In looking over my edited hubs, I find many inconsistencies. Some hubs will be changed so that all large photos are seen (for mobile viewers?), others will be changed into thumbnails, others not changed at all. Some photos are moved above the text capsule, others below.
What does HP now consider to be correct? Does it all depend on the whims of the editor, the rain in SF, or is there a rule of editing that we have not been made aware of?
We recommend making all photos full-width if possible. The only time an editor will make a photo half-width is if the photo is blurry or pixellated and making it smaller will fix the issue. Editors also focus on where the photos will show up when the article is viewed on a mobile device, so sometimes they will be moved in order to ensure that they will show up correctly on phones and tablets. Long sections with photos that aren't broken up by text don't look very good on mobile, so editors will usually turn these into galleries. The majority of traffic to articles is on mobile devices, so editors must keep mobile viewers in mind when they make changes to images.
Thanks, Christy. I have been editing those hubs that have not yet been moved to a niche site, and I still wonder if it would be better to make some of the images into thumbnails. Should I change the first image into full width, and then still include the other images of that capsule into thumbnails, or make them all full width?
If I include all of the images as full width (some have 3 or 4 images per capsule, and the hub may discuss 5 dog breeds, so there are a total of about 20 images) does that slow the page load time down too much? If there are a lot of images, and the load time is longer, does Google lower the status of the hub on the search page?
(I have also read that having a lot of images does not change load time very much. Can you comment on this?)
Thank you again.
Mark, you will get answers to your own questions if you view your hubs in mobile view. That's when you will see the problems with your hubs. You will also appreciate the hard work the editors have with trying to fix the way photos fall into the wrong place on mobile devices if you neglected to check that when you created your hub.
You can help the editors by doing this yourself. Click on the mobile view tab in the hubtool and see how it looks. Then you'll know what changes you need to make - which photos to make full width, which photos to move to a different spot, where to place them, etc.
Glenn, some editors took my full sized images and made them into thumbnails. Some enlarged images so that there are now 10 or 20 full sized images on a page. Do you think that this makes load time slower?
It is difficult to edit my own hubs "like the editors want" when so many of the editors seem to have different agendas. Are they following directions from HP, or do they each just do what they think is best?
Here is an example of an editor that switched the photos to thumbnails:
Here is an example in which the editor left all of the photos full width but moved them around
(Christy stated below that "Long sections with photos that aren't broken up by text don't look very good on mobile, so editors will usually turn these into galleries"; I assumed she was talking about thumbnails.If you look at that article in a mobile it looks much worse after editing.
https://pethelpful.com/dogs/five-best-p … dog-breeds
Here is another example in which the editor did not make the images full width
https://pethelpful.com/dogs/large-dog-b … drool-much
I do not mind if the editor fixes my grammar, as I am sure there are plenty of errors, but I would like to see some consistency/guidelines in the photo edits.
Mark, I think you missed my point. The editors can only do so much. They need to guess where you want your photos to appear when viewed in a single column, as is what happens on mobile devices.
That's why I told you to check that yourself. When you do that you will have the opportunity to arrange things the way you want. Once you make it look good on mobile, and more importantly, the way you want it to appear that makes sense for the reader, then the editors won't need to interject with photo rearrangements. You'll make their life easier and you'll have more control.
As for the thumbnails, you'll notice that they made them full width with thumbnails. Once again, that was for the purpose of trying to compensate for mobile viewers since the right column falls into a single column along with the text. If you haven't yet, you should read my hub on that topic for a full understanding.
You need to take the responsibility to make it right by viewing it yourself in mobile view. Have you done that? The editors can only guess what you want.
Yes, I have been going through my other hubs and doing that. BUT, since each editor seems to have a different agenda, if I change the images to thumbnails, for example, the editor comes along and changes it to full width.
Is this just a matter of an editor feeling like she needs to justify her paycheck?
I think you missed missed my point again. Full width is necessary in order to avoid problems with mobile views. That's why I keep mentioning that.
If you make thumbnails in the right column, it may end up in the wrong place on mobile devices. That's why the editors change it to full width. I don't see that they are all doing things differently. They are all following the same rules.
Somehow you are perceiving each case to be different. I am trying to bring your focus to one point, that being that mobile devices only have one column, as you can see when you use the mobile preview in the hubtool.
Thanks, Glenn. Yes, we prefer that all photos are full width so that your text and photos are aligned properly on mobile.
