I just viewed a recent hub from Will Starr and saw the new Hub design. I was amazed at the difference it makes and how it is easier to read, more pleasing to the eye, and a very attractive overall look to it. It puts the hub into a prominent mode - not broken up with ads, and highlights a previous hub from Will. Then I went and viewed my most recent hub and saw the new design that makes my hub look great.
Has anyone else noticed the difference in design? What do you think about it?
I just went and looked at one of my hubs.
The new design for hubs looks NICE! (didn't mean to yell)
It is much more eye appealing to me, Phyllis.
Better than I would have thought but didn't they say they wouldn't be staying the way they first put them?
i saw mine just now. It looks large, bold, and exciting but why is the right hand side article " More by XXX" not related to my hub topic?
I did some research to see how this is working. Maybe Marina can confirm if I'm right.
What I discovered is that the "More by xxx" shows another of our hubs that is in the same topic category. But if we only have one hub in a specific category, then it displays another hub from a different category that we wrote in.
So in your case, is that hub of yours the only one in the category? Or do you have other hubs in that same category? Or maybe you didn't put your related hubs under matching topic categories.
Check the topics you specified as the categories and see if you find some common theme in how they are being chosen, as I have found. Your findings may help confirm of refute my findings. I admit I may be wrong as I didn't check this throughout all my hubs.
My "more by DrMark" is as about as unrelated as you can get. On the hub I just published on small dogs and barking, of which I have several others on small dogs and barking, there is a hub displayed about "how to cheer up a depressed dog".
Also, although I am happy to see the unrelated "related ads" done away with, I am wondering if there is a new algorithm for the "related hubs" at the bottom of the page. Before this new layout was introduced, the related hubs included several related hubs that I had written, about dogs and barking. Now, all of the hubs displayed are by other people, and some of them barely related.
You proved my point. I looked at those hubs of yours that you mentioned.
You have the "depressed dogs" hub and the "small dogs barking" under the same topic - "Pets and Animals"
Of course, I can't see any other topic that would be right, so why do you feel these are not related?
Well, that is like saying a hub on "Best new products from Apple" and "Best new Windows applications" are just alike and should be listed together, just because they both happen to fall under computers.
I assume HP wants people to read more and click on the "read more by" as it is in their best interests. A reader who comes in looking for best new products from Apple is not going to bother reading about the latest Windowns applications.
You'll get no argument from me. I happen to agree with you. For that matter, I had posted about this problem in the forum a couple of years ago. I complained that the top level of the topics is not always best related to the bottom level that we are placing our hubs in.
For example, I have hubs in...
Education and Science → Sociology and Anthropology → Social Theory
… and also in ...
Education and Science → Astronomy and Space Exploration → The Universe
I don't like that Social Theory becomes related to hubs on The Universe. But that's how they have it. It's all considered "Education and Science".
As in your case, a dog by any other name is still a dog. LOL.
Maybe with the new format, now that they use this algorithm to display "Other by author", HP may reconsider this and relate things more by the lower level topic.
Did you maybe not break down the category when you wrote the hub to just a group that is the same as the featured one?
You bring up a good point here. When we create our specific groups to define our hubs by category, we have to make sure that when we create a new hub that we break down the "Choose Category" to the same topic as all our other hubs in that category.
I believe you are spot on with the category selection. I assign each of my hubs to a specific group I created. In the "More by" the hub highlighted is in the same group as the featured hub. I checked my hubs and all of them are in related groups I created.
Just to be clear, and correct your interpretation, the "More by" selection is done by topic, not by group. Your correct relationship results are just a coincidence because your topic selections are obviously correct.
You are correct and I am aware that the "More By" is not chosen by groups. To clarify what I mean is that if I put a hub in an appropriate group and also put the hub in the appropriate topic, my "More By" is correctly related.
Yes, but it is correctly related ONLY because of your "topic" selection. By all means, use groups to group your hubs -- I do too. But in order to control the "More by" selection, you just need to be sure the topic is correct.
I have noticed that even tho I have another hub is the same group it sometimes shows a related hub from a different group. I'm sure the algorithm has its reasons.
You may have that "More by" hub in a different group. Do you create your own groups and categorize each hub based on those groups? For instance, I created a group titled "Native American" and every hub I write on that subject I assign the Native American group to it.
