I am starting this suggestion here in hopes that staff will see it. Many of us have suddenly found large numbers of our hubs unfeatured for quality within the past 24 hours. Myself it has his 17 of my 221 hubs in my Squidoo-transfered account (this one), none in my other account.
Some of the hubs unfeatured are ones which I had not yet had the chance to fix violations in yet after the transfer. I thought we got a 4 month grace period on those? (I have some that still have violations which were not unfeatured for quality, so I guess it can't be that alone.)
Others are hubs which I have "upgraded" since the transfer, hadn't touched in weeks/months since, and currently had QAP's ranging from 83 to 94. I do not see how they were lacking in quality.
The other thread where this is being discussed with many people reporting the same thing is here:
I would just like to know if this is a bug of some kind or if I should just move these hubs asap to my own websites.
Edit to add: I also want to make it clear I'm talking specifically about Unfeatured for QUALITY here, not Unfeatured due to lack of engagement. I understand these are two separate issues.
i am not sure about squidoo but i do agree that i have 3 unfeatured hubs. I also edit them but still unfeatured more than 3 days.
Me too! And one of them was the hub with the highest hub score! What exactly is that score supposed to mean anyway?
The score must mean absolutely nothing, because some of my suddenly unfeatured lenses-turned-hubs had scores of 100. So the hubscore must be a joke.
These are hubs that have been edited and passed QAP, sometimes multiple times, since being transferred from Squidoo. And contrary to the snap judgments that some are making, who've not even seen the hubs in question, these are NOT all sales pages. And even if they are, how they can pass QAP with flying colors multiple times, meet all the stated requirements and then all of a sudden, without any warning, NOT be good enough anymore is beyond me.
If HP does not want sales-oriented pages, they should have thought twice about buying out Squidoo or, if they didn't actually buy the content, then taking it at all. They should have known that a very large percentage of featured (and successful) Squidoo lenses were sales oriented. So why bother?
Many of my now-unfeatured hubs have been some of my most successful pages, both on Squidoo and here at HP. And for those who might want to assume that these hubs MUST be crap ... perhaps sit on your hands and keep your assumptions to yourself.
I too would like an explanation for this from HP staff.
Very well said.
An explanation is needed about why a hub can be OK for weeks on end and then suddenly fall foul of the filter.
If you're going to give people a grace period then you need to make sure that the filters are up to snuff from the BEGINNING of the period. Providing false feedback on publication is simply not good enough
Nobody is going to continuously edit a hub to try and find the place where it suddenly works - for maybe a week or two until the next filter change!
The only further work I am doing to any hub of mine that is being unfeatured for quality or unpublished is to remove it from the site. I simply refuse to jump through any more hoops for a site owner on the basis of duff feedback or constant changing of filters. I'd much rather remove my content and take my chances on knowing what is and is not OK with Google on my own sites.
The explanation that was given when Featuring was first introduced, and people complained about Hubs that had been fine for years, or which had been just created with the new improved publishing standards was....that's just what those filters were designed to do.
I'll be curious to hear their rationale this go around.
If there is a specific reason then there should be prior notice that a new filter is being introduced and an explanation given for what it's targeting and why.
People experimenting with their own ideas of what it might be or might not be a good idea to do because the site has lost traffic and they are trying to work out how to get it back is not an explanation I find acceptable. There are (or should be) testbeds for that sort of thing.
So assuming that isn't what is happening here I'd like to know specifically what was the rationale around the filter change.
Why does this all seem so familiar?
Oh, yes ... because this is exactly the type of crapola that happened not long before Squidoo went the way of ... um ... no, that's not a nice way to put it. But not long before Squidoo pulled the plug.
A bit of desperation on the part of HP?
Regardless, it sure would be nice to know what's going on behind the curtain.
The other thing that happened on Squidoo was an awful lot of good authors removed their content when we got into the "Let's take a new guess at what's causing the problem with the traffic" routine which seemed to happen at least once a month if not more often.
Then the views for the site crashed.
Then the advert income crashed as did the share of the Amazon income
That's when they changed the rules and started diverting more of the ad income to funding the HQ team - which is why the tier income payouts crashed.
So more people left as they knew they could do better elsewhere.
So the income crashed some more
Then it became very apparent that Squidoo was sinking and it was only a question of time as to how long it would last. I do remember working out if had six months left at one point due to the rate of attrition in traffic as people disappeared from the site.
So more people left - and the income crashed some more etc etc etc.
That's what happens to a site which creates serious discontent among authors who pulled in traffic and income
Here is your explanation:
Very well put!
I would appreciate an explanation of:
1. Why hubs which were edited many months ago and have continued to be edited and meet the QAP standards are suddenly, without warning and without explanation of the alleged violations, not in compliance?
