I've just sent some hours reading the feedback on hubpro editors as I received an email saying that I had been selected for hubpro. I also read the blurb of one of the editors that had been posted to the thread. Lady doesn't have correct flow, and I would be very hesitant to have anyone who writes like that touch my work.
For what it's worth, I've worked as an editor for two publishing houses in London. I also have a movie credit as a script doctor, have ghostwritten books, and been published since 1962/3.
I read everything that Paul Edmonton said about focusing only on the hubs that are performing well, and I understand his point of view (80/20 rule?). I simply do not want my hubs that are doing well touched. I would rather retain what traffic I have than risk losing traffic or have someone change my wording.
I have no objection to improving my hubs. We can all learn, and I certainly, at this point, don't know too much about SEO. However, for someone to come in, lock me out of my hub so that I can't intervene, and then present me with something that I do not want to put my name to is not on.
I firmly believe that being successful with regard to traffic has more to do with topic, the amount of unique information one has on the topic, and, of course, how well written it is. For me, choice of topic is a hit or miss affair as I have no idea which topics garner traffic. Probably my biggest failing. Just too much of a geek.
I do not want to offend anyone by declining to have my work edited, and if these were professional editors, I would have no issue. I have two issues:
1) The feedback in the threads about the quality of the editor's work does not lead me to believe these are highly professional editors with two or three decades of experience.
2. I do not want the wording of certain of my hubs changed. As I do not know which hub has been selected, I cannot take the chance that it would be a hub I don't want changed.
I'm looking for input on the topic and also the names of the editors so that I can check the quality of their work.
I can understand your feelings perfectly, Tess! For myself, I opted out of the program, so my hubs won't be selected or touched.
I prefer to succeed or fail on my own merits, thank you very much.
I've said before, in a creative writing class in college, one professor wanted to alter my words to the point that the poem would have been more his than mine. My reply was short and scathing with a brutal analogy, in the form of a free-verse poem:
"I work long and hard to birth my poems. Who would alter them, dismembers my children."
I put a footnote about it being a creative writing class, and where is the inspiration if the process is squelched by overmuch interference.
Stand by your gut, Tess, and I suggest you hit the 'opt out' button.
My gut is that they would chose one of the hubs I don't want changed, and that they will make it something I do not want to put my name to. I fear, however, been marginalized from Hubpages in some way as a result of choosing not to be edited.
Already long ago I changed in account section the option: 'My Hubs are eligible to be edited with HubPro:' to NO.
I don't want anyone to touch my work I don't know personally. It's simply a matter of principle.
Nice to know. Thanks. Did you opt out of the program which puts your hub on the main domain as well? Surely the URL would change then and all links that have been gained would then be pointing to the wrong URL...
No, I don't think so; I believe that only happens when you allow your hubs to be selected as an "Editor's Choice." In that case, there is an automatic re-direct, and it shouldn't affect your traffic. I think it only matters on Google's end..but if I am wrong, someone with more experience, such as Marisa Wright might come along and correct me.
No, as far as I know not. The links to the Hub remained the same. I also opted out for EC. When you do this the links to your Hubs will change indeed.
Good writing is all about relentless reading and editing what you've written, and improve it continuously. I'm still in the process every day. This will make one finally a better writer.
It is nevertheless a good choice of HP to offer this service. There are many Hubbers that leave their Hub behind like droppings, and for these Hubbers this service is great!
I let them have at my most popular hub. I can change it back if I want to anyway. Mostly what I see is that the content has been broken down into smaller capsules, and capsule titles reiterate the same keywords over and again.
I would have thought this was keyword cramming, but it seems to have worked and thus far - 1 week into it traffic is up 30-40%. I will check back with you after a month and let you know how it is performing with the Panda roll-out.
So can anyone point me to the hubpro editors?
I've just read this:
"Our Editors are primarily concerned with spelling, grammar, formatting, and factual accuracy. They work as hard as possible to maintain the tone and style of the original work."