I orphaned the hubs I didn't want to see in the 'More By ...' slot, but it had no effect. I then re-categorized the hub that had the inappropriate hub showing in that slot using the Topic Tool, which resulted in an appropriate one showing.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/127277? … ost2685123
I should have said 'topic'. The "More By" is chosen by topic, not group.
I'm so glad that ads don't appear in the middle of the text anymore. I work hard on graphic design and the ads messed that up. Also sometimes the ads were totally inappropriate to the content and I hated that they looked like part of the content
I love it. I think it looks much more professional and it's easier to read. It has a nice flow. The ads look better in the sidebar.
I love it!!! I just reviewed a few of my hubs and the new format works really well. The longer title field makes it all fall into place nicely. And I like the "More from…" featuring a related hub of mine in a large banner among the ads. It will be interesting to see how well that works.
Just one problem I have… I think the display of the last update date is misleading. Readers will not understand what that date means. EIther add the words "Last updated" or "Updated on" before the date, or remove it altogether. I invite others to opine on that thought.
Hmmm ... I did not notice that date at the top. I will have to check it out. I think you are right though, in suggested they add "Last updated" or remove it altogether. As Marina noted in her thread on the design, it won't make much difference on evergreen hubs - however, it may make a difference to readers who see an old date and just back out of the hub.
On the other hand, the date there may become very important if one ever files a DMCA, for it establishes when the hub was created.
No!!! It does NOT indicate the creation date. It's the date the hub was last edited.
Which would be the created date if never edited. Are you sure it is the "last edited" date? I prefer that it was the created date.
I like that idea it's the date it was last updated.
As I was looking at one of mine, it made my get to work on it and update it. Looks much better now.
We can sort our stat list by order of last edited date. That is much more efficient for your hub maintenance as you described.
Glenn, you're right! Definitely nice fresh look displaying the author on page of his/her article. And also the longer field title is a plus. Besides the fact that the readers can relate who wrote the article, by relating to it with our author pic.
And also as you mentioned - get a little additional exposure to related hubs of the topic that is currently show cased. I never gave it much thought about the update issue though. However I really think that most of the readers in the audience are not going to pay much attention to the updates? They can at least see when the author first published the article. Otherwise a cool, fresh and new look for sure!
Jim, I mentioned in a post above that this date is NOT the creation date. That is why I say it will be misleading.
Only relevance this could have to the reader, is to see if that author has since publication date. Added, any new or updated information to his/her article.
Great point, Glenn! Will definitely discuss this with the team.
Thanks, Marina. Glenn brought up a good point and I am thinking the date should be the day the hub was created - just in case we ever have to file a DMCA.
I agree with Phyllis 100% on this. I think it's very important to leave the creation date posted for that reason. It gives us more ammunition when we file DMCA takedown notices.
I agree with showing the creation date: first published on ...
Of course, there's enough room for both dates.
Yes there is certainly enough room to post 2 different dates as well. First Publication date and last editing date. How long is all this madness going to continue, until someone makes a final decision?? I feel like I'm stuck in the middle of a Seinfeld re rerun. LoL.
I think we're done. Marina already said she will discuss my idea with the team. And all the thoughts in this thread are very useful. I am sure she will see what else was posted since her last post and make a final decision based on all this input. I now return you to your regular programming.
Although I understand your reasoning, I would prefer that it is the last updated date, as freshness is a factor. Some of our hubs are 5-7 years old. Probably most of our older hubs have been updated. If someone sees a date of 2007, it seems that it may look outdated to readers. I would not like to see a decision made only for the sake of filing DMCA's which may or may not ever be necessary. My opinion only.
Or leave it out. I think as it is now readers may not know what it refers to.
Whatever is decided, it's fine with me.
Marina has a thread on the new design, Glenn, where we can report bugs or concerns. You should post this "date" concern in her thread so we can see what she says. Thanks for bringing this up.
Thanks, but she just replied to my comment already.
Thumbs up from me. Just noticed the new set out on one of my hubs. Looks great!
It does look great, Jodah. Makes us look like writers, not advertisers.
It gets my vote. Much cleaner and more focussed on the article rather than the ads. I think, and I appreciate this is a bit counter-intuitive, that ads work better if they are more discrete.
Glenn yes the word you use as misleading, is appropriate definition of this issue. I really think that it should just be left out all together. I do not believe it's that relevant to anything.
That is another option, leaving it out altogether.
