So right about Amazon. Then when you think you have found what you wanted, you realized that you are one a sponsored site, not the Amazon site.
I know how to find the best seller, among other things when I search for products for my articles. I look for numerous things other than best seller. I actually spend more time looking for the right product, the best product, than I do writing the stinking article.
Google does not like Ezine Articles, a site that does not allow any products to placed there. So there you go!!! It is another HP without products,without the need for Adsense account, a "Content Farm."
There are a few other reasons for HubPages being manually penalized by Google.
A manual penalty is a penalty done by a HUMAN being.
It can be removed by another human. It is NOT an automatic thing.
However, what if HubPages was penalized because of the ads that you can't close when you visit a page? They can be reported for spam. These ads aren't added by Hubbers, only by HP's system.
Then they may also be penalized because some of their ads would hide trojans. This happened to some Hubbers to visit a Hub and get a nocive ad to open and download something on their computer - not long ago some were talking about this problem.
Visitors can report HubPages for such behaviors. These aren't the fault of Hubbers, nor even HP staff, just their clients.
Then for example, on WOT you can see the current HP rating - some pretend the site sends spam, other motives are scam, misleading, hate, violence, etc. These past votes feature more red votes than green ones. Check it out there:
What if someone on there reported HubPages to Google and had it manually penalized? Scam, spam, hate and violence are motives for Google to penalize any site!
Don't tell me it is impossible, I suspect it to be actually doable. I had to deal with a WOT member not long ago and they can be strong headed - to the point that they get your site black listed in SE.
That is a valid point and one that creates a lot of false positives.
I had a huge malicious warning from one of the hubs in the hub hopper not long ago!
There was another site link posted in the forums the other day that actually looks like HP and if you have HP open, you can see everything about your account on this bogus site. Has HP responded to that , NOPE!!!
I had a virus programAVAST, that said to not trust HP.
We have ads, links to hubs, links to related searches that are not put on hubs by the writer, and not remotely related to the hub content, That is what I call Spam for sure.
I read a hub about dogs and the product on there was computer stuff, including a computer. I reported it, but nothing was ever done about it.
If hub is not featured, then it is not in search engines. The search bar on HP is pathetic. I spend a lot of time in the search engines. If I said it is 30 below outside, you would swear it is 90 degrees outside!
No more than 2 text links to same domain.
The Amazon and Ebay capsules hold one product. You are permitted one Amazon, or Ebay capsule per 50 words.
2 links to same domain. One product capsule per 50 words. Capsules are designed for one product per capsule.
It seems to me that most former squids (although not really coming to Hub Pages voluntarily) came here expecting to make as much money as they were on Squidoo. I have no idea of the percentage but I think the greater majority of hubbers haven't even reached their first payout yet. Some as stated are making three figure amounts per month but I think that is a small minority. I have 170 hubs and only made my first payout this year...and not one cent of that was from Amazon.
Jodah, I have suggested in this thread and other similar threads that former squids should read hubs and forums in addition to the Learning Center. That is what has been most helpful to me in my many years as a hubber, learning to write quality, evergreen hubs. The forum posts especially make it clear, as you pointed out, that no one here on Hub Pages is making a fortune. Most hubbers make little or no money. I agree with you that it sounds like former squids' expectations are much too high.
Can I just point out that if ex Squidoo people are making money then so is HubPages HQ.
It's entirely possible that 'profit' per se is not the main objective of the people running HubPages but I scarcely think "not making much money" is ever going to be one of their ambitions.
I may have got this wrong but I thought I read something from Paul Edmondson - and this is back around the time of the transfer so difficult to locate - along the lines of a notion that they were bringing across Squidoo content with a view to beefing up both the quality of content on HubPages and the scope for HubPages to earn.
Now obviously something went wrong on the quality front (and I won't rehearse again my theory re too many lenses transferred). However that doesn't mean to say that the scope to generate more income was also lost.
I arrived the second week of September and so far have had three payouts each of which was in three figures (in the conventional sense). I don't suppose for a moment I was alone. However each payment has been a disappointment due to the fact that it was less than half of what I was earning on a site which had run out of steam.
One of the reasons people came to HubPages was to pick up their outstanding earnings from Squidoo (prior to a realisation on Squidoo's part that they could not withhold these without legal costs).
One of the reasons people are leaving HubPages is because they can place the same content on a blog and earn more - and they're not being penalised by Google for earning money!
It occurs to me making better income elsewhere might be because their adverts will much more closely relate to the topic of their blog rather than the VERY generic and unrelated adverts seen on HubPages. To my mind a subdomain has no value at all unless its content influences the content of adverts seen on the site. I haven't seen that as yet - which makes the adverts which do exist just look spammy (ie totally unrelated to content)
To my mind, something needs fixing if a site can't
1) monetise quality content in a way which is comparable to alternatives and
2) avoid running 'spammy (unrelated) adverts' on every page.
PS. It occurred to me after reading through the above that maybe the reason Google really does NOT like article sites ("content farms") such as HubPages is because the advertising is frequently generic and therefore doesn't perform as well - which then generates less income for Google.
We can go on forever about what makes a quality site - but sometimes it pays to remember that Google is actually an ADVERTISING company and 97% of its income comes from adverts.
I think if I was trying to improve the performance of a website on Google SEARCH, I'd start by trying to improve the relevance of the adverts on every page of the website - to the content of that particular page. So the adverts stand a better chance of performing well and make more money for Google as well as the host.
This is 100% logical resoning. Why would writers have to add closely related products on their pages and the platform paste unrelated ads everywhere on those very same pages?
If Google as a SE wants adverts to be relevant, it is in all probabilities everywhere on the page and not just into the article.
Google as a COMPANY (ie advertising and search engine) wants to make money.
* The search engine only exists so that it identifies the best sites for charging premium fees on pay per click.
* The reason there are brand adverts at the top of every Google search page which are paid placements rather than organic results are because the top three slots in search account for 68% of the clicks in response to a search query (see "Organic vs. Paid Search Results: Organic Wins 94% of Time" (2011) http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2 … 94-of-time ).
What I find fascinating is that HubPages only counts Google traffic in relation to engagement - whereas increasing traffic from social media sites has been the major phenomenon of recent times.
I wrote a blog post last Saturday about the changes in the rules for Facebook Pages and in it I examined the state of what I called "the advertising wars". There's no question that Google is running scared of Facebook in terms of scope and reach AND RELEVANCE to advertisers. Facebook only has to get itself properly geared up and organised and it will make a serious dent in Google income.
So what relevance has any of this to our hubs and this thread?
I'm still pondering on two of my very old and popular lens/hubs which were recently linked to posts on my Facebook Page which were extremely popular (almost viral ie a big spike in traffic) - and which were then unpublished in the following week. Both had been edited and both had passed the quality test. The coincidence for me was more than intriguing. Out of 170+ hubs why these two? Those hubs will now go to other sites in the near future - so I can link to my content on Facebook without any fear of having my content unpublished.
+1 and +1 to OP, MakingAMark.
Irrelevant sidebar content and host generated ads are a very important listed factor in analyses of Panda. A very important factor that Squidoo also totally ignored choosing to penalise writers instead. Why does Google hate "content farms"? Simple, because the ads on the page, many generated by themselves via Adsense do not match the content the writer has produced. The coffee smells wonderful - why not wake up and smell it?
My understanding is that it is Google who decides which ads to put on which hubs. They base this not only on the content of the hub, but also the reader's search history and whatever else they know about the reader. So if I have been researching electric heaters, I will see ads about electric heaters, even on hubs that have nothing to do with them. Or if they think I already bought one, they may show me something else that people with heaters need. Maybe your ads are generic because you have found a way to hide what you like from Google.
