I just wanted to share the experience I had, in the last 30 minutes. I am at one of my businesses, so I can only look at a few hubs a day. Today, I decided to do my own Hub hopping, without using the official Hub Hopper.
One of the Hubbers who happens to have a lot more hubs published than I do, has articles that are replete with typos, grammatical errors, and overall low quality information.
According to what the Hubber writes, Hub Pages is viewed as their own personal blog. The term is used frequently to describe their activity here.
I was simply appalled, as the Hubber has many, many published hubs. The majority of them should not be published here at all, simply due to the quality of them. I did send some reports, so someone can view them.
Is there no way to stop hubs that are full of "fluff", from ever being published in the first place? They are featured hubs, too.
It's amazing what passes the QAP, that's all I can say.
Yeah, I thought QAP was doing a decent job until that hub about Wild Tigers in the Wild came along. I know the QAP is not perfect, but yikes!
I do think you were right about that being a troll's hub.
Maybe so, but troll or not, that article should never have passed QAP.
Shades - I agree with you. I spent quite a few days reporting some very spammy hubs and accounts, and nothing came of it. I am not clear why hubs with 50 or more ads and very little text doesn't get moderated, but those hubs are still published.
Either the standards here are indeed standards (and are objective), or they're vague goals that are subjectively applied based on something else. I've sometimes wondered if crappy content is retained simply because it gets traffic. If so, then the site will never truly move forward.
And, as Calculus Geometry says, too many hubs filled with errors or spam still get by the QAP.
Yeah, why are these hubs in the hub hopping in the first place?
They were not in the Hub Hopper. I was hub hopping independent of that tool. So often, I have found horrendously written articles here on HP, by simply browsing through the categories. Sometimes I put a few words into the search option at the top of our Hub Pages page, and find them in that manner.
To calculus-geometry and Marcy,
Unbelievable, isn't it? What astounds me, is that there are many articles published here that do not begin to attain the standards that I was taught in elementary school. However, other articles, written coherently with helpful content, have difficulty getting published or featured. I have read many posts on the forums, from competent Hubbers, asking why an article was unpublished. Often, when I peruse their work, it appears to be impeccable.
We need the across-the-board standards. Until that happens, all I can think to do to help, is to offer to edit - which I do - and report low quality hubs.
Shades - I agree (again!) - I do think the site is working hard to develop a system that has consistent standards and reliable ways to measure them. With hundreds of thousands of hubs posted, it's not an easy task.
It's particularly discouraging when we try to flag bad content and nothing happens. Either my idea of basic, acceptable quality is way off target, or there are factors we don't know about being applied to the mix. I don't expect college-level writing, but content should at least be original, legible and have had a brief trip through Spell Check.
+1, Marcy. Unfortunately, the spell check option does not detect things like:
"Wish there children would behave."
"I seen a bird in the tree."
"How you eat effects you're attitude."
"Theirs something wrong with me."
"I went too the store, two get some fishes."
"The deers went threw the fence, because it was full of wholes that we don't have time two fix, because we are all to busy."
All of the words are correct, but their usage is not. I read fast, and type fast, and will be glad to help anyone who sincerely wants help editing. It is something I enjoy, when I get the chance.
It is simply beyond my comprehension, that so many hubs are afflicted by low quality content.
You're very supportive to offer that help to others. Sadly, I think many of those who could use the help don't even realize they have problems.
Marcy, I actually enjoy doing it. Often, it results in a writer starting to catch their own typos. Occasionally, whoever I am helping actually realizes that they have been using certain words incorrectly for years, and they make a "lifetime change". That, is gratifying.
It seems to me that we have a large enough community here on HP, of writers who are experienced at handling the written word, to help others who are struggling. In the long run, it should help HP be recognized as a competent "go-to" place for excellent information.
I tend to shrink away from sites that are full of "drivel", and can only assume others do the same.
Agree with you, that some do not realize they need the help.
My experience here is it is not appreciated when I alert someone to a misspelled or misused word. I am very thankful myself and want it caught and changed as soon as possible if there is error in any of my writings but seems that is not the norm.
My experience here, and elsewhere over the years, is that the authors greatly appreciate someone alerting them to an error. To date, no one has been ungrateful.
Like you, I appreciate a "heads-up". We can all miss our own typos.
That the articles are published is not too surprising, the surprising part is that they're featured; which means they're visible to the search engines; which means they can affect the site. I wonder how that happened; it occurs to me they are old Hubs that haven't even gone through QAP, I've seen some of those; at least, they looked like that to me, I don't know technically if it's true, but some Hubs appear to be pretty old and I've assumed they haven't gone through QAP, especially considering the quality of some of them.
The feature/unfeature function is meant to keep low-quality work from affecting the site because the search engines don't even see them. For this reason, it seems to me, hypothetically, a person could publish personal blog-style posts (though, not technically supposed to because this site is meant for magazine-style articles) and still have them on their subdomain, I suppose for their own readership or just because they like it. That's what I assume when I see Hubs that don't look like articles but look like something put together for followers or they are blog-style posts.
Sad, but too often true
This was/is one of the issues that upset so many of us that came over from Squidoo. We were having a tough time in getting some of our pages featured while we saw so much "garbage" that was.
So often, when we asked why, we were berated about "quality" which certainly was true in some cases, but not in comparison to some of the featured non-ex-squidoo pages. This made many feel unwanted here at H.P. so they left.
by Patty Kenyon 9 years ago
Do you like the new Hub Hopper? Do you plan on using the new profile format?Recently there are new changes to Hub Hopping as well as an option to change your Profile to the new format. What do you think of these changes?http://blog.hubpages.com/2012/08/hub-ho …...
by Lionrhod 8 years ago
I've been hopping some hubs this morning. I came across a few excellent ones and a few that sheer perturbed me.In at least 3 of them, the English was so terrible and the word choice so indecipherable that I highly suspect it to be stolen and spun content. But what do I know?I looked up one hub via...
by Paul Edmondson 10 years ago
There is a new Hub Hopper that is available today. I've posted some details about it on the blog and set this thread up to discuss it and to get feedback. *Note, the Hopper is only collecting data right now, but will soon be used to select Hubs to feature.
by Janis Leslie Evans 9 years ago
I'm curious as to whether there has been a decrease in hubbers using the hub hopper to rate hubs. I just have a feeling there is because my hub scores haven't been fluctuating as much (which is fine with me). Overall, I'm wondering if there's been a bit of a slow down in hub QAP due to...
by Liz Elias 8 years ago
Would any of you suggest 'reporting' an obvious newbie who has obviously not read anything of the rules and protocols here, whose profile includes no bio and indicates having joined but 2 hours prior, and whose portfolio includes but a single, very short and very poorly written hub?I'm not even...
by Sherry Hewins 10 years ago
Is there anyone who LIKES the new hub hopper? I don't think I've seen one positive comment about it.
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|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.|