I can't imagine what is wrong with my formatting, but I'm willing to bet that my spelling and grammar are pretty much top notch (although there might be the occasional typo.) I also triple check every single thing I write on my hubs. Facts are what I deal in.
So if that is all they were checking, why would that increase traffic. Sorry, I don't buy that. I've seen a mass of articles all over the place with bad spelling, etc. It's the topic that attracts. And the keywords probably have a lot to do with it.
You'll get a further email listing all the things they do. It's not just grammar, spelling, and such.
I liked having my stuff edited here, but I generally do like getting editorial feedback. I'm trying to remember any times I got zero value from an editor in the past, but I can't. Even the times I've gotten hot and bothered by an editor's opinion, I've later come around and gotten a heads-up that something at least was clearly not working in my text.
I doubt there's an editor on the HubPages staff that has nothing to offer in the editorial process. You could research them, but I think the difference between individual HubPro editors is going to be less significant than the difference between YOUR personal style guide and the HubPages one. That's not a big deal, really; if an editor does anything/everything amateurish or against your style choices, you can revert it afterwards all you like.
My HubPro experience was okay. Not disastrous. Some hubs lost some traffic, others gained. Worked out about the same. From the process, I did gain a sense of how to make other hubs compliant with the current standards.
If you've been notified you're gonna get HubPro'd, they should tell you in the next email which hubs have been selected and what they're going to do. At that point, you could opt out, though they tell you of course they prefer to know beforehand.
But yes, you're right. They're going to choose the hubs you least want changed - the popular ones. On the plus side, if you have hubs "dear to your heart" or whatever because they were particularly personal to you, they're less likely to be touched, 'cause those kinds of hubs are usually not the high-traffic ones.
Well, I've just done a major self-edit on my top-ranking hub. We'll see what happens, as I applied a lot of things I've learned on my own and here in the forums.
Well, if I can opt out after I've spoken to them, then I would go for that option. .
I had a nice back and forth with my editor on two hubs. She made some positive changes-- and those I didn't agree with-- I changed back to the way it was. Nothting is set in stone. You can still edit after the Hubpro changes have been made.
Writing is a mode of communicating with the writer's audience. He or she communicates his or her thoughts with the the audience and what should be communicated and how it should be communicated is the writer's wish. One might be a pro but that does not mean anything to a writer and it is very annoying if someone tries to change the write up and that changes the whole meaning of what has been written.
I think that whether or not getting edited is good or bad depends on why we write and who we're writing for. (George Orwell wrote a thought-provoking essay called "Why I Write" that's worth a read.) There are lots of different motives for writing, lots of different things writers want to get out of it. Catharsis, discovery, pride, money, fame, influence, etc.
One thing links all writers - writing is driven by the desire to communicate. But who a writer's aiming to communicating with differs.
Some writers - quite a lot, actually - write to talk to themselves. If others don't "get it," they don't mind, because they're actually addressing themselves primarily. Others write to communicate with a select group, either a group very like themselves (perhaps in the interests of getting validation) or one unlike themselves (in the interests of persuading them).
And still others write to communicate with as broad an audience as possible. (Raises hand)
To do the last, a writer has to somehow reach people with a wide range of viewpoints. Because our imagination and intelligence can only take us so far, at some point having an outside intelligence contributing to our work becomes valuable. The more our audience expands to include people who don't think like us, the more editing has to offer.
I, personally, find I'm quite limited in my ability to reach people very different from me, so I like to know where I'm failing. Getting edited is like getting a key to a treasure chest. I know what I meant, but sometimes only someone else can tell me what I actually said. That's gold to know.
Everything you've written is quite true. I'm pretty sure, though, that the editor is going to do for the hub that is drawing my traffic. That particular hub is drawing only one demographic, and it's very, very unique. Changing that hub to draw a wider audience will eliminate the audience it is written for. And as most people aren't specialists in that particular demographic, I truly doubt the editor is.
