Help with new criteria please

1. 80

   Lynne-Modranskiposted 9 years ago

   I really don't have a problem changing things so that they "comply" with the current standards.  I just really need to know what the standards ARE?   I just got notification that two of my hubs have been "unfeatured."  One of them has only one link outside of hubpages and one Amazon module with plenty of text.  It could probably use another photo or so, but if that's the minimum standard, then we need to know.  I don't like playing these games. 
   
   You will never hear me complain when things need changed because google changes or the "powers that be" make a decision that they feel will be the best for the overall good of the website, but these vague standards are driving me crazy. 
   
   I'm here for the money, because I don't really have time to do the SEO that will drive the traffic to my own blog that Hubpages gets . . . but truthfully, I think I write quality, and it's frustrating to have to figure out what is expected.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Being unfeatured does not necessarily mean a quality issue - hubs not receiving hardly any search engine traffic go unfeatured as well.  The symbol on the stats page will tell you which it is (description at bottom page).

      replyreport
   2. 94

      Christy Kirwanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Lynne,
      
      I suspect the link to your photography business in the image source might be what's causing the issue with these Hubs.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Lynne-Modranskiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I doubt it.  I use that photographer a lot (it's my daughter) and have one photo linked to her website in many hubs.  (after all, she deserves as much credit as CLker.com - which I also link to once in most hubs - I have a link to at least one image source in just about every hub).  That link is not preventing any of my other 100+ hubs from getting targeted, so it must be something else.  I'll keep tweaking . . .

         replyreport
   3. 68

      sockiiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You don't need to be an SEO expert to have a successful blog. If you write quality articles and have a good focus for your blog, you can and should be able to well on your own - and honestly quite likely better than having your work lost in a sea of unrelated articles here at HP.
      
      I've been slowly moving a lot of my unfeatured and underperforming articles here to my own websites and they are doing much better in traffic and ad earnings than they had for months here. So don't sell yourself short. If you really are serious about making money writing online then starting your own sites really seems to be the path to go these days.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Lynne-Modranskiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         When I started this endeavor with Squidoo, the traffic that came immediately with no time spent in SEO and placing ads, etc, was phenomenal.  Squidoo had a good reputation with the Search Engines and in no time I was seeing 4,000 hits a month on my few pages.   With the changes in the engines and the transition to Hubpages, I've been considering moving it to my blog . . . but right now HP is easy . . . too much other stuff to do  I think I figured out this obscurity . . . so until next time . . .

         replyreport
         1. 84

            TIMETRAVELER2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Yes...and we all saw what happened to Squidoo

            replyreport
2. 83

   Jason Marovichposted 9 years ago

   Many of my hubs became "unfeatured" when I took a break from publishing new hubs/being active on the site and my overall traffic dropped to near nil.  Your hubs aren't substandard by any means.  A quick update and one of my "unfeatured" hubs is again featured.

   replyreport
3. 80

   Lynne-Modranskiposted 9 years ago

   These are unfeatured because of quality . . .
   Both were unfeatured because of quality a week or so ago.  I removed a couple of external links because the e-mail talks about "spammy" lenses.  Both became featured again.  Today both are now unfeatured again. 
   
   I can't figure it out.  I updated them again.  Added a photo or two.  We'll see if that helps!

   replyreport
   1. 84

      TIMETRAVELER2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Check your "focus".  Make sure that what you are writing about matches your title and stays on topic.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      Lynne-Modranskiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Here are the links
      Both have more than 3000 words and at least 3 pictures.
      I think both have videos and probably have a short poll
      
      http://lynne-modranski.hubpages.com/hub/devotions5
      http://lynne-modranski.hubpages.com/hub/devotions12
      
      They are exactly the same format as my other 20 or so devotion lenses (I write devotions weekly and send them by e-mail, then post them here as an archive - I also sell them in a book which are offered on each page, but it can't really be considered promotional because EVERYTHING in the book is on hubpages - people buy the book because they like having ready access)

      replyreport
      1. 84

         TIMETRAVELER2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I took a look on the one about devotional readings, and here are my thoughts:
         
         I expected to be directed to specific items to read, but did not see any.  Therefore, your title does not match your content.
         
         Secondly, this entire article seems like a conglomerate of several articles, none of which have any relationship to one another.
         
         Either of these items would cause a hub to be unfeatured.
         
         I would narrow my topic down to one event, provide specific guidelines as to where to find devotional readings about it, and change my title to match that topic.
         
         Also, I must say I expected these items to be religious in nature, but your section on Valentine's Day  veers far from that.
         
         In short, a shorter, tighter and more focused article that matches its topic would probably work well for you.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Lynne-Modranskiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I appreciate your input.
            I'll have to re-evaluate my pages, because all have the same format.
            
            You said
            
            Each page has five short devotional readings that I've written.  They used to have 10, but things seem to do better on hubpages with fewer words than I find in 10.
            
            And 
            Perhaps I need a better opening paragraph to explain.  I write one devotional reading every week.  I send them out weekly to a list of folks who've signed up for them from around the world and archive them here on Hubpages, so while I have organized some pages into specific categories, some are just five unrelated devotional readings.
            
            and finally
            I'm not sure what you mean by "religious."   The Valentine's reading was written to remind folks that Christ is the only love we need.  The devotion quotes five different Bible verses, so I'm confused at how you think it veers far from 'religious'.  While I don't particularly like the word religious, when I hear people use it in reference to my work, I assume they mean Christian.  That particular devotion is all about a real love relationship with Jesus Christ. 
            