Yes Millionaire Tips supposedly Google shows you as based on your search history etc as you say but what I find hard to fathom is almost evry hub I visit has ads at the top and/or immediate right top related to: 10 steps to a flat stomach, how to lose weight by these few easy steps etc etc. I have never visited a weight loss site, or researched how to lose weight. I also gets ads for women's clothing and I am male and also have never looked at sites or other ads related to women's fashion. I have even gone to Google where you can supposedly choose your interests so they can adjust ads to suit your tastes and changed what is listed under my profie. Makes no difference. I don't know if anyone else has this problem.
I get those some dopey weight loss ads (despite my lack of interest in the subject). I also get ads for men's underwear?!
Glad it's not just me Jodijoyous. I don't know how they expect to get sales if the ads they place are not related to the hub they are on or related to the tastes of the reader.
It is nice to see topic related adsense ads on my blogs once in a while. And the completely unrelated ads are something like filler ads that Google inserts.
This is very true. Often the google crawlers can't get enough information from a page to determine the content and thus place relevant ads, so we see irrelevant ads. This is often true with new content that hasn't been crawled yet. This is a big reason why it's important to have adequate, informational text on our pages.
Ads also follow you from previously visited websites and behavioral patterns. Visit a college website and it won't take long to start seeing tons of college ads following you.
The content of your hub (any blog post on the net for that matter) also drives ad type.
Btw - the type of ad being run on the end users site is very much connected to revenue. Example big pharmaceutical ads are going to pay a lot more than ads from retail. If your visitor clicks on a Depression med ad versus a Target ad, guess which one pays more?
This is why you sometimes want to write hubs connected to material that pays higher ads. Make sense?
Hers a list: http://roadtoblogging.com/high-paying-k … e-adsense/
And unrelated sometimes offensive ads are called SPAM...
Yes exactly, but they are placed there by Google themselves so how can they penalise that?
Ok maybe they are through the HP ad program as Susana said.
I'm not sure that ads that contain trojans and/or pop ups are placed by Adsense. And all ads on HP aren't Adsense which are limited in a specific quantity per page
I don't think they can. They can however consider too many non- Google ads spam (I.e. Amazon).
Is that considered Spamazon?
If you want ads related to your Hub content, then you have to use your own Google Adsense and not the HP Ad Program. Login to your Adsense account, click on Allow & block Ads at the top. Then, click on Ad serving and under User-based Ads, uncheck Interest-based Ads. This only applies, though, during the times when your Adsense Ads are displayed. I do use the HP Ad Program because I make more money than just using Adsense, even with Interest-based Ads turned off. The HP Ad Program also has not hurt my Google traffic.
Yes, put only relevant ads on our pages just as we were told to do if/when we add a product or a link...
Adsense users can ban certain ads based on Url's and this can should and even must be done in order to exclude sex, gambling and smoking at least. There are other filters that can exclude categories of ads and there is even a review centre where you can preview ads before allowing them to post.
I use all of these on my blog and I earn on average 10 times higher on my clicks on the blog than I do on clicks on HP. Based on what is being said here HP do not appear to be utilising the Google Adsense filters at all let alone to try to maximise the return as they could. Odd! I wonder why not?
Why don't you write an email to the team and ask them?
HP has a premium Adsense account with Google. They get to bid on which ads to run and how much to charge. Did you guys know this? Why do you think they can run more than 3 display ads per page?
http://www.quickonlinetips.com/archives … ore-money/
I looked at the site. So what does this mean? Of course it is all about money! But does this mean that Google is essentially paid by some site owners to do what they penalize other sites for doing, sort of "If you want to play, you gotta pay."
Good point Linda! It's a paradox. Lol and a contradiction.
If I am understanding this correctly, it reminds me of people who go to doctor, then doc tells them to quit smoking while he has big fat cigar or pack of cigarettes in his pocket.
No matter the number of ads they're allowed to display, yesterday I found two ads at the bottom of my pages that were not Adsense (unless they provide another link url than the one of googleads)...
This being said, today, on my Christmas train Hub I found weight loss related ads. How do you think people see my page when they end up on weight loss stuff? No I did NOT look for weight loss stuff these past years - and still I do clean up my search history (on all browsers) at least once a day.
Plus those weight loss adverts are completely DIRE and would drive me away from any page which displayed them
That's not exactly what we're trying to achieve is it?
Er... MaM... Yes to drive away... NO to achievement.
But you know I have an old account on here and never really cared about the type of ads displayed on the Hubs that are in this account.
However now I'm gonna take a closer look at them as I don't really like to even THINK that my Eleanor of Aquitaine and siblings or my travel pages would display weight loss ads!
ETA changed "historic" to "old account" so as to not get anybody confused as that account has History related Hubs.
Hello justholidays. I am looking at your train hub and there is no sign of any ad for weight loss. The two ads at the bottom of your page give me the chance to win $900,000 worth of designer prizes.
I don't know why you are seeing weight loss ads and I'm not. Another of the ads I'm seeing is for wooden trains. There's absolutely nothing inappropriate about what I am looking at ... so don't worry unnecessarily.
I went back to that hub. The ads are changing. So not every person who reads this hub is going to see the same ads. The ads I saw the first time are different than the ones I saw a second ago. Oh, now I see we have Amazon ads as well.
I took a look at one of your hubs, too, Linda ... and immediately spotted a couple of significant mistakes you've made that are likely to be having a negative impact on that hub's performance. I don't know if you want me to point them out to you or not - but nobody can fix those problems but you. Can't blame hp for that particular blunder, I'm afraid.
I don't know if the same thing has happened in your other hubs or not, and because I live with satellite internet I won't be opening other ones to look. However if you'd like, I could tell you what I found in my quick look at one of your hubs.
My hubs are going elsewhere. HP can have what I really have no use for anymore.
By the way, I had 2 hubs unfeatured. That was the beginning of removing products from every hub just for shear whatever you want to call it. When I get them where I want them, the products will go back on them. I won't be sharing earnings with anyone but myself.
One hub, I deleted content making it a short hub. What happened? It was featured again.
Another hub had capsules duplicated, moved from where they had been placed originally. How, I don't know but it happened. I didn't even bother to report it.
Google ads follow a person around. Whatever you have searched for at one point will be shown to you again as ads
If you search for shoes, then suddenly you will see ads for shoes on other sites. That's why ads don't always seem relevant to a hub
Simply not true for adverts which are placed by the host as a result of an auction. I see plenty of adverts for things I have not searched for an have no interest in.
Me too! I have NOT searched for weight loss (or clicked on that awful banana ad), have no interest in men's underwear, and don't need new furniture!
But see, I was speaking to LongTimeMother, so I guess that's why it doesn't fit your situation.
How do you know what I am referring to if you never see your search results as ads?
I don't have Adsense, and any google ads on my hubs have been placed by Hubpages, yet I see my search results as ads on Hubpages all the time
Seeing ads as a result of searches is the only reason hubbers, and readers will see ads that are irrelevant to the hub they are on. Are you implying another reason?
Yes it is, however, it is in HP's power to change that.
I did it on my own websites that display Adsense ads. I just switched search history off. That's it. Then only RELATED ads are displayed on my pages. The only unrelated ads I admit are those that are for charities or things like that.
Why would they ? If a person has already searched for something, they (Google)(obviously Hubpages too) feel it is more likely they'll click on an ad if it's related to their searches
Hubpages pays to have this vast site hosted, I think they can run it the way they want to
Let's take an example. Somebody has been looking for not expensive tyres. Once they found the tyres, they don't have to search for them any more. Then visits a page about breastfeeding and sees a bunch of cars and tyres related ads. In this case, is search history really needed?