I truly don't care about the rest of my hubs, but that one will be damaged because the demographic is so unique. That is my concern.
I've made a decision, though. I will wait for the editor to contact me, ask which hubs, explain my reasoning, and if it's not going to work, I will opt out then.
My most popular hub was recently edited. Since I felt the topic was not one I really had rights to (it's just a fun one concerning a popular game/TV series) I turned off earnings after I published it long ago, so to me, it wasn't really about the money anyway. I didn't personally understand all the changes - they switched my images to Youtube videos of the particular show (and I'm not even sure if such Youtube clips are technically legal, but whatever), and reformatted/edited a lot of what I had written, and cut some things, I assume to make my writing more concise. I can't say I care too much since I haven't touched the hub in a long time, and don't make money off of it (though I don't see the no-earnings icon anymore, don't know if that's related but I assume that's not something they would change). Aesthetically, I'm not sure I like all of the changes better, but I do assume they know how to cram the best keywords and such in and are working from an algorithm to maximize traffic. I'm not complaining because I really don't care enough, and as far as I know, the hub's traffic will rise. Additionally, I still have the option to edit the hub, and I can see a list of edits so could probably change everything back if I wanted.
I do think it's a bit funny though that it was something you had to specifically opt out of, rather than a program you could opt into. But still, in the case of my hubs, nothing in them is so personal that I am opposed to someone giving it an edit. I really doubt they'd do anything to significantly change the tone of the article and I am certain they'll only go after high-traffic hubs, so more "personal" ones probably aren't the sort they'd go after anyway.
I too have recently been threatened with HubPro editing. I am torn on the whole project. On one hand I do not feel it is the best use of HP's time and resources, and I think I've done okay all by myself thank you.
On the other hand, I have really come to respect Paul and the Team over the years, and if they think it is a good idea I will give it a go. I have opted out for my other accounts. This is the only one I have left vulnerable to attack.
I am eager to see what changes the editor makes and what Hubs they pick. I think I have a decent idea what makes a Hub successful. Let's see how much we agree.
For better or worse, I intend to relay my experience in this forum once the dust settles. If the editor does a good job I will certainly give credit where credit is due. If they do a really, really good job I may even consider switching my other accounts over. We'll see what happens.
I opted out of HubPro as soon as we were given the opportunity to do so.
Nothing personal against the HubPro editors or their work; I just like my Hubs the way they are and I don't want anybody messing with them. Simple as that.
My editor was an overworked grad student who clearly was putting in time on weekends and evenings to edit my Hub. There seemed to be zero workflow or procedure. She never once actually talked to me about my writing, what audience I was pursuing or anything that I used to do when I edited other people's writing when I had never met the person and didn't have much experience with the subject matter.
Despite being told this person was working on their PhD in editing, I got the feeling my Hub was being edited by the online equivalent of a human fast food worker.
I'm sorry, Relache, that you feel this way. Just to clarify, your editor was/is not a grad student; she works 30 hours a week for HubPages, and she really did her best to try to collaborate with you. I believe you were traveling so maybe that is what made it difficult to communicate. We have a very distinct workflow that we follow and do our best to collaborate with Hubbers throughout the process. We think a lot about reader intent and how we can best satisfy readers; this is our main goal in HubPro. Our NPS on edited Hubs shows that we are improving reader experience.
Tess and Eric, I suggest giving it a try. Both of you are excellent writers, so I don't see sweeping changes made, but you can always opt out if you aren't happy with the editors ideas, or you can collaborate with them. Your editor will send you a personal email before they begin letting you know their thoughts—you won't be surprised. Please share your experiences with this thread when you are finished; I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Wrylilt wrote a nice forum post about her experience—I think she had similar feelings before editing began. Overall, Hubbers are very happy with the results of HubPro.
