The EC program is a means of removing the best articles from our sub-domains and giving them to the main HP site hubpages.com.
As Cardisa so rightly pointed out in
The predominance of labelled EC hubs in the Related Hubs section puts non-EC hubs at a great disadvantage. This practice unfairly punishes authors who have opted out of the Editor's Choice Program because they prefer to keep their best content on their own sub-domain.
Public EC labels unfairly favors hubpages.com over individual sub-domains.
Authors who refuse to be coerced into giving away their best content to hubpages.com are being unfairly punished.
There are only 2 acceptable solutions to this problem:
1. Vote to keep EC hubs on our own sub-domains.
Or... If that is not an option, because in reality the entire introduction of the EC program is but a trick to populate hubpages.com with our best content (i.e. a devious way to steel our best articles) then
2. Vote to have the EC program scrapped all together.
Oh, and another thing:
To avoid authors being forced into opting into new experimental programs in future, it would be fairer, more honest practice, to have the default option of any such programs as "opted out" until we agree to opt in, instead of everyone automatically being "opted in" by default.
oh i didn't know there are differences at all, thanks
I totally agree. I have opted out and will stay that way as I prefer to keep my best in my own sub. Paul E will not risk shifting the EC's back to subs. So I guess I will remain at a disadvantage without EC's.
Excellent thoughts, Sue. I have gone back and forth with this EC program and have awakened to the fact that it serves no justice to HubPages authors. I am now out of the EC program for good. Thank you for posting this.
Would it be acceptable to remove the "related hubs" section from any hubber that has opted out? That would undoubtedly cost the site as a whole quite a bit of traffic, as well as other hubbers, but might increase traffic to specific hubbers a small amount.
Next you will be suggesting that not signing up for EC's will mean the author is banned from Related hubs completely. What a crime! Wanting to protecting your own sub's standing and reputation by saving the best from being stolen away.
Why not simply leave the EC's in the subs. Problem solved, unfairness removed, no discrimination, penalties or punishment. EC's are great! Just leave em' in the subs! Nice!
?? I thought the problem was that showing the EC hubs (with their labels) was the problem, whether in the subs or main domain?
But I didn't suggest that: I asked if not showing the related hubs on specific hubbers domains would be an acceptable method of stopping the perceived "punishment" those hubbers get by not having any EC hubs. It would (I think) be a fairly easy programming change and eliminate any perceived discrimination of those EC hubs showing up on their hubs.
It would be a lot easier and fairer to just get rid of the labeling on EC hubs featured in the Related Hubs section. A visitor's decision of which hub to click on in the Related Hubs section shouldn't be swayed by a label that says 'Editor's Choice'. Even if you're in the program, not all of your hubs will be selected for Editor's Choice, so those hubs are also at a disadvantage in the Related Hubs section.
OK - how then do you promote EC hubs if not via links to them?
If you're of the opinion that promoting EC hubs at the expense of non-EC hubs by use of those particular links is just, then so be it. I'm of the opposite opinion.
How else can HP promote hubs they believe are better if they don't do it at the expense of other hubs? That doesn't make sense.
Jayne, you are correct. Getting rid of the label in the Related Hubs area would solve the problem.
A middle ground could be reached where EC hubs remain labeled only on the hubber's own hubs or profile OR when displayed on the main site. This would mean that the related hubs section would return to looking normal. It doesn't matter if the hubs there are EC or not, just remove the labeling while displayed in that section.
The only place these labels really bother me is in Related Hubs. As I see it, labeling in Related Hubs can have only one of two effects: none whatsoever; or increase traffic to EC hubs and decrease it to non-EC hubs. If the former, then the whole exercise is pointless. If the latter, it's extremely unfair. Of course, I can't believe it will have no effect, and it would certainly never be advantageous to non-EC hubs.
I started this thread to inform all hubbers that they are, by default, opted in the EC program, even if they may not be aware of its full implications.