            I hope I have explained myself better than I obviously did on my hubs.  I'll have to correct that!

            replyreport
            1. 84

               TIMETRAVELER2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Well, the bottom line of all of it is that if you tighten your focus and limit somewhat what you are trying to say, your articles will take on more meaning and the confusion will disappear.
               
               Good luck.

               replyreport
4. 80

   Marcy Goodfleischposted 9 years ago

   I'm not sure what the hubs look like, but here are a few things the filters might look for:
   
   - Layout & number of capsules: If you have one large block of text, perhaps split the content into at least three or more capsules?
   - Double check for typos or grammar issues (perhaps have a friend read through it). Those are easy to miss in our own writing.
   - Check the word count - short hubs get flagged for quality (aim for at least 1,000 words).
   - Add more images or videos.
   
   You have quite a few hubs that are featured, so I'm sure you can tweak whatever got filtered and it will be fine. You obviously know how to publish good content!

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Lynne-Modranskiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I appreciate all the offers of what "might" help, but I don't want to have to keep doing this.  I want some definite guidelines of what will get dinged.  I don't make enough money off of these to spend hours and hours refining aimlessly.  My word count is up there.  And I have other hubs that I feel are a lot lower quality that are not only featured but have a higher hub score. 
      
      I don't mind bringing my stuff into compliance . . . I just want to know exactly what to comply with!

      replyreport
      1. 92

         Susana Sposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Post links to the hubs and we can tell you. Plus have a look to see if you have any warnings at the top of the hub....click the link and you'll get more info about what's wrong.

         replyreport
      2. 68

         relacheposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         You'll get more exact feedback if you email the admin team and ask, especially as they set those standards.  Everyone here in the forums is just going to look at your Hubs and just randomly guess.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Lynne-Modranskiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Well, since two days have gone by with no definitive answer and I've changed both hubs several times with no success (although my hubscore has increased significantly), I will try to e-mail.
            I try not to bug them unless I have to.
            
            Problem . . . I can not find an e-mail address anywhere . . . can you tell me where I might find it?

            replyreport
            1. 92

               Millionaire Tipsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               The address is team@hbpages.com
               
               I am glad you figured out at least part of the issue.  You do have to be careful not to repeat keywords too many times. I understand that sometimes this happens accidentally with topics that don't have a lot of alternate words you can use.

               replyreport
      3. 80

         Marcy Goodfleischposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         As others said, the site is the only source for the specifics. Those who are commenting here (including me) have many years' experience writing for this site or for other commercial venues. We're only trying to be of help.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Lynne-Modranskiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I apologize if I sounded unappreciative. I do truly appreciate the help and feedback.  I guess I was hoping someone from admin would see this and give some more definitive answers.  Let me get you a couple of links.

            replyreport
5. 83

   psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

   As far as I know there is no comprehensive description of what can cause one to fail QAP.  There are just the two general statements in the help section.

   replyreport
6. 80

   Lynne-Modranskiposted 9 years ago

   Just an FYI to those who stop by.  One of my hubs was featured again when I removed the word "SPECIAL" from most of the page.  It was originally titled something like "Devotions for Special Seasons and Holidays"  and because there are all kinds of "special" devotions on the page for use on "Special" occasions, the word "Special" was on the page several times.  Removing that word seemed to allow it to be featured.  Still trying to figure out the other one.  If I do, I'll pass along my revelation!

   replyreport
   1. 68

      relacheposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Using a word too many times is a form of "keyword spamming" and some writers do this by mistake.  There is software that can help with that just like a spellchecker.

      replyreport
7. 73

   Isabellasposted 9 years ago

   I have been writing here since very early in my writing career and the evolution of my writing has shown up quite a bit. I used to make a decent amount of money from the website. However, even the articles that I have that used to average 1K views a week are not getting anything anymore. Hubpages has really fallen out of favor with Google for some reason, in my opinion, and in my experience the search feature for featured/non-featured is really going to hurt a lot of people. Like you said, you do not write for SEO, but for fun, even when I do write for SEO it is not for a site like this it is for my personal website, which does really well.

   replyreport
8. 86

   Lady Loreleiposted 9 years ago

   Try republishing the lens with a more article specific title. Articles that come in looking too closely related in url, title, and content can look suspiciously like spun material even if they are not. Hope this helps.

   replyreport
9. 80

   Lynne-Modranskiposted 9 years ago

   OK . . . the other one is featured again.  Yesterday, I changed some of the verbage to eliminate the word "readings" in all but a couple of places.  They are "readings" so it was a valid description, but I'm guessing since the word can refer to something that can be spammy, it got picked up.
   
   I guess we have to watch any kind of repetitive word even if it's descriptive of the page.

   replyreport
10. 91

    jansharesposted 9 years ago

    Try making your photos and images full width as opposed to right floated. Try it with other capsules as well (polls, link boxes, ads, etc.) and see what happens to the hubscores. Formatting is everything with this new HP algo which emphasizes mobile-friendliness.

    replyreport