I haven't been very active on hubpages but occasionally I log in to check how my articles are doing. Today I was gobsmacked to see that three of my star articles have been edited and the traffic for these hubs has plummeted and for the first time in 13 months I didn't make the payment cut for this month!
Is hubpages now just editing articles without telling us first?? To be honest I prefer my own writing as that's how people engaged with me. These "professionals" have driven away my audience and I'm not happy purely because my earnings have dropped and my traffic has died.
Can someone explain to me what's going on please?
It sounds like your Hubs were subjected to HubPro:
http://blog.hubpages.com/2014/07/31/int … ubpro-beta
You can opt out of the program by editing your Profile. At the bottom of the choices, you will see:
"My Hubs are eligible to be edited with HubPro"
I had no idea about this new venture. Thanks a lot!
By the way is there an option to change the edited hub back to it's original?
I'm totally unhappy with the edits as they've practically wiped out my entire article and put in their own and the new one has no sign that I wrote it. They even removed my pictures and since they did that, there's barely any traffic going through this hub. The old original one that I wrote had an average of 500 views a day which I was happy with and I felt a sense of pride and accomplishment. Now that they've edited it, it feels like they've taken my dignity away!
You are automatically opted-in to the program, unless you opt-out. I thought that was a sneaky thing to do. The whole program is designed to re-write your best-trafficked Hubs, as if that will make Google like them even more. And, it seems that the editors are not trained in search engine optimization.
In my opinion, if Google loves a Hub then it shouldn't be changed. I opted out.
Writer Fox, I had originally opted out, then opted back in this past January as new editors were introduced and their qualifications were identified. Now I have to wait the remainder of six months to change and opt out again.
Fortunately, or probably unfortunately, my hubs do not attract enough high volume traffic to make them a target for unsolicited rewrites. Let's hope I haven't jinxed myself by saying this.
It is my fear, based on experience from another site that took this path (eHow to Demand Studios), that the editors will eventually be the exclusive writers here and we will be given the boot. That is based on nothing conclusive except for the mass quantity of editors that are being brought on board. I have no evidence of this, just a guess.
Yes, there is a way to change everything back. You do not have to accept all the changes. Try going to the hub and clicking edit to see if it gives you the option there. You should be able to see what changes have been made, and choose which ones you want to keep.
Don't you write your articles in word, office, or excel, and save them there?
If not you can save the page after you write your articles
Thanks for posting this. I was unaware and definitely don't want my writing edited by some program.
First, welcome to HubPages! Please read up more on the program before you make any decisions, Amie. HubPro is a free professional editing service that we provide to Hubbers. The caliber of editors is amazing—we have done blog posts on most of them so far. Take a look! Plus, we have contracted photographers and illustrators to assist in improving Hubs. Here is our blog post announcing HubPro so that you can educate yourself before making your decision. Cheers!
NONE of the editors have any scientific/medical qualifications. I do not believe a bog standard PhD in English gives anyone the knowledge and skills to edit scientific/medical materials, nor any other text that requires any form of proper subject knowledge.
I opted out of being subjected to the indignity of having a totally unqualified person touch what I have written. I have no plans to opt back in given what I have seen and heard so far.
It does sound as if your hubs have been edited. It was my understanding that this process was to be done with the consent and cooperation of the HubPages author. They are supposed to let you know, aren't they?
This makes me want to opt out of the program.
This is not supposed to be happening without you being contacted by an editor FIRST. Also, the changes are supposed to be discussed with you.
Complain to firstname.lastname@example.org
It's not supposed to be like this.
I remember somebody else having this issue. It sounds like they do send an email to the Hubber, but do not wait for an answer before making the edits. While I can understand the need to be able to edit hubs for hubs that have been abandoned, I think they should make more of an effort to contact the Hubber and actually securing permission before starting.
You could try reteiving the original page from a cached version using this format : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:URLGOESHERE
Place the URL of the hub where the red section is.
"Have any of the editors written a Hub which consistently receives 500 views a day? No? " Right on, WF.
I think many are missing the issue here that I see as offensive, according to the response from staff, the end ("Reader satisfaction is up 17 points") justifies the means. If they are truly concerned about the writer's voice, how can they allow an "editor" to add content without acceptance or approval from the writer? Sure, they tried to contact the writer...without success, so go on ahead? Not in my book.
The best solution to avoid this from happening again is to opt out from Hubpro through your profile settings.
I have had the same issues too with an over zealous editor, Emily.
Could you please advise me what remedy Hubpages provided you for this breach?
Thanks in advance,
I'm really sorry this happened to you, but thankful that you posted the issue because it has led a lot of writers to the editing opt out option. Although I have to say from the perspective of a major editing process, it might be nice to have a fairy godmother drop in and do some!
Yeah, you had tick for hub team to check for you, untick then nobody can touch
I think you will be able to find an archived copy of what your Hubs looked like before here:
Just edit your Hubs and change them back.
I'm sorry that you did not receive our emails—so far, we have sent two to your address that is filed on your HubPages account. If you have access to this email account, you should be able to find our emails. I suggest checking your spam folder if the email in your account is the one you are currently using. You can find the email that we are sending HubPro emails to in your HubPages Profile.
I took a deeper look at your Hubs and their traffic and it looks like your HubPages traffic dropped first in September then again in October. We began edits on your account in January, so I doubt that the traffic drops were caused by our edits. We have been waiting on custom illustrations that we had commissioned for you, so that is why the Hubs have been locked for two weeks. I will have your editor email you and finish up your Hubs quickly.
I hope you give the edited Hubs time before changing them back to their original form. On average, we have seen that edited Hubs have had an increase in traffic and more importantly an increase in reader satisfaction—on average, traffic is up 15% to edited Hubs compared to the rest of HubPages and NPS ratings are up 17 points. If you haven't read it yet, we wrote a blog post about common questions of HubPro.
You are also welcome to email me at email@example.com and I'm more than happy to discuss any further questions or concerns that you may have. Thanks!
I have sent you an email. Please bring back my original hub. I (and my readers) prefer my own original work!!
The way you have worded this, it doesn't mean that actual Hub traffic has increased for Hubs after the HubPro editing. As I understand it, you deliberately selected Hubs with the most traffic, i.e., the Hubs which were already well ahead of the average Hub traffic. What "baseline" numbers did you use? For the Hub under discussion ('Seven Reasons Why You Should Never Date a Divorced Man'), how does the daily traffic from search engines in November and December compare with the daily traffic from search engines since the HubPro editing? What are those figures for all HubPro edited Hubs which are now online with every edit made by an editor retained by the Hub author?
As for your reliance on Net Promoter Score as any indication that HubPro editing is successful, NPS is a disproven fad, a 2003 mentality, and was never meant to be applied to websites in the first place. It was strictly for brick and mortar businesses. People coming to a Hub from a search engine are not potential 'repeat customers' who are going to bring in more business by giving referrals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Promot … ism_of_NPS
http://blogs.forrester.com/richard_even … e_question
A true evaluation can only be made by looking at the before and after HubPro. Do search engines send more traffic before or after? You cannot randomly add 780 words to a 1,511-word Hub, dilute the successful SEO, and change the tense from third person to first person without affecting traffic to a Hub.
