I received an email from HubPages about a recently published Hub, suggesting some changes that might mean it could be moved to Healdove.
One of the suggestions was as follows:
"Can you add some sources to support your information? You can create a "sources" section at the end of your article to list all of the articles/websites/etc. you consulted. For each source entry, please include article title, date of publication (if listed), author (if listed), website name, date retrieved (i.e., the date you accessed it online), and a link."
Please can someone advise me on what format this should take and/or point me to an example to follow?
I am also concerned that I used at least ten online sources during my research - should I reference and provide links to them all? I am worried that a large number of links at the end of my article might be counterproductive?
Thank you, Alison
Seriously?!? They finally realized the value of using sources! That's wonderful!
Agreed. It was always a wrong move to insist on removing blocks of references - it goes against standard practice in all creditable articles which are based on literature searches.
I have used sources on every single hub for the past two years, and I used sources in my other incarnation on hubpages five years ago. So, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I always use hyperlinks in my sentences to connect to the information I'm talking about. My hubs are always featured, and I've had a fair number selected for niche sites, so I'm not sure what you mean that links to sources aren't accepted.
I said this because they edited the sources off of some of my hubs that went onto vertical sites, sources such as more information about and definitions of autism on a page I wrote about an aspect of autism. They also edited sources off of my page about lupus skin care that included the words lupus and skin in them. Also, others have posted that their sources were removed.
That's really interesting. I wonder why.
I don't know.
It really upset me because I'm uneasy about not having sources on anything that is even remotely approaching something medical. It has caused me to place all of my new writing about anything I felt needed sources or would provide a better reader experience with resources on it elsewhere. I've placed about a dozen pieces elsewhere instead of on HP since it happened because it made me uncomfortable. I don't feel comfortable knowing my credibility backup has been stripped away.
I put a lot of links on some of my hubs to do with health. And some paragraphs have a link in every sentence. None of it has even been rejected.
Then, again, I have never put links at the bottom of the age. I think it looks horrible, and it's off putting to your average reader. I much prefer to link what I am saying to an article that supports it.
Perhaps it's a style issue.
In my experience, clicking on highlighted words in text online yields an advertisement as often as it yields more relevant information. I hate surprises, so it literally never occurred to me that most people preferred a little mystery regarding the links they click. I'm still not sure if I believe it, but just because it seems really weird to me, it doesn't mean it's not true. I'll have to investigate more.
I prefer to have the sources clearly identified as such with an explanation of how they relate to the article rather than seeing them presented as highlighted links, both as a writer and as a reader. I like to know exactly what I'm clicking on, so I prefer a brief synopsis labeled with the actual title of the article being linked to a single hyperlinked word or phrase.
Clearly we don't read the same thing. I have never clicked on a link that leads to advertisements. Every newspaper or publication I read always leads to the source of the material.
What do you read where the links lead to advertisements?
Also explains something that puzzled me the other day. When I mentioned inserting links, I was told that links weren't sources. As the only think I've ever used links for are sources, and as I've never read anything in which links aren't sources, I was extremely bewildered.
Turn off your ad-block software and then you'll see the ads. There are fewer of them than there were two years ago, but they're still something one may get when clicking a word highlighted or underlined in an article. HubPages is one of the places you can find in-text ads in the form of Amazon links. They now encourage the use of in-text ads instead of the use of Amazon capsules on some hubs.
Just a few years ago, in-text ad links were so common that some people offering assistance in HubPages forums assumed those of us who wanted to use links in photo credits were trying to insert affiliate links.
I don't have an adblocker.
I read The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Reuters, Associated Press, National Geographic, Russia Today. Reuters China, Daily Mail, Popular Science, The Economist, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, NY Times, Popular Mechanics, Psychology Today, The Oberserver, Mother Jones, The Intercept, CS Monitor, Google News, and I think that's all I read regularly. I have never seen a single article in any of these publications that have a link that leads ot an add. If they have links, they lead to scientific studies, referrals to other stories, etc.
