks opting out because they are looking to take from the HubPages community instead of working to make us all better together.
I think one of the biggest misconceptions is google only sends significant traffic to really good Hubs. While I think google has gotten better at this, hubs that can be significantly improved can get shocking amounts of traffic.
My concern here is that you suggest that folks opt out "because they're looking to take from the community."
It feels like HP staff is not understanding why folks opt out.
I opted out because 1) I was new to the community and didn't know what Hub Pro was. 2) I didn't know how the process worked and didn't trust some nameless editor to touch my pages. 3) Edits go live before the author has a chance to approve them -- this one is a BIGGIE! 4) I don't trust the editors expertise in my niche. Some of my words and phrasings (especially in my self-help hubs) are very deliberate and use NLP/hypnosis patterns to encourage positive growth. I also use spelling that is particular to my niche.
I'm pretty sure that many of those who opted out have more than a few concerns in line with those I've stated.
Wanting to take from the community and not give back doesn't factor in at all.
Despite this, I'll be opting back in as soon as 60 days are up (a week or two). I was relatively new to Squidoo and didn't have a chance to flesh out my niche, so I don't have a lot of traffic yet, and probably won't be chosen any time soon. I'm working on writing more hubs and learning to promote them, so I'm hoping that will change.
My largest gripe with HubPro is still pages going live before I have a chance to approve the changes. If you can work on that one, I think you'll have a lot more people opting in.
I'm responding to one specific thing you said in your point number 4... "Some of [your] words and phrasings are very deliberate". I just read two of your hubs and I realize what you mean. For example, the title of your hub "Getting a Round Tuit" is an ingenious play on words. I love it. And the hub is very well written too. I don't think the editors would have misunderstood what you were up to with that phrase. But as Susana S implied, we can always accept or refuse the changes.
Thanks for the kind words! Actually the phrasings that are important to me, are often far more subtle than that.
For instance one hypnotic pattern is "the more...the more..." Example: the more you read my posts on the subject of HubPro, the more you will agree with me. *g*
Another is "pace, pace, lead." Example: As you sit there in front of your computer, reading this post, and wondering whether your articles will be helped or harmed by this program you will begin to understand why I'm concerned about the ways that editing my articles might destroy exactly the sort of effect my words are intended to create.
Thanks for pointing this out. I should have been more clear in that most of the Hubbers in this thread have high Hubber Scores and their concerns I think are different than the current Hubs at the top of the HubPro queue. I should also say, that just because we are offering HubPro to you now, doesn't mean you're doing something wrong. It just means you have a good bit of traffic and we think we can help you with reader satisfaction. 86% of people are seizing the opportunity.
When I look at the Hubs that are eligible for HubPro and they opt out, it feels like they are looking to take from the HubPages community and not putting the reader first because the Hub is intended to score a backlink, or push a reader without substantial value to a quick sale - there are other reasons as well.
I do get a little frustrated because I see how hard people are working to improve their Hubs and help the community succeed. Rules will never be perfect and a group will always push the boundary for their own interest.
I'm a big believer that the overall community of Hubbers and readers has to be the first priority over self interests. Team first - as cliche as it sounds.
I totally understand your community-first viewpoint.
At the moment, I don't have a website to backlink to. Nor am I focused on pushing product sales, quick, slow or otherwise. In fact my most recent post-Squidoo hubs don't as yet have a single product link and won't unless I find something that matches the hub subject to perfection.
I'm one of those people who write because it's something I adore doing and focus on community because I love that second only to the "high" I get from putting words into print.
At the same time, I'm hoping that I can make good money because I believe we all deserve our dreams to be successful and we all have to eat.
Sure, who doesn't want that?
As said before, I'm just waiting a few more days till I can opt back into HubPro and then hoping my hubs do well enough to make me a candidate.
This is obviously something you believe will work, if the community allows it to. The more I learn about how HubPro works, the more I am beginning to believe in it.
Equally important, I have only rarely seen someone in your position be accessible to the community, involved in making it better and passionate about our/your product in the way that I've noted since the day I was moved to HP.
This IS the stuff that good companies are made of.
Contrast the fact that 6 months into Squidoo I didn't even know who owned it.
So lets do it! Let's make HP an amazing, mind-blowing site. Let's pull the community together to rocket to the top of Google search pages and charts!
It only takes every one of us who cares.
From the comments I've seen, I think most people are worried about having their work edited. I had never had my writing edited before and it was quite scary! I got cold feet at the beginning, nearly backed out, then had a real wobble when I saw some of the changes......BUT then once I got a chance to review things with a less emotional head on I saw the changes were good. There are a couple of things I've changed back, but I've kept nearly all the edits made.
So many hubbers put their heart and soul into their hubs (I know I did with most of mine), so having that potentially critiqued and changed is a hard thing to face.