Yes but maybe since a few others mentioned DMCA issues in the future. Well that raises a good argument now. And could be the very reason why Hubpages staff decided on leaving this - True or False?
I'd prefer to see the date left out. If HubPages wants to signal the last date it was updated to Google it can do this in other ways
I would also prefer the date to be left out (or kept at the bottom where it was before). I know that it can help the reader when it comes to topics that change frequently, but often the date should not matter, especially since we are encouraged to write evergreen hubs. People may think they are seeing outdated information even though the hub is written in an evergreen way (without references to things that do get outdated). And some people's idea of outdated may be off, especially was we get around to the new year ("oh this article was written last year!").
Furthermore, to file DMCA notices we have that information on our stats page anyhow.
That is true, TT2. Thanks for bringing that up. I had thought about that, but I thought it was more solid to see the actual full hub with a creation date. But, now I am also thinking there is our copyright date at the bottom of the hub, so we do not need a creation date at the top.
It would be nice, IMO, to have the copyright date and last updated date at the top.
I don't - copyright date at the bottom is the only thing which is necessary
What specific benefit is to be gained from having the last updated date at the top - if for example it's over 6 months old?
Do we want to advertise to people that the information is old and might therefore be perceived as outdated?
We are all just hashing it over as thoughts come up. Making sure Marina is aware of our concerns and suggestions is what is important right now as there will be upcoming changes to the new design. So, we should post bugs/concerns in Marina's thread.
Good idea Phyllis. Either at the top or bottom. Just as long as both dates are together, as you said. That makes much more sense, rather than having each in two different locations.
I agree with this. I wasn't thinking earlier about the dates already being at the bottom.
Thanks, Glenn. I do not like the copyright date at the bottom where it is rather hidden. If both copyright and updated dates were at the top it would be better IMHO.
Maybe 99% of my hubs are evergreen, and as Marina stated it does not matter much with evergreen hubs on the "last updated".
What benefit does the reader get from having dates at the top?
Dates are clutter unless they add real value to the reader. If they are just for the hubber then they can go at the bottom or display on the edit screen only
I'm in agreement with you. If an inception date is necessary, it should be at the bottom. I would rather not have it included. I think especially having two dates at the top would look unprofessional and cluttered. We have the first published date in our hub stats. Comments also reflect the original published time frame.
A lot of hubbers besides me have complained about the copyright date at the bottom where it is rather hidden. Some hubbers put their copyright notice at the top of their hub. We each have our own thoughts on this placement of copyright notice. What you see as clutter is a needed thing for some hubbers, for their own reason.
A lot of other sites I visit have the copyright date at the top under the author's name and I like that. It lets readers know right away when the author wrote that article. To me, that is important.
I like the new design. It looks wider, cleaner and nicer than before. Thanks to the HP staffs.
It's really nice to have one hub featuring prominently - so long as it's the right one!
It would be even nicer to have more. There is after all a lot of white space in that column.
One of the things I was hoping the new design might do is create more space in the side column near the TOP of the hub for hubbers to indicate other hubs which related closely to the hub topic
I specialise in one subject area and I create my sites in broad topic clusters. Being able to include five sites in the side column at Squidoo did two things:
1) it demonstrated an area of expertise which Google LIKES to see - and which is reassuring for potential viewers if they see at the beginning of the hub (rather than right down at the bottom - of they ever get there!)
2) it created crossflows to other related lenses - which is beneficial to both the Hubber and HubPages
Personally I'm very sure that one of the reasons for a lower level of traffic at HubPages is because the scope for that flow of traffic is not promoted ie links to other hubs are at the bottom not the top and the hubber has no scope or authority to designate which other hubs should show up.
Presumably if the design could be changed to enhance the related hubs seen nearer the top it's not that difficult to revise the rules for hubs to make it mandatory that any hubs included must very clearly be related to the topic.
If it is the original date, readers might get turned off by an old date from say five years ago.i prefer updated date like on previous ones or leave out. Great design and thanks to all who worked on it. Here's to more traffic.
If it is the original date, readers might get turned off by an old date from say five years ago.i prefer updated date like on previous ones or leave out. Great design and thanks to all who worked on it. Here's to more traffic.
My post updated 8 times. What is happening? It took forever on iPhone.
Did you keep pressing the button?
You do know you can delete them? Just click more and the delete button is on the far right.
These things happen. Matt is having his tech team looking into duplicate postings.