What do Hubbers think – Is the Hub better before or after? In the case of this Hub, I think the 'after' version is a disaster. I think the feedback given on this thread is far more valuable than an unsubstantiated NPS rating.
Why are you trying to 'improve' successful Hubs to begin with? Why don't you try to improve the non-successful Hubs – the ones which never get traffic from search engines? If you want to prove that HubPro is successful, you have to start with unsuccessful Hubs.
It would make the most sense to improve the hubs that do not get good traffic in accounts with other hubs that do get good traffic. Having a few hubs that get good traffic shows that the author's work can be polished to popularity. Perhaps helping such hubbers figure out what exactly is working about their hubs that get good views and assisting them in applying those elements to their non-successful hubs would be a better tack than applying an editing service that leaves the hubs looking spun?
The post-HubPro hubs read like spun articles. If you disagree, ask yourself if any of these elements reminds you of a page of spun content, say, of the kind those folks attacking HP with negative SEO are using to squash any subdomain advantages we may have.
*The content doesn't closely match the title.
*Parts of multiple articles that may disagree with each other or be on different topics from each other are patched together.
*Illustrations are not credited underneath and not consistent in quality or theme throughout. They may be inappropriate to the content.
*The page doesn't flow like an article or an editorial but jumps all over, using multiple voices expressing different opinions while using a first person delivery.
I think we need hub coroners more than we need hub editors. The whole point of a content farm is to make the most money possible off of user-generated content. Spending money to edit pieces of content defeats the purpose of having very cheap writer labor. Applying more expensive and valued labor to individual pieces of content rather than to content authors is a waste of funds.
In my opinion, HubPages should be working on making its writers more valuable rather than trying to make individual pieces of content more valuable.
Please read my last post. It is vital we edit top traffic Hubs first. As to your point, we have received feedback from many Hubbers that have gone back after their Hubs have been HubPro edited and used the principles we applied to their edited Hubs to their other Hubs in their account. That makes us happy!
I'm not sure I understand. Which HubPro Hubs sound spun? Please let me know if you see one!
Our goal is to create a great reader experience and for readers to come to HubPages, trust the content, trust the authors, and want to come back to read more. This is why NPS is our most important metric when evaluating Hubs that are edited.
I think that we have done a lot to help authors, an extensive Learning Center, HubCamps, the Apprenticeship Program, and now HubPro. I hope that we can do more in the future.
Yes, Robin - HubPages has done a lot to help hubbers succeed. Yet HubPro is far from helping us.
Why is this program to continue if there is such an outrage from hubbers about it. Aneegma's issue is well justified and the unethical action of the editor taking liberties is totally uncalled for - and, I am wondering if it is legal.
Aneegma did not agree to any editing of her hubs. She was away and unable, unaware even, to opt out of the program - so, the editor had no right to lock and edit her hubs without her permission. So what if you tried to contact her? Since you did not receive any communication from her, you did not have her permission and input. This is very unethical on the part of HP staff.
Please keep in mind I offer this criticism in the same spirit I suggested to Squidoo that they stop trying to teach lensmasters to make their ad copy read more like articles, editorials, and stories and simply encourage lensmasters to write articles, editorials, and stories instead.
I adore HP's far more ethical and professional standards. I want HP to succeed. I also don't have it in me to see someone making an expensive error without pointing it out.
It looks like the OP has repaired her hubs at least somewhat but if you can take a look at what this one http://aneegma.hubpages.com/hub/Seven-R … vorced-Man looked like two days ago, you'll see what I mean. I'm not saying the original was an example of exceptional professional quality work or that I agree with much at all of its contents but it's certainly far more coherent than what I read the day I wrote my post earlier in this thread.
It contained opposing viewpoints written in first person and advice on how to date divorced men with a title of Seven Reasons Why You Should Never Date a Divorced Man. The writer claims fictional personal experience was added. It disagreed with itself in several places.
Yes, I'm just one of the peasants, but I can tell when something falls extremely far from professional quality work. Our readers can, too. Keeping a single voice and a consistent opinion throughout an entire piece is very important unless the reason for a change of opinion is disclosed.
I don't think the experimental editing style is going to work. I know we'll just have to wait and see.
I don't think I'm wrong about the illustrations, either. They are terribly outdated. Crisp photos are the illustrations of the modern world. Artwork is also acceptable but I don't think that old-fashioned institutional art has a wide appeal. I'm old enough to have been around when some of its kin was still leftover in hand-me-down children's social studies textbooks. It's not something people are going to pin on Pinterest because it isn't stunning, interesting, or emotionally evocative as photos and modern styles of illustration can be. Illustrations are extremely important.
I don't even have any particular nostalgia for the art style, either. It just reminds me of over-crowded prison-green painted public school classrooms that smelled like mildew and that pink stuff used to clean up vomit. I fail to see its appeal to a post-millennial audience. We can wait and see on that, too.
Changing the hubs that get the most traffic is, in my opinion, messing with success. I think we should be trying to duplicate success instead. HubPages cannot afford to have all the hubs its readers view professionally edited.
We establish a baseline for traffic for Hubs that were published around the same time that the HubPro Hub was originally created. We then look at periods before and after the Hub was edited to establish a traffic baseline. HubPro edited Hubs are outperforming this baseline after they were edited. There is a significant traffic benefit to HubPro edited Hubs when comparing the traffic changes to unedited Hubs.
You are correct in that we don't use a true NPS, but we have modified it for our purposes. Paul has done a lot of work on correlating this modified NPS score and sites hit or not hit by Panda. I will ask Paul to do a post on it. The thresholds have been a strong predictor for sites being hit by Panda. Basically, the higher the NPS score the less likely your site will be hit by Panda. Our site's NPS is below this threshold which is why we are editing Hubs and why the 17 point increase in NPS score is incredibly significant.
Tackling the successful Hubs first is one of the most important topics to discuss. Essentially, if you have a high traffic Hub and you are not improving it, there is a good chance you will lose this traffic. We have seen it over and over again. We always recommend filtering your Hubs in your account by traffic and editing and improving the highest traffic Hubs first. We have a lot of data to support this practice. Improving the highest traffic Hubs is the single best way of increasing the site-wide user engagement factor. We believe this is a critical component to Panda. Highly correlated with edited Hubs is increased dwell times—another critical user-engagement metric.
We will continue to iterate on HubPro. We are putting considerable resources into our editing service and wouldn't be doing so if we weren't fully committed to its importance to the site's future.
It still appears as though you are comparing apples to oranges here. You are comparing a Hub which, before HubPro touched it, was outperforming other Hubs published around the same time. Then you establish a 'baseline' by using traffic stats from the other Hubs published about the same time. You say "HubPro edited Hubs are outperforming this baseline after they were edited." Well, weren't those specific Hubs 'outperforming this baseline' BEFORE they were edited, too? Can you just give the specific stats for the Hub in question – average daily traffic for eight weeks prior to HubPro editing and average daily traffic after HubPro editing? The Hubber says her views fell by 500 visitors a day. What do you say?
I know that you're sold on continuing HubPro, but when I look at what has happened to traffic numbers it is depressing. Since the nine new employees were hired beginning in August to be editors for this program, monthly unique visitors to HP have decreased. Obviously traffic is being lost no matter how much 'improving' HubPro is doing. I believe that the problem is due to poor content on HP which needs 'improving' and not to 'search-engine-popular' Hubs which need 'improving' out of fear that they might lose their great traffic if they are not 'improved.' Unless I see real traffic numbers specifically for HubPro-edited Hubs, before and after editing, I will continue to believe this.