Personally, I would love to have all my hubs edited now that I've been through it once and I would urge people to get over any psychological blocks they have about it.
Great point. I don't usually have a problem with being edited, but some folks do. Yes, it can be scary if it's the first time.
Having grown up as the daughter of a writer, and a member of many writers groups over the years I was introduced to getting edited by my fellow authors at around the age of 12.
This has almost always been a positive experience for me. (One time another member of an online critique group hated me, my character, my premise, and lashed out at me rather violently, but he seems to have been an aberration.) One of the hardest lessons is in "killing your darlings" - the sentences and paragraphs that you love but that don't work for the story or article.
My fellow writers have helped me in huge ways, and I really appreciate their help and support over the years.
One of the big problems I see with HubPro is that unlike my own friends who take turns editing each others work, we don't know who these editors are.
If I choose an agent or sell my book to a publisher, I'm going to research that agent. I'm going to research the editor before I sign the book contract. I'm going to know who this person is who will be making suggestions about my work is, who their other published authors are, etc.
So one of the things that would help HP "sell" Hub Pro is to start putting up bios of their editors, links to their editors' own writing and links to hubs that those editors have worked on. SHOW us the results, don't tell us - this is a cardinal rule in writing.
Some before/after info would also be highly useful. SHOW us what the hubs looked like before the edit and what changes the editors made. Don't expect us to take this stuff on faith.
I've spent 43 years honing my craft as a writer. I think I'm pretty good at it. Does that mean I can't use the advice of a good editor? Absolutely not. But I'm going to want to be highly active in the process, and I'm going to want to know who I'm dealing with.
And at risk of repeating myself, I want to approve any changes BEFORE they go live, not after.
Here I am going green with envy. I do so wish any of my hubs would get edited. I am still unsure as to what makes a good hub. Yes, I do read, as much as time allows, but I recognize that I need to improve, improve, improve. Constructive feedback is most welcome.
I have well written hubs with good content - all 81 hubs with scores over 70, many in the 90s, and Google sends hardly any readers over. I'm "in" HubPro. Can you look at hubs that don't have high traffic and tell me what to do to get higher traffic?
I am still curious about what constitutes a traffic level meriting a HubPro edit?
And did you mean to say Hubber Score or Hub Score below 70?
Yeah, I asked above how much traffic a hub needs in order to receive professional editing, and...crickets. Maybe this is something they don't want to disclose to protect information about people's traffic?
Hmmmm - I'd like to know when I might be on the list. Sorry I opted out to begin with, but maybe it makes no difference lol
For me, it was the hubs that got over about 80 per day.
Thanks for your answer, Susana! I really wondered if by high-traffic they were talking tens of thousands of views per day, thousands, or a couple hundred.
I originally opted out when I moved to HP because I didn't know what the program was and didn't trust it. When my 60 days is up, I plan to opt back in.
But I agree with you, I'd really like to see the low quality hubs addressed, as they drag the entire site down.
The Phases from the blog
"seen by the most readers in order to improve the overall reader experience"
"ensure most frequently viewed Hubs are our most beautiful and helpful"
imply that the target of Hubpro is on high traffic pages. Perhaps I'm chicken, but I do not touch high traffic hubs until their traffic drops off. I fear that any changes risks knock them off their perch. Very risky in my opinion as it can take months to get a hub performing well. It may take a long time for any fall in traffic to be re-established.
My final comment is that it does not appear that the new editors have published many hubs.
I think the principle is sound and applaud HubPages for taking an initiative like this but I am immensely frustrated seeing some of my hubs slip in the rankings and when I go to a topic page and find my best earning hub that is now getting fewer views has been overtaken by a hub with 7 Amazon 'buy now' product links, one after the other down the page, pictures with no attribution whatsoever and less than 750 words, it makes me wonder if this HubPro process to produce even better quality hubs will really result in higher rankings and more page views.
My two heavy hitters were edited by HubPro and both have lost views. Simple facts. Especially one that was consistent over the past two years is now barely surviving.
One hub is seasonal, however the views on that one started dropping pretty quickly after the edit whilst in season. I stopped updating as it got so dismal.
The other one had been in top searches, on page one, for two years and now I find it on page two or further down the search depending on the keyword(s) used in the search.
As a result my earnings have pretty much been cut by 50%. That was how well these hubs were doing on their own. I mean 100,000+ views on one hub over a two year+ period is not too shabby. My heaviest hitting consistent hub was averaging 1,000+ views a week and is not down to 250 views, give or take.
I attribute these falls in views to the edits, however I am sure some has been due to the recent Google Panda and Penguin updates.
How many daily/monthly views must a hub get in order to be considered one of the high-traffic hubs eligible for HubPro?
