This Hub has failed QAP due to spammy elements. I know that means the Amazon capsules, but honestly - if genuine product reviews like this can't pass QAP, things have become ridiculous:
Recommended DVD's for Male Ballet Dancers.
If I remove all the Amazon capsules, I feel like adding an opening paragraph that says,
"I've done the research and managed to find the few DVD's that cater especially for the male dancer. Unfortunately this site won't let me link to a store where you can buy them, so you'll just have to track them down yourself!"
How is that sensible?
I don't know why this wouldn't be featured, Marisa, but I do have a couple of suggestions for you. First, you need to say something to the effect of "in this hub, I will show you a list of DVDs that are for male dancers". Your intro says why male DVDs are important, but you don't really say that you will give the list. I know it is in the title, but your hub didn't say it. That first sentence in your OP would be awesome to use. "I've done the research and managed to find the few DVD's that cater especially for the male dancer" And then a "and here they are" type of sentence.
Also, I think you should add a conclusion. Something again to remind the reader that the focus of the hub was to provide a list of DVDs. It adds words and gives the reader some takeaway.
The hub looks great to me... I think the title tells exactly what the page is about. I like the subject, so little out there on male ballet dancers. It's well written, and one can see you did your "homework". My opinion, the title is what made the hub stick out, and is holding up it being featured. However,the title is justified, it gives a good description on what the hub is about. I think Hubpages should feature it. it's well written and informative.
I have seen you advise people who need help correcting an obvious error to contact email@example.com. It looks like HP really dropped the ball on this one since your hub is not spammy at all and provides the reader with the exact DVDs he is looking for if he is searching for this title.
Anyway, give it a try. I would really like to hear them clarify why the exact product is spammy. Good luck getting an answer.
Try removing the link to the blog about Finis Jhung . Sometimes it is the stupidest thing. Great, concise hub!
I wonder if the links to the images are having an effect. Unless the source requires you to link to them, maybe see what happens if you remove those links, just leave the text of the source. I also agree with what has been said about adding a little more text; not that the Hub needs it, but maybe doing so will untrigger the filter.
I hope I don't have to unlink the images - personally I think it's pretty rude to use someone's artwork and then not give them the credit!
I didn't mean not give them credit, I mean credit them with text but not a link. Many Hubbers have been doing this, WriterFox even suggested that we do this so that we don't have so many outgoing links.
I remember that, BUT that was because links in photo capsules used to be "do follow". Once HP fixed that problem, WF changed that advice.
Marisa, with all the struggles I've had that you've helped me with, I hardly feel qualified to offer advice to you!
That said, I think the hub is very interesting, your video clips are great, and I, personally don't find it spammy. But--I did not count words-per-capsule vis-a-vis HP's new rules for that ratio. I don't know if that is your trouble here, or not.
I wonder if you might get around it with a few in-text links, instead of having all of the DVDs as Amazon capsules? Not sure how or if that works any differently. Just a stray thought.
I also suggest you contact HP with a reference to this forum post.
If no luck with that, you could get around the system as follows:
1. At the bottom of the hub, add a text capsule headed:
"List of Best DVD's for Male Dancers". But don't write the heading in the text capsule heading section because that part cannot be linked. Instead,
2. Put the heading as H2 in the content part of the text capsule, not in the heading part. Below that, list all dvd's with pictures and descriptions instead of ads, without any links. Then link that top sentence "List of Best DVDs for Male Dancers" to a new WP page on your own blog. That page can carry all Amazon ads relating to the listed dvds.
I did this on one hub which had an affiliate link that later became "verboten". It's HP's loss if we use their platform to sell stuff on our own websites.
Good idea, IF I had a blog it was suitable for. However, my only ballet blog is one about pointe shoes, which wouldn't be relevant enough.
I will eventually email HubPages about it - as I said, part of my reason for posting this was sheer frustration, and I thought it would also be of interest to other Hubbers. In the past Hubbers have suggested the word limit per Amazon capsule should be increased, and the response from HubPages has been no, if the products were relevant, multiple capsules are acceptable. This is a good illustration disproving that claim.
Got a reply from the team that the ratio of product capsules to text is too high. The ratio in this Hub is one capsule per 250 words.
Which just goes to prove that HubPages' official threshold of one Amazon capsule per 100 words means absolutely nothing.
The reply suggested I should split the Hub into separate Hubs, one for each DVD. I honestly don't see what else I could write about these DVD's that would be useful to readers, so I'm certainly not going to be doing that, they would be full of fluff.
The words per product capsule ratio is a minimum requirement for a Hub to not be auto moderated.
It is required to meet the guidelines, but not sufficient to have a Hub pass the QAP.
The FAQ has some clarification as well.
I think it would really help all of us if some more specific guidance was given relative to this example. Because we all know the general rules and to me this hub seems to be compliance with all of them.
The email suggested separating the Hub into a separate Hub for each DVD, and doing a "first hand" review of each one - implying, presumably, that I had no first hand experience of them.