To check if you are opted in the Editor's Choice program, go to your Profile Page, click "Edit Profile" and scroll down to:
My Hubs are eligible to become an Editor's Choice:
- Yes -
- No -
The default option is "Yes". If you want to keep your best articles on your own sub-domain, click "No". Then don't forget to click the "Save Changes" button at the bottom of the page.
Why didn't you do all this when the Editor's Choice program first started? Nothing about the program now is any different from when it first started.
Not having been here very long, this may not be an intelligent answer, but - perhaps no one opted out then, because they had no way to see the future ramifications of the program.
Yes, there are differences now - EC hubs are now 'labeled' as such (this is new) and are being inserted on pages of non-participants. The visible EC designation and message it sends is the main issue. I personally don't care whose hubs are posted on my pages (well - maybe not the Indian Auntie junk), but I object to having them labeled in a way that infers they're better than what I write.
However, because HP's goal is to drive traffic to those hubs (they've tried to isolate 'acceptable' hubs for the EC designation rather than some of the junk on this site), the site wants to include a visible label as an incentive for the clicks.
Any UGC site cannot compete in the world of Google's search engines until it demonstrates it is above and beyond other UGC sites today or historically.
It's sad that this is the solution the site is taking rather than sucking it up and getting rid of the dross that is, we all know, the reason this site is suffering. This is like taking a car whose engine isn't running well and slapping a coat of paint on it to repair the problem.
Actually - there were recent updates to the program.
http://blog.hubpages.com/2015/01/28/edi … g-upgrade/
I opted out straight away, although I've been watching it carefully. Thus far, I can see no certain advantage to authors in participating in it. This disadvantages are clear.
Equally, we have to remember that Hubpages is a business with one sole objective - to make money. The only way it generates income is via advertising. So Hubpages' sole objective is to get as many advertisements seen or clicked as possible every day.
All its decisions will, ultimately, be based on the effort to do this. As a company, Hubpages doesn't care about writers or writing except in so far as those might increase its revenue. Equally, it wants to keep writers on the site. There is no contract. Writers can walk. Hubpages can do what they like. So, it's an interesting model of constant renegotiation.
But the only objective is to make money.
Hubpages makes lots of money from the cumulative efforts of writers who individually, for the most part, gain practically no financial return for their efforts.That is the bottom line.
Whatever an individual writer's motives for using the site are, she would be well advised to take this into account and 'buy in' or 'buy out' of the enterprise on the basis of how good a match she feels it will be with her own objectives.
I do think, however, that Hubpages could be more transparent. Authors feeling deceived or conned to any degree is not good business practice, whether it's true or not.
Those are my thoughts, for what they are worth.
stuff4kids: Well said, and thinking HP just loves its writers is living in fantasy land for the most part. Every writing platform, has the same agenda: Make Money for themselves, and dole out as little as it can to writers who actually are the backbone of the site.
I have opted out, on the principle of the matter. I did not like to see the related hubs with the "Editor's Choice" accolade on them, mixed in with excellent hubs that did not bear that distinction. Cardisa brought that up, in another forum thread.
IMO, many of the hubs that have been selected for the EC designation, are not examples of the best writing here on HP. I have seen so many typos and grammatical errors on Editor's Choice hubs, that it makes me wonder if a living, breathing human being actually reads them!
Just yesterday, while reading through some hubs that were seleted to be EC hubs quite a while ago, I found well over 20 blatant typos. How can a hub be chosen to bear the EC "stamp of approval", when it is not written in proper English?
I wonder what kind of message this is sending out to our visitors.
I know the message it is sending to me. Somewhere, in the gears of the HP machine, something is broken.
An article that is deemed worthy of special attention, i.e., the Editor's Choice distinction, should be exceptional in every sense of the word.
When reading online, repetitive typographical errors in text simply send me to another website.
I have also viewed many, many hubs with much higher quality then EC hubs, and in the same category. Taking all HP hubs into consideration, it feels like a favoritism process with bias, and no concrete determining factors on what hubs should bear the EC label. It is quite frustrating.