I think the new design is a major improvement! It is certainly easier on the eyes, and a great deal more inviting to read.
Congratulations to the HP team - it must have been quite a task for the engineers, to say the least.
I agree, much better.
Thank you H.P. for tweaking things to make our pages better and for taking the ideas on here for other tweaks to comes as well.
The new look is interesting. I like to change things up every so often. let's see how this goes.
I have an unrelated hub and must check my groups. Maybe it is hard to get them right with so many writers.
Brake, do you have your own list of groups that you created yourself? This is where you are able to place all your related hubs into the same group. It does not matter how many writers there are - what matters is where you assigned your hub in your own group list.
Yes I have quite e few in all my groups except one. All are in groups. I am checking them out and thanks.
Most of you, I am sure, know about your personal group list and how to assign each hub to a group. In case anyone needs help with this, here are some tips for assigning hubs to your personal groups:
Managing groups and Creating your personal group list:
- Go to your My Account page
- Click on Groups
- You should now be on "Your Hub Groups" page.
- Click on Add New Group
- Enter a title for your new group
- Assign each new hub to one of your groups (this is how you get all your related hubs into one topic)
- When creating a new hub make sure you go into Display Options in the far right column. Click on Group and assign this new hub to one of your personal groups. If you do not assign a group then that new hub will automatically go into a group called "Orphan Hubs"
- On "Your Hub Groups" page, scroll down to below the groups till you see "Assign Hubs to Groups". This is a list of all your hubs sorted by the groups you created. Review this list occasionally to make sure you have your hubs in the appropriate group. If you find one in a group where it does not belong, then click on the hub title and edit the hub to assign the correct group in your "Display Options".
- I am not sure how many groups we are allowed to create. I have 25.
Now then - when you are creating a new hub, you have to make sure that when you choose a topic that you break it down to where other hubs of yours with the same subject matter are in the same topic.
For instance: When I choose 'Books, Literature, and Writing' for a Native American history hub, I do not stop there. I choose another option (which will pop up) and keep going on options till I find "Native American History".
Therefore, all my hubs are in the same related categories because I assigned each one to one of my personal groups and chose the correct topic when creating a hub -- unless I made a mistake somewhere.
Edit to above post. My apologies to all. I noted I put my Native American history hubs in Books, Literature and Writing - that is wrong.
I put them in the category Education and Science.
Education and Science → History and Archaeology → History of the Americas → Native American History
If you are finding any bugs or have concerns about the new design, please post it in Marina's forum thread on: Wide Hub Design is Here
Ya, I have noticed the changes in designing and really, now Hubpages has become more appealing and amazing. The most impeccable thing of the new layout is that it is more readable
by Jason Menayan 6 years ago
Hi all,We've just rolled out a new Hub design in 3 categories - Fashion & Beauty, Food, and Technology - that builds upon the previous design that Simone announced a few weeks ago. Here are the changes:1. The breadcrumb now displays the total number of published Hubs in each of the categories,...
by Simone Haruko Smith 6 years ago
Hullo gorgeous Hubbers!We've got some new developments in our bracing Hub re-design saga! The new Hub design we rolled out on Hubs within the Technology Topic was a resounding success- much more so than the first re-design we tested on Hubs within the Fashion and Beauty Topic. We are now subjecting...
by Marina 3 years ago
As a part of our continuing effort to improve site structure and content discoverability, we rolled out some updates to the Hub design today. Here is a breakdown of the changes: - The "Related" section (formerly named "Related Hubs") and Hub Groups (formerly Previous/Next) now...
by Marcy Goodfleisch 3 years ago
Do you have ideas on ways HP could improve the site or its usability in the coming year? No flaming, please; hoping to have some serious and helpful suggestions for staff to consider.Please share your ideas on: - How the site can improve Google rankings? - How the site can drive...
by GoogleCashMoney 10 years ago
Dear Hubbers,I have publish around 11 Hubs and my Hublinks are as follows:<snipped link><snip> <snip><snip><snippety snip> <snip><snip> <snip><snip><snip><snip--DO NOT START POSTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LINKING> I have receive lots...
by Dr. John Anderson 6 years ago
1. Sites such as "tools dot davidnaylor.co.uk/keyworddensity/" feature very prominently in the links list ("links:URL search") and appear to store huge list of links on servers. Could Google be mistaking them as "link farms".2. Subdomain staleness. I have noticed that...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|