The number of appallingly low quality Hubs appearing on the feed lately is shocking. They are badly written, in many cases clearly spun or translated, and miscategorised. In the last fifteen minutes, I have reported four Hubs. 99% of the so called Hubbers responsible add numbers to their names. Their Hubs could be in Candy Recipes, Lord of The Rings & The Hobbit, and other categories, but turn out to be the shipping news for Vietnam.
The HP Team need to look at ways to protect HubPages and legit members from this. If it hits our traffic and revenue, there will be a lot of unhappy campers.
I'm confused. I was under the impression that the feed is personalized to each hubber. It is showing you hubbers and forums and Q/A that you choose to follow. If you are seeing poor content, you need to change your follows...Am I missing something?
My guess is that these days, when just about no one is producing new hubs, the team puts anything and everything in our feeds because that's all they have to fill the feed with. The old days are long gone.
But as Christy already stated, hubs in the feed are brand new and may or may not pass the QAP once they get there. Once an author hits the "publish" button, a hub will automatically show up in the feed.
You can also follow certain subjects like education, health, etc-- and many of these low quality "hubs" are miscategorized anyway.
As others have mentioned in this thread, these Hubs are not Featured (and are therefore not hurting the site with Google) and will likely be unpublished once seen by a moderator. The reason we show Hubs that aren't Featured in the Feed is that new readers won't necessarily have their earliest attempts Featured but we hoped more experienced Hubbers would offer help, advice, and encouragement and generally welcome new Hubbers into the community in various ways.
But it seems like showing those Hubs is no longer serving that purpose and it might be time to rethink their inclusion. I'll bring it up with the Team.
I can only speak for myself, but I only want to help people who can write well in English and are not here to promote a business.
Unfortunately that group seems to represent a small percent of all the new users signing up every day. It looks like the majority of new signups can't write in English and/or are only trying to promote something. You can keep filling up my and everyone else's feed with their garbage writing, but I don't waste my time reading it, let alone trying to improve it.
Thank you for responding Christy, and for considering a solution.
Christy, some of these that show on the feed are not even real hubs.. they are just spam disguised as hubs. They usually have a link to something they are advertising, no images, and/ or the text doesn't even make sense.
Regardless! Really, Regardless!
Trash is Trash! Am I a great writer? I'm sorry to say that the answer is NO!
But I am a writer who tries to constantly improve.
And I do us good grammar as best I can.
And I do spell (and spell check) as best I can.
And, I (along with Google, it seems) have some level of standards about what I read.
So, please get rid of the trash you are allowing to be placed on our feeds. We're all better than this!
Obviously, you don't need to live up to my standards, but at least raise yours.
Well, friends, I've made the case to the Team of waiting for Hubs to be Featured before being displayed in the Feed, but it looks like Engineering won't have the time to update the Feed any time soon.
In the meantime, please do help us out by flagging the spammy and low-quality posts you see to get them removed ASAP. Wish I had better news.
Thanks for at least making the team aware of our concerns Christy. Hopefully Engineering can do something when they get time.
This thread is no longer about the feed Christy, it has evolved into making a case against poor quality content on the site.
If our engineers do not have the time to deal with this No.1 most important issue, then I lose all hope of a recovery for HubPages.
Here is the bottom line:
Publish only QAP approved content.
Is that so difficult to do / understand?
Re your second point Christy, I repeat: It is not our job to clean up the site.
You mean "tail wags dog"? Really?
I totally endorse what Sue says re. it's not our job - and never was - to clean up the site. That's what the HubPages share of the income from our content should be paying for!!
If HubPages does NOT get its priorities oriented according to business need it will see both quality content and decent levels of income disappear. This is entirely predictable and, it seems to me, has already started to happen (based on various indicators re the site).
See my response below for a more detailed comment http://hubpages.com/community/forum/134 … ost2793855
I have also noticed the problem hopping hubs and on the feed-which is why I always question having 80% or 70% (points whatever) when my hubs are approved! They always are haven't had a rejection yet. When I read hubs on feed that are really horrid I always think-I'm in the 70's and 80's and this trash got approved!?
Please read the previous posts in this thread. Newly "published" articles found in the feed or in the hub hopper have not yet been approved for publication.
Also, ignore the article scores. They are meaningless.
In which case they shouldn't be in the feed!
I agree; I am just letting people know they don't have to freak out about the articles they see in the feed. I, too, wish HP would change the feed policy. Like the stupid scores, the feed is meaningless, yet it manages to cause so much frustration, confusion and bitterness -- all for no real reason. It's a cryin' shame.
First rule of providing a good service - give the punters what they want!
...and we don't want to see those who can't express themselves properly in English or the spammers. Hide them from view until such time as they reach an acceptable standard of writing.
