Anyone else had this email?
Heads up! We Will Be Reviewing Your Article(s) on HealDove
HubPages Editors via amazonses.com
7:09 AM (2 hours ago)
Hi Will Apse,
We wanted to let you know that we will be reviewing the following article(s) on HealDove in the next few months:
In order to retain a high quality bar, we will routinely look through the articles that have been moved to Network Sites and review them for quality. We recommend that you take a look at your article(s) and make any needed edits that will improve quality. Once we have reviewed your article(s), you will receive another email from us.
Yes got one this evening. It certainly looks like they're doing some pruning.
It certainly suggests that HP have worked out what they intend to do about Healdove. And it does look like a purge.
A little bit more info might be useful, especially since they are encouraging people to edit their articles.
If staff are determined to get rid of a certain kind of article, it would be nice to know which kind. Why waste time if a page is doomed?
Or perhaps they simply want edits for the sake of freshening up the pages?
Anyway... a little more sense of the direction they are taking would help. I imagine their will be plenty of howling and gnashing of teeth, whatever happens. Might as well know where we are.
I received the email and I know that I need to post additional medical references and/or physician's actual opinions to me in three of my articles in Healdove.
I understand that there is a crackdown by Google against heath & medical articles that do not clearly include the
1) writer's medical and health or Alternative Health expertise and credentials, and/or
2) substantial personal experience (or experience of a relative) with the topic of the article (like both types of diabetes or ADHD or autism spectrum), and/or
3) relevant medical references from health and medical journals or websites of facilities like Mayo Clinic, National Nursing Association, National Institutes of Health., the US Complementary, Alternative, or Integrative Health website, CDC, American Psychological and Psychiatric Associations; websites for reputable support groups for health conditions and diseases; and/or offline references of related university courses, Continuing Education Credits training in health or medicine, accurate medical books not offered online in full, etc.
That's my understanding from editing I have had to do to articles in the recent past. There may be exceptions; but I think writing for Healdove will become more complex.
You can probably get your hubs on HealDove fixed up to meet the new standards simply by going to the diff document from the HubPro edit and retrieving the sources they removed when moving them to HealDove.
Also, it's kind of funny to see you complaining about the lack of guidance when you've pounced on others and brought up all their old mistakes you remembered when they asked for clarity in the rules.
Yes, I got one too. Do you ever feel that you are knocking your head on a brick wall?
This is a classic example of the Google dance: changes, then more changes, then more changes... and nothing works over the long-term. Sadly, it appears the death-knell is sounding.
Death knell? Really? Because they want to get people to update their work and rid the site of those that won't be acceptable from Google? Don't think so. They are trying to keep HP going and this is one way of doing it.
Yes, they are trying to keep HubPages going and I applaud their efforts; however, I pray that this dance doesn't play out in the same fashion it has played out at other sites that jumped through hoops to remain solvent.
The Google dance follows a familiar and predictable pattern: changes, a short-term gain in traffic, then a drop; more changes, rinse and repeat; more changes, rinse and repeat; and no matter what is tried, eventual crippling of a formerly vibrant and viable site.
Then a scale-down: writers encouraged to submit articles with no expectation of payment (Right. We all want to waste our time writing for free) and an emphasis on community and sharing (Uh-huh).
And, the worst-case scenario: the site eventually going belly up.
Think: Suite 101, Squidoo, Triond, and so many more.
I do not think this is the death knell. People said that after panda and penguin. I don't know what you know about Wikipedia, but Google does consider it to be a reputable source. The Wikipedia I read on Hubpages does talk about how hard Hubpages has worked to improve, and cites the peaceful Squidoo acquisition as a good move.
Everything in life eventually goes belly up. However, those that survive the longest believe, dream, and dare. I have two accounts, both that still regularly get traffic from google. I still enjoy monthly payments, and I still believe that Hubpages is the best of its kind. It can grow, it can change, and it can still exist.
HubPages has been a great site and a good revenue source for me, so I share your sentiments.
I will never understand why Google thinks Wikipedia is such a reputable source, considering how it's created! Years ago, they had an army of volunteer writers and moderators (including me), who kept some kind of watch on the accuracy of entries. Today, there aren't nearly enough people keeping a check on changes, and it's gradually turning into dross. I watch a handful of my favourite subjects still, and it's depressing the rubbish that gets posted as "fact".
The entry for HubPages was partly written by me, for instance - and reading it again, it's not actually expressing any opinion about the site, it's just stating facts.