Nine new employees is a lot of salaries to pay without any ROI based on traffic numbers in six months. The Hub 'Seven Reasons Why You Should Never Date a Divorced Man' was receiving 500 visitors a day before it was HubPro edited and its traffic tanked. Have any of the editors written a Hub which consistently receives 500 views a day? No? Then, they probably don't know how to 'improve' a Hub which is getting that kind of traffic and it is dangerous to turn them loose on the best performing Hubs and let them try.
The back and forth between you and Robin is interesting. Robin is saying HubPro is necessary to bump up the traffic of high performing hubs to meet the higher NPS score, in order to avoid being hit by Panda. You are saying HubPro is causing the problem it is suppose to prevent, and you cite the negative effect on Aneegma's high performing hub as a case in point. It was getting 500 views a day. After HubPro editing, the daily traffic tanked. What I see here is a policy issue. And by the way, policies are not written is stone. They can be changed when they don't produce the results for which they were designed, and we can determine this by the available facts within a given period of policy (HubPro) implementation. Let's look at the facts: is HubPro increasing traffic, or reducing it. And while at it, could the writer maintain her voice in HubPro edited hubs.
To HP Staff: Editing a high traffic hub makes little or no sense.
If you look at this scenario from another viewpoint such as: I have Product "A" that has made $1 million, gets high view count (traffic) and continues to make a steady monthly income. I have Product "B" that hasn't made its first million yet, gets so-so traffic and makes very little monthly income.
It stands to reason that Product "A" shouldn't be tampered with if it has been so successful. However Product "B" could use some improvement/evaluation to bring it up to par with Product A." And those are the areas where your editors should be directing their attention - WITH hubber permission.
The saying - If it ain't broke, don't fix it - comes to mind.
On another note, you say you have tons of statistics on how and why HubPro is a worthy project. But from this side of the computer screen, the only statistics that matter are where hubbers see continued views, (some) income, and that they retain the sole ability to update hubs as needed (broken links, new information, etc.). Knowing that someone from your side of the screen can change our content does not sit very well with me.
I opted out of this program for the same reasons as others - I don't want anyone messing with my work. I am the author, no one else.
The job description of editors is not to edit first and then contact the author with the changes. Like many things on HP, we should have to OPT IN to anything new, not OPT OUT for the same reasons as mentioned ...some people have kissed off this site and only come back a few times per year to check on their stats. They shouldn't come back to find themselves in programs they haven't signed up for or to find their hubs altered in any way.
Regarding this hubber: If you didn't get an answer by the second email, logic should have said "maybe they are not a steady HP user." I am horrified that liberties were taken with this author's work to the point of interjecting experiences into the hub that were not the author's, but were the fabrication of the editor - if that was the case.
Since I have given more than my two cents, I will end with the suggestion that HubPro program should be abandoned in its present platform since HP insists on trying to fix things that are not broken while we have so many hubs that are below standard with authors who don't have a handle on grammar, spelling or the English language. This is where editors should be directing their attention and helping people.
Per Robin's statement above:
You can be committed to making a better site here, but not to the detriment of its authors - who are the backbone of this site. Without the authors, the site is nothing. There are a lot of good authors here who don't need to avail themselves of editing services and many are probably better educated and more experienced than some of the editors, given their calibre of writing. It is a bold move for an editor to approach this type of writer.
I understand you have sunk considerable monetary resources into this program (i.e. hiring employees and conducting R & D studies) to get it off the ground. But when you get forums like this one (of which there are a few), it is time to re-evaluate if this was money well-spent or if HP should turn their attention away from this and use their resources elsewhere. I know HP is a business and needs to keep making money on your end, but on our end, besides some passive income, all we have is the writing. If we lose our voice and that writing doesn't remain our own, then we have nothing.
So very true, Rachel, and very well said. Thank you. This forum thread should send a strong message that all the effort, time and money spent on HubPro can be directed to better tasks that will benefit us all.
I hope they pay attention.
I'm having feelings of Squidoo deja vu when the cheerleaders come out. Squidoo forgot it had writers, too. They forgot they had a completely free resource that ran on respect and common courtesy.
If the only motivation you give for writing is money, the money must be enough to attract quality. If you pay peanuts and provide no non-monetary motivation you will attract a lot of people who are just suffering and desperate for money. If you provide plenty of non-monetary motivation you will attract mostly writers who are desperate to be read instead.
IMO it's entirely unprofessional to edit anybody's copyrighted work without their consent. It should never happen period.
If you don't get an answer to an email then you don't take any action - unless and until you have received a written or digital acknowledgement that the account owner has read about and understands the default position re HubPro.
I seem to recall that Squidoo used to have a very useful feature which they used periodically whereby nobody could access the site and everybody had to digitally acknowledge that they had read about a change before access was granted. It worked very well with respect to knowing who did and who didn't know what had been changed. (Hence if there is no digital acknowledgement of the situation re HubPages then you cannot take any action)
If you have an "opt in" default then you MUST ensure people have read about the default position and understand what it means BEFORE HubPages Editors take any action on their copyrighted material - otherwise IMO it's an infringement of their copyright.
If HubPages has not got informed consent of people to editing action then IMO you must make HubPro OFF as the default status.
I'd suggest a site-wide alert or change the default status of HubPro.
This is why new features should always be OPT IN rather than opt out.
As it is, the default is to subject users to every new feature and put the burden on them to opt out. What about people who rarely log in or take a long hiatus and just collect their passive income? They come back and discover they're opted in to a bunch of features they didn't want. It's almost unbelievable that HP unleashes something as disruptive as unsolicited editing on unsuspecting users!
I agree. I hate opt-out-only programs in any venue!! I think it is sneaky and underhanded at best.
All programs, whether paid memberships in any organization, or editing "opportunities" such as this should always be opt-in only!!
This is why I immediately opted OUT the moment I learned of this new program, and the fact that we had a choice in the matter.
As I wrote in a reply to a creative writing professor, who wanted to make such substantial changes to one of my poems that it would no longer even have sounded as if I had been the author: "I work long and hard to birth my poems. Who would edit them, dismembers my children!"
Very well said. I have been thinking the same thing. It is rather like a trickster type thing to have the hubber automatically "in" HubPro and make them "opt out" IF they are aware that they were automatically put in a new, untested program.
Wow, I'd be shocked if I logged in and found my hubs totally changed, including images. Some (not all) of my articles are quite personal to me and based entirely on my own experience. I don't mind editorial feedback, but I sure wouldn't want someone unknown to me changing content that's already been made public--including that editor's changes. I'd want the opportunity to decide which changes to accept and which to deny and THEN make the revised content public.
As a novelist, when I've worked with an editor, I've had the opportunity to review all "suggested" edits--to accept or reject those edits. Sometimes, the end result is something different than what my editor suggested and what I'd originally written. Once I've reviewed everything and feel comfortable with it, then it's published. Not before.
Wow. Those illustrations. HP needs to know how horribly outdated those illustrations look.
I'm sure they are considered of decent quality for illustrations of their type but that type of illustration is more more suitable for a low budget 1980s employee handbook or 1970s elementary textbook than a 21st century anything. Truly, this is not the sort of retro that is trendy.
