Few people like writing more in hope than expectation. And everybody hates not knowing why they fail (if they do). So, for what it's worth, here is a suggestion for a publication pathway that people could have some confidence in.
Pretty much all of this could be automated, with feedback to writers throughout.
1. Publish on HP
2. QAP. Move to next stage if score of 8 or over, tell the under-eights to improve their page
3. Consideration for Niche Sites should involve:
Checking page covers a subject not already covered
Checking pics for attribution
A copyscape test (or similar) to make sure page is at least as original as the rest of the niche
A quick check to ensure title relates to content
There should be no affiliate links on info-type pages and no self-serving links of any kind
Writers should know why pages are rejected (and can try fixing them and resubmitting at least once)
4. Pages that Pass get a Trial Publication
No traffic = rejection from trial
Poor dwell times = rejection from trial
Tell the writer how the page is performing in the trial from time to time. If page is rejected ultimately, tell them why. If page is marginal tell writer to improve it and trial again.
5. Full time Spot on Niche Site
Glory to those who succeed. Learning opportunities, for those who do not.
Oh yeah, make a new accolade. 'Niche Ninja', maybe. Or 'Vizier of the Vertical' Or 'He Who Spots a Gap".
Not sure they will do a trial period on niche. HP stated that low traffic hubs would not hurt the sites. Just seems like much more time and effort. Are you talking a personal Hubscore of 80? Or a score of 80 for the article?
A page can get low traffic for a lot of reasons and all of them make me wary. One is that people hate the page and click away fast. Google is pretty good at working out when this happens. You don't want to keep too many pages of that kind.
Dwell times should tell you if readers approve or not but they won't tell you if the page is triggering some kind of spam filter and being buried as a consequence.
I wouldn't be too dogmatic about any of this, though. Except for the transparency bit. People need a process that demonstrably rewards hard work and ability.
I agree with most of this. Maybe not the part about trial publication, but the rest of it.
Based on my own traffic to pages that have moved, I am pretty convinced that HP is onto something really good with the niche sites.
However, my traffic to pages that haven't been moved continues to struggle. The path forward seems very clear. To do well here, a Hub needs to be chosen for a niche site.
Unfortunately, in some cases it it hard to see why one page was moved and another was left behind. This makes it tough to justify writing new content for HubPages.
Spending six hours on a Hub only to have it rejected for a niche site amounts to a colossal waste of time.
Unless HP comes up with a solid plan for content left behind.
Back when we had subdomains I felt like I had a reasonable chance of success based on my own actions and decisions. Now, any success seems contingent upon your Hub getting chosen for a niche site.
So, a little more transparency about the process would be very welcome. Some feedback when possible. Up until now the directions have been very vague, and the process occasionally seems arbitrary, or at least based on the whim of whatever staff members looks at your Hub.
All new or edited Hubs should get a thumbs up/thumbs down within a reasonable time period, so Hubbers can either improve them or move them elsewhere.
This is most optimistic I've felt about HubPages since before the Squid merger. But there are still some important details to iron out to get things back something like the way they were.
That's my opinion anyway.
One reason I would favor a trial publication is that I think that every page that is original, reads well and gets a good QAP, score deserves a chance in a Panda-free environment. But it is not good idea to fill up a site with redundant pages. Dwell times and traffic will tell you where the dead wood is.
I have deleted a lot of pages that did not live up to readers' expectations and I would recommend other people to do the same.
Attribution is a real sticking point. HP has stated that they do not check for this and cannot control it. As a result, a fair number of writers consistently steal and use photos without permission. This puts the entire site at risk, even though the writer doing it is to blame.
Nothing galls me more than to see hubs with gorgeous, professionally done photos that I know are stolen, while I spend time finding and editing legal photos (or photographing my own pics, etc.). The team has clearly stated that they are unable to challenge these because they cannot prove people are using illegal photos and they don't have the manpower to do it.
And while we're on the subject, it is also irritating to see hubs getting tons of views that are nothing more than spun content with professional photos attached. Usually you see this with travel hubs, movie reviews and the like.
As a former teacher, I have to say that I always have had a distaste for cheaters and liars, and these types of behaviors fall into that category.
They may not hurt my own views, but watching them earn when so many others here are trying to do things the right way and are struggling really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
A lot of reputable sites these days use screenshots from YouTube vids if no other pics are available. I suppose they are hoping to be protected by 'fair use'. They usually give a link to the vid.
I might start doing this but not here, lol.
by Levictus Marcus Saarith4 weeks ago
Hopefully someone from Hubpages HQ can look into this.I believe that those of us that are using a hosted account with Adsense are not getting any ad revenue on impressions from the niche sites.I base this on the fact...
by Tim Mitchell8 weeks ago
I recived a note from HubPages an article is eligible for a niche site. The notes at the bottom stated to check grammar. I have done corrections using grammarly and one other editing software. The question is do I wait...
by John Ray De la Cruz Cuevas44 hours ago
Should I submit the article with the highest hubscore for a higher chance of approval?
by Glenn Stok6 months ago
I noticed that hubs in niche sites no longer include the "More by this author" section below the hub. Is this just an oversight or was it a decision to drop it on niche sites?
by Scott Bateman10 months ago
I'm very happy with the results of the niche sites. It's a win-win for HubPages and writers like myself. But I'm a bit curious about the process for choosing Hubs that go on those sites.One of my most successful Hubs on...
by TIMETRAVELER210 months ago
Many of us here are working hard to upgrade our hubs so that they can be moved to the niche sites. I think it would be a good idea if those upgrades are viewed by the team the same way as new posts so that they...
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.