As I said in my post, I think HubPages deserves congratulations for surviving all the other setbacks it has faced since Panda. However, I do think this may be the end of the line. If it's not, then I think it will have a lot more to do with the founder's affection for his creation, than business sense.
Good job. I don't know why Google thinks that. I only found out recently the relationships between the two. But I don't know nearly enough about it to understand it at all.
I guess we just have to wait and see.
I think a lot of people don't understand Wikipedia. The thing is, if you feel like it, you could join Wikipedia tomorrow and edit any page you like, any way you like. If you decided to edit the page on Donald Trump and add a political rant, a moderator would notice and remove it.
But let's say you decided to edit the page on belly dance, and add a fanciful piece about how belly dancing originated with the priestesses of fertility rites in ancient times, and was invented as an aid to childbirth. Belly dance is such a minority interest that it's likely no one would notice.
In fact, that did happen, and it wasn't changed for years, because there were no moderators who knew anything about belly dance - until I joined. You'll find hundreds of blogs which copied that misinformation from Wikipedia.
I found the same problem with pieces on other dance genres, too, and it makes me doubt any Wikipedia entry on minority interests. But Google continues to push the site as if it's gospel.
This is when I start looking for that brick wall people keep talking about. If I bang my head against it enough times it all makes sense right? I jest, but that is what makes me so confused.
I understand that Google loves Wikipedia, but I do question how healthy that relationship is.
For a very short time, I wrote for a site (forget the name, now), but it was the behind-the-scenes feed for e-how.
They had a requirement for references, along with a very long list of sites that were blacklisted, and forbidden to use as references. Wikipedia was on that list.
Ironically, anything with ".gov" was acceptable. What a laugh! As if the government always tells you the truth!
I did receive the same email, and I have already had my first article checked. It recently had a couple of small Hubpro edits, and they have declared it good to go.
One thing they did was take an existing paragraph at the end of my article stating that "I am not a medical professional, this is based on my own experience...," and add a callout capsule near the top restating that information.
Yep--I got that same e-mail. I went and did some clean-up and editing of the only 2 they mentioned, though I have 3 or 4 on that site...
It seems that the main thing they want is references, references, references.
I have always disliked seeing an article that is a sea of blue links, but on HealDove, that's what HubPages wants.
That's what I figured because long before Fred and the current issues, I got an email about improving a Hub and getting it moved to a niche site, and one of the things they wanted was references; I really don't keep that info handy, so I just left that Hub alone for a good long while and eventually moved it to one of my own sites. Just had to weigh the amount of time and energy it would take for me to hunt down references opposed to just moving that Hub somewhere where it might do well regardless.
My articles there are personal experience; that is my reference point. ::shrug:: I guess it was good, though, as I've heard nothing further.
I have the same problem. When I wrote my Hub on cataracts, for instance, I wrote it because there were no good references on the internet answering my questions after my husband's surgery. I researched the information by looking up medical journals in the library and asking questions on forums. There's no way I could find those forum answers now, or remember the names of the journals (which are mostly online but behind paywalls so linking wouldn't do much good).
I would follow the advice they gave Will - be sure there is a paragraph at the beginning of the Hub, make sure there's an early paragraph making that clear.
You could also Google for some references on the illness and add them.
I actually had a disclaimer capsule, and one of the HP people told me to take it out, and use the bio instead for that.
So, I created a separate bio for that kind of article. It serves as the main disclaimer, but I als sprinkle into the article to always check with your doctor.
I don't know what was in your disclaimer but if it's similar to what you wrote in your bio, that's not what I mean and it's not what HubPages is looking for now.
What they want is something that highlights your personal experience of the specific ailment or treatment in question, not just a general disclaimer.
In the case of your knee replacement article, for instance, I'd suggest starting the article with a short paragraph saying that you have undergone knee replacement surgery and the article explains your experience and what you learned from it. Then I'd suggest Googling a few terms in your article and adding references. For instance, I Googled "full vs partial knee replacement" and this came up:
https://www.verywell.com/total-partial- … nt-2552271
That took me all of two seconds to find.
For the Tinnitus Hub, the same thing - start with a paragraph talking about how our Tinnitus affects you, and you could probably find some helpful references at https://www.ata.org/
But, the whole article, in both cases, is about my personal experience..not just the first paragraph...
My disclaimer, that I was told to remove, was along these lines:
I am not a medical professional of any kind, This article only tells about my own experience with this issue. If you feel you have any of these or similar symptoms, consult with your own physician."
Exactly, that goes in your bio. It's too general to go in the Hub.
What I'm saying is that it's not clear until well down the page that you're speaking from personal experience. You need to state that at the beginning instead, and be specific about what that experience is. You did that in your eye floaters article but not in the other two.