I think it might be work considering that many hubbers are at just as amazing as the editors. And thus their work should not be modified unless they actually reply to the solicitation email. That way the hubber could explain why some features might be worth keeping.
I notice the stats don't allow one to see whether any hubbers were poorer performers after editing than before? In fact the metric used is subjective and not the hub's actual traffic, or traffic ranking in terms of traffic in relation to other hubs, (which would control for overall traffic changes). Or its earning power similarly expressed.
Aneegma, I just looked at the before and after editing of you Hub about dating divorced men. You are right; that isn't your Hub anymore. The editor added 780 words of content, an increase of 52%! I doubt if the traffic will increase that much.
What I really found creepy though is that the editor interjected personal experiences for you that you never mentioned and obviously never discussed with an editor since the whole re-write was a huge surprise to you. Suddenly, this is a personal, made-up story about your experiences dating divorced men.
How did this editor make up a story about your getting "paranoid" and "irritated" with the ex wife when you never mentioned that in the original version? Since this is online now, I hope people you know don't see this.
And, by the way, traffic to the entire HP site took a huge downturn beginning on September 25 after massive amounts of content were uploaded from the failed Squidoo.com site. Check your traffic stats from December before the editing started to compare the effect.
This is exactly why I opted out, because I don't want people tampering with my writing. Writers have a personal attachment to their words and unless solicited, no one should change them.
HP should consider letting hubbers opt in before any editing begins.
This is wrong on so many levels. I am (also) gobsmacked that the editors have taken such liberties with her work. Yikes. "Editors" making up stories to add to our "personal" experiences shared here is just not acceptable. And the illustrations? They look like comic books from the fifties.
O...M...G. I'm shocked and really ... well, disgusted. Whoever that editor is should be fired. A professional, legit editor should NEVER make up stories and add bogus content -- really should not add much content at all -- to your work. They can SUGGEST you add content, but to actually write it?
These editors are not billed as ghostwriters, so they should not be engaging in that type of activity. Editing and ghostwriting are two very different things.
Shame on them.
I agree. The editor's job is to make suggestions. The changes should only occur after you approve said suggestions. Even publishing houses wait for your approval before editing your work. This is ridiculous and unprofessional!
Exactly! The bloody daft editor added words to my mouth and invented new false experience for me. Worse off they add a stupid " Dos and Don'ts" of dating divorced men which I never conveyed im y original hub. And they took away my original pictures!! Arrrgh I've never been so annoyed on HP before now!!! !!!!
I completely agree.. that incompetent editor should be fired. They have no right to change my hub like that especially without my consent!
Thank you so much for sharing your experience with the rest of us. This has really opened my eyes to the negatives of this program. I wish I could opt out immediately.
oh I'm not sure but I got emails from Robin and Emily after I posted this thread so not sure which one them ruined my masterpiece.
Thank you for taking the trouble to look at it and I thought I was going mad that my hub was changed. Whoever edited it completely changed what I was conveying in that hub. All hubs I write are usually based on my experience and I don't want some "editor" messing with my work without my approval. I'm so glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is madness. It's absolutely atrocious program and people shouldn't be forced to edit their hubs without their consent. The whole point of hubpages is so people express themselves freely without being subjected to a grammar and rubbish editing class!
The sad thing is that it's not the first time somebody started a thread exactly like this, discovering their hubs were edited for the worse.
I am so sorry this has happened to you, Aneegma - I would be furious in this situation if it were my hubs.
I agree with you, it is so very wrong for an editor to take liberties and change your voice which makes the hub no longer yours.
These are exactly the type issues I feared when HubPro was created and a group of editors (who are no better writers than most hubbers) were hired - and that is why I opted out.
No hubber should have to deal with what Aneegma is facing. Although she did not opt out, because she was away, a HubPro editor should not touch anyone's work without permission from the author. This is highly unethical.
The money being spent to pay editor's to change hubs could be better used to pay the backbone of HubPages: the writers. For us writers who are making far less since the major changes over the last year, this whole issue is an outrage.
OMG, really, Writer Fox? This is what you found? Aneegma, so sorry to hear what you're going through. I really don't understand this.
Thanks for the feedback. We are still in Beta of HubPro and we are listening to your feedback and making changes that best serve the community and the long-term viability of the site. Improving the quality on HubPages is our #1 priority, and we will continue to iterate on this goal in HubPro. It is a very important piece of the puzzle. We care about Hubbers and their voice, but we also have strong data that says that readers could be much more satisfied with the content on HubPages. We are working to find the balance. In the meantime, Hubbers should know that HubPro edited Hubs are up 15% in traffic, compared to the HubPages baseline, and reader satisfaction is up 17 points (a huge increase).
I think You're missing the point Robin. I personally don't give a hoot about traffic and statistics. My annoyance is simple. You have taken away my work and replaced it with yours without my consent. If you guys want to start editing people's hubs, ASK THEM FIRST AND THEN WORK WITH THEM AND NOT JUST CHANGE THEIR WHOLE HUBS AND WIPING OFF THEIR IDENTITY WITHOUT TELLING THEM!!
Most of us hubbers come here to express ourselves and traffic and money making is secondary to our purpose. We are all attached to our words and you editing is like telling us to buzz off and go find another arena to express yourself in. If you HP want professional writing then get rid of every hubber and just let "your professionals" provide you with content. I think this program must be stopped as it degrades every writer. No writer should feel like their work is useless and that is what this new editing rubbish is. Every hubber must have the choice to opt in and not be forced to opt in. I think you should let hubbers decide if they want to program to continue. Personally I ask you politely.. STAY CLEAR OF MY HUBS AND RETURN MY ORIGINAL HUBS PLEASE. I DON'T CARE ABOUT TRAFFIC AND WHAT NOTE. MY WORK COMES FIRST!!
Being in beta is no excuse for editors not following the procedures for editing as told to us, the site authors, as they were stated by HubPages.
There should NEVER be a thread like this, where someone comes to the forums and has no clue why or who edited their Hubs. And this is not the first time this has happened.
Relache, thanks for the comment. We sent the author three emails before finishing her Hubs. One asking for feedback in adding content, like we say we will in the FAQ and in the blog post. Unfortunately, the author didn't respond to any of our emails.
Then your policy should be to abandon editing in these cases. No response doesn't mean 'yes,' it means the author is not checking her email and has no idea what's happening. This is because HP default opted everyone in, including people who rarely log in to stay up-to-date on new features.
No response is not consent. I can't say that enough.
The logic behind HubPages decision to interpret no response as consent seems to me as akin to saying rape or robbery victims are responsible for being assaulted becaue they didn't tell their attacker they didn't want to be attacked first.
THANK YOU!! Just because I didn't respond doesn't mean go ahead and screw up my hubs!! I didn't respond because I never got any emails. I checked my mail box and even my spam box and there was nothing. If I didn't stop by when I had some free time, they would have turned all my hubs into children stories. I think they now want to be in control of hubbers content which is a big fat NO from me.!!
Aneegma: Go to Edit Profile. The Hub Pro, Editors choice is near bottom. Simply click NO so that you can opt out of those programs so that editors don't change your hubs to their hubs.
I'll make this short....