2. The logic behind making hubs which are generating visitors and sales unfeatured? Surely that is counter-productive given that the HubPages share of income contributes to the running costs of the site.
3. Why having adopted some positive aspects of Squidoo the HubPages Management have now decided to adopt one of the very negative aspects of Squidoo in mplementing a change at one of the prime income generating periods?
The hub scores really mean nothing! They do not affect earnings or rankings with search engines. It is a HP thing and they won't reveal everything about the Hubber score or Hub Scores. This is something that Hubbers and even previous staff members tried to get HP to get rid of, but they won't.
QAP is a computerized filter: Sound familiar
Then they have who knows what on Amazon Mechanical Turk ranking hubs.
Then there is the Hub Hopper.
Human eyes do not review every hub. Those that have been flagged/reported are reviewed, supposedly, by a human.
Paul Edmondson has posted related to this here.
Before you go to that forum to Read Pauls post, sit down first and hold onto your chair. Don't take 10 breaths first, take 100 of them.
So, what's the explanation as to why the Squidoo lenses weren't protected by their immunity?
It seems that this new filter penalises Hubs with large numbers of Amazon ads, or unrelated links, or "overly promotional" links, all of which Squids were given four months to fix.
And why wasn't this exercise announced in advance?
People have seen Paul's response and he even agreed to review Hubs that people sent to him, however that is not the issue.
We are upset that a major change was made with no announcement, and that many Hubs that Google does like got hit. A simple filter to prevent those with good Google traffic might have prevented this issue. There does seem to be a lack of clarity in the implementation, and quite probably the way it is communicated to staff.
Clarity is needed and taking a take it or leave approach is quite definitely what wrecked Squidoo. We senior Squids still here are like soldiers with PTSD and we do not want to have to leave another site and see it disappear up its own a@#e like Squidoo did. Major sweeping changes that take out the quality Hubs as well as spam are a site wrecker, you need to be concerned as you might be out of work before long at this rate.
This problem was noticed last night, presumably after the staff left for the day, and they aren't in the office yet. So let's give them some time to research this and respond and gather the facts so they can do that.
Based on my understanding on this and the other forum post:
This issue has happened to a large number of people. This makes me think that it might be related to an algorithm change or a bug, and not manual intervention.
This happened mostly to hubs that came over from Squidoo. One person mentioned that their hubs on their other account also had this problem, so it is possible that it is related to the different ways we write our articles based on our experiences and writing history.
Some of these hubs have been edited and previously passed QAP, but others have not been touched at all and should remain in the grace period. This is not a matter of recently edited hubs being unfeatured for quality.
Many people mentioned Amazon modules. Do all of these affected hubs have Amazon modules?
Are there any other commonalities about these hubs?
I'd like to know what is going on too regarding the unfeatured. Also, the info on my profile page said that there was not activity for the last 6 days, and there has been plenty.
I have a few that I have been trying to figure out what the issues were with them and have been making changes to try to fix them, but to no avail
I do not understand this at all as I worked so hard on them before I even transferred them so none EVER had skulls and only a few had quality warnings because of photos that were blurry or old/bad links that have since been fixed.
One, called "You Can Be Green" is FULL of information and tips and has gotten rave reviews for years and it was the first one the be 'unfeatured for quality' !
What a mess
Whatever happened to the 4-month Grace Period for former Squidoo content that was purchased by / imported to Hubpages, per the FAQ shown to us at the time of the takeover?
September, October, November = 3 months only.
Four months would put it to the end of December, not to the 1st day of the month, yes?
Not really: Remember How long did the transition take?
The content transfer process began on September 2, 2014 and was completed by the end of that same month. http://hubpages.com/squidoo/faq
September 2 to October 2
October 2-November 2
November 2-December 2
December 2 - January 2
Exactly, Linda Smith. 4 months would take it to the end of December, beginning of January - so why has the Grace Period been ended prematurely?
Mine transferred later than that!
Maybe somebody got confused when counting months?
Transfer started September 2. So did HP start Grace Period September 2, or did they wait til the transfer was completed which would still make Grace Period sometime between January and maybe even March.
As Paul said, Google took manual action. Do you know how serious that is? Getting the manual action by google prevented trumps a grace period. They HAVE to address this issue NOW to prevent serious harm to the site as a whole.
page 36 post by Dressage
Of course, this has nothing to do with it: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/127101?page=36
That is a separate issue, relevent however manual action by google is outside the scope of that. If google AdSense ads caused a spam the agent placing the manual action would send that to an AdSense division to have that add inspected. Read Matt cuts, he explains that. However, the internal hubpages alto may work differently. Its hard for us to know. Again, lots of misinformation out there. For any website to succeed, it must pass the web spam department. It's about what Matt cutts and his team want, and the HP team must at least try to give cutts and his team that. This is bigger than many realize. Make ur hub not just to pass qap, but to please Matt cutts himself, and your safe.