I'm content to know the feature is there. I'm not content if it's only offered as an option rather than automatically making changes to my hubs. If it comes to that. I'll take issue with it.
While I'm sure all of us could use a bit of editing advice, I checked out a couple of your hubs and was quite impressed.
I don't think you need as much editing as you may think you do.
I found your message succinct, your words lovely and your subjects interesting.
Thank you so much Lionrhod. It is so kind of you. I live to learn, and in time I may be able to write straight from within, without being so aware of the requirements.
I only had a quick look at your site, and it looks enticing. I am now off to sample some of the good stuff!! HaHa!!
Living to learn...that's exactly where I come from. Learning sparks happy neurons in my brain. I'm told the brain doesn't have "feeling" and "sensation"but I don't believe it. I can feel those puppies firing off every time I get a new understanding.
Right now I'm re-reading (for about the 5th time) Gary Provost's Make Your Words Work. Every time I re-read it (and follow the exercises) I get something new.
Definitely raid your local library and get every possible book they have on writing. Get them to do intra-library loans too. (One of the most powerful book-getting devices ever.) If you can afford to, subscribe to Writer's Digest and The Writer.
But above all, trust your own voice and spend as much time as you can at the practice of writing.
I have about 7 hubs--well-written, but without any DIRECT traffic to my hubs on HubPages itself, but EXCELLENT traffic via Google+ and LinkedIn. In fact, when I link to a hub on my Google+ profile or page, Google catapults it to page ONE on Google for the keywords I'm targeting. This happens every time.
And when I link to a hub page on LinkedIn (in particular), I get tons of reads as well as likes and shares because that's where my readers hang out. I even get traffic from Google, but not as much as from Google+
Despite all the interest and excellent traffic I receive for my linked hubs through other sites, my reports from the HubPages site itself are woeful. I've also found that Google does not link to my hubs on the HubPages site itself.
This does not concern me any more because I've found a way around it.
My Google+ shares show the same way, on the first page......but...that is if I am signed in to Google. Try signing out of Google or open another browser that you are not logged into Google and and the results will not be there when you do the search.
You're quite right. My Google+ links weren't there. Nevertheless, a few HubPages links were there instead. Fancy that!
Whenever I get the opportunity - which is not that often - I try to 'find' my articles on a different IP. I have found that it is easier to find them on google than if I go to Hub Pages.
Some of my readers have told me how unless they search on a title in its entirety they cannot find my articles on hubpages. I have asked them politely to "not search under my name" as this could be misconstued as manipulation. They tell me (I have at least six who like to look at my new articles) that sometimes the only way they can find my article is to put my hubpages name there.
It just tells me that the search function on hubpages is not as ituitive as Google's.
Your Hubs are fairly new, so Google has barely had time to notice them. More importantly, though, your choice of subjects may be acting against you.
When writing a Hub, always ask yourself, "what would people have to type into Google to find this Hub?". So for instance, you have a Hub on fasting. People wanting information on fasting will probably type "fasting" into Google - but that wouldn't bring up your Hub, because you don't use the word in your title and you use it only once in the whole Hub.
Creating titles online isn't the same as creating titles in a magazine. The title needs to let Google know what the Hub is about. Use your summary and first paragraph to "hook" the reader, not the title.
Sometimes when you ask that question, you'll realise you can't think what people would have to type into Google - or that people would be very unlikely to ever do that search. In those cases, you just have to resign yourself to the fact that you'll get very few readers.
I also suggest you read my Hub on how to use photos, you'll find it in the slider on my profile.
Thank you for taking the time, and I have already made a note on my Postits to read your hub on photos.
I may not have explained myself well in my forum post. I often just write as it comes to mind!
What I wanted to point out is that I find there is a lack of intuitive search function on Hub Pages.
From what they tell me, it is easier to find them on Google, even if one does not know the title, but searches on the Subject.
NB: I always prepare a two line summary, but I do not see it when I publish.
You are absolutely right, the HubPages' search function is not, and never has been, much good!
You are also right about the summary. Readers cannot see it when visiting a Hub - but Google will often use it as the "summary" on the search engine results page, which is where it can intrigue the reader and induce them to visit your Hub.
Good to know that my work on the summary is not wasted entirely.
When I started on Hubpages I was surprised that there is no resource box with summary and tags. But then, I have had very little experience in publishing before this.
The search function is very important in my view. I have been using Google since its inception and I believe that its super intuitive function is what brought it to most people's attention to start with. One does not need to be a geek with Google, it can find anything for you. But HubPages does not seem to be able to make a connection unless given precise titles.
This is not a whinge or complaint, but stating what I see. It affects our success or otherwise and hopefully in future it will be improved.