One point that seems to have been left behind here is that, according to previous posts, phoney personal experience and anecdotes were added to the hub by the HubPro editor. That is NOT okay. That's actually unethical. I do some professional editing myself, and I can't imaging crossing that line.
What is important is how that exact hub performs (e.g. traffic or earnings) relative to other hubs and whether that relative performance improves. If that is what is being done, wow it could be more simply explained?
Plenty of people here understand complex statistics, so you could share exactly what the metric actually is.
According to the FAQ section for HubPro, at #48 under HubPages Features and Functions http://hubpages.com/faq/#HubPro-Beta
the list of things the editor will do was not properly followed:
HubPages editors will:
Proofread for spelling and grammar mistakes
Update the information in Hubs
Improve layout and structure
Add supplementary capsules
Obtain high-quality media assets (illustrations)
Remove unrelated links and products
Communicate with Hubbers about the changes made to their Hubs
Provide a document with the before and after changes highlighted
Where does it say "the editor will have the right to change text and add statements which they think the author should have written - even if the statements are not true."?
In that case, the lack of a response from the author was permission NOT given--not implied consent. Someone could be traveling and without internet or in the hospital or any number of situations that might prevent them from receiving or seeing emails. In that case, why would an editor not simply abstain from adding content, writing bogus first-person content, or editing the hub at all? This just makes no sense to me.
I don't mean to pile on but if HubPages is serious about considering our work as copyrighted to ourselves, making a derivative work should not commence until explicit permission is given by the author
THANK YOU ALL HUBBERS FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS!
I am beyond furious that my work has been tampered with without my permission. The HP staff seem to be incompetent in understanding how my work and every hubber's work belongs to them and not the HP staff!! If you want to own our work then ASK US FIRST AND GET OUR CONSENT!! My hubs were doing perfectly fine without your intrusion and I don't need your edits (which were completely rubbish by the way) If you're going to test this krappy new method of yours, why not use it on hubs that are not performing well??
Seems to me these editors have been brought in so they could steal our work sneakingly and call it theirs. This is copyright infringement and you are taking away our freedom of writing in peace without some sneaky editor secretly stealing our work. Again I want my original hub back and I don't care for any of your explanations. I can't even access the hubs you've ruined now as you've locked it out. I have opted out of this madness and I want my original work back.
P.S. CAN I ASK HUBBERS.. IF THEY DON'T RESTORE MY ORIGINAL WORK CAN I SUE THEM??
This just gets worse and worse. Now I see that the 'editor' has removed about 650 words she added to your content, but the phony personal experiences are still there. Google crawled and stored a cache of the first edited version, but doesn't have this latest release yet.
Seriously, if these changes keep up you may never get your search engine traffic back.
I know that the integrity of your writing is more important to you than the income, but I do think HP should reimburse you for the income you lost due to the unauthorized HubPro editing of your Hubs. The ethical thing to do is to certainly pay you. Secondly, I think you are due an apology. Thirdly, I can't imagine why you still can't edit your own Hub after asking several times on this forum and by email. That is inexcusable.
Going by the links Writer Fox provided to the original hub and to the first and second edits, the edited versions are AWFUL! The pictures used are ghastly. Even worse, the editor has changed what was a reasonable text into a fake life story like the ones published by those lowest of low-quality "true life" magazines that are only read by the trashiest elements of society.
If anything like this ever happens to my writing, I will delete the hub concerned immediately and place the material elsewhere.
I opted out of hub-pro (more like hub-amateur in my view!) as soon as I heard of it, but would not be surprised if one day it becomes mandatory to all who write here.
Any site that wants to make a program of this type mandatory is exercising "Hitler-ism" and infringing on your right to free speech. If and when anything like this becomes mandatory, it is time to move on to a site (or start one) where the writer's voice and copyright is honored. Help is one thing. Rewriting one's work so that it doesn't resemble the original is theft.
This editor's bio is almost schizophrenic in the way it was written. If she wrote it herself, I hold out no hope for anyone she mentors with her editing. You can read about Emily Drevets at the bottom of staff page here:
Now, I just reviewed Writer Fox's links and I didn't get past the first two screens - the hubber's original and the editor's first crack at editing.
I am appalled at how this editor changed the first few paragraphs (the ones that grab the reader's attention), took out the author's eye catching first pix, put in a "canned" pix (who would want to pin that?!) and then interjected "personal experience" as if it was coming from the hubber.
The hubber did not write this as a testimonial. Her approach was not FIRST PERSON, so the editor had no right to add "I" to any part of this hub.
The original was an objective look at the subject.
The editor's first draft was an outright testimonial giving the impression of vast experience (expertise) in the subject matter.
We are encouraged to use our own photos but the editor used kindergarten clip art (entry level clip art). True, the hubber didn't use her own pictures or even provide sources for the ones she did use.
But in my opinion, the pictures the hubber found online are infinitely better (real) than clip art. If she wrote PINTEREST as a source (no link required), it would have been acceptable.
Lastly, any article that has 109 comments is clearly an article that doesn't need "improvement with HP's editors."
It already has traffic which clearly shows the article has good reader engagement.
NOTE TO HP: If it ain't broke, don't mess around with it.
They should go pick on hubbers who have little or no comments and whose hubs that read like they were written by a first grader.
This hubber should never have been targeted in the first place.
This article should never been targeted. I see another similar hub that the author should guard with her life - about divorced women.
HP never waited for a response from hubber to BEGIN editing this hub, thereby infringing on your copyright.
Yes, Aneegma, you do have legitimate beef here, but your chances of bringing a lawsuit to a successful (monetary) conclusion are slim to none because of the way HP has their TOS laid out. Their FAQ's, blog posts, email blasts, and special announcements are their "cover my ass" defense.
Their OPT OUT system is their security blanket because it implies hubber consent if you don't OPT OUT.
If their system were set up where all hubbers had to OPT IN, you'd have a good case because you clearly didn't OPT IN.
I still can't wrap my head around the fact that HP says they contacted you and when they got no response, in their eyes, that meant they had the ALL CLEAR to go ahead and edit (i.e. totally rewrite) your article, one that had stellar reader engagement with 109 comments, not to mention over 4400 responses in the exit poll!!!
The only issue I saw was providing attribution (sources) for your pictures, and can be easily remedied. Almost anything like you quote picture can be found on Pinterest. A simple line saying "PINTEREST" with the URL (but without a live link) would have sufficed.
As a point of interest, the editor who used the kindergarten clip art, provided absolutely no photo attribution under each picture either.
This whole forum is an excellent lesson to all hubbers how our work can go from being our own to becoming something totally different - when there is a program like this in place.
The second lesson is to check back to the site more often if HP is going to continue using these types of tricks to undermine articles that get proven traffic (evidenced by the 109 comments and over 4400 poll responses!).
I still can't believe this editor was so bold to target a hub whose comments and poll responses proved reader engagement and traffic numbers. Clearly the article was not in need of editing for anything like lack of engagement. To edit a high traffic hub is to shoot it in the foot. If HP wants to cut off its nose to spite its face, targeting high traffic hubs for editing will decrease traffic here in no time at all. It's just plain stupid. HP promises help to hubbers who need it. There are plenty who do need it and come here hoping for it. If HP keeps giving help to those successful hubbers who are not in need and don't want it, new blood coming here will leave very quickly.
