This morning I stumbled over more than a couple of "Editor's Choice" Hubs which are blatantly using images they do not appear to have the rights to use.
Since HP is pushing Editor's Choice as the very best of this site, so much so that they are giving people who opt into the program some minor advantages over those who don't, should these Hubs be flagged?
If found in violation, would they be stripped of their Editor's Choice status?
Just curious. It seems to me that Hubs which represent the best of the best should at least use images legally
Actually, images are not part of the QAP process and HP doesn't want you to report images unless they are pixelated or have watermarks:
http://hubpages.com/learningcenter/how- … p-hubpages
When NOT to Report Hubs
• When images lack attribution information (this is not a violation)
• When an image has been used in violation of copyright (we cannot typically verify this, so it is up to each Hubber to ensure he or she is using images properly and to accept the legal ramifications of violating others' copyright)
So, I don't think image credits have anything to do with EC selection. However, a Hub of the Day must show a verifiable image source.
Fair enough. To be honest, if HP wasn't intent on rewarding people for opting into this program I wouldn't care. As you and others know, finding decent media for a Hub is part of the process, and if a Hubber is taking shortcuts it seems like they shouldn't be rewarded.
I understand HP can't take action on copyright violations they can't verify, but it doesn't seem like they should reward it either.
I agree with you but can't resist mentioning that some (or many?) would argue that Editor's Choice is not much of a reward.
I agree, mostly. Except (and maybe I am just paranoid here) it appeared to me EC Hubs are getting an extra boost in the Related Hubs section. That would be a big deal to me. Could be wrong though.
Sorry, I was mainly just being a smart Alec.
I didn't see anything mentioned in the blog post about EC hubs getting preferred placement in the Related Hubs section, but it seems as though that reward would fit in with the other EC perks HP added a couple of weeks ago.
Smart Alec-y-ness noted.
I didn't see that specifically in the blog post or anywhere else either, so I should clarify once again this is only my observation and I may be way off. Maybe HP will comment.
The Related Hubs section is already a pet peeve of mine, so I look at anything that appears at the end of my Hubs with a wary eye.
I was told by HP something completely contradictory to what Writer Fox has reported when I asked them how to improve my hubs to EC standards.
This is HPs exact quote from the email I received:
"As for this specific Hub, here are a few things I noticed that you might be able to add or refine to have it fair better with the EC selection process.
Add full citations for all images, including the URL source for those that are not owned by you."
I understand the link says to report hubs that are watermarked or pixelated, but it doesn't mention anything about citing leaving that to seemingly be open to determination. Also, from my email correspondence, it sounds to me like citations are part of the QAP process.
I would really love to know which piece of information is accurate since Writer Fox and I have different info. Thanks all!
You are looking at two different things: one is about passing QAP and the other is about being selected as an EC Hub.
For EC Hubs, this is what is posted in the Learning Center:
"Use high-quality images that are either original OR legally used and attributed.
"Please note: all of the above criteria are not mandatory for an Editor’s Choice designation, but you increase your chances of your Hub becoming Editor’s Choice if you implement these suggestions."
http://hubpages.com/learningcenter/Comm … d_37950506
Ah, thank you for your wisdom Writer Fox! I was so confused.
I do think you make a good point, though, EricDockett. It's the principle of it and the mixed message given about what is considered "stellar" and what is passable when it comes to hubs that are considered among the best.
It may just be my bad luck, but I haven't yet stumbled upon a single EC hub that was any good at all. I mean, all of them that I have seen have been almost the antithesis of a Stellar Hub as defined in the LC. Short, poorly formatted, unattributed images, riddled with typographical errors, factually inaccurate ... is it some sort of joke?
I don't know, stuff4kids, but it certainly creates a head-scratching, SMH, conundrum kind of feeling about what it all means. I know that no writer is perfect. I come across bloopers in my own hubs often enough. But I'm so confused about what it means to meet the criteria for "stellar," "EC," and "HOTD."
Oh yes I'm not criticizing any individual hubber for their efforts. Just exactly as you say - if there are poor quality ECs and HoTDs and 'stellar' hubs sinking to the bottom, what does it all mean?