This here is my point. The EC label gives visitors the impression that EC hubs are the cream of the crop while this is far from the truth. Having the EC labels among my unlabeled hubs are not fair since I know for a fact that most of my hubs have far better quality than some of these so called EC hubs.
I agree with everything you say here, Sue.
I'm for scrapping the program. Keeping EC hubs on our own sub-domains wouldn't be an option as far as HubPages is concerned, because then the program wouldn't serve them a purpose.
The labeling is despicable. Visitors have no idea that we can opt in or out of the program. For those who have opted out, it's like telling the world they've failed an exam they never entered, or lost a contest they never participated in. It's a sort of lie. And if you go to the profile of hubbers who have opted in and had hubs selected, it looks as though they're capable of creating EC standard hubs, but don't always give 100% effort. If they did, all of their hubs would be EC, wouldn't they?
A few years ago when "Apprenticeship" participants were still around, they were automatically among the first included and the first reviewed (as part of the AP thing). But - because of the very tiny amount of revenue from hubs they (we) wrote as part of that program, some people churned out the maximum number of hubs they could each month - often these were repetitious hubs with short content (maybe 600 words at times) and not-so-great photos.
Simultaneously, the very terrible "Exclusives" titles were generated and pushed on AP writers. Often, hubs by AP writers were quickly approved for EC, because they were already being monitored. I think most of those probably have okay content, even if there are a bunch of dud titles in the mix.
However, I suspect (but I don't know for sure) that some very old hubs on the site that historically got high traffic got EC designations so HP could benefit from the traffic stats of those hubs. It was thought that the flow of traffic to hubs listed in the HP domain helped the site have a more robust profile with Google, which would therefore trickle down to the writers.
In theory this sounded good - but it didn't work that way. My overall traffic suffered, and the EC designation (and change in domain) simply diluted my own visibility on in search engines.
Anyway - I think some EC hubs were given that designation for financial reasons rather than quality reasons. My guess, that's all.
Yup. Mary has it.
Another reminder is timely to always but always back up your hubs, including links and photo credits in case either the ship goes down like the Titanic, or that you decide to jump ship in any case.
I didn't see any main benefits of EC for me - so I opted out when it first appeared and stayed out. I agree that we should have been allowed to opt in, rather than opt out.
As for the Editor's Choice labels in the related section, I've added my own Related section called "You may also like:" on the end of many of my hubs. Check out my latest hub to see what I've done! This means readers can check out a couple of very related hubs of mine BEFORE they get to the HP related section (they must have not liked my suggestions if they go there....in which case, they're welcome to it).
Until now I'd always thought the Related Hubs section to be a wonderful idea. It advertises my hubs on other hubbers' hubs and helps keep visitors from clicking the back button. Of course, with those benefits, I'm more than happy to advertise other hubbers' hubs on my hubs. If only they hadn't introduced the labeling.
Suzanne: Do you also supply links to these hubs? I used to do something similar but was told by HP that this is not acceptable. Also, it can provide too many links, but how many is too many? I'm not sure.
From my understanding, they are going for the ones with high amount of traffic. So a hub with mediocre traffic, but better in quality will get passed up.
Linda, That hasn't been the case on my profile. What I am noticing is that they are taking the hubs that are ones that few people have written about here. None of the hubs get a lot of traffic I have been trying to figure out what the advantage is for Hubpages to do this.
Mine that get super traffic haven't been chosen. Hubpages admits that getting Editors Choice doesn't raise the traffic. So why??? All I can figure is they think everyone will try to raise their quality to get chosen. Still???
Maybe you are thinking of HubPro? I believe HubPro editors are being assigned to edit higher-traffic hubs.
Yes, I did get 2 programs mixed up. I opted out of all of HP programs for EC, Hub Pro, even HP Amazon program until I moved all of my hubs. EC is just another way to play favorites. Why not get rid of these programs that really mean nothing in the long run, and have editors work on getting rid of the garbage hubs instead.