Anyway, I hope you don't jump ship to leave the site, that you have ticked off the OPT OUT radio button so they can't go after any more of your hubs and that you continue to rack up 100+ comments because you are clearly doing far better than I. I should be so lucky to get 109 comments. lol (I'm not jealous or envious, just in awe of your stats).
This is why you should have a copy of all of your articles saved.
Anyway, I don't know the title of your hub that HP so called editors ruined.
Go to waybackmachine dot com and put in the URL of the hub if you have it. If not, put in your HP url for your HP account. I found one called seven reasons why you should never date a divorced man. The one i found is not like the one that shows now on your profile page under the same title.
You can find your old work on the wayback machine most of the time.
If you have trouble finding it, send email to me through my profile page. I will see if I can find the one you are seeking and send a copy to you via email.
Try contacting Better Business Bureau.
Linda, I like your tip. This is a great community with great ideas.
I mentioned this early on in this forum thread. If you would like the history of what has happened to this Hub, the original version of her Hub is here.
First edited version by HubPro is
Second edited version by HubPro is now live from her Profile
This is only one of three Hubs which were subjected to HubPro editing.
You can get a real indication of how successful this Hub was before all the editing began by looking at the Poll at the bottom: "4449 people have voted in this poll."
Oh wow! Thanks for the before and after links. What I noticed immediately is that Amazon and Ebay capsules in the original have disappeared in the Hub Pro edited piece. I'm not sure why? If anyone could enlighten me on this I would appreciate it. The new artwork doesn't work for me. And I would say the edited version has lost its vitality. It's lost it's vigor. It is bland, wishy washy, not a good re-write. If I was the author I would be furious.
I hate the first paragraph of the edited version. The second sentence makes little grammatical sense to me, " Everyone can relate to experiences where she feels that she found the one, only to be disappointed, hurt, or even depressed after a bad breakup." The editor right there starts the sentence with "everyone" then switches to "she". That is NOT proper grammar! I would have said "Most women can relate..." instead of using the word everyone.
The only thing wrong with the first hub was the layout. I would have suggested a better more eye catching layout and then take it from there. The layout in the edited version is NOT that great.
It might have been done by Hubpages team during the Hubpages edit promo. Contact them and ask them about it.
WF: The original version is the one I found on Wayback Machine. There are others on there. One thing for sure, If HP does not restore hub back to the way it was, this hubber can do it themselves even if a copy of original was not saved.
Apparently, she's still locked out of her own Hub! Search engines will be by any moment now to catch this latest HubPro edit. It's a disaster!
What???? You can't edit your hub after the HP editors have messed with it? That's a not good. I can imagine how I would feel if I can't even access my own work. That's way too much! Jeez, How could HP think to do such a thing?
I believe somewhere she said they were still waiting for images they had commissioned to come in. I think that is why the hub(s) is/are still locked.
The new images have been up for more than a week now, at least since January 26. Tell us your opinion of these "high-quality media assets (illustrations)":
http://aneegma.hubpages.com/hub/Seven-R … vorced-Man
I have one word for those "illustrations", NO!!!!
I have one word for them, too. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to post that word on the forum.
By the way, how come nobody teaches these HubPro editors the importance of a good Alt tag?
cheap clip art - my grandchildren can create better clip art than these examples. If HP is paying high $$ for these pix, they're getting ripped off. No wonder hubbers aren't making good money if HP funds are wasted on pix like these.
I have saved the original articles but not the pictures. Should I just do it manually then and put in new pictures?
I'm so glad you got your Hub(s) back!
I thought there was supposed to be a way within the HubPro system to show you where the edits were made, etc. I can't really say, because I opted out the moment it was announced. However, here are your pictures:
Just save them to your computer and put them back in.
You can find an archive for all of the pictures you have ever uploaded here:
Thank you so much, you're saint!! Thanks!
Can you send me the link to my original hub? I can't remember the sequence of my pictures haha!
Aneegma, when two of my hubs were edited, I was able to see the original copy.
Click on the edit in your substistics and at the bottom, you will see your original piece and copy it out. You can them delete/clear the one you have after the hubpro and add your old piece.
Hub could be locked for weeks.
So glad I first opted out, and then finally deleted all of my hubs and moved them.
One option is to start copying hubs, and the URL. Delete them, use the Google Url removal tool on each one, and move them elsewhere. The copy of the original is available, so grab that one, and put it elsewhere.
Go to Paul Edmonsons profile and send him an email about this situation. I doubt if he will do anything, but worth a try anyway.
Since his wife, Robin, appears to be in charge of the HubPro program, I'm sure he already knows about this situation.
As already shown, we won't get more than a Hub Pro Flag Waving response about how wonderful the program is.
Lock out of hubs is a tactic Squidoo used.
I believe that it is better to ask for what you want instead of just complaining about what you don't like.
This is my understanding of what we are asking:
1. HubPro should be an opt-in program. I understand that you can catch abandoned writing by making it opt-out, but the writers have the copyright, and you can't change their work without their permission.
2. The changes need to be made with communication from the Hubber. You should suggest the changes to the Hubber and get permission to make the suggested changes to the hub.
3. All of the introductions of the editors on the blog seem to reiterate that the spirit and voice of the Hubber will be taken into consideration during the editing process. Please make sure that this is followed. There is no excuse for adding false personal information in a hub. When a Hubber has brought up something personal, she has taken care to say only what she feels comfortable being said. The things that are omitted are probably omitted for a reason.
4. Do not lock the hub up forever. If you are commissioning images, do the commissioning first. Do the work on a word processing program and then copy and paste it to the hub after you have permission. The hub should not be locked for more than the half an hour it takes to simply put in the changes that you have been given permission to put in.
5. The changes should not be focused on the most trafficked hubs. Sure, you can recommend some grammar and spelling edits on those, but those hubs should be left as close to the original as possible. Focus on the second tier - the ones that should have traffic but haven't yet. They are the ones that will bring more traffic and revenue to HubPages.
6. Find better images. I saw a hub at the beginning of the program that had images added, but some original images remained. They made the hub have a very inconsistent feel, with photographs as well as illustrations.
I've been excited about the potential of HubPro from the very beginning. I was hoping that I could get help with my weakness, which is SEO. I think it still has potential to help Hubbers learn to write articles better, but it must be handled very carefully. We need to make sure that the editing helps Hubbers grow their skills instead of ruining their relationships and losing their traffic.
You have a better shot at getting immediate help in forums than you do with the HubPro program in its present state. Forum help has proven to be invaluable- at least to me.
One HP editor can only give you their one opinion. In the forums, you are open to a multitude of possibilities which can give you more ideas on which way to go with your article.
Only HP would hire an editor without one qualification for the job.
AGAIN I THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
One more question.. They have finally let me access my hubs. But I cant seem to see where I should go to retrieve the original hub with my pictures. Can any one tell me how to revert back to my original hub so that people see the old one back?
I have now opted out of this rubbish editing krap. I'm honestly afraid of publishing another article. I'm not convinced that turned off opt out thing is for real. They can do this with or without opt out. I've just lost confidence in HP now and had it not been for you hubbers I'd jump ship by now.. still considering it though.