Anyway, I think I'm going to vanish from the forums again for a bit, before I get embroiled in debates I perhaps don't fully understand!
I have noticed little EC banners on some of the 'Related Hubs' beneath hubs I've read. It looks really unnatural to me.
If HP was 100% committed to quality, every published hub would be worthy of an Editors Choice (without needing a banner). Actively getting rid of poor content should result in only high quality hubs remaining.
Therefore 'Editors Choice' would mean the same thing as 'Worthy of being published on HP' - without needing banners to cause further distraction on the way to the comments section. (Just keep the good hubs and get rid of the ones causing embarrassment.)
I have opted into EC today, not because I like accolades but because I fear my hubs will be discriminated against on topics pages etc where hubs showing banners are likely to receive more attention (rightly or wrongly).
It remains to be seen whether or not any of my hubs are chosen for EC. I know one thing for sure though; if I'd written 100 hubs (which I haven't) and only a handful of them showed EC banners on my profile page, I'd be likely to pull the 90 loser-looking hubs away. Am I the only one to think like that?
Hopefully EC assessment is quick and accurate for all hubbers. It would be a shame if active and prolific hubbers became discouraged and removed their quality hubs - leaving hp full of old mediocre hubs written by people who haven't paid any attention to what's going on here.
Or maybe that won't matter too much if editors can just edit the untouched, unloved hubs whose creators don't respond to email. Presumably the editors would then have the power to just generate EC after EC.
How credible will hp look if the day comes when 2 out of every 3 hubs is labelled an Editors Choice?
I report images that require attribution when I can show that they require it with a link to the source. I notice the pages often disappear or are fixed afterwards.
EC Hubs which go below their quality content for EC may receive a warning to bring it back up to standards probably by a certain time.
Hubs which become unfeatured will also lose their EC banner.
I did a bit of exploration yesterday and found an "Editor's Choice" hub on a topic in which I am interested (and have written on several times). It was a recipe hub which contained (1) a recipe by a famous celebrity chef, (2) contained Amazon links to two of that chefs cookbooks, (3) promoted his/her special seasoning, and (4) promoted his/her special cooking equipment. If that isn't "overly-promotional" I don't know what is.
I am wondering exactly what the criteria are for "Editor's Choice"? Apparently a famous name in your title gains more favor than an original recipe accompanied by an intriguing travel story, interesting photographs, and detailed instructions.
I have an article which fits your description to a "T". It was written several years ago, before the recent changes regarding overly promotional material. I did not opt out of the Editor's Choice program because I couldn't decide which way to go, and so by default I am in the program because I took no action. I can take Editor's Choice or leave it. Feel free to report it if you like.
I have read quite a few EC and many are deserving. There are others that need more editing. I have also read hubs which did not have EC but are worth the read. Maybe, the author opted out of EC, I don't know. Having many hubs marked EC without being stellar will even lower the quality image of HP. The message is: there are some hubs worth reading here in HP and there are many not worth your time. This is very discouraging for writers whose work are well done but did not get EC. Instead of the editors putting time in EC, why not review accounts that have no activities in the last two years, help hubbers improve the quality of their published hubs, or unpublish poor quality hubs but not those stellar hubs with no traffic (love to read them). Stellar hubs with not much traffic, while not enhancing revenue, still gives the site the quality readers look up to.
Coercion (being opted in by default) and added incentives (accolades, extra promotion, chance of winning $50) for joining the EC program, followed by punishment (lost rights to Hub of the Day, related hubs disadvantage etc.) for not joining is very dubious indeed and most unfair.
We still need an honest explanation of the reasoning behind the Editor's Choice program.
1. Why were we given sub-domains in the first place?
2. What is the reasoning, what are the advantages of removing the most lucrative content from those sub-domains and putting them back to hubpages.com?
The reason that we were given subdomains in the first place was as the result of a Google algorithm change. Essentially, Google was penalizing HP as a whole for the large amount of thin and poor content on the site at the time (I believe this was about 4 years ago, when Panda started to roar.)