Still this example is soft. I've seen awfully aggressive ads displayed on some pages hosted by writing platforms like HP. Some pop up videos that you can't close, some weight loss surgeries, some other disgusting or offensive ads that nobody could close.
This is my personal view: when ads aren't related, when I see weight loss or clothing ads on a Louis XIV page I really get annoyed as I consider the writer or the platform as not serious... or just there to make money out of the ads, not to educate me. At least it's my personal opinion which you aren't obliged to share.
These are the ads I saw on the Christmas train Hub... Sponsored links - to me they count as ads.
And here are those I could see on my main HubPages account.
Seen on all Hubs I visited in my old account (History, tarot and travel)
Seen on my Sun King Hub in my old account.
See on my Eleanor of Aquitaine Hubs (2) in my old account. On the three, one only was filled with related ads.
I checked the old account using a browser that wasn't used today yet. So there is NO history left in it as it's been entirely cleaned up yesterday. I only took screenshots of some ads, not all, as I don't plan on creating an image gallery with all unrelated ads on my Hubs.
Once again, I admit that it's the very first time I check the ads displayed in this old account, I've always trusted more HubPages than Squidoo when it comes to quality and hard work, and it's the reason why I never double checked anything HP would do on my Hubs.
However, I'm not convinced that someone that wants to learn the incredible life of Eleanor of Aquitaine, wants to hear about the latest weight loss diet.
You are getting weight loss ... but I am getting Christmas trees and trains.
Christmas Train Set
Under the Christmas Tree
Christmas Tree to Be
Buy Real Christmas Tree
Obviously whoever or whatever is responsible for putting ads on my pages doesn't think I'd be in any way interested in weight loss.
So what's the theory as to why I don't get weight loss ads and other people do?
Maybe different locations? You can have bias based on geography.
We all get different ads. Most ads do relate to subject matter but if you are in the HP Ad program (which earns the most), some ads will not be related to your hub's content but to
1. your search history
2. your location and
3. other factors unknown to me (probably highest bids).
For example, I live in Spain, and these Spanish ads appear at the very bottom of one of my articles on Gravity Inversion. A reader of the same article in America may well see different ads on the same article I guess.
The Good news is that the Sponsored Links (formerly "Related Searches") in the side bar will be removed as per the new lay-out coming in on Monday. And... hopefully those Sponsored Links at the bottom left will vanish as well at a later stage. See details here:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126770? … ost2682962
If you have Google search or Google Chrome like I do, most of the ads I see everywhere are related to my searches or the city in which I live.. At one time, when I had Firefox, I found out how to get rid of Google private search, and I no longer got these ads. I do not know why these ads are there, as I certainly will not benefit from them or run and buy something I happened to search for. I wish the ads were all related to the hub subject. I guess I need to get rid of Google.
I could be wrong but I think the bottom of page ads are rendered by Adversal ... Http://www.adversal.com
Hey wait! Are we being told to reduce our Amazon ads because HP is using both Adsense and Adversal ... And Google thinks it's too many ads?!!
Google doesn't like:
* too many ads - which get in the way of user satisfaction
* too many ads in the wrong place - specifically occupying too big a percentage of the area that is "above the fold"
Adsense offers other ad platforms through its publisher interface tool. It seems to me, therefore, that placements set up using the Adsense dashboard on a site template might display other networks.
Nope. But Google may think that Adversal (if those used) are too many ads.
The writer is not always the culprit, I'm sorry. Sometimes, the platform has effort to make as well. Perhaps they did make efforts. Perhaps they've been reported multiple times as some sort of vengence since a manual penalty doesn't happen without a reason. Someone is not going to wake up one day and think "hey, I'm gonna penalize HubPages today; one of our biggest earners and, by the way, keep Google away from their owed commissions on ad clicks".
Multiple reports for spam - pop up ads (which I'm pretty sure have been reported), offensive ads (those that feature cellulitis treatment or aesthetic creams or other stuff as disgusting as that), and all.
Now there is another option: automatically setting Amazon and eBay capsules to NO follow if it isn't done yet. At 85+ Hubberscore links are do follow on HP...
Incorrect - many of us knew that HubPages was NOT a great place to earn money. That was one of the primary reasons why some lensmasters bailed early and took their content straight to new websites rather than coming to HubPages.
Actually, that was a reasonable expectation. The only reason it didn't happen that way was that Panda hit just as the transfer occurred.
Every Product Needs 50 Words of Original Text
In order to maintain a standard of high quality, HubPages requires that every Hub contain 50 words per Amazon or eBay product, e.g., if you have three related Amazon products in your Hub, you need 150 original words. Hubs that fall below this threshold will be moderated and need to be updated before they can be republished.
CHRISTY KIRWAN WROTE,
We have a policy against more than 2 in-text affiliate links to prevent overly-promotional Hubs. 2 text links to same domain. There are some exceptions.
Also Glenn Stok's explanation of the recent changes to Amazon and eBay capsules is spot-on. We're now only allowing one product per capsule
Overly Promotional Rules:
Your Hub can have a MAXIMUM of 2 links to any one domain. Links in the image source field in the Photo Capsule count toward this limit.
You can not give a short teaser and a link to "read more" or "continue". The Hub .
Your Hub should contain at least 50 words of text for every product displayed in Amazon and eBay Capsules.
Rule 1: Your Hub can have a maximum of 2 links to any one domain. Links in the image source field in the Photo Capsule count toward this limit.
If you have created a Hub simply to procure backlinks, your Hub will most likely be moderated. HubPages allows two links to one domain, including image source links. Links to well-known resources like Wikipedia, news sites, etc., are not held to this same standard.
Jodah: No you are not wrong, As soon as the edit button was hit, the grace period was over for that particular hub.
“‘Freedom of speech’ means you support the right of people to say exactly those ideas which you do not agree with.”
We ALL complain
“I personally believe we developed language because of our deep inner need to complain.”
― Jane Wagner, The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe
So this is a huge thread made up of protesters and people protesting the protesters.
I'm so hurt by this. I have spent hours and hours and hours editing hubs and FINALLY thought I was getting something right. I actually made a few dollars for the first time ever. I even sent my friends happy dances because I was so excited to see some sales from my hubs. I thought about making more. Then today I click to my hubs only to find that the few hubs that were actually getting some daily traffic and were making sales were unfeatured. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Traffic + sales + good hub score = unfeatured. No traffic at all = really high hub score and featured.
Can someone please tell me how they make any money here at all if they can't have amazon capsules? I guess I don't get it.
Go on, Jodah, be brave. Try some amazon capsules. lol.
Don't panic, JenwithMisty. Just send an email to the team and/or Paul asking for advice about why they were unfeatured. Sometimes things go wrong ... but you won't know unless you ask.
Of course you can have amazon capsules. Lots of us make money from them.
In the same boat Jen - it seems very strange.
I think I may have stumbled across the real answer. When Squidoo sold out it was handled really badly and most of the really top performers went their own ways. Some had a lot of money owed and left their Lenses up until the last minute on 31st August to try to ensure they got the full final payment.
Many did not want to be on HP as they felt that HP's rule that authors content remains on HP after the account is closed amounts to theft of content. It seems HP are registered in California and it is an offence to sell and also to buy stolen property. They have taken the view that Squidoo and HP were knowing partners in a fraud as they conspired to make money out of the authors writing, and that the HP rules deprive them of the right to make money from their content (The duplicate content filters at Google would ensure that if they put the same content elsewhere after joining HP).