I noticed in my email that's they only mentioned the two oldest hubs out of six that I have on HealDove. That is — the two that were moved to HealDove first. I also noticed that those two hubs were not edited by the curators.
So I'm thinking that they are focusing on hubs that were moved before they put more attention to editing them, although many of my hubs that were moved were never edited and just moved as is. Over half my hubs are already on the niche sites.
Therefore, I'm working on checking and updating all my hubs in niche sites that never had editor's intervention. I figure I'll work on one per day. I can deal with that, and it's worth the effort. I already see a traffic improvement on the ones I worked on.
By the way, when I update hubs, I don't just make a few changes. I give it a lot of improvement, now that we have Google's Quality Guidlines to follow.
Well, my Pethelpful articles have taken a dive, and that drop in pageviews is continuing this week. This week is worse than three weeks ago, I don't know if Fred has taken effect now or 3 weeks back. I recall forum posts, myself a participant, where we all noticed spammy ads, in particular repeating the same ad 4-5 times per article, right at the time Fred hit.
Does HP have a knack for bad timing - I am referencing Squidoo 2014.
I hope veterinary advice does not fall into the 'money or your life' category.
Luckily, my chosen subjects -- gardening and education -- are still holding up. Lets hope no one severs a finger as a result of poor pruning advice.
I have a couple of Pethelpful articles, but they were not doing all that well before the dive, so any loss is not too noticeable.
Yep got three about 2 hours ago. The one medical article they want to mess with is the best traffic producer and the one that makes the most money in the past 6 years, so I'm not too keen on any more tinkering. The other two have never been reviewed, so I don't mind. But I wish there was a way we could opt out of all this for our star hubs. The last time they visited that particular hub in August 2016, I had to go back in to correct grammar and spelling errors, fix sentences that were dissected into smaller sentences which changed some of the meanings from a negative to a positive. For example, when you take a "but" or a "however" OUT of a sentence that was showing the negative or consequences, because of their change, it's now an endorsement to the positive. Not cool at all. If the person correcting grammar and sentence structure filed a knowledgeable critique, it wouldn't be so bad, but instead they are actually "changing" the work without benefit of education on the topic. But when a hub is already 6 years old and is a proven traffic producer and money maker, why do they want to tinker with it? It makes no sense to me. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
We are not sure what HP is about just yet, but the impression that I get is that they will get rid of any hubs that do not meet the kinds of criteria Patty was talking about earlier. At the very least.
My own feeling, as I have said before, is to get rid of any page that purports to offer medical advice, even if the person claims to be qualified in some way.
Experience, yes. Clinical advice, no.
You don't have to take this as a bad thing. Updating them can mean many things. For example, cite more of your information. You can't opt out of this because of what the Google Quality Guidelines say. I strongly recommend you read that document before you update. I have tinkered with pages getting good traffic, and then they got even more.
Just make sure that you go to the stats, then search phrases. Find those phrases in the text and make sure they stay the same. If your pages are six years old, then you might consider making your changes to photos. But again, the best thing you could do is add information that cites professionals, and also make sure you have photographs cited correctly, and that they aren't "overused".
Has that article had a loss in traffic since Fred? My best earner certainly did, and so did many others on that site. They have already edited my article, and the changes were minimal. Don't get too worked up about it until you see what they do. You can always correct mistakes if they are made. The HP team does not intend to damage your article. That would not be of any benefit to them. They only want to improve the outlook for the site as a whole.
I have no intention of removing any published work - copied or not. Copied work will never be removed because it is the original and as long as the original is published, it shows the copied works to be in the wrong.
I forgot to mention that I am Rachael O'Halloran, and I look after awordlover's work here at HP and on 7 other sites since she has been gone. About two years ago, I came across a site that was the exact clone of HP and when I saw how many hubbers' works have been copied to put on that site, I was appalled. And no one gets paid for it - at least I don't. I don't know if it is still in existence - it was a foreign site that had to be translated to read the work. But that's when I stopped adding new work to awordlover's account and on my own own account. Filing DMCA did no good, and that's when I realized there is no way for anyone to police copied work.
The hubs that are in place on awordlover's account are earning because the information is still timely - evergreen. awordlover's hub traffic has never gone down 'overall' on HP. However, a few of awordlover's individual hubs do lose traffic some months, but we all see that happen. Another month, the hubs that lost traffic will pick up and other hubs will lose traffic. It's the nature of the beast.