The reaction from HP was to split out the hubs to each author's subdomains - That way, each subdomain effectively operates as a mini website of its own and can gather its own reputation (so if you have good content on your domain, it will do better than if it were on the master HP domain).
I do not know the philosophy behind moving EC hubs back to the main domain, as there's no real advantage to traffic (and in many cases, admittedly anecdotal, traffic seems to have fallen). I do like subdomains (as it gives each of us our own space), although I am not too fond of ECs being moved off of our own subdomains.
Thank you for your explanation about why we were given subdomains Paul. I remember now. Also the fact that "if you have good content on your domain, it will do better than if it were on the master HP domain" confirms some people's reluctance to submit to the pressure of joining the EC program.
So where is the logic?
It would be nice to get a concrete answer to my second question:
2. What is the reasoning, what are the advantages of removing the most lucrative content from sub-domains and putting them back to hubpages.com?
To answer your last point....why EC was introduced....
Moving authors to subdomains had some positive effects for some hubbers in terms of working around panda penalties, but many were still being hit by panda repeatedly.
EC was an experiment to resolve this. By putting only good quality hubs back on the main domain, it was hoped that they would all benefit by being in good company.
If they could escape from existing panda penalties, plus be protected from future runs of panda, then traffic should stabilise on those hubs (instead of the wild swings many experienced) and improve HubPages reputation with Google which would benefit everyone.
Fair enough if that is the case Susana, but the experiment has been going on for 18 months now. And results show, as per this recent quote from Paul Edmondson:
"Right now, i don't see a clear winning strategy with our current content mix."
Is labeling and promoting EC hubs unfairly towards non participants in the Related Hubs section, plus taking away the chance of their hubs being chosen as Hub of the Day a last attempt at making this failed experiment work?
Why are those of us who have opted out of the EC program because it did not fulfil its promises of increased traffic - on the contrary in many cases - why are we being penalized in this way? Is it not an indication that HP management is desperate to cream off the best of subdomains for its own gain with no regard for the health of subdomains?
The joke is... It doesn't even seem to be working as claimed "for the good of the entire community"!
I'm still confused about the criteria for "Editor's Choice." This evening I looked at a dozen or so in the category of "Foods". Those who were awarded "EC" had hub scores of 95+. But they were brief (certainly less than 1,250 words) and most were on "fluffy" topics such as "best places to get lattes." Seems like what came first, the chicken or the egg? In other words, do the people with high hubber scores get the EC, or does EC give you a higher hubber score (because of increased traffic)?
Rather than traffic, shouldn't our hubber score be based on the quality of our writing?
by Carolee Samuda 5 years ago
So I'm replying to a comment on my hub and upon scrolling through the hub (I always check for errors or how I can improve), I see the related hubs section. There are five hubs there including one of mine. What immediately got my attention is that the other four hubs has "editors choice"...
by Carolee Samuda 6 years ago
I did a little experiment with opting into the EC program for three months. To begin with,last year one of my better performing hubs become Editor's Choice. That hub was getting an average of 20o+ views per day, peak. The day after being selected as EC, the views dropped to zero. I watched it for a...
by Danette Watt 7 years ago
I see that one of my hubs was named Editor's Choice. But I don't see any notice of that to the 'outside world" - that is, I only see a tag next to the hub's title in my account. I'll certainly promote in on my FB page but you'd think it would get a gold star or something next to the title on...
by Lena Kovadlo 5 years ago
I had 11 Editors Choice hubs. I noticed today that I only have 10 of them now. I don't remember exactly which hub lost the EC status but I have a feeling it might be a hub that has become unfeatured due to engagement. If an EC hub becomes unfeatured due to engagement does it lose EC status? And if...
by Peg Cole 5 years ago
I make it a habit to count my EC hubs just to make sure none have gone missing. (OCD) This morning I was surprised to see one of mine lost its designation overnight. There were no edits to it and it still has the same 70 comments and 42 original pictures of a method and a recipe. The only...
by Christy Kirwan 5 years ago
Within the next few days, we will be adding some exciting long-awaited benefits to the Editor’s Choice program. Check out today’s Blog Post for the details.
Copyright © 2021 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.|