I agree. Since HP won't oblige, my solution is to never go to the feed page, just as I never check my articles' scores. There is no point in it. At one time, when the site was bustling with activity, I guess some people might have found the feed helpful as a filter, so they could more easily find the activity relevant to their interests. These days, however, there is so little activity on the site that the filtering aspect of the feed is unnecessary. I don't waste my time on that page.
Good work on the site upkeep. By the way, I've got some really nice performance out of some of my LOTR themed pages
Yes, I have just reported three hubs myself. They are written in poor English as though spun, categorized wrongly under Comic Book Making, Famous Writers and Poets etc. HP has to moderate these better. They should not appear on the feed if they haven't been featured, in fact the should not have passed publishing.
I'm confused as to why they bother. Producing a rubbish piece of work won't improve anybody's life and slowly die a death, whereby no one will ever read their work. Waste of time hey!
My guess would be that they are being paid directly, as part of the shady underbelly of the internet gaming search engines etc. Like spam blog comments, the ones that do not directly link to their goal are meant to build up the throwaway account, and much of the text is automatically generated.
It's a shame if that is the case. The internet has evolved too much to have to put up with these people and their phony information. It's all about quality, relevancy and usability. I hope the large resources of the internet can make the necessary changes to combat this and push the internet to its next level
It's a constant problem that HP seems unable to allocate the resources to manage.
Personally, I see this as one example of why Google is hitting everyone so hard.
Exactly, Google is punching me left and right. My earnings took a ..........SEVERE NOSEDIVE!!!!!! I am getting sick looking at my current earnings!!!!!
I think they reward you handsomely with profile score points for hub hoppin
Yes but as long as they are not in feature status, they are not seen in search engines.
Strange ... why do they appear in the feed when they aren't featured though?
I know that if a hub is not in feature status, it is not viewable in search engines. It is only viewable on the Hubpages site. My guess is that they want new writers, regardless of talent, to at least be seen. I am by no means an expert on the inner workings of the site, so possibly a longer tenured member can chime in.
I wonder if this is the result of the depletion of writing content sites. Some of these new writers seem to write in the same style as was found on Bubblews. Also, I know Wikinut is now a non-paying site, which may cause a mass exodus of bad writers (looking for pay) coming from there, too.
I am new to Hubpages and new to the whole blogging aspect. I am in no way a professional writer and realize the road to becoming one is a long road. I try to give as good a quality as I can under the circumstance. It is my hope that over time and experience even though I will never become professional that I have at least improved my abilities and form some kind of talent for the craft of writing. I do understand that some are of very poor quality, that are even obvious to the lay person. I hope you take the time to look at my hubs. I would love some constructive criticism on how to make my entries better.
flakey, I think we are mostly talking about the low substance, low-value articles that have no meaning or merit. I read a thing recently where one of the owners, Paul I believe, stated that one of the main purposes of this site is to give writers that may go undiscovered a medium. That is a very powerful thing. It is a shame that good writers here have stuff like that next to their work. Even though it is not seen in Google, people still see it visiting the site, and the writers here as well. Perhaps the powers that be could have like a "pre'' boot camp, where articles are published and reviewed internally. and THEN be awarded the privilege of writing featured material. Just a thought...
What you are seeing in the feed may well be from authors who have not yet passed boot camp. As already stated, the hubs you see in the feed are not necessarily going to be published on HP. Most of the worst stuff, like spam, business promotion, spun content, broken English, etc., becomes unpublished once it is seen by the QAP. The bad stuff **should** NOT become actually published unless it is first dramatically improved.
Of course, there are some bad hubs that slip through.
Flag the bad ones if you have the time and if it makes you feel better. But they **should** be getting caught by QAP. But remember they go to the feed first, before QAP. Also, fellow authors see the feed but outside visitors do not.
Thank you for reacting Christy.
HubPages is a fantastic platform but the present system is open to abuse. Here is a proposal:
1. only publish QAP approved hubs
2. keep unapproved hubs as drafts only visible to their authors.
Pure and simple. Keep the trash off the site. This would give newcomers the chance to prove that they are serious members. It would also give them a target. If HubPages only published QAP approved content, *even without Google, its reputation would attract better potential authors and more high quality content. Being cleaners for HP is not our job. Our time spent reporting rubbish is better used helping budding talent.
*Are we writing for Google, or for the public? F*** Google, let us be our own authority on good content.
Most of those low-quality Hubs in the Feed are still pending and do end up becoming QAP unpublished or unpublished by a moderator fairly quickly. I agree that at this point it's probably better to not show them to other Hubbers until they have at least passed the requirement for becoming published, and possible Featured as well.
Why do we have 2 statuses for hubs, (1) published and (2) featured?
Either a piece of writing is published or it isn't.
If a hub is not featured, it is not fit for publication, so it should remain in unpublished draft form until it is published, full stop.