Two of the five copied hubs have been rectified where the copies have been taken down. Of awordlover's three remaining Copied hubs, they are big earners and when they do lose traffic, it is mostly evident in the first few months AFTER they have been copied. Her work is moving down in the search engines, and the copied works are gaining momentum and moving up higher in search engines. That's what ticks me off the most - filing DMCAs don't do any good.
The amount of HP's monthly checks tell me a story. If the check is lower than previous month, it means a copied hub has been copied again by a new author or some copies in existence are picking up awordlover's traffic. If the check is the same amount or higher, it tells me that there are no new authors laying claim to awordlover's work. Every time a new author copies the work, I file DMCA. To date, it's been over 4 years of constant DMCA filing with no results on those three hubs.
Their copies are still ranking higher than the originals in search engines - diverting traffic from the HP work.
Other hubbers questioned me about why I should care about this, especially if HP is still sending checks every month from the works published here at HubPages.
I care because it is the principle of the thing - not the money. The original work should rank higher. When proof is shown with the publication date and name of author of the original work in DMCA filings, that should prompt immediate positive action for the real author. When I get no results, I try to deal with the agent or web host. But half the time the host is a ghost - non reachable because of a bogus physical address, dead email address or disconnected phone number.
Of the remaining three copied hubs, two have been copied over 200 times each. One hub, the biggest moneymaker on awordlover's account, has been copied over 450 times -both in entirety and in fragments - mostly when her text is pasted into the text of porn sites or sites advertising products for penile dysfunction. And that is the hub that HP's editors inevitably choose for editing. If it gets traffic and makes money, don't mess with it. lol
They edit to the point where the hub's promised end results are not possible because the order of the step by step directions has been changed or the wording has been altered. All this affects the reader's experience and awordlover's work will lose credibility when she promised the reader in the opening paragraph what their expected result was supposed to be after following the steps. I go back in every time and re-edit so the work is in its original state in wording and step order.
I have asked Google to do their magic to remove them from search engines. They want proof and my proof doesn't count. Acceptable proof can only come from the DMCA decisions. I am convinced there is no justice to be had. The number of DMCA filings alone should speak volumes that something isn't right. Justice isn't blind here. It is non-existent.
Filing DMCA's does work. Every now and then I'll hit one where it doesn't, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
I seem to remember having this discussion with you before, and I still wonder if you're going about the DMCA the wrong way.
Never, ever contact the website itself. Ever. You're wasting your time, except in the very rare cases where it's an honest mistake (e.g. I've had a hairdresser use my Hub on gray hair on their site because they thought it was useful). Thieves know they've stolen your work and don't care.
Find out who the hosting company is, and then Google to see whether they have an official form that you must fill out (e.g. if it's GoDaddy, google "GoDaddy DMCA"). Some of them will ignore you if you don't submit the correct form. If they don't have a form or other instructions on their website, send them an email using the official DMCA wording. Then forget about it for a month or so because they may take that long to respond.
If you can't find the host or they don't respond, see whether the site has Adsense - and if so, you can report them to Adsense, which may result in them being banned from Adsense. If they can't earn money from stealing articles they may give up. And of course, you can also report them to Google to get them removed from the SERPS.
Sites which have ghost hosts are likely to be such poor sites that they're never going to gain traction with Google and steal your traffic anyway.
I have had good results with filing DMCAs too. If you can't get through on email, and you can find an actual address, send a letter. The form supplied by HP seems to work fine, but make sure you include all of the details, like what date your article was published, and the date the copy was published and what exactly was copied e.g. "Entire text of the article word for word."
If you can't get any satisfaction, move on to Google.
Yes, we have talked about this before, and the problems remain the same. Fully copied content as well as scraped content is still in existence and still comes up higher in search engines than the original. In one case the hub comes in #32 spot on the list because there are that many who copied it and rank higher. I do know the hosting providers names. I even wrote here in HP's forums asking if anyone had a similar experience with fibromyalgia solutions. As time passed, their host discontinued support or more likely they didnt pay their bill so that they are no longer the host.
On the other two cases, either I don't hear back anything, or I am told the link to the copied content that I included on my DMCA doesn't exist (404) or if the site is still up, they say they can't see the copied content. That's because fibromyalgia solutions is using the content behind a wall of advertising that can't be seen unless you act like you are going to buy their product. Then you are given order form and coupon links that lead to more testimonials and more products to put in your cart. In more than one response, I was told to contact the host.
Regarding the newest thief, I heard that en-wiki-philipinas.org is untouchable and that I shouldn't waste my time. The authors on that site are scrapers and scrapers aren't given much attention. The 3 hosts are