Thank you. Okay, I'll give it a go. I hope it works. For the record, I'm on the road, travelling between Spain, England, Scotland, and Amsterdam, but will be online all the time. There's always time for a coffee shop!
Not long ago, it was posted Editors are not Professional Editors and none of them had written one Hub. There is something that lists HP editors and their backgrounds which I cannot find at the moment
This link takes you to page of Staff at HP including Editors.
I'd be honored if one of my hubs was ever chosen. I think many are far too cynical when it comes to others touching your work. I fully trust the staff to do what they know is best, and like others said things could always be changed back.
Followed the suggested link to the Hubpages team. Most of the editors appear to be more highly qualified/experienced in this area than I am, so I would be happy to let them tinker with my hubs (though I hold my hands up to falling into the oversensitive category). As has already been said - you have the option to change it back to what it was if you don't like their 'improvements'.
One more thought: why go "after" the hubs that are already performing well? That seems like a waste of time.
IMO, it would make a good deal more sense, both for HP to stand to make more advertising revenue, and thereby ditto for authors, would be to fix hubs that have become un-featured for lack of traffic.
Then, you could get more views and hence more traffic to the site, instead of what I expect would be only modest gains for hubs already performing well. In other words, heed the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
I have discovered that I have a substantial number of hubs that have dropped off the featured bubble for lack of traffic/engagement. I'd like to have those given some help, but since that is not the case, I'll work on them myself, and remain opted out of Hub Pro.
I think I understand why Paul focuses on increasing what is good rather than trying to improve what isn't working. More often than not, it's the topic of the hub that is working more than anything else. Finding the topic that is being searched for by a high percentage of people but hasn't been written about a lot on the web is the secret to getting that topic on page 1 of the serps.
If one fixes up a hub that either has little interest from searchers or has been written about so frequently that it isn't going to generate traffic, there is little point in fixing it. It isn't going to generate traffic anyway.
There are two reasons people search for content on the web. The one is information and lifehack.org does well at that. The other reason is entertainment with sites like www.distractify.com. Other sites like Reddit flourish because they engage people with fascinating information. So the key to doing well with content on the web is finding a topic that hasn't been written about often, is being searched for often, and is placed on a site that draws a lot of traffic.
So while people will go to sites like Reddit and Distractify just to read, they are not coming to Hubpages just to read. And that's an issue. People come to Hubpages to write, not to read. I believe that Paul is trying to make Hubpages a site to read, and that's difficult because it has always been focused on drawing writers. In this way, I think the climate of the search engines has changed. They are going to sites which focus on readers - not writers.
So would cleaning up the millions of articles that litter hubpages help? I think it would certainly make it a more pleasant experience for readers because, right now, readers are not going to come to hubpages with the sole focus of reading (which is what they do on the sites that draw huge amounts of traffic). In order to reach that status, the masses of bad stuff has to be removed. Readers come to hubpages the old fashioned way. They come because a topic has been searched for. They don't come because they want to read on hubpages.
My personal opinion is that it is absolutely vital for Paul to focus on making Hubpages a place where readers come, and the only way to do that is to develop a very singular policy on what should be written about and to get rid of the hubs that don't work.
So are we in Hubpages just to earn money or share our thoughts too while earning some extra amount? I would never say no to some extra money... Yes money is important but.. I don't know what to say. I don't want to sound philosophical but is that the only reason for using Hubpages? Don't we feel a sense of satisfaction when we get good review and comments from other writers in hupages. And also make friends with other people and share ideas and learn new stuff?
HubPages staff has said that the reason they focus on the hubs they do is that they've identified them as potential plungers. As in, vulnerable to Google hits because of lack of user engagement despite positive traffic trends. Historically, it's those kinds of articles that the Pandas have hit.
HubPages seems to be trying earnestly to isolate the problem; they think they've sussed what quality is to Google, and they're applying it broadly to all types of articles. I think they're being too generalist, but there you go.