The point of this Hub is that there are no other DVD's for male dancers. I could review them more exhaustively but it would be a waste of verbiage, detailed description would not be more helpful to the user.
So it's possible to meet HubPages' guidelines, and yet fail QAP.
That seems strange to me.
It happens all the time! There is a massive emphasis on 'related' links and amazon capsule counts and relevance at the moment - far and away more stringent. How the can you possibly identify the cause of the rejection, when the reviewer goes way beyond the 'rules'.
But the guidelines do stress the importance of relatedness and relevancy, that's perfectly clear.
Every single link in that Hub is totally relevant - the Hub is about DVDs for male ballet dancers and every Amazon capsule is a DVD for male ballet dancers. Go figure.
My 'rejected' related links to my own hubs are much more relevant and related than those that show under "Related" in the right column on the hub, inserted by HP - go figure! What's good for the Goose as far a big G is concerned.
I have made these same points multiple times when writing to the team regarding several unfeatured hubs. I even pointed to a hub written by the owner of this site that was (is) very much a sales page and, in my view, very similar in nature to the hub or hubs of my own that had been unfeatured. I received the same type of response each time.
I got so frustrated, I finally just deleted those hubs ... regardless of my personal experience with each every product (or book) displayed in the hub. Each item was absolutely related the hub. I had more than the minimum text-to-Amazon capsule ratio. These were hubs written and products (and/or books) recommended from personal use and selected as 'the best of' according to my opinion and experience. Still ... I received much the same response.
That, Matthew, seems to me completely counter-intuitive, misleading and inappropriate. What is the point of even having/posting guidelines if they do not end up helping with acceptable quality?
If "100 words per capsule" is what it says in the guidelines, and if Marisa's hub contains 1.5 times that amount of words per capsule, there should be no way it fails QAP. If it does, then that says more about the guidelines than her hub.
I have read this hub, and it does show she has first-hand experience with these particular DVDs, so the response she stated receiving seems a bit out in left field, and a rather cavalier, presumptive answer.
I agree with her that there would be insufficient additional text that could be added were she to separate the hub into one per DVD. That is ludicrous. And also counter-productive to search results. She has put them all in one place for easy finding, having saved any searchers from doing the same exhaustive research she herself has done. One and done.
I fail to see a problem with that. When I am researching, I appreciate a site that gives multiple sources of information in one spot, and I'd rather not get bounced around by a bunch of referrals to read something else on another site (or have to page through one site looking for the other bits).
Perhaps the guidelines themselves need revision? It seems so to me, and I'm sure to others on this thread.
Telling people they need at least 100 to avoid auto-moderation is not very helpful because a hubber's goal is not to avoid moderation, but to pass QAP and have her hubs indexed in Google.
Can you show us examples of hubs that have roughly 100 words per product and have passed QAP?
If no such hubs exist and we actually need far need more 100 words per capsule to pass QAP, then make it an official rule so people don't have to guess.
Ruiz, please don't spam this discussion hub, since it's not related to the subject matter. Take it elsewhere!
A hub that features products has to add value that a simple Amazon search does not provide. Your hub definitely adds value by talking about each product. I now think your issue may be the word count per product. This post may explain your issue.
Aha! That makes sense, but it's odd that I didn't get any warning.
As luck would have it, I stumbled across another instructional DVD so I was able to add it to the article - which gave me a proper reason to write a paragraph rather than write fluff. It's not on Amazon so I didn't need to add another Amazon capsule. So it's Featured now.
by Catherine Giordano 2 years ago
I opted in to Hub Pro and I just had my first edit. Nothing was changed except to remove three of my four amazon capsules and remove links to other websites that I included to provide supporting evidence for my claims. So I'm pretty proud that the editors didn't feel the need to change, or add,...
by LongTimeMother 2 years ago
My most recently snipped hub is about a specific product that is not readily available in stores. It used to have an amazon capsule, but that was deleted courtesy of HubPro a while back. Made no sense to me at the time because I've had multiple sales through amazon for that product, but I didn't...
by Kate Swanson 4 years ago
Janderson just submitted some great suggestions on this thread:http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126313#post2666393and I think this one deserves a suggestion post on its own.We're always being told to be discriminating with our Amazon capsules - less is more, they must be directly related, etc...
by Catherine Giordano 15 months ago
I understand the rationale for removing amazon capsules. I'm very careful not to include amazon capsules unless they are 100% relevant, and I can provide a personal opinion. I rarely do more than one per hub.HP is not only snipping amazon capsules on hubs for niche sites, but also just to have a...
by ologsinquito 3 years ago
Right now, it feels as if I'm in a headlock with one moderator, over one product capsule.Team Hub Pages suggested I post here for suggestions on improving my hub with the most traffic. it was recently edited and several product capsules were removed. Then I put them back in. Then it was unfeatured...
by Sally Gulbrandsen 2 years ago
Why is it that excessive links to Amazon products seem to be permitted when they are added to the body of hub rather than as a Module on the side? In my naivety, I did not realise that this was permitted. Will these links survive when hubs are selected and moved to the niche sites?
Copyright © 2019 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 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.|