Their point is there was inadequate time to move hundreds of lenses before the transfer was performed and there was an opt in by non response. At least one author has filed DCMA's for each of close to 300 Hubs that are currently displayed on HP despite her never consenting to the transfer. Squidoo disabled the editing rights before the midnight deadline on 31st August 2014.
The filing of hundreds or even thousands of DCMA's are probably the explanation for HP's sudden loss of traffic (manual Google slap). That author is looking to get others involved using G+ and Infobarrel. They are wanting to test the validity of the transfer and are looking for the invalidation by the courts in California of the whole acquisition process. Further they are seeking damages for the "illegal?" publication of their articles on HP.
This is worrying as they are most likely the very authors that led to the demise of Squidoo by lack of following their procedures too.
Although I was an Audit Manager for many years and am not a U S lawyer. This is huge and could go on quite a while.
I hope that the contract to acquire signed by Paul Edmondston and Seth Godin was properly validated for legality in California. To me the deal was valid if and only if it was a transfer of the rights to host the content. That is if the rights to the content were transferred the deal would be illegal in California, which is where HP is registered and therefore void. HP's terms then are irrelevant as the deal was never valid, big problem! The HP rule as to ownership of authors work if they leave is a huge problem as they would legally have to pay all monies due regardless of their terms if she wins.
Now lets look at how this is affecting HP and Paul right now. They are on the hook for all monies owed to writers that never agreed to join (at least). They lose the right to publish all of the former Squidoo
Authors and to apply their rule on quitting authors. They would or could be forced to pay out all monies due plus damages. It would obviously now be in HP's interest to get as many as possible of the former Squidoo authors to quit before the result of the pending legal and DCMA's become public knowledge, would it not as they would or could be excluding themselves from any Group action?
Whether I am right or wrong in this I hope Paul has his bases covered as this will not get resolved overnight if I am right in all of this. Personally I want to stay and I believe Paul supports the writers. He wanted to offer them better terms than Squidoo and I am sure he never anticipated these consequences of the merger. Good luck everyone!
The definition of Author content is: "Author Content": Any content, including without limitation questions, answers, forum posts, ratings, votes, and Hub comments, that Authors post on the Service other than on the Author’s Hub, and all photographs that Authors post on the Service (including on the Author’s Hub).
The definition of Hub content is: "Hub Content": Any content, including without limitation text, data, video, and links, but excluding photographs, that an Author posts on the Author’s Hub."
Obviously, if an author has deleted their account, their hubs are no longer on the site. But their (author content) questions, forum posts, comments on other published hubs remain on the site. That's the way I read and understand the Terms.
I think this person's entire complaint is that their content was sold in the first place. That would be like someone selling your articles for x amount of dollars and you were not given a portion of the money. Just a guess.
The big question is why they didn't opt out of this when they had the chance to opt out on Squidoo. There is a lot about this from an author on the website, ConsumerAffairs.com
Sam Another one is about the TOS, privacy statement. Lensmasters who had not consented to anything, woke up one day to find an email from HP telling them that the transfer of their content had been completed.. That means, their private information was sold as well.
That consumer affairs site seems to be a place where malcontents sew their sour grapes. According to some of the posts I read there, every one of them thinks they have been treated miserably by HP, even though some openly admit they violated rules, etc.
They accuse HP of "stealing" their work, which is a joke. HP does not have to steal people's work, but they DO have the right to change the rules in order to improve the quality of the writing there.
All I see here is a bunch of sour grapes. Pitiful!
They might just not have been there during the 14 days period they could opt out... After all the big announcement was done on Aug 16 and opt out limit on 31st August... Those on vacation couldn't opt in or out.
I don't think this is as much about HP, as it is about Squidoo! Because of the merger, now HP will be involved as well.
No, this is not just one person from Squidoo. One may have gotten the ball rolling. Just remember, one day it starts to rain, and the next thing is people are sitting on roof tops hoping to be saved from a flood that was not expected.
People can speculate about what may happen but unless you are an a attorney who specializes in this type of law, what can I say other than all a layman can do is speculate and wonder what is going to happen.
People can laugh all they want, make remarks about being disgruntled, laugh, etc. Think about who the victims are going to be from the fallout of court cases, maybe out of court settlements, etc. Imagine waking up one day, trying to sign in only to find out, without any warning, that HP no longer exists and your content is gone. I don't think anybody will be laughing if that happens.
Linda, I understand you are annoyed with HubPages but I know you have more intelligence than to get sucked in by this laughable legal case. Yes, other websites have had class actions threatened, but all of them were sites which did NOT allow deletion by the content owner. All of these ex-squids have the power to delete their own articles, so it's just plain stupid.
Yes to some extent it is speculation, but the courts often make what appear to be arbitrary decisions when faced with these issues. I was saying I hope Paul and HP and Seth covered all bases as the filing has been made so there will be an outcome. None of us yet knows what it will be, even the lawyers involved would not yet be able to do more than speculate on the possible outcomes.
Why on earth is any Squid filing a DMCA with Google when the accounts belong to them and they can simply log in and delete the Hubs themselves?
Worse yet, they convince others to do the same, resulting in as many as 1000+? DCMAs for no good reason. The horror, the horror...
Because they want to bash HP and maybe make some money for themselves in the process...furthermore they are getting their 15 minutes of fame because certain people seem to want to "get" HP for changing the rules midstream.
The person who is doing this does not have a leg to stand on in any court but is too ignorant to know that!
Wow! There is an article on infobarrel as well titled: HubPages_and_Squidoo_the_Lies_Youve_Been_Told
This article covers a lot which includes the We won't sell your personal information, blah, blah blah. Yet personal information went along with the merger.
I forgot that a lot of lenses, accounts were locked up so that lensmasters could not edit, or remove all of their content from Squidoo!
There are some things I don't understand though.
If you close your HP account, you can simply unpublish and delete your content. It takes 24 hours for HP to delete it.
Catch is if you have not earned enough money to meet payout, you forfeit your earnings. Another loophole is for HP to find a reason to simply shut you down, which is also automatic forfeit of your earnings.
I did not have a ton of articles on Squidoo, but I deleted them as soon as I heard about merger. Godin was going to keep all monies if we had not met payment threshold since he raised the minimum not long before this merger. There was a big stink over it and he changed it back to what it was which was $1. Although I had already deleted my lenses, I still got paid, although it was not very much.
If we did not want the transfer we could delete our lenses. Some knew nothing of the merger until deal was done, content was moved because they were either out of town, on vacation, in hospital, etc.
I guess my main point is that anybody can delete their content from HP and close their account here.
I guess one of the issues may be that if content was moved without permission of author, then HP earned money on ads that were place on those lenses not hubs even if author had not been approved for Adsense yet. Not having an Adsense account does not mean we don't get ads placed on hubs anyway. It means we don't earn from them.
I can not give a full legal opinion as what you say is true. The issue is the California law which makes it illegal to buy and/or sell property you do not own. If Seth did not have a right to sell then Paul by definition was breaking the law in California too. That is the problem area. There is at least one former Giant Squid prepared to and in fact in the process of testing these rights under law. She filed 293 DCMA's. This must have affected HP by now as they were filed just after the merger. What the long term prognosis is I do not know that depends on how the legal actions proceed and on whether or not the contract was fully checked before the deal was done. Only Paul and Seth and their advisors know and they can only guess on the long term outcome too. I hope this was all considered before the deal was struck and that they have an affective response. Right now I am dubious on that as HP seem to be in panic mode. We will see as it unfolds.
Oh my !
What a mess that I sure hope gets worked out.
I plan to stay here at HP
Wouldn't it have been much easier if HubPages had just immediately deleted those 293 articles at the start. I would think that this author would have notified HP before filing the DCMAs.