In my opinion, it's still about readers and not about writers. Your comment confrims that. You said, "vulnerable to Google hits because of lack of user engagement" and that's exactly it. Hubpages is set up for writers. It is not set up for readers. The formatting of the site has to change in order to focus on readers rather than writers.
I do hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure I see the distinction you do. To be honest, I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say reading - people can "read" an article in less than two minutes, and often do. Do you mean browsing, perhaps?
The distinction for me is browsing vs. search. Reddit, Facebook, and such are browsing communities and users land there by navigating, not search. HubPages is most successful in gaining search traffic. Search traffic is looking for answers to a problem or question - as you say, information.
I don't know if HubPages is trying to be a browsing community. The primary ones who browse are the writers, but free UGC sites don't generally make money off of the content generators. It's the search traffic that keeps sites afloat.
Then even the topics should be very well defined. isn't that important? Cause it is dependent on what readers want to read and what type of readers visit hubpages will define the topics too. So it is the demand and supply. We will supply what is demanded and not what we would like to supply. Very simple. That can be done only if the exact topics ( or the topics expected from the readers) is defined.
Yes and no. If you look at sites like Reddit, people still supply topics. However, reddits like AMA (ask me anything) draw tremendous readership because Reddit management contact interesting people who come to Reddit and the readers can ask that person anything.
Life hack works on the principle that people want useful information and it is written in easy to read bites with excellent illustration.
As I said previously, one of the factors that is also important is that the site draws traffic. If the site doesn't draw traffic, no matter how good an article is, if too much of a similar nature has been written, then it's not going to draw traffic.
If hubpages continues to focus on drawing traffic as a result of search engine logarithms, it will continue to have fewer and fewer people coming here because it is becoming more and more difficult with each passing day to find topics to write about that nobody else has. (Just my opinion.)
I think it's vital that hubpages finds a way of bringing readers to the site just because readers/browsers want to be here. And in order to do that, I think it's important to focus on a way of writing that makes all topics informative and entertaining.
Yes I agree to that. Make it writer friendly and that can be done by hubpages. Don't force us to write on selective topics.
Not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that hubpages shouldn't be focused on writers anymore if it wants to draw increasing traffic. That's because Google isn't interested in content sites anymore. Google is interested in sites where people who aren't supplying content are congregating.
Siva222, you're right. You should be very clear in your articles about what questions you are, and are not, answering for your reader. Google's spam team is trying to identify readers who are being misled into clicking onto the page.
misleading a reader is a different thing and giving selective topics to write on is different. Here we are not writing assignments for our clients to be writing selective articles for selective people. I thought in Hubpages we had the liberty to choose the topic we like and write on that.
"I thought in Hubpages we had the liberty to choose the topic we like and write on that."
Oh, you do. However that does not mean that people are interested in reading it or that you will earn money from it. Nor does it mean that Google is going to be particularly interested in promoting it.
If you want to earn money from an article, it has to cater to google, to browsers, to readers.
So it really depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to just write about what you want to write about, no problem. If, on the other hand, you want to earn money from it, then you cannot write about what you want to write about, then you have to write about what the market wants.
Re: "People don't come to Hubpages for browsing/reading, and I think that Google is focusing on browsing sites rather than content producers."
That's interesting, TessSchlesinger. It's possible. Those browsing sites are generally considered forms of social media, and Google's definitely taking an evolving view of social media. Social media is Google's competition; they also connect users with content. In various ways, Google's taking an "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" tactic. I have seen more Facebook and reddit pages appearing in the SERPs in the last year-ish.
I don't think Google's giving up on bringing users directly to content sites yet, though. Content is currently in-depth in a way that most social media can't match. (And yes, the AMAs are in-depth, but so far reddit isn't ranking well for content, as far as I can tell. Those are high-authority pages, but they also must be browsed and aren't quick to answer impatient readers' questions - have you seen the size of some of those AMAs? Also reddit doesn't archive in a terribly user-friendly a way.)