Your sample is skewed compared to that of the average reader. You don't read any user-generated content on any sites similar to HubPages or on any internet-only magazines or internet-only newspapers that didn't start in print or through large, well-known organizations. You only read content from a narrow range of sources that's been funneled through professional editors. I don't expect to see text links going anywhere but other articles or sources on old, established, sites owned by print publishers or universities, but I expect to see them on the wider Internet and on sites with user-generated content.
Since text ads are a phenomenon associated with user-generated content sites like HubPages, when I see text links on such a site, they look like ads.
Are there any Squidoo survivors out there willing to back me up? Text links are a thing and they are associated with less reputable websites like HubPages and Squidoo. They provided a substantial proportion of Squidoo's income and HubPages allowed them in the form of Amazon affiliate links until recently.
No, I don't read user generated content. I don't doubt what you are saying. Just that people who are accustomed to reading work which has been professionally edited are also accustomed to links which lead to supporting articles - not ads. So it's perfectly okay to use a link to link to a supporting article. I've honestly never had any issues from HP for doing that. I also link my photographs and illustrations to articles.
Thank you Kylyssa. I hadn't worked out why I find excessive blue links annoying, and you have just explained it.
I, too, experienced that phase of the internet when in-text advertising was common and therefore I'm subconsciously suspicious when I see an in-text link. I like to see where a link is going before I click it!
Edit: HubPages still allows in-text Amazon links. In fact, they PREFER them to Amazon capsules (go figure) and are far less likely to snip them. The good thing is that now, if you create an Amazon link, it has a small orange logo in front of it.
I agree. I also am annoyed by blue links because it seems a lot of times it goes to a definition of what's underlined. As hyperlinks are usually anchored to simple words it becomes irritating. Add to that the links that seem to go one place but go to another which is some kind of earning opportunity for someone else not to mention the ones that simply misdirect you or direct you to a 404 not found page and I get to the point I don't want to click any hyperlink at all.
Well, it explains why some have been asking me for sources for my statements when the sources are quite clearly linked in every statement (which could be queried) I've made Obviously they never bothered to click on them because they thought they were ads.
The penny drops. Clearly, they dont' read professional sites. All professional sites use links to verify what they say.
That's very interesting. Clearly HubPages has changed its policy on this, because for a long time they've been discouraging blocks of links at the end of a hub. I'm glad they've changed their policy to what is recognised by all credible and respectable publications as being an accepted means of referencing sources.
That's exactly what I was thinking!
I've known for a while that the standards had changed specifically for HealDove. They want you to cover yourself from every angle - I think they're terrified of being sued for offering medical advice. So every time you make a claim for a treatment or supplement, you MUST provide a link to back up that claim, or they'll ask you to delete it.
As a result, some HealDove articles are a mass of blue links, which I find annoying, personally - and maybe that's why they're finally realising that putting the links at the end is a better idea.
I'm not at all sure that the same attitude pertains for the other niche sites, though.
I monitor news and features on specific topics every time and most of them link to sources in the article rather than a section at the end. As a reader, I prefer to have a direct link rather than search through a block of links at the end of an article, especially if a specific research study is discussed. Oh well, to each his own.
I do like links in the text, it's just a matter of how many. Some HealDove articles look as though they have blue measles.
Do you think that is offputting to the reader? As a reader, I prefer them. It means I can see where the writer got the information. I tend to get more frustrated when the writer says something and then I have to go research the source. I do that umpteen times a day.
I received the same. Eventually did get published on healdove. I found sources to support what I was saying, then used the hyperlink to link what I said to the article. It was accepted.
This is helpful, was wondering myself how to approach relevant sources.
No worries. It's not as complicated as it seems. I use a "Notes" or references section at the bottom of some of my research hubs. Simply use the website www.citefast.com or something like it. You can select APA, Chicago Style, etc. (I think HP prefers APA). Then paste the url that you used as a resource and the site prepopulates the author, website name, etc. that you want. On occasion, you may need to manually enter some information, but that's okay. Then, it formats the information cleanly. You cut and paste that information into HP.
I use superscripts (1,2,3) in the text to denote which resource is which. Hope this is helpful.