LMAO, I'm not sure filing a DCMA when you have the power to take down your own material really flies. But hey, good luck to her with that.
I suppose she is the type that would sue when the server hosting her webpages was bought by a different company.
If the information on the infobarrel article, especially about the various state, consumer and Federal agencies that are or could get involved, who knows what is going to happen! Actually there was a page on Facebook set up for a Class Action Suit over this but I have forgotten what the page was named. I can't find it now even with Internet search.
Do you really think that Paul is so stupid that he would become involved in this type of transaction without first having his attorneys check the legality of doing so? I don't think so.
I also think that this is pure conjecture because the truth is that anybody who wants to leave HP is free to delete every single article before walking away without any penalty. If they choose to leave their work online with HP, then yes, they are giving it to HP.
Furthermore, as I understand it, the people who left Squidoo were given the choice of moving to HP or taking their articles and going elsewhere, so none were "forced" to bring work here against their will. Even if they were, they could easily delete their articles.
People can sue for anything they like, but this does not mean their case has validity. I'm sorry, but this is just taking things too far.
Whoever that person is who is filing all of those DMCA's and encouraging others to do the same is obviously trying to bring the site down. Paul should take her to court!
There was a time when Squidoo was based in New York, does that mean something? These past month they have been based in Panama; which changes the things I presume. Or doesn't it change anything? I mean, after all, Panama is offshore or something like that, therefore laws might not apply the same way, even in California? Knowing nothing about US laws, though.
PS. I forgot about this former lensmaster but this individual promoted their posts big deal and got a lot of followers.
This is preposterous and the height of laziness and maliciousness. Too lazy to opt out of the transfer or too greedy, wanting every last penny. Then to file nearly 300 DCMAs rather than simply delete your hubs, this is outrageous. What is the point except, to try to create an issue where none exists, perhaps for some undeserved and ill-gotten profit?
I believe the right to host the lenses was purchased, not the actual content. Former Squids acknowledge deleting transferred lenses on a daily basis. HP does not pretend to own the work nor does it stop them from deleting or moving their work.
As far as I can tell, all Hubpages bought was the Squidoo domain. And yeah, it would have been bought for more than $10 - domains get flipped for thousands all the time. The domain has value separate from the content because of all the links built to it.
They offered writers the chance to either delete their work, or move their work to hubpages, with the right to delete further after they got here.
The writers don't own the domain! I very much doubt that California law says that if you write on someone else's site that means you own it!!!
It sounds like your Giant Squid friend was under the impression that she not Squidoo owned the domain, and Hubpages had to get her permission to purchase the site and because they didn't she thought they had "stolen" from her.
Wow, just Wow!
And to file DMCAs for stuff that you have consented to put on a site and that you can delete at any time - unbelievable.
Lots of DMCAs filed against a site can hurt under the "Pirate" algorithm (which updated co-incidentally on Oct 24th 2014).
See the following article
http://searchengineland.com/dmca-reques … thm-130118
This is terrible - hubpages and it's authors may have been penalised because of a Malicious Squid who was just out to trash a site out of sheer nastiness.
This should be interesting.
There is another site Knoji, now called Factoidz, another content farm. He does not allow writers to delete their articles, or to close their accounts. You can request it, but that does not mean closure of account will happen. Regardless of deletion of account or not, he keeps all of your articles.
Of course, we already know about the shenanigans of the Bubblews site owner.
Oh well, when money, potential of big bucks and greed is involved, anything can happen!!!
Any action taken against writing sites, regardless of who they are, more than likely won't be settled for a long time.
This is why it pays to take the time to keep a copy of your articles and the URL that goes with them.
Hmmm - I thought we were past all the legal shenanigans.
Can I suggest that this has not got a lot to do with the topic as determined by the OP and that this thread has been seriously derailed.
Its only relevance is that lots of copyright notices served via Google does count against a site and its standing with Google - but that then relates to traffic not "unfeatured for quality" hubs.
I'm not suggesting this isn't a fascinating topic! Just that it would might do better in its own thread.
I thought of that when I posted but as I saw the post I responded to on my feed, I felt that it does somewhat relate to the thread if there are those who are so unhappy with the site that they're moving their content. It's important to understand the terms and usage of any site where an author decides to publish their work. But yes, it does seem to have taken a small road off from the main thoroughfare. I'm sure it will once again converge.
OK, that's all for me. Good luck to everyone.
I don't think I've ever seen a thread with so many falsehoods and misunderstandings as this one!
1. Unrelated display ads do not cause issues with ranking (please check the websites of Google Panda 4.1 winners to see why - the majority of winners sites display ads unrelated to the content). The vast majority of ads shown on the display/content network are unrelated to page content because most are the kind of ads that follow you around ie: retargetted ads based on past surfing behaviour.
2. Advertisers can also target specific sites as well as specific ad slots. So that weight loss ad we're all seeing is most likely due to that advertiser choosing this site and that location because the ad converts well for them. This is good for us because that advertiser will pay more for that location and outbid other advertisers, pushing up the cost of the ad and in turn our income from it.
3. Hubpages Ad program utilises an internal ad bidding system that increases income for us. I don't know if HP still use their Yieldbuild system, but they have been developing ad revenue maximisation software for many years and they're good at it! Most people find that their CPM through HP ads is better than using adsense alone. Try it for yourself and see which one comes out best for you.
4. If you are using adsense only on Hubpages, as opposed to HP's Ad Program, then you always used to be able to configure adsense for your 60% of impressions just as you would on your own blog or website. (I'm assuming you can still do this, but I have used HP's program since it started a few years ago so things might have changed and I could be wrong.)
5. Most people I know who have limited the number of websites who can enter bidding for ad space on their site/subdomain have found a reduction in adsense revenue, myself included. It's worth experimenting with though, your results may differ.
6. As Solaras so rightly pointed out, Hubpages bought the right to host Squidoo pages, not the content itself. We can all do what we wish with our hub content.
7. Hubpages does not own our hubs. RebekahELLE pointed out the distinction between hub content and author content perfectly and I have seen those statements backed up by Paul E.
8. Any DMCA takedowns filed by disgruntled squids should be filed with the host, (Hubpages), and not Google. I'm certain that HP will have no problem removing the content of those who don't wish it to be hosted here.
9. Paul E did not say that HP has had a manual spam penalty applied to the site as a whole. He said some subdomains did.
10. The HP site was definitely downgraded somewhat with the last Panda refresh. I think that was expected. After all, HP did take on the content from a site which was decimated by Panda. It was bound to have a negative effect.
11. HP does not have a problem with the appropriate use of affiliate capsules, but they do encourage a less is more approach. It's been that way since the first iteration of panda nearly 4 years ago. It's best not to use sales capsules at all on informational hubs, or on hubs that never make any sales (the latter is a good sign that the ads aren't appropriate to the reader). On hubs that specifically feature and review products, use a few well placed sales capsules. Test the best positions for them conversion wise.
12. It is unfortunate that HP decided to roll out this new algorithm tweak right now just before Christmas, but I can only assume that they felt they had to for the best interests of the site as a whole.
Does that cover everything?
Susana S, thank you for spelling that out for us all.
Thank you so much Susana for taking the trouble to summarize and rectify the many miss-conceptions.
Maybe we can now finally calm down and decide how to constructively move forward.
POINT 1: I did check a sample of the Panda winners websites. What I noticed was:
1) relatively low use of adverts
2) I noticed the content the most and the adverts the least (ie advertisements are understated and do not interfere with the content - which is what Google likes to see)
3) all the adverts were relevant or compatible with the content. None distracted me from the content of the site - unlike adverts I see on HubPages.
