|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.|
Those of us who are still here and who are trying to help clean up the place are finding it EXTREMELY frustrating and confusing and depressing to be wading through a ton of crap that has already been UnFeatured but which we are unable to see or know when we see this stuff in the searches.
It's pretty clear our efforts would be radically more efficient if we didn't have UnFeatured Hubs in the internal search.
My solution is to suggest you add an option to the internal search so that casual searchers can choose to have UnFeatured Hubs included or removed from their search results.
I like the choice of having the option. Further, the default should be NOT seeing the unfeatured hubs. New Hubber comes on the site, when they are browsing and looking around, should only be able to see the high quality that is expected, because otherwise, they may think that the lower quality is acceptable.
I agree that we don't need unfeatured hubs of poor quality to be in the searches. I don't feel they need to be here at all - they should be unpublished, and, as Sue Adams points out, perhaps given a two-week period for cleanup and then nuked.
As for a feature to allow casual visitors to 'skip' unfeatured hubs - how would they know that's the case? I see many problems with that idea:
If there's a button saying "Skip Unfeatured Hubs" many viewers will not know what that means, and some might figure, hey - there's the juicy stuff!
Pointing out that there are 'Unfeatured' hubs would be like advertising that there's poor quality writing on the site.
Hubs that are unfeatured due to low engagement should not be punished - I don't know exactly what those might have in them, but if they're otherwise of good quality, keep them available in some manner.
Low quality hubs should be GONE. Period!
Why does the site expect us to keep our work in a place that isn't purged of junk, copied content, spam and other issues that hurt all of us.
This affects our reputations as writers - we need a balanced policy that respects and protects our work and also allows for revenue for the site (and its writers). But not a policy that focuses on revenue at the expense of those who write high-quality pieces here.
I sort of agree; but I would say that I would like those hubs that are unfeatured due to Quality to be excluded rather than those that are excluded due to engagement. There are many hubs that are excellent that are unfeatured due to engagement purely because there are just so few people searching for their subject area.
In fact I would go one further and say that if a hub is not up to the quality standards then it should be unpublished not just unfeatured. Then it would automatically be removed from the internal search as it would "no longer exist."
I suggested an on/off option for this exact reason. People should be able to filter out all of this stuff, or not.
Personally, I feel it should either be published or not, and that Featuring itself was a lazy solution to low quality.
I don't get this whole thing. If I write a hub and it is not of good quality, it should simply not be permitted to be published. Articles that are later discovered to be of poor quality should be dropped. People can always rewrite and submit work again, so what is the point of the unfeaturing? Articles that have poor readership can either automatically be dropped by the filters if views stay too low for a specified period of time, or the author can try to revamp them to give them another opportunity for readership or delete them themselves.
I also think writers who come, produce one article and then disappear should have their work removed after a specified period of time.
Additionally, keyword stuffed summaries should be part of the evaluation process so that they do not slip through the QAP and damage the site.
The unfeaturing system is a pointless purgatory. Hubs that are unfeatured for engagement should be bumped up to featured, and hubs that are unfeatured for quality should be bumped down to unpublished. Keep it simple.
Why is there no engagement? Because Google (not HP - Google) finds it of low quality? That is the reason for the system, after all...
I agree, keep those and show them in internal searches.
Yes, I agree to that too. Give an unfeatured for quality hub a, say 2 week grace period in which it can be improved, then give it a final chop.
Another reason why hubs become unfeatured is due to keyword spamming, especially in the summary where spammers hide the stuffed keywords.
In another forum thread we discussed helping clean up spamming by searching for common keyword spamming phrases and reporting them. When I did this, I found a lot of them. But when I clicked to the profile of the various spammers, I discovered that non of the hubs I found in the search were listed in their profiles. That means that those hubs were already unfeatured.
So I agree it would be a good idea to offer an option in the search to show only featured hubs, a choice the searcher can make.
by Sheila Craan17 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 Sondra Rochelle2 years ago
Awhile back the team started unfeaturing articles due to lack of traffic. Many here think this is a bad idea, and I agree. Doing this upsets many writers and has nothing to do with quality or how Google...
by Krissa Klein4 years ago
How many views, roughly, are needed to keep a hub from being unfeatured?I've noticed a lot of people complaining about hubs being unfeatured for lack of engagement.I've noticed traffic declining on some of my hubs, and...
by Carolee Samuda4 years ago
If you have an unfeatured hub and you know not why, place the link here and we will try to help you.Calling in the troupes to help hubbers who need help getting their hubs featured.
by Marina3 years ago
Hi Hubbers! Please be sure to read today's blog post about spam and product capsules. In the post, I invite you all to ask questions in this forum thread. Paul E., Robin, and myself will be monitoring the thread over...
by Nicole Pellegrini3 years ago
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...
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.