I can understand your confusion with editing, Mark. With the different levels of editing, it is easy to see inconsistencies. The last link was snipped, and in snipping we don't change photo width. With HubPro Premium, we make sure that all photos are full-width and will replace images that are pixelated at full-width. With HubPro Basic, we aren't replacing images, so if an image is pixelated or blurry, but essential to the Hub, we will leave it half width.
Personally, I prefer not using a thumbnail, but in some cases it is a better experience. I think that is up to you. In the wolves Hub, it makes sense and you could use thumbnails in the Doberman Hub, too. My problem with thumbnails is that some readers may miss them and if the image is important, it could be overlooked. I hope that answers your question.
That makes sense as I am sure the wolf hub went through the Hub Pro Premium and the others went through different programs. I guess at this point my best bet is to go through those hubs that were only snipped and make them consistent, per Glenn´s suggestion.
I am still confused as to switch the rest of them to thumbnails. The images as very tiny when viewed from a mobile so I am worried that they might not even be seen, but if they are switched to thumbnails instead of all full width, is there going to be a significant difference in page load time?
To my mind the only really important thing about an image is that it is sized so that it loads fast.
It's debateable whether images in galleries are better than individual images as some people are averse to galleries on mobile devices while others like them.
I agree it would be helpful if there were one consistent set of rules for images - which are also consistent with wholly responsive templates and mobile devices as standard - which could then be followed by both hubbers and editors alike
I am glad that I am not the only person that noticed this issue with thumbnails. If I switch most of my hubs to galleries instead of all full width, is the page going to load faster? (All the images are less than 1MB, but as I mentioned before there might be a lot of them in each hub.)
Thanks for your input, MAM.
I think the reason most people aren't aware of it, is that very few people load more than one photo in each photo capsule. For most people, photos are either a decoration to the text, or illustrating something step-by step, so you don't need more than one every paragraph.
I do understand why you need to have such a large number though.
My rule of thumb for images is no pic bigger than 100k and that's because 72 dpi does just fine for all website pics (unless you've got people wanting to look at detailed brush strokes in a painting!) AND makes speed of loading much faster (which Google likes)
Anybody posting high resolution pics on a website either doesn't understand how screens work differently to print or should not complain if all and sundry start downloading them.....
Okay, thanks. Most of the photos I have downloaded from Flickr are about 200 to 300 k, but when I use my own photos they are quite a bit larger. I need to do some more resizing.
(I am never one of those who complains about others stealing my photos but I would like my pages to load a little faster. Some of those Buzzfeed pages load so slow that a lot of times I do not even bother to open them.)
If it's any use to you - my standard size which I use on blogs and websites is:
1) no resolution bigger than 72dpi
2) no long side longer than 600 pixels
3) no file bigger than 100kb
Occasionally I use bigger but there needs to be a jolly good reason because the bigger you make the file the longer it takes to load
...and the longer it takes to load the fewer people will visit
....and the longer it takes to load the more Google does not like you.
I find these good incentives to get on top of image processing!
I use PS Elements for all my image work - works fine for me.
I don't have a "fancy smart phone" so I cannot view pics in mobile mode. Thus, I do not, apparently, know what they "really" look like to some viewers. But because many of my articles contain text that is best accompanied by a photo that pops up next to -- not underneath -- the copy, I am not sure that putting everything in full width is a good idea, I think it should depend on the article, text within and the accompanying photo. For example, in my Barbie doll clothes articles, having pics next to the text instead of underneath helps readers see what they're reading about (hopefully at the time they're reading it). It also shortens the page which is important for keeping the reader's attention. But there are other articles where full width pics may look better to the reader, so, there is NO "one-size-fits-all" on this matter.
Teri, What you are missing in your understanding is that most traffic comes from mobile devices these days. HubPages automatically makes everything single column when viewed on smartphones, so your photos in the right column will fall into place with the text. If you're not careful, they may fall into place in the wrong location and that will make it even worse for your reader to follow along.
That's why single column is required now for consideration to be moved to the network niche sites.
You don't need a smart phone to verify how your hub looks. You can see it by clicking the "Mobile Preview" tab in the hubtool. It's important to do that for every new hub you publish. I even do it when I edit older hubs to make them mobile-friendly.
Single column is only a consideration for moving to niche sites IF you are asking HP to move a specific hub
Teri, I'm like you and MUCH prefer the right-floated layout for Hubs, but we can't change the fact that most people are viewing our Hubs on a smartphone. When they do that, HubPages changes the format of our Hubs whether we like it or not!
To see what they see, click on Preview and make sure you're looking at the Mobile version. Prepare for a shock, because it may ruin the way your Hubs flow: if you right-float a photo, then it appears ABOVE the text full-width.
I tried to look at some of my older hubs but do not see a mobile preview option. I do notice that some of the hubs moved to niche sites still lay out the way I originally set them (in other words, they were not moved by editors). Some others (later-written) that editors did review for the niche sites had their photos tweaked (these hubs don't have as many pictures than the earlier ones do). Do I assume that the mobile preview is there when the hub is being created? When I put the older ones in edit m ode, I do not see the mobile option.
Wait, now I can see it. Some don't change, though. The worse part is that the Google ads come in between the content and can be very confusing to the reader. Why this is better, overall, than an eBay ad, for example, I don't understand. The continuity of all hubs is ruined with these inserted ads in the midst of content. It surprised me that anyone would read through the whole article(s). People scrolling through the article get lost. "Then again, it's more important for readers to see the ads than the information they seek," she said sarcastically.
Teri, the difference between eBay ads and Google ads is that Google places ads that are related to the interests of the specific reader. The ads that you see are not the same as the ads that your readers see.
I agree with you that the Google ads in mobile view break up the flow, but on the other hand, they are specifically related to the reader. Therefore those ads can work well to bring you advertising revenue, unlike eBay ads (which have been a huge failure).
I think that Google ads are only specific to the reader if the reader "opts in" to that and lets the advertisers use the demographics of age, gender and the area they live in (for examples). I have said "no" to targeted ads to myself. Probably why I get ads for prostate meds and the like. :-) BTW, I'm not against removing eBay ads because they vary so much. But it's really the distraction that I am concerned about. Google ads supposedly bring in revenue but it will take a million years before I reach their payout level.
The Google default is to be opted in. Most people never even know that they can opt out.
Personally, when I'm reading articles from various sources across the web, I'd rather see ads that are related to my interests rather than getting random ads. It's a better reader experience in my opinion, so I suspect that's why Google defaults to leaving people opted in.
Teri, are you signed up for HP Ads? If so, most of the Google ads you see on your Hub are, in fact, HP Ads. HP Ads are a mixture of Google and other advertising.
If you're signed up for HP Ads, the ONLY real Google ad you have on each Hub is right down at the very end of the Hub. That's why you never earn anything from them!
I'm not sure I know the difference between HP ads and Google ads but yes, I am signed up with the HP ad program; that's how I get my income from HP. In any case, the ads have nothing to do with the content and are distracting. But that's what content sites need the ads to be; distracting enough to bring the reader to the advertisement and click on the link. It's designed that way.
by Sandra L 10 years ago
I went into one of my older hubs to add a photo and got this message:"It looks like some images in this capsule appear to be reduced in size. Note that saving any changes made to this capsule will update the size of these images to fit the capsule."After adding a new photo, all the...
by Lisa Stover 9 years ago
I may be the only person that feels this way but I really don't like the look of our hubs. I think they would look more professional if they were wider. They remind me of blog posts.
by SmartAndFun 7 years ago
Apologies in advance for asking a question I should know the answer to, but I just can't keep track anymore, and the search function is not yielding any helpful results.When writing new hubs or updating old ones, is it now recommended to place photos and videos so they take up the full width of the...
by Faith Reaper 10 years ago
In a recent HubPages weekly email, it was discussing the fact that many use photos and do not provide a source. I was thinking that this may easily be addressed by HP by requiring a source in the source field inside the photo capsule, whether it is "self" or the Freedigitalphotos,...
by Sondra Rochelle 9 years ago
I just realized that people are using full width images in their hubs again, even at the beginning. The team used to tell us NOT to do that because at the top of the article a photo makes a post take to long to load and also takes up space that should be given to advertisers and in the middle...
by Buildreps 8 years ago
Just checked it on Alexa.com, and realized which (alleged) effect the Panda updates of Google has on traffic. Although I'm still happy with the traffic my Hubs have, are the foundations increasingly eroding. Are there any ideas to change this trend? http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/hubpages.com
Copyright © 2024 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.
|This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
|HubPages Google Analytics
|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.
|Amazon Web Services
|Google Hosted Libraries
|Google Custom Search
|Google AdSense Host API
|Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace
|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.
|Author Google Analytics
|Amazon Tracking Pixel