All I know is that Squidoo experienced its worst problems with traffic when the management of the advertising was out of control and the nature and quality and placement of the adverts was absolutely appalling. From which I conclude - comparing the Panda winners I looked at with my experience on Squidoo - that management have a pretty big influence on what sort of advertising appears on a site. To me that's a thought which is worth pondering on.
POINT 3: With respect to Yieldbuild, I investigated this when it was highlighted by somebody else. Nobody has tweeted on its Twitter account since 2010 and I can't find any evidence of a current website plus any other references also appear to be years old.
POINT 10: Squidoo was certainly a victim of Panda as were many other sites. What decimated the site though was the management response followed by content owners removing good quality content because they were so fed up with the many and various responses that were supposed to generate more traffic. The only one that really worked was the sub-domains and they nicked that idea from HubPages!
In other words sites survive Panda because of management and sites fold after a Panda hit because of management. At the end of the day it all depends on whether or not the quality content providers have faith in the management to turn the situation around ie keep good content and get rid of poor. (That's why this unfeatured hubs episode is so critical - because communication was poor both in terms of a lack of an announcement and labelling sites as spam. That sort of approach doesn't boost confidence - hence all the wailing and complaining.)
POINT 11: I completely disagree - I've got HubPages Amazon capsules on info pages and they generate sales. It may be that HubPages has a different way of doing things but there are plenty of websites out there which are both focused on sharing information AND have content from Amazon. There again I did have the benefit of getting feedback by lens on Squidoo - which is why I know info + Amazon work well together.
Thank you Susana for helping to clarify some of the falsehoods and assumptions about HP. Although I wasn't going to contribute to this run away thread, when some of the posts started popping up on my feed, I had to speak up. Enough. This is not Squidoo.
This may not be Squidoo - but the lessons from Squidoo are very relevant to the future of HubPages. HubPages is by no means immune to Google's hatred of "article farms".
I'll be very interested to see whether the new Hub Layout - which I thought we were going to see last week - addresses some of the issues about placement of 'supplementary content'.
I'm sure the HP team is well aware of the issues with Squidoo and other sites, which is exactly why they chose to change the algorithm before more damage could be done here by some of the articles that were transferred over.
The responsiveness and innovative attitudes of this team is the very reason why HP still stands while many others have fallen.
Those who are new here should know that prior to all of the big changes with Google, this actually was a very calm and mostly friendly place...and very stable. As long as you follow the rules and are polite, the team is very responsive. They also pay on time, every time.
The quality of the work I have seen here has improved dramatically as the result of the changes the team has made, and although we are on a rocky road right now, I have no doubts that HP will rise from the ashes. They make an honest effort to do what is best for the site and for the writers here, although some of you may not believe this to be true.
If this site does go down, it will not be because they did anything illegal or purposely tried to bring harm to anybody. It will be because Google became so impossible to deal with that they just could not maintain.
This is excellent...thank you so much for posting it.
Thanks for taking the time to straighten out some of the misconceptions that have been posted in this forum, Susana!
What about the garbage that was here and still continues long before Squidoo content was transferred here.
Complaints can be filed, but it doesn't mean anything, because they won't win.
Hubpages knows what they are doing, and all these rumors need to stop
You're here by CHOICE, so don't bite the hand that feeds you
http://www.infobarrel.com/Why_on_Earth_ … ith_Google
There is more on Google Plus
I just read that article that writer is not following any logic but her own
Yes, rumors..I know about the person filing, but you guys are saying things that are suppose to be going on with Paul E, and Hubpages, that are rumors.
When a site says they won't sell your personal information, that means that they won't sell it to others, as a means to spam people, or obtain customers. That's what a lot of sites do.
But when you sell a business, you sell everything, and that is not the same thing, as selling your personal info...every business sells all their files.
People could have deleted all their content, and their account. If they didn't their personal info would have been sold too.
Hubpages doesn't have any reason to use the information if you don't write for them.
Frankly I'm tired of hearing people bash Hubpages. They aren't perfect..but so far they've put up with all this and haven't said a word
I agree with Deborah - it would be a very stupid company that didn't have somewhere in its terms and conditions a "get out" clause re handing over all its data to a buyer (of the company).
However at the same time, I do believe for a company to avoid challenge it would have to show that it had given account holders enough time to remove their personal data prior to any sale or the handover had been concluded in such a way that the data remained private (e.g. classic examples are where you have to prove who you are and then set up a new password to access your account).
My personal feeling is that a sale with two weeks notice in August - during a time when many people are on holiday - might well fail the "what is reasonable" challenge unless other safeguards were put in place. But that's just my view - it's not fact.
So what? Just because someone writes a lot of trash it does not mean there is any truth to it. If you want to believe what was written, have at it...but all people do who spread garbage like this is upset and frighten others and, in the end, it all means nothing.
I guess it is a wait and see what the court system has to say, if it goes to court.
I've reported at least two outright spam comments on this thread. It seems to be attracting them!
Can I suggest others do likewise when they see them
All you need to do is click 'more' then click 'report' then use the drop down menu to identify the post as spam.
Rose Write on Info Barrel / Sousababy on HubPages claims she has been illegally forced to transfer her content to HubPages. She is trying to file lawsuits against HubPages and is inciting others to follow suit.
If she does not want to be on HubPages, all she has to do is close her account.
I rather wish she did just that, she has not. She filed DCMA's here got no response so complained to Google who asked for copies so sent them in.
Her real problem appears to be with Seth and Squidoo now departed so I presume under advice she is attacking HP now. I personally wish she wasn't but she feels she has a point. I do not think she will win in court but you never know. I was hoping that letting people know what might be a cause of current issues would help.
It seems I was wrong as people have their own aggendas and see only what they wish to. I probably sometimes do the same as none of us are perfect. I am wishing I had said nothing due to the misinterpretations people put on everything.
Marisa: The content they could not remove was on Squidoo. Those who knew about this so called merger had gone into their accounts to edit, to delete and remove but were locked out from doing so at some point. Nobody here is a lawyer, just layman with an opinion. The person who wrote the articles about the situation has a Google Plus account under their name with comment where they have information about what they have actually done and why. There are hubs written about what was done to writers on Squidoo but nobody bashes them. There has been forums, hubs, etc written about the shenanigans of Bubblews and nobody bashes them. The only thing anybody can do at this point is to wait and see what happens. I personally know of a lawsuit, years ago, that was brought against a company that I thought was not only laughable, but also thought the attorney who took the case on and filed on behalf of their client had to be out of their mind. Funny, laughable it was. But, in the end, their client won and the company that was sued lost big time!!! To this day, I cannot believe that case was won by the person who brought the lawsuit.
There is more involved than just content. Even here, we have to provide tax information, email addresses, pay pal accounts that have our banking information, etc with statements about privacy and our information will not be sold, etc. How would anyone like waking up one day to find that their information was sold to another company.
There is a comment added to that author's account where a person mentions an account from Squidoo is here, with profile showing last activity 2 months ago, which is impossible since that person is deceased.
People did the same thing in Squidoo to those who spoke out against what was happening there and they were left in the lurch with everybody else in the end. So doing the Happy Dance doesn't earn brownie points or do any good in the end.
Lessons learned from this author and others:
Keep a copy of every article you have online and the url to it, as well as date you wrote it.
Wherever, whenever you are required to give out personal information to a company, think twice about doing it, because you don't know where that information is going to wind up in the end.
Linda: If the content they could not remove was on Squidoo, why are they trying to file suit against HP? HP had no control over what Squidoo did, and now that Squidoo is out of business, who is there left for them to sue? See where I'm going with this?