If there are many high-traffic hubs written by hubbers whose first language is not English, it makes sense (from a business point of view) for HP to create a policy that allows them to edit those hubs. In theory, if their high-traffic hubs can be brought into line to also be high-quality hubs (or at least higher than they were), the search engines will presumably view them more favourably.
I think the big problem with HubPro was when editors tried to make changes to hubs written by people who are happy with their own standard of English (and structure, photo choice etc.)
As far as EC standards go, I decided to try it out in case it helped lift my account's pathetic traffic stats. None of my hubs have been chosen as EC so I can't offer any feedback about whether or not it might help. I did get a Rising Star award when I started out, but my star didn't rise very high.
We all seem to agree that labeling EC hubs in the Related Hubs is unfair punishment to those who have opted out of the program.
Equally important however is the fact that many of us have opted out because we refuse to have our best content removed from our sub-domain to populate mother hubpages.com.
The whole EC program has been sold to authors under false pretense:
HP management is trying to make us believe that a hub is being awarded Editor's Choice status for its "superior quality", that having EC hubs is a great "honour", worthy of special promotion. But the special promotion is promotion of mother site hubpages.com, not promotion of our own sub-domains.
It is now perfectly clear that, in reality, the true motive behind the EC program is to remove the cream of subdomains, the hubs deemed most financially profitable, away from sub-domains to populate mother site hubpages.com.
Furthermore, the whole EC program has been sold to authors in a coersive manner by having all hubbers opted into the program by default rather than opted out by default and asking us whether we would like to join or not. Despite this, not enough cream was obtained, so we were offered even more incentives to join in the form of accolades, a chance of winning money, and being eligible for Hub of the Day. Why are non participants no longer eligible for Hub of the Day? Another form of punishment.
Then Cardisa had the good sense to notice that those of us who still refused to join were suddenly additionally disadvantaged in the Related Hubs section. That was the last straw.
Mother site hubpages.com does not seem to care for her children anymore. Mother hubpages.com is giving herself privileges over and above individual sub-domains.
The blunt refusal by staff to return Editor's Choice hubs to their sub-domains is living proof of the real motivation behind the program. Its only raison d'être is to give mother site hubpages.com some otherwise non-existing content.
Had they explained this right from the start, and managed to persuade us that the procedure was best for the site as a whole, some of us might have willingly opted in. As it stands, the entire EC program has turned into a dishonestly presented experiment, the success of which still hangs in mid-air as per the following quote from Paul Edmondson:
Right now, i don't see a clear winning strategy with our current content mix.
What aggravates me most of all is that we are being enticed, treated like kids who cannot draw our own conclusions from clearly given facts. Are we really that stupid? I don't think so.
This is a very good summary of the whole issue, Sue, and I agree with it.. Thank you.
Thank you Phillis,
All we can do now is wait it out until hopefully the Editor's Choice program will be dumpted like all previously failed experiments:
The old "Related Searches"
When all these years, staff should have been concentrating primarily on simply deleting cr@p and dead accounts. Why is that taking so long?
Any good housewife knows that keeping the house clean is the number one priority for the health of her family. Boring job? Sure, but it must be done nevertheless, even if experiments are a more fun way to pass the time.
by Carolee Samuda2 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...
by Peg Cole2 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...
by Christy Kirwan5 months ago
HP Staff has made the decision to retire the Editor’s Choice program. Editor’s Choice articles were high-quality pieces that were hand-selected by staff to receive special recognition on HubPages. However, with the...
by Lionrhod3 years ago
Now with all the fantastic hubs here, the likelihood that I'll be picked for Editor's Choice is pretty low.I've seen some scattered mention of how it works, but no definite clarity. So, for those of us who are new...
by Danette Watt4 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...
by Eric Dockett2 years ago
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...
Copyright © 2017 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.