Thank you, that is very helpful - I think I will just have to use the sources used at the end as you explain and not use the superscript to link to parts of the article as I collated information from more than one source for each section of the article. I hope that this will be acceptable as I have seen it done that way on other sites.
I stopped adding sources a while ago when I would get warnings that there were too many links together in the hub. I started deleting the source sections because of this when I revised my hubs. Now, it seems that is changed and they want sources. Another option is to link directly to a source mentioned in the article itself. That seems to be acceptable as many of my recent hubs have been moved to niche sites.
Carola, this is something which has very much irritated me about the changes HubPages have been requesting to get hubs featured on niche sites. They've tried to be too dogmatic on issues of presentation, rather than worrying about quality of content, which is what should matter most to them.
I must admit I've gone along with some of the changes they've asked for, but refused others including the wholesale removal of blocks of references of the kind described here. Whilst there's nothing wrong with providing links throughout the text, it is accepted and correct practice in all serious works of academic research that links / references are provided en masse at the end of the article. There's no way that HubPages or Google should object to that.
Even if it's meant that some of my hubs have not been moved to niche sites, I've preferred to keep the presentation the way I like it as a matter of principle. I'm glad I did.
I think that citing sources is essential because it adds authority and credibility to an article. I used to link to the sources I quote but that runs into issues with the powers that be because it takes readers away from the site. I provide enough information so that somebody with at least an opposable thumb can look up the original material.
This is the format I use at the bottom of each article:
•“Canada’s Black Widow: the Rosy-cheeked Killer is Back on the Streets.” Ashifa Kassam, The Guardian, March 25, 2016.
•“Canada’s ‘Black Widow,’ who Lured Lonesome Old Men to Horrible Fates, is Free again.” Yanan Wang, Hamilton Spectator, March 21, 2016.
•“The Internet Black Widow: Is this Canada’s most Dangerous Woman?” Jasmine Coleman, BBC News, March 19, 2016.
•“Internet Black Widow Breaches Three Conditions of Release from Prison, Police Say.” Keith Doucette, The Canadian Press, April 12, 2016.
Thank you, Rupert and Carola - as I mentioned adding the sources was a request to (hopefully) get the Hub moved to Healdove. I have done something similar to you Rupert, except that I have added the URL (unlinked) at the end of each source so that it can be copied and pasted, but not clicked on. Could I also ask you, Rupert, from what you said, I am thinking that you do not put a superscript 1 at the end of the sentence in your article and the same at the beginning of the source entry that relates to it? I would not be able to do this in my Hub for the reasons explained, so I am hoping it is okay just to list the references at the bottom of the article?
No, I don't use a superscript reference number. If I'm quoting a source I always give credit in the text e.g. According to an article in The New York Times blah blah.. This is more a magazine-style thing than and academic paper.
Most of the time I use Google Scholar search but I tend to use academic articles. These are usually peer reviewed and Scholar has a feature that automatically formats the citation in 3 different formats.
by Scott Bateman11 months ago
I have been pleased with the audience and revenue for my articles on HubPages since joining the site some years ago.I commend the company for creating the successful niche sites at a time when similar sites were...
by Glenn Stok5 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 Marisa Wright11 months ago
Now I understand what people have been complaining about!I submitted this Hub to Bellatory:http://hubpages.com/style/Hair---Color-or-Go-Grayand got back the same standard email as everyone else did, with the following...
by Lena Kovadlo4 weeks ago
A few hubs of mine that were moved to one of the niche sites had links and an amazon products removed from them by admin. The Amazon products and links were relevant/related to the content in some way. Are we not...
by Eric Dockett8 months ago
About a week ago I posted about a bug in the new site layouts where the SOURCE link was not showing up under the images. This means any images requiring attribution are being used inappropriately and possibly illegally...
by Kylyssa Shay18 months ago
Only the best Hubs on HubPages are being moved to niches, so everything on the niche sites is spam free and trash free. There are no pieces written in broken English or written in ways that appear to be spun. Everything...
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.