We do have a fighting chance, I think - IF HubPages can really figure out a way to showcase the content that works. Google thinks kinda conditionally about websites. Unless the website's "sins" are flagrant, in which case there will be a manual penalty, a website's pages are evaluated for the SERPs not so much by their virtue per se but by their virtue for specific search terms.
The trick - for Google, and for HubPages, and for us - is to figure out whether our users are satisfied with the content. What metrics indicate satisfaction?
Where Panda really hurts is that it's a slap to the whole site authority, which means it's not enough to fix some hubs. What we have to do is make sure the metrics Google's using show that most users they send to HubPages are not leaving feeling cheated or misled.
EDIT: Just read your latest. I don't think it's exactly that "Google's not interested in sites where people who aren't supplying content are congregating." I think it's more that Google's having a heck of a time distinguishing low-authority and high-authority pages on these sites and wants the sites to up the authority to make their metrics meaningful.
Fiction Telller. I think we are agreed on most.
"Where Panda really hurts is that it's a slap to the whole site authority, which means it's not enough to fix some hubs."
Agreed in particular. And that's why I believe that Hubpages has to move out of being a content writing site, even if it's just a small degree, just so that it isn't lumped into that category.
Ooops! "Google's not interested in sites where people who aren't supplying content are congregating." That was badly expressed on my part. What I meant to say was that the focus for google wasn't on writers, but on what the writers accomplished in terms of getting people to stick around.
"I think it's more that Google's having a heck of a time distinguishing low-authority and high-authority pages on these sites and wants the sites to up the authority to make their metrics meaningful."
I think that's correct so, to me, removing the dross from hubpages is vitally important because Google doesn't want the difficulty of differentiating between what is good and what is bad. It wants to know that the site is, for the most part, good.
I like your point here, if I'm understanding it correctly. HubPages has always walked a delicate line, as have all of the UGC sites (many of them gone now), between saying, "Writers, come join!" and "Google, come look what we got for ya!" Keeping the writers backstage and the content central stage is important.
I wonder how HubPages is self-defining these days. I wonder if they've made an effort to move away from the "we're a community of writers" angle toward the "we're a compendium of expert content" angle. The biggest problem with defining the content as authoritative, though, is that it's so diverse. From poetry to magazine to scholarly to fiction to blog-style opinion. How is that authoritative? For what is it authoritative? HubPages is changing the depth, arrangement, and quality of media to make it look authoritative, but, heck, even eHow had something Google could easily figure out it was about - how to do things. HubPages probably needs to work a lot on its structural organization. Not just topics and such, but to functionally organize its content.
Awhile back hubpages decided to look at all the old hubs and make us writers re-do them. I had so many hubs and boom! Suddenly they are not good enough. Yet I did have comments on all of them. I have a full time job and a busy life as most of us. I did not re-do my hubs because some editors decided years later they were not good enough. I also tired of seeing the red skulls and other icons they use to tell you what is wrong with them, so I never did fix them and some I just deleted. This site has changed, and not for the better. I choose this site to write. I am not on face book or any site like that because of the drama and grief those sites can cause. I actually have read in some of these forums of people who are hurt by other writers negative comments. I do not know who these so called hubpro writers are. My question is "Why was my work good enough a year or so ago and not know?" Who are they to decide that. I also have seen work go through with grammar and spelling errors. So is that good work? This is my opinion of the hub editors.
I have to agree with much of what you say, vis-a-vis poor writing here going through unquestioned, while some who have been here a long time, and have good reputations, see their work suddenly 'not good enough.'
It is confusing, to say the least. I've lost count of how many times I've read hubs that are of poor quality. This is supposed to be an English-only site, but some of the hubs written by non-native speakers are immediately evident as such. They are in English, but barely. The errors in structure, grammar, flow, spelling and simply wrong word choices are cringe-worthy.