No they didn't - not for the whole site. It was two specific sub-domains and it was quite some time ago now, before the last Panda.
Two is enough for concern. If it was that long ago, it should have been addressed sooner. It doesn't change the fact that every hub should pass the Matt cutts test. People need to know who that is, period.
If we are going to follow Matt Cutts, then not one hub should be ever flagged for duplicate content, because Matt Cutts says duplicate content is okay.
You don't get the clues, you haven't watched the blood. Plagerism is not OK. They are working to find a way to get original content where it belongs. People are working hard. There are clues, even on his hiatus he give them to us. Figure out the clues and get ranked.
They were addressed. I recall the forum posts about them some time ago.
Paul was simply using those two examples to illustrate what can happen, and people have taken them as recent events.
I know that, lol. But many people still don't seem to understand why it is so important even now. Thanks for sharing your expertise. I wish the sqidoo transfer had gone more smoothy, and I wish writers had more transparency from the big G. They were, and are being addressed. It resulted it great hubs getting penalized. Some of the people complaining are fantastic writers. Its important for hubpages to try to be the best it can be. At the same time, I feel for the great Huber's and sqidoo members who are getting put through the ringer. I am just voicing my opinion here, because there are two sides to every story. The hurting writers and what must be done for overall health of the website create different feelings depending what side you are on. My intent was only that the great writers should not doubt there ability. Sometimes things happen that are out of our control. Sometimes we have to change things that seem silly to please a mathematical equation, which is top secret. It's frustrating, but writers have to cope with that frustration with knowledge. Then they must do what's best for their content and success. There are difficult choices being made on both sides.
I just don't think this has anything to do with the grace period. As people have been saying, many of these hubs have gone through QAP multiple times since the transfer. And there are reports of hubs suddenly being unfeatured for quality that have been around for a long time.
I just checked and one of my unfeatured hubs, a newer one, ranks page 3 of Google! Makes no sense!
Don't you think that it speaks volumes that of all the threads about this subject there has not been a single response from HP on any of them? Where is all the quick and helpful responses that we got when we first got to HP? What happened to all the assurances that HP was not like Squidoo in that they quickly and publicly responded to problems in this forum?
Where are the people from HP now? Why aren't they responding? Maybe they have been taking lessons from the Seth Godin School of Management.
HubPages says that staff do not monitor the Community sections of the forums, so there could be millions of threads on that section and they'd be none the wiser.
See the related threads below on this page.
" Why Did Hundreds of Hubs Become Unfeatured for Quality Today?" was started yesterday and Paul Edmondson IS responding.
Jadelynx-HP: They are in California. I saw more posting from Paul Edmonson during the transfer than I have in the 3 years of being here. Most of the time it is a staff person and usually the same one if they bother. Then the responses are it is your computer, take a screen shot since we don't think you known how to read figures, etc when it comes to stats and the final gem is We are working on it.
HP has its new toy, now the toy is boring, so they move on to new toy which is making what they think will be a pretty site.
Lol, Matt cutts and the web spam team believe in what they do. You don't have to agree with them. But they are passionate, and if you want to succeed, you have to get through them.
Matt Cutts has been on leave from Google since July!
He is still involved, he admits that. His wife is none to happy. So hermit mode starts this month. He was still leaving clues, but the last one I found was two weeks ago. So his hermit mode might be the end of that.
His name is his blog and it full of nothing but snippets with a hyperlink to another site! He contradicts himself again.
by Tim Bader2 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 zebtron2 years ago
We just wanted to remind Squidoo authors who have migrated to HubPages, that the moderation grace period will end January 15th, 2015 at 12 noon PT.Hubs will be gradually moderated in phases and as such some may be...
by AnnaMKB17 months ago
First off, my hubs are transferred from Squidoo, and I am aware of various issues there. I'd already checked and edited hubs after the transition, so this is all post transfer.What I don't understand is why some...
by Shorebirdie2 years ago
I have a hub that was moved here from Squidoo in September that I haven't touched at all. But, now it's unfeatured due to lack of engagement. I thought I had four months before stuff like that happened.
by Georgianna Lowery2 years ago
I'm not knocking anybody (or maybe I am) but I have seen several "Hubs" that transferred from Squidoo that are composed of nothing more than very thin content and a whole bunch of merchandising links (and even...
by Tessa Schlesinger19 months ago
As fast as I'm trying to fix up hubs that are unfeatured, the problem isn't that there is something wrong with them, but that they are being unfeatured as a result of lack of traffic. Isn't this short sighted? Some...
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.