I opted out early and have not had anyone mess with my hubs. maybe that should give you a little reassurance. I am so sorry this happened to you. I am really finding it hard to continue with HP. I don't think Paul is understanding where the hubbers are coming from. I think they see this program as great and will continue as they have started. I hope they make changes t their policies soon, especially about getting consent to edit hubs prior to starting.
If you've opted out you've opted out, they will not do any more editing.
Communicate with Hubbers about the changes made to their Hubs
Provide a document with the before and after changes highlighted
Receive a final notice when the editor is finished with their Hubs. This notice will include a list of all Hubs that were edited along with a list of pages (diffs) that show the changes that were applied to each Hub.
Have the option to communicate directly with their editor by replying to any of the email notices.
Have the option to revert any changes they are not satisfied with after their Hubs are unlocked.
http://blog.hubpages.com/2014/07/31/int … bpro-beta/
WriteAngled: I wouldn't even call that attempts because it being so bad.
I think it would be wiser to discuss the issue in a Hubpages/procedural way rather than starting to single out specific editors and pass judgement on them.
If the goal it to engage with Hubpages and improve procedures, that is.
It is the specific individuals doing this job who affect the ultimate fate of the hub in question and also writer satisfaction.
I would have no objections to discussing my hubs with an individual whose qualifications, experience and use of language provided sufficient credibility to engender trust.
Even then, though, I would consider and maybe act on suggestions from such a person, but certainly would never permit him/her to change the content of my hubs unilaterally.
Looking at the profiles of the new editors on the Team page, Iwasn't able to locate a subdomain for any editor here on HubPages to show us their writing skills. So that is an issue that should be addressed. It might give the hubber some confidence in their editor's skills.
The editor's changes should be suggestions to the hubber, preferably on a draft of the hub, and not actual changes on the hub.
I understand the freezing of the hub by editor, but once it is released back to the hubber, the robots are also picking it up as new content and it is stored in cache. Otherwise, Writer Fox wouldn't have been able to retrieve archived copies of Aneegma's hub.
Why can't HP offer a draft form to be used between hubber & editor as a working canvas so that the robots don't roam each editor release as changed content?
I think hubbers should be able to:
1) change anything back to the way it was in the beginning.
2) delete one or more things the editor "suggested" or actually changed.
3) have no hard feelings between hubber and editor if the hubber decided to not take editor's advice.
I found the Profiles and wrote a synopsis here:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/128471? … ost2704223
You can make your own evaluation:
http://alisonmonroe.hubpages.com – No Hubs
http://wangbetty.hubpages.com – One Hub
http://katieharper.hubpages.com – No Hubs
http://brandongordon.hubpages.com – No Hubs
http://katerix.hubpages.com – No Hubs
http://rebeccaschuetz.hubpages.com – 2 Hubs
http://helenabonde.hubpages.com – 2 Hubs
http://editoranna.hubpages.com – 2 Hubs
Emily Drevets – No Profile
I thank you for the links, but not necessary. I trust you implicitly. You would never say something in a public forum without having sources to back it up. As to your findings, I agree with you. How can a hubber have confidence in someone who hasn't produced hubs on HP? How can a hubber call someone an editor who has NO experience in their bio blurb on Meet The Team page? I wrote similar note under Paul's comment on the other forum.
Typos on the first one I read. Not a good sign.
On a side-note, it is interesting that many of the prominent commentators, advice providers and critics in the Forums have written very few hubs in the last few months.
So a group of people who have NEVER written a hub have been commissioned to ruin other people's work? They are getting paid to ruin the reputation and talents of hubbers?? Just when I thought HP couldn't get any worse.
If these editors are strictly editing for grammar, spelling and clarity, and cleaning up problematic formatting (let's face it, some hubbers are good writers but have no eye for page composition and overuse the bold and italics) then I don't care if they produce any content here, or if they are successful at getting lots of traffic. All they need to be is good proofreaders as far as I'm concerned.
The problem, of course, is that they are doing way the hell more than just proofreading! I would sign up in a minute if all they did was clean up my typos.
Also, Emily Drevets's profile does exist; it's drevets.hubpages.com
Hub authors DO have the right to do all those things. Where did you get the idea that they can't?
It's just you have to wait for the editor to get done changing your Hub and for them to unlock it again so you have access, and then you can do whatever you want with your Hub again.
I am not much of a forum person but I am here out of concern that one of my highest preforming hubs, which was edited through HubPro, has seen a decline in views, it is simply sad for me to watch the numbers go down.
While I did pick up a few tips through this editing process that can be applied to other hubs, a benefit, it is just hard to watch a high performing hub drop in numbers. I am not sure if I should wait and see if the views will turn around or hurry up and switch back to the original version.
Thank you, Tracy, for coming to this thread and sharing your experience. That's really important.
What do you think were the changes that did the most damage?
Thanks for the welcome!
It is hard to know, Relache. With so many changes it has certainly made me think. My guess, as Susana suggested, is that the title would have been better left the way it was. I know that I tweaked the title a few times to get it to where it was in the first place. I also plan to make some layout changes, back to the original.
Was the title changed?
I had an issue with some of my titles being altered slightly and that made quite a lot of difference (as you would expect). I changed the titles back and after several months the traffic returned to previous levels.
Yes, the title was changed, ever so slightly, but I would not be surprised if this would effected the volume of views. I will try changing it back and see if that helps.
Thanks for the advice!
What happened to my hubs?
I left them for a while and came back... and nothing has changed.
They are still all crap.
I was hoping someone would have changed the words about - given them a bit of a lift. Put some proper photos on and made them more - well - you know - salesy.
I'm mad as a box of frogs about this.
Of course it is my fault for opting out. The only reason I did that was because the writing and pictures are the only frigging thing left I have any control over. Hands off!
Alright, already. I'll turn off the typo detector. I just can't help myself. Literally, I have typos, too. (Some people see dead people, I see typos.) Arggh.
I see typos, too, Peg. It is simply hard to see them on an article that was written by anyone who has been selected to be an editor of other people's articles.
I heard that all of the illustrators HP hired for HubPro are looking for you.
What a distressing thing to have happen to your hubs while you were away Aneegma, especially as you didn't even know about Hub Pro. I fail to see why the most popular hubs need to be edited. It would make more sense for hubs like mine that don't get a lot of Google traffic to be given some extra help...but after reading this I don't think I want it, even though I probably never have to worry as what I write only appeal to other hubbers.
Thanks John! I think hubbers have spoken and if they keep up this nonsense they will have to close shop. I seriously hope they remove this Hub Pro thing. I can honestly say its a complete disaster based on the sufferings I've incurred from this. Thanks John!
After reading this whole thread from top to bottom I must admit I am disgusted with what has gone on here.
Where is this ship going anyway? Why are they rearranging deckchairs instead of patching the hole on the Titanic?
Sort out the old Squidoo craperoonie and non English spam and keep all the good writers (including the good ex-Squidoo writers) without editing their high trafficked hubs - I don't know how much simpler I can state it!
I find myself most deeply puzzled as to why they can't see how terrible those illustrations are. I don't know why they can't see they are a waste of money and will have a negative impact. They are unattractive and old-fashioned in a way that doesn't even inspire nostalgia in older people.
Readers will not know that HP paid some outrageous amount for them; they will just assume the blogger couldn't be bothered to do anything but use some old-fashioned clip art to illustrate her post.