As we all understood it here on HP, people were given the choice to move their articles or not, but even if some did accidentally come over...so what? All people have to do is delete their articles and close their accounts.
This whole thing is getting way out of hand.
You said Quote
"There is more involved than just content. Even here, we have to provide tax information, email addresses, pay pal accounts that have our banking information, etc with statements about privacy and our information will not be sold, etc. How would anyone like waking up one day to find that their information was sold to another company" End Quote
Any place that pays you, requires this information
You said Quote
"There is a comment added to that author's account where a person mentions an account from Squidoo is here, with profile showing last activity 2 months ago, which is impossible since that person is deceased. "
Just what are you implying in your statement above ?
TimeTraveler2: The author of the articles about this is on Google Plus! My suggestion is to ask her since it is she and others who are apparently taking legal action.
What is crazier is that there are ads on things that are actually topics that cannot be written about!
No. What is crazy is endless hysterical posting which destroys your credibility.
As for the link - any vindictive fool can create a poisonous web article.
The shame is that there was once a valid point in this thread - about the four month grace period. But that got lost in among the endless nonsense.
I agree with you Mark. The point was the lenses being unfeatured that we thought were protected by the grace period. Something changed and we lost that grace period early. It stinks but there's no case for a lawsuit over any of this (the transition or the lost grace period). Doesn't mean I'm not angry but the reason for my upset (and many others) has completely been buried in all this hysteria.
Hi Sarah. I like your calm demeanor and sensibility. It is sad to see what has happened to this thread. Mark is right - the original purpose for this thread has been lost. There are hijackers here, hysterical people, angry people and people who have not read anything by Paul Edmondson - instead they are incited by a few who just keep the anger and negativity going, inciting others to carry on with anger and negativity.
I suggest that everyone read #14 under 'Lensmasters' at:
HubPages Squidoo Transition FAQ
#14 has always been there, and has not been changed.
Phyllis: I am so glad you found this! Apparently few people read it, but I feel it needs to be shown here in its entirety because maybe this will clarify the issue at hand. Even I had no idea that this was the case. Good work!
How does the grace period work for Lenses that came over as Featured?
Lenses that came over as Featured have been given a grace period of four months (until mid-January 2015) before they can be unpublished for rules violations (i.e., content warnings and moderation flags). Once a Hub is edited, the grace period will end and all violations must be fixed immediately to avoid possible moderation. The grace period is granted on a Hub by Hub basis, meaning that if you only edit one Hub, the grace period will end for that Hub specifically.
Please note that the grace period does not protect Hubs from becoming unfeatured as part of the Quality Assessment Process (for both traffic and quality). All newly published and edited Hubs go through the QAP, but a Featured Hub that has not been edited may still become defeatured if it receives low ratings. (Hubs are periodically re-rated even if they have not been edited.) In contrast, any Featured Hub can become defeatured for traffic if it does not receive sufficient engagement in its allotted window.
If one of your Hubs was defeatured for either traffic or quality, rest assured that it will remain published. Please edit and improve your Hub to give it a chance at becoming Featured again.
Thank you, TT2. Like you and some others, I am tired of seeing this thread come up again and again in the newsfeed with negative comments repeated over and over. I tried to stay away, but there it is, in our faces every time we sign on.
My POV on some thoughts expressed for the upteenth time is: "If someone wants to leave HubPages, by all means do so. But, a little piece of advise is to stop wasting your time and everyone else's time in this thread, do what you have to do to transfer your hubs and begone. Tis much better to leave with a little grace and the good reputation you once had than to leave behind a mountain of crap that will follow you wherever you go."
Thanks again, TT2 for including the full content of #14. Cheers !
That paragraph is not the same as it was originally. There is a thread somewhere from someone who got unFeatured for quality and didn't understand why, so that FAQ was updated "to be clearer". Unfortunately I don't know what it said before.
It's odd because I didn't know Hubs were periodically re-rated. When the Featured/unFeatured process was introduced, we were all told (by Simone and Derek) that Hubs could ONLY be unFeatured for quality if they went through QAP, either when they were published or when they were edited. That's exactly the advice I've been passing on to people (including Squids) all this time. Something has obviously been changed quietly.
Read the link info that I posted here as the result of Phyllis researching it. This points out that all of the mess that has been going on, while painful for those who got hit, was justified by the guidelines set forth when all of this started.
IMO That's NOT what it said at the outset - it's certainly not what I recall noting as to a very specific and important aspect of transition ie the grace period. IMO it would have attracted a great deal more comment if it had.
I did not read what first was written, but others who have say that what is written now is exactly the same as it was at the outset. All I know is that what I read surprised me because I thought the transition was going to be handled differently...but that is what I thought or had been told, not what I checked on myself because the transition did not affect me, personally.
However, it makes sense to me that this would have been what the team wanted...how else could they protect the site?
If the whole of HubPages hadn't disappeared from the Wayback Machine for the last 10 weeks or so we could check couldn't we?
It's how you can check out what people said they said and what they actually said - if the records still exist - http://archive.org/web/
In other words if you want to look back at an earlier version of a website you can.
Well...we learn something new every day! I had no idea there was such a thing, but having taken a quick glance at the site, it seems almost overwhelming to me that I could ever find anything there!
It's so easy to use. Just paste the link you're looking for an archive and click send. Then click on any blue button that highlights a date in the past.
These keep archives from the very beginning of the Internet. You can even see your oldest Hubs' face. The old Squidoo, from 2005, and son on... Very very interesting machine which I love with a passion since it also provides me with actual pics of pages and articles I've written in the past just in case I must file a DMCA. I also often visit the Wayback Machine just for the fun
It's really good if you ever have to prove in a copyright desist letter to Google or a web host that you are the real owner of the original material which has been plagiarised
It is pretty cool to see some of our old pages from many places
Oh my Gosh! This is awesome! Thank you for posting the link M.
MaM, you're correct. There were changes made to the text. That was acknowledged by a staff member in this thread, though lack of engagement was the specific issue in the conversation:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/125999? … ost2661754
Many, many of us read the grace period information prior to the transfer, because a link to that FAQ was sent in at least one email to us when we were still on Squidoo and also linked to in blog posts there. It was discussed in forums as well. And there are plenty of us who agree with you that the text at that time was different.
My purpose for this post is simply to support what you just said. As it relates to what's right or wrong or worthy or not worthy of "complaints" ... no further comment.
Thanks Debs - I was pretty sure there had been an acknowledgement of a change but couldn't remember where it was.
I think it's fair to say this intent might very well have been in HubPages collective 'brain' but they didn't communicate it very well in what they originally told us - and put in writing PRIOR to the transfer when people were making the decision as to whether or not they would move and/or if they did whether or not they would pull all their content as soon as they'd collected their final Squidoo payment.
You're welcome, and I agree. It may have been the intent but not what was conveyed.
Not that it changes anything now, but suffice it to say that even most us ex-squids have pretty good reading comprehension. I know a lot of us picked through the info with a very fine-tooth comb in the short amount of time we had to digest it.
Anyway, back to hide in my ramkitten cave and try to stay out of trouble.
Thanks for the link! That is definitely not the same information we were given regarding a Grace Period back in August! At least they admitted to changing it somewhere.
The problem with that FAQs page is they announced they would be continously updating it rather than archiving versions or exercising some sort of transparent version control.
So the ordinary hubber might read it now and think that's what we were told back in August or September whereas it has been significantly amended since then - but without any indication whatsoever as to the date when those amendments were introduced (eg no Update Date attached to new paragraphs / no deletions evident within the FAQ). eg for the update re. unfeatured hubs http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/125999#post2661754
It's very confusing for the ordinary Hubber as to why ex Squidoo people should be quite so annoyed.