Sadly, some of the same errors are made by people who are native speakers as well. I've seen errors of tense and wrong word choices in articles by some of the better writers on the site, and I'm not talking about typos. That can happen to anyone. (And speaking of which; please excuse any you may see in this post; I'm using my little notebook today, and I'm not used to the keypad or the tiny font on the screen.)
Yet, none of these articles, especially of the first type, get targeted. They are allowed to languish and pull the whole site down with them.
I admit to struggling to find topics people want information about, but I do my level best to write error-free articles with good information.
Just today, I saw a post on the front page of someone asking for help to 'practice his writing' here on HP. I went and read part of it; it was pretty terrible. I did not offer advice, as I did not want to be mean, and hurt the person's feelings, but what I felt like saying was 'you should learn to write proper English before you try writing on a site such as this.' But, it will stay along with a lot of other dross, simply awaiting the next zoo animal hit from Google.
I went to look at some of your writing. This is what your profile says, " My writing reflects my emotions and deep feelings. I write from the heart. Some of my work is of a optimistic view of life. However, my best work is when I am down and feeling very pessimistic. So feel free to visit my poems and short stories and leave your comment. Happy Reading!"
Then I looked at your topics. Here's the thing. None of those topics are commercially viable and writing about emotional issues might be material for a journal or for sharing with friends and people who have similar issues, but they are not commercially viable.
You also state, " "Why was my work good enough a year or so ago and not know?"
??? Because a year ago, hubpages was not struggling to remain in business, and because for some years now, Google has rewritten logarithm after logarithm to get rid of information it doesn't want. Content writing sites likes hubpages have been amongst the worst hit because Google loses advertising revenue if it does a search and directs browsers to sites that they don't want. And Google finds that most of the sites that browsers don't want is the stuff written on so many content writing sites.
So it's not hubpages that is saying 'Your stuff isn't suddenly good enough.' It's Google saying, 'nobody wants to read what you write and we are going to penalize sites who don't write the kind of thing that they are looking for."
Hubpages has a helluve battle for financial survival ahead of it. Most content writing sites are failing. Google does not want to refer people to content writing sites consisting of general content where people can write anything they want. They worked for many years on the web, but then there wasn't as much on the web that there is now.
I don't have the answers, though. And I guess we're all in the same boat.
by Anne 8 years ago
So for the last couple of weeks I have actually been studying at University.I now log into my hubpages account and some editor has made all these changes. It reads so stupid.I am furious that someone has touched and changed my hubs! HOW DARE YOU!I notice my earnings too have gone down.My email to...
by Rupert Taylor 17 months ago
In case you haven't noticed, there's a massive edit of Owlcation articles going on. For the most part, I can only quibble about changes made, although a few irritating issues have cropped up. I suggest checking the editing because some errors are finding their way into articles.One or two of my...
by Rajan Singh Jolly 7 years ago
One of my hubs has been selected to be edited with Hub Pro Basic.Any idea why & what this means?The hub in question is getting very good traffic and is in fact at the top in all time views.Will this edit result in more traffic or how will it benefit my hub or me?
by Eugene Brennan 4 months ago
This doesn't make sense. My article "Gardening for Beginners: 10 Easy Steps to Sowing Seeds which currently ranks in fourth place (despite all the deranking) for "How to Sow Seeds" has had its title changed to "How to Sow Seeds( Plus A Definition)". I'll change it back when...
by Caren White 6 years ago
I just had a nightmare experience with HubPro. Worst was that they published their changes before I had a chance to see them. I submitted my most popular garden pest hub to Dengarden. All of my garden pest hubs are written in an idiosyncratic style that is a reflection of my...
by AnnaMKB 7 years ago
First off, my hubs are transferred from Squidoo, and I am aware of various issues there. I'd already checked and edited hubs after the transition, so this is all post transfer.What I don't understand is why some of my hubs get unfeatured after I've edited them? One even got...
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.
|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.|