It is annoying but it has very little effect on our success. Virtually the only people who use HubPages search are HubPages members, and they are mostly other writers. People do not join HubPages to read! 90% of HubPages' visitors come directly to a single Hub from Google, Yahoo or Bing. If they stay on the site after reading that Hub, they're most likely to navigate using the related Hubs listed at the end of a Hub, not by using search.
I agree with you that the search function isn't intuitive and doesn't work well. IMO when people say that nobody uses the search function to search HP it's precisely BECAUSE the search doesn't work. I know that on Squidoo, the search function worked just fine, so I don't know why they can't make it work here.
All the unrelated ads are just another function of the fact that whatever system HP is using to figure out what our hubs are about purely doesn't work.
And as I've said before, visitors to see the whole category drill down would allow visitors to check out other hubs in the same category. They shouldn't have to wade through the entire larger category to try figuring out where articles on the subject that has their interest live.
ETA: Anyhow only 3 more days till I can opt back in to Hub Pro.
Does the User Satisfaction Surveys include gauging the response of users to the so called "Related Search" links. These links are deceptive ads, nothing to do with search. People don't like to be tricked or deceived. If you click on one of these all you get is a page of ads by Google, many of which are totally unrelated to the topic. These links detract from the truly related links provided at the end of the article. There are 12 of these links on every page! I know this has been discussed before. The income from these ADS is NOTshared with users and it must detract from users satisfaction with Hubpages. These ads also stop people clicking of the genuine Related Hubs. Please consider removing them. Most sites that had Related Search ads have removed them. This would improve user satisfaction, stop annoying people when they get tricked into clicking of the ads and would reduce the number of ads on the page. Lost customers seldom come back. The HOTD also needs to be the best of the best, attractive, and fabulous as well.
These are the links for a Related Search for Potato Recipes
Ads by Google
Thinking Of Switching?
850% + Investment Returns
1 Rule For A Flat Stomach
Need A Poetry Publisher?
Khmer Language Now
Make Huge income at Home
Social Media Management
Free & Easy Recipes
Fly To Philippines
I have found similar outcomes, when I clicked on the side bar.
I had just read Sid Kemp's very interesting article about Hubber Scores. I assumed that the titles on the side related to what I was reading.
Average IQ Score - this related to headhunting top executives
Locking Hubs - this told me about wheel hubs
Score - this was to do with financial investments or Limelight.
I did not bother with the other three.
This forum has cleared up my confusion. My best earning hub for nearly three years suddenly dived. It had been stolen repeatedly. Now I realize it was because it needed editing that it took the dive not the theft. This forum reveals the spirit of Hubpages that has been missing most of the summer. It's nice to finally be home again andseeing the spirit of HP reviving . -Melissa, when you are present in a forum there is clarity and good suggestions. - Paul, I agree, we need some bios on editorial staff. People need to have a foundation for trust.
When Squidoo sold our content to HubPages, I had just begun to experience significant, sustained traffic on a few of my most popular lenses and wondered if all my hard work was finally paying off.
After the move, my traffic and earnings continued to climb for that first month. Then boom. The bottom totally dropped out. Even when I ignored my lenses at Squidoo for two years, I had more traffic than I'm getting now.
I'm editing squubs as fast as I can, learning as much as my ancient brain will hold, but every day, more hubs go unfeatured for lack of traffic.
I would gladly welcome a HubPro review. Writing without an editor or compatriot one can trust to give impartial feedback is tough. I'll keep doing it, of course, but having an impartial editor look at my work would be a great gift.
Paul Edmondson, I sincerely hope the time will come, and soon, when you can allocate HubPro resources to the rest of us.
by Phyllis Doyle Burns4 years ago
My daily earnings have dropped drastically -- WHY? Is it because HP has pulled ads on my hubs due to the "unfeatured" hubs, which are mostly poems? Are poems not worthy of being featured and...
by Christy Kirwan2 years ago
Hi there, friends! Check out yesterday's blog post for the latest on HubPro plus tips on doing your own HubPro-style edits for those who are not yet eligible. Happy Hubbing!
by Kate Swanson6 years ago
Just a quick post to highlight that Paul has created a new post on the blog, giving a summary of what's happening post Panda and why HP has taken the action he has.I'm a little disappointed that he hasn't addressed...
by Steve Andrews5 years ago
When it was first introduced I was annoyed by it but made an effort to tweak my hubs to get them out of Idle status. Now, a whole load have got zzs against them again and many of them are hubs that at one point were...
by Will Apse4 years ago
In his hub 'What We Don't Know About Google Panda?', Paul Edmondson points out that Google seems to expect sites to leap high above any bar that might reasonably be set for quality purposes.Paul seems less than happy...
by Robin Edmondson2 years ago
Please check out our Blog Post on a couple of quality-related changes on HubPages!
Copyright © 2018 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.