Don't they read magazines, newspapers, popular websites, or ezines of any sort?
A qualified HP editor would have insisted on photo attribution in the original hub, and hence in the replacement "commissioned illustrations" as well.
Someone created them, HP doesn't own them, so some kind of source should have been listed.
Whether they were horrible or not, it is the principle of the thing. If hubbers have to follow the rules for photo attribution, then editors replacing photos should have to follow the same rules.
I completely agree. Adding fictional personal experience to articles shows they aren't playing by ethical rules so I figured I'd point to the glaring, obvious thing that will cost them money.
The terrible illustrations are important to point out. They will drive readers away.
HubPages doesn't need to attribute images they own.
If a hubber did the stupid things that were done to the hub, it would have been unpublished, unfeatured for low quality.
"Who messed with my hubs??!!"
I guess it's time to fess up. It was me.
Now they've made it (at least since I've been here) so that No is checked, and is the default for Hubpro, and if you want to participate you check yes, whereas before, according to what I read somewhere on Hubpages, yes was the default
Edit: This is where I read it, and it says they have to have your consent to edit your hub
It is a violation of one's copyright to edit their work. I smell lawsuit heck about to break lose.
MichaelMcNabb: People have a choice, to opt in or opt out of this ridiculous program. This issue is that the so-called editors who don't have the qualifications or even hubs of their own, are tearing apart hubs, turning them into crap, and not doing what the program says they are to do. HP needs to put a leash on their so called editors.
That assessment is a bit strong isn't it? More than 1000 hubs have been edited and I've seen 2 people complain. That says to me most people are happy.
Having run organisations myself, it's realistic to expect new programs to need adjusting over time.
Destroying one hub is one to many. Not following their own procedures is wrong. Not involving hubber is wrong. There have been multiple complaints, the same complaints repeatedly. People have not turned around and opted out because these people are doing a wonderful job. Consider the fact that HP has ignored the complaints , so there are those who have decided to not bother to openly complain in the forums. Just because you don't see it in the forums doesn't mean there isn't a lot of disgusted hubbers.
Something is not "destroyed" when it can very easily and quickly be reinstated.
Equally, it also doesn't mean there are not plenty of hubbers happy with their hubpro experience.
People are most vocal when they've got something to complain about, not when things are good. Aren't they?
Really? You have an editor rewriting your stuff? Shouldn't that be your first clue that you're not writing good enough, or to their expectations? Shouldn't you be learning from that revelation?
Actually, they are starting with the hubs with the highest views on the site.
My work has been edited by magazine editors, script editors, professional web editors, and Cambridge textbook editors so I'm familiar with the editing process and results. Many other hubbers have similar experience with professional editors. Also, many of us read popular websites and online magazines with large readerships so we know what professionally edited web content looks like.
People are upset by the quality of the editing. If it were comparable to professional editing services, I think the OP would have been pleased by it instead of upset. I was opted in to HubPro before I saw the results because I'd be delighted to have a professional editor with editing credits to her name take her hand to my hubs.
* The hub title must match the hub contents. The OP's hub did before editing and did not after editing.
* Professional editing does not include the addition of fictional personal experiences. Fictional personal experiences were added to the OP's hub.
* Maintaining a single voice throughout a hub is important. The OP's hub was changed to a first person perspective and changed so that the writing voice disagreed with itself on the page.
* Sentences stuck together in clumps should form intelligible paragraphs, never switching voice or topic without a transition. After editing, the OP's hub had paragraphs that read like spun content.
* Duplicate content is not allowed on HubPages, yet the same multi-point list with a few words changed was added to two different hubs during the editing process.
The problem isn't that the hubs were edited; it's that the hubs were not professionally edited to the standards we are used to seeing in print publications and on popular websites.
No professional editor has ever edited my work without informing me of the changes and giving me proofs to look over before applying changes. In fact, professional editors don't write big chunks of material to add to articles at all; they tell the writer what to add and then check that material over after the assignment is completed. It also takes professional editors less than five hours per article to do these things.
They are making things a lot harder on themselves than they need to be and making the process less efficient by doing so. A professional editor could do the SEO research and send an email off to the writer in under an hour, giving suggestions. The writer could make those changes right on the hub and drop an email to the editor. Then the editor could tweak a few things here and there, improving flow and correcting grammar in under an hour and send an email to the writer so she could look at the results. In many cases, that would be all that was needed. That's all magazine editors do in most cases. If the hubber really had problems writing, it might take a few more interactions.
I'm not on the Hub Pages site very often, so I've just had my first opportunity to take a look at the Hubpro editors program.
The editors are truly a well educated and experienced bunch, but I didn't see any background in writing or editing online content. I'm not sure that webinar content counts, as it usually plays to a captive audience and doesn't have to reel readers in with SEO short sentences.
My daughter has a Phd in Slavic Languages and is a university professor. My son in law is a Law professor/Yale English graduate. Both have authored and edited books, but I wouln't want either one of them editing my online content. They have no experience in online cotent, other then web bios.
I learned from years of writing for Yahoo sites, Yahoo's online writing course, and the "Yahoo Style Guide" that online content writing is a totally different animal from offline writing. The sentence structure and formatting are not the same.
I'm happy to see that it is an option, yet sad to see that it has alienating some of the writers.
Hey... meet the editors who edit the pages...look,to the right.. yeah, up in the right corner of your screen...Hub Pages Blog: Meet Emily Drevets and Meet Helena Bonde... You can even leave them a comment on their intro page.
According to Robin, a Hubpages editor, the only way to ensure they do not edit or alter your hubs is to leave. Please read her email below:
At this point you have a few options. One, you can leave the Hubs as is and see how they do (this is what we recommend). Two, you can edit the Hubs as long as they're within HubPages policies (adding spammy elements back will risk their featured status). Third, you can delete the Hubs. Removing Hubs is the only way to ensure that your work will never be edited per our TOS.
Please note: She is referring to hubs that had affiliated links (no more than 3) and were also Editors choice and never flagged for spam. GO FIGURE!
So this means even if you opt out of hub pro editing, the TOS state they can do whatever they want.
This means they can edit your work - and every hub on here.
by Kristin Kaldahl 3 days ago
I have 37 articles on PetHpful that are undergoing editing....AGAIN. This happens a lot. I'm expected to go into each article, read it, fix the mistakes the editors put into my articles, and repost the articles. I have other writing projects (book, book trailer) pending for my agent, and I don't...
by Zach Spangler 3 years ago
My views dropped 500 per day to about 20, how can I revert the awful changes they made with hubpro?
by Phyllis Doyle Burns 4 years ago
I really have not been too concerned about scores till recently since that darn HubPro was created. I think HubPro is totally done the wrong way. Editing should NOT be done without our consent and should NOT be done IN our hubs. On all the other sites I have written for, editing suggestion were...
by Robin Edmondson 3 years ago
Please check out our Blog Post on a couple of quality-related changes on HubPages!
by Giselle Maine 6 years ago
Yesterday I went into edit mode on one of my non-featured (idled) hubs but DID NOT make a single change. (The reason I went in there was because I just wanted to look at my summary, which I can't do without going into edit mode). I did not do any typing whatsoever. To my surprise,...
by Sally Gulbrandsen 3 years ago
It would be nice to know how this process is going.
Copyright © 2019 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 Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|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.|