To make things eve more complicated, confusing and ambiguous you also distinguish between un-featuring for
(a) poor quality
(b) over-promotional, and
(c) poor traffic
If the QAP was well set up, it would take care of all that and pass only those hubs for publication that have good enough content (by HP rules) to likely attract reasonable traffic. So why not
1. get rid of the "featured status" and replace it with "published status"
2. get rid of the "unfeatured status" and replace it with "draft status" (more friendly to authors)
Draft status is unpublished, until QAP is passed.
I understand that the rules change. If a published hub no longer passes QAP, it may go back to draft status. But then, at least no one but the author of that hub can see it until it is fixed. This gives authors more incentive and responsibility to revise and refresh their work to go with the times.
Also, it not being seen on the site it would help to discourage the activity I think.
I have been bemused by the similarities between what happened at Squidoo and what has been happening at HubPages in recent months. I'm not alone (although most of these discussions happen in other places).
How to kill a site quickly
1) ignore business priorities (e.g. maximise good quality writers producing good quality content)
2) apply sticking plasters rather than address root and branch issues
3) allow people in who can't write a good enough standard of English and/or create rubbish
4) fail to create an efficient and effective moderation system
5) watch the good writers leave - and take their content with them
6) watch the traffic and income fall
7) watch staff leave
8) and so it goes on
Yet again effort gets put into the wrong things.
Engineering should support business priorities not dictate them! (Are you familiar with the metaphor of the "tail wagging the dog"?) Based on the now extensive experience of what has happened elsewhere to article sites that means staff will eventually find themselves out of a job if they don't address what is required.
1) Moderate the people not the hubs in the first instance. Do NOT allow people to join HubPages who cannot write English if a decent standard of English is what is required. This is called an efficiency saving - because it saves an awful lot of wasted effort reviewing badly written hubs down the line
2) Separate new hubbers from published hubbers. Put all new Hubbers on probation until they have demonstrated they can produce hubs of the required standard.
* Do not allow any Hubber to publish a hub until they've written at least three (personally I'd make it five) and these have all been moderated and have passed the standard required for a hub.
* Hubs should be designated as "pending" until such time as they have been moderated. (See below i.e. "unfeatured" is a label only used for previously published hubs)
3) Provide help to new Hubbers in a targeted way.
* Only allow new Hubbers who are trying to get started access to a specific newbies "Help" Forum which is not accessible by Google i.e. keep the spam out of the main forums from people who are only here to spam.
* Hubbers who want to help new people can then target their efforts efficiently - because they know where the new people are.
3) Draw an important distinction between published and unpublished hubbers i.e. between:
* previously published hubs unfeatured for lack of traffic or quality - which have previously met publication standards and
* those that have never been published because they are unmoderated (ie retain the "unfeatured" status purely for those that have previously been published by hubbers who already have published hubs)
They are NOT the same and should not have the same label attached. Making it public that you use the same label as that attached to new people who can't write and/or spam is a virtual guarantee of stimulating removal of that content from this site by published hubbers - and once that starts the good published content soon follows.........
....watch the traffic and income fall.... etc
"Flag the bad ones if you have the time"
Yeh, RIGHT! I understand your thought but that just lowers the already minuscule earnings (if any) per hour. This is my first post in months and I spend zero time on my hubs. I do pop in every so often and check the forum but it seems to be on a slow death spiral.
I would be investing time writing here or elsewhere because I do believe in the idea that many people around the World have knowledge that others want and (theoretically) they should be paid to create informational content hosted by commercial sites that take a percentage for maintaining and policing the quality of the content. Problem is that it is hard to up the quality of a site created under an outdated model and to start totally fresh requires a big investment.
Google doesn't like content farms because they do not make Google any money and (in general) are not policed well enough (IMHO).
If HP is serious they should start by using some of the fine suggestions offered here by very savvy Hubbers.
by xpressrite3 years ago
So hubbers help? I had four hubs that went from the pending state to having the featured status. Originally they were all viewed on the page where you can hop hubs.Now I dont no where...
by Gary Anderson2 years ago
I thought if a hubpage was listed in Google search it was featured. But apparently that is not the truth. I guess I will keep the hubs up and run my own check on them.
by Suzanne Day3 years ago
I can see some of my new hubs in Google when I search for "hub name".But in Webmaster Tools, I submitted a sitemap and it says 38 URLs submitted and 10 indexed.I used Fetch as Google for a few new hubs and...
by Lizzie Edenfield2 years ago
Lately I have noticed how most of my articles that have been there for a long time, are being marked as not featured. And even after trying to "fix" them they are placed in the same stage over and over again....
by Marye Audet5 years ago
So other than the fact that Google has apparently decided I am a crappy writer and my traffic is down from 17k a day to maybe 1600... with a similar decline in income... Do we yet know why this happened? Feeling a...
by Oliver Rifkind13 hours ago
I am attempting to get back into writing. I'm hoping to realistically make about 200 dollars a month. I have played video games for 30 years and was considering writing reviews. When I first started...
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.