As many hubbers would already be aware, I am not the most tech-savvy hubber. There are definite limitations associated with living off the grid and not having standard internet. I don't get to play and experiment on the internet like most people.
So, I posted a reply to an earlier comment but I fear it may get lost because it is in the 'collapsible' / hidden part of comments in a thread.
Because LindaSmith1 is so upset about hubs being unfeatured and not understanding why her hubs aren't performing as she would expect, it seems appropriate to post the comment again down here, where I guess she will see it. Here's what I wrote ...
"I took a look at one of your hubs, too, Linda ... and immediately spotted a couple of significant mistakes you've made that are likely to be having a negative impact on that hub's performance. I don't know if you want me to point them out to you or not - but nobody can fix those problems but you. Can't blame hp for that particular blunder, I'm afraid.
"I don't know if the same thing has happened in your other hubs or not, and because I live with satellite internet I won't be opening other ones to look. However if you'd like, I could tell you what I found in my quick look at one of your hubs."
Worth noting ... If the particular hub I looked at was unfeatured by HP, it makes perfectly good sense to me why it happened. Because there has been so much public discussion on this thread about how 'unfair' it is when HP unfeatures hubs, it seems appropriate to discuss the problem I spotted ... right here, where others might get a chance to look for the same issue in their own unfeatured hubs.
However, I won't offer the specifics without Linda's approval.
Okay, I don't know why I bothered trying to help. Here's Linda's reply to my post ...
"My hubs are going elsewhere. HP can have what I really have no use for anymore.
"By the way, I had 2 hubs unfeatured. That was the beginning of removing products from every hub just for shear whatever you want to call it. When I get them where I want them, the products will go back on them. I won't be sharing earnings with anyone but myself.
"One hub, I deleted content making it a short hub. What happened? It was featured again.
"Another hub had capsules duplicated, moved from where they had been placed originally. How, I don't know but it happened. I didn't even bother to report it."
... Then she continues to tell us in further posts how she follows the rules, hates images in articles etc. ... Still not showing any interest in hearing suggestions that might help.
Linda told us all quite some time ago in this thread that she'd only made payout once in 3 years. I guess with that kind of income it is important to keep 100% of it.
I do hope other ex-squids are not led into believing that 100% of nothing is better than 60% of something.
I've looked at a few of her hubs also and have found several also that would give cause for having lost their featured status. I can say the same for some of the others as well.
My hubs on average had one product per 200 words. There was never a number of products that exceeded or even came close to exceeding the rules. So they were not loaded with products.
I have a couple of hubs with 1 to 3 products.Another has 11 with over 3200 words which Amazon ads consist of less than 1 percent of my content.
The day of the unfeature fiasco, over 90 percent of my hubs had every product removed.
I hate images and videos unless they serve a real purpose. When I get to an article no matter where it is published and have to scroll through photos and videos, I am done, it click and gone. I don't even bother to read it. I won't do it, and I won't have my readers have to scroll through photos and videos.
The first two years, my articles were primarily travel articles. No products there unless I found a travel guide for the area I wrote about.
The third year, I didn't publish anything here. When I stopped writing, I think i had left less than 20 hubs. Most of them have been deleted.
I have recently deleted more hubs than I have ever had on this site and they were new hubs, and by the way, many were ranking 1-5 in Google search engines. Those are gone too.
Yep. And you laughed when someone mentioned money, saying you had only one payout in 3 years. Hmmm .... I can't see how you can be so convinced you're punishing hp in any way by moving your content.
Keep deleting, Linda. Don't let me stand in your way.
Linda has received support and sympathy from many hubbers (ex-squids and non-squids alike) on this thread, TT2. I agree with your sentiment, however. There comes a time when enough is enough.
She has spoken (many times) and been heard. I guess it frustrates you, just as it frustrates me (and others, judging by the comments), when the same points are made repeatedly with no apparent effort to listen to what others are saying.
I believe it is a disservice to other writers who want to make progress on hp to let comments continue on this thread unchallenged. I actually regret not looking at her hubs for myself earlier.
Because people like you keep giving her buckets of attention.
Good point, but I think there is more to it than that because this has gone on ad infinitum.
Pleased I didn't miss your most recent comment, LindaSmith1. What exactly are you referring to when you say "Since when is that anybody's concern!" ?
Your question is not linked to any specific post.
Anything you presented online, any issues you raised, and any complaints you have made are open for discussion. Aren't they?
I had two hubs unfeatured for quality, and they were a little sloppy, with way too many amazon capsules without any description.
I took me 30 minutes to fix them
I also have 22 hubs unfeatured because of no engagement. I am not planning to do anything with these for now. Maybe in a few months I'll try to revamp them.
Anyway, I got a bit more traffic since the mass unfeaturing, so I am actually pleased. It might not be related, it might be just the holiday traffic bump, though.
However, I think there should be a way to discriminate between seasonal hubs, evergreen hubs, and everdry hubs. If a hub is dead, kill it, I totally understand it. But HP kills seasonal hubs, and to be honest, I am not going to work to update seasonal hubs every month just to keep the afloat.
When a seasonal hub is unfeatured everybody loses, HP, the writer, the visitors, and Google. Google will remove the hub from their index, so the page will lose its age, so next year it will be harder to rank against articles that are around for years. Even if the hub is better. Squidoo had a way to distinguish between seasonal and lenses without any traffic ever.
For your seasonal hubs, you only need to change a word or two to run them back through QAP and have them featured again. They should stay featured for a couple of months with close to no traffic, and will remain featured when they are running through their "season."
Originally Hubpages didn't do that to seasonal hubs. I don't like that either and what if someone copied your hub? Then theirs will be considered the original.
If that happens file a DMCA complaint. On my other account I have filed many, and the ruling was in my favor. Even though it was seasonal and edited.
I also had a '90' flagged as unfeatured for quality. These pages are dying which is too bad because the topics are terrific.
I'm so sorry, that must be so frustrating for you (and everyone else).
You can email the owner of HubPages if you think your hub was unfeatured unfairly at http://pauledmondson.hubpages.com/#fanmail
Look for the email link there, to ask for Paul Edmondson's personal help.
For some reason not apparent to me the two Hubs I had had un-featured for Quality became featured again today! 2nd February 2015. Has anyone else noticed this?
by Faith Reaper4 years ago
I am just curious, all 92 hubs of mine are featured. In your opinion, should one delete (although Featured) any hubs where the score on a particular hub has eventually dropped way down from when it was initially...
by Sheila Craan10 months ago
Lately, I have had 11 hubs unfeatured due to Quality Issues. I have assured my hubs do not contain grammatical or spelling errors. I have included relevant video and changed the titles and added new supporting texts and...
by Missing Link2 months ago
I'm thinking the answer is probably yes?If you have hubs that have been deemed "not featured", for one reason or another, will that factor into lowering your overall score/rating as a HubPages member? ...
by Tim Bader3 years ago
Hi,I've got several hubs which have suddenly become un-featured "due to lack of engagement".On the one hand, fair enough, in that they haven't had a lot of traffic, if any, since they were transferred from...
by David Livermore4 years ago
Let me preface this by stating I am not trying to be mean or a troll. In fact, I avoid the forums because I don't want to get involved. But with so many posts about the topics I'm about to discuss, I wanted...
by John Hansen2 years ago
I have only ever had one featured hub before but when I checked my account today I was shocked to find I have 13 in featured hubs due to low engagement. This is proof that traffic has fallen greatly. It's not just my...
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.