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 can more quickly addressed. It's a shame to let much better upgraded articles sit idle while new ones are moved. What think you?
That mechanism already exists - if you think you've improved your Hub to the required standard, you can submit it. But only one every 60 days, of course.
I'm sure they've put that limitation on for a reason - because they've worked out that if they don't, they'll be swamped!
I know they are looking at new Hubs, but new Hubs need to go through QAP anyway so it's not much extra work to assess them for the niche sites.
Christy mentioned on another thread that they're still choosing Hubs using traffic as the main criteria. So if you improve Hubs enough to get more traffic, that will move them up the queue.
Yes that makes a lot of sense to me. We and anyone else (people not on the forums) would only be updating to make it better. And that being said, they are going to be better than most of the new hubs being published. So why not look at these just the way you would a new hub.
Time is an issue for the low man power right now, that's a point for sure, but it would make sense to look at updated hubs before trying to get to the remaining hubs that are not being updated. I'm going to guess that any hub with even a decent daily traffic has already been moved or considered as that's what's happened to my account.
The question is, how would the process work? It would have to work the same as the current "submit every 60 days" system - if you expected editors to consider a Hub every time someone did an edit, then they would be getting Hubs in their queue every time someone fixed a typo.
So really what you're saying is, allow us to submit any time, not just every 60 days.
The problem with that is your assumption that people understand the standards, and wouldn't waste the editors time bombarding them with Hubs that weren't improved enough. I, for one, am still getting a handle on what's acceptable (having just had one rejected). What if I'd been able to submit five Hubs instead of just that one? I would've wasted the editors' time.
What I would suggest is a pretty simple system really. But before that:
Hubs that are edited automatically go to the QAP again if I'm not mistaken? If that's possible they can probably also be put into a queue for niche site consideration.
And as a few of us suggested earlier (but the team couldn't do it for various reasons) was that you can only submit a hub once one of your previously submitted hubs is approved. If you get a reject, then you wait like 10 days before you can submit again. It would prevent people from misusing the system.
This is just talk though, we all know that it's not going to happen as the team have a system in place and it would take time and resources to do it any other way. So all we can do is trust their process, they got the stats with them and I'm sure they are doing what's right for the site. They have been doing a great job all these years.
Actually, I always believed Hubs that were edited automatically go through QAP again - but apparently that's not the case. We had a discussion about it a few months ago and we decided it wasn't true. A Hub that's edited does get checked by the automated filters but it doesn't look as though it's seen by a real person.
I see. Interesting I missed out on that conversation I guess. Thanks for the update.
I didn't realize that and thought the same as lobobrandon that if they were going through QAP again, why not just add them to the batch of new hubs. If we're going to do extra work on our articles to update them, we should at least be placed in the line with the new hubs. His suggestion would be the easiest one to implement but, of course, would lengthen the amount of time it takes for hubs to be moved. I don't think random submissions are a good idea, but doing it through the QAP is. In fact, I've often thought that a hub that has been upgraded should appear once more on the feed, too.
Oh goodness no! Can you imagine, seeing the same Hub in your feed again every time someone changed a date or added a photo?
There would have to be some mechanism to say, don't show a Hub in the feed UNLESS a lot of work has been done to it. But that would mean a programmer needs to paid to develop that mechanism - and I can't think what measures could be used. Would it be based on the number of words that were changed? or added? or the number of new photos?
I see your point, but I wasn't referring to minor updates. In many cases I wind up reworking an entire hub with a different title, better pix, etc. However, it is obvious that this idea isn't a good one. I haven't asked the team to move any of my hubs yet because they continue to take one or two every week or so from both of my sites and my views are still (amazingly) good! So, I'll just shut up now and go back to writing lol!
By asked do you mean you are not submitting any every 60 days? You should give them a good but also your lowest trafficked hub.
Regarding that update feature if I remember right it's possible to set a status right. If people are really interested why not set a status saying you updated XXX
No, I have not submitted any because they seem to be picking them up regularly from both of my sites. Also, I need time to see how hubs are doing so that if they do need upgrades I can do them before they get moved. Things are better than they have ever been for me, and I know the team is swamped, so I'm content to just take a "wait and see" attitude for now.
I assumed you weren't referring to minor updates.
My question was, how would it work? How would the system know the difference between a minor update and a major one?
They could probably design a system which measured how many words had changed in a Hub, or how much the score had increased. But how will the system know the difference between a Hub where you've made most of the changes, but had to save it because you had to go pick up the cat from the vet, and a Hub which is totally "renovated"? Surely it would be a dreadful waste of moderators' time to have a system where they might be looking at Hubs you haven't finished working on.
The only way it would work, as far as I can see, is that the Hubber would have to give some kind of signal that the Hub was ready for reconsideration. Which means, basically, a system where you have to manually submit the Hub. So we're back where we started!
I agree. There also seems to be a major delay in looking at submitted Hubs. I submitted one for this account back on Oct 12 and haven't heard anything yet.
Nothing for it but patience, I suppose. I get the sense that now that the niche sites are doing well the Team is moving more cautiously and fine-tuning the process.
They get some money, they party, lol. Who wouldn't?
I would certainly hope so. The worst that could happen is that HubPages starts accepting Hubs from the old site too easily, and transplants the old site's problems to the new one.
Yup, I updated one of mine and submitted it on the 21st no news yet. Happy to know there are others too.
Having just submitted my first hub for a niche site I was wondering how long it took and whether I would ever hear anything back one way or another. Just getting feedback on why it is rejected would be a key point so as I develop new hubs I can strive for the niche standard. Right now I'm not sure what the standard is. I just recently began to write hubs after probably 5 years away and I received Pro Hub status so I was wondering if that meant inclusion into a niche site but I guess not.
Feedback is the key, once I know why my hub doesnt make the grade then it's up to me to improve my writing/presentation.
It has been several months having not visited my HubPages account and I'm quite surprised on the new changes here particularly on the niche sites. This reminds me of Triond to submit articles to its appropriate niche according to the topic. Sadly, Triond's now gone. Am not active here anymore because I'm enjoying and earning much more on my own niche website which started a year ago.
by Scott S Bateman 2 years 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 a niche site has more than 1,250 words, multiple photos and an original video....
by Caren White 20 months ago
I was under the impression that we could only submit one hub every two weeks for niche sites. I submitted a hub and an editor replied with changes that I needed to make before it could be moved. As I'm making those changes, I have received two emails that another two of my hubs are...
by Jean Bakula 3 years ago
I saw a big improvement in the payout I made today, because of the hubs that were moved to niche sites. But when I check the stats of those hubs, what I see is different. They get a big spike in views the first day or two after they are moved, then the stats sort of flatline. Is this happening to...
by Will Apse 2 years ago
I have had a number of pages selected by editors as suitable for being moved to niche sites but in need of revision. I have been working through the backlog and submitted 2 recently.When I try to submit the third, I get this:Sorry, but you can't submit this article right now.You have already...
by Eric Dockett 3 years ago
I've been feverishly updating my old Hubs, not so much on this account but on my big niche account, in hopes that they will be noticed and moved to a niche site. But, it appears this process has come to a dead stop. It is extremely disheartening to think older, quality Hubs can only be up for...
by Dina Sostarec 5 weeks ago
Hi,Do more experienced Hubbers have any useful tips for getting your article moved to a niche site? I kept seeing advice that goes something like "make sure you write a high-quality article" but it just seems so vague to me. I have 9 articles now and the only one that was moved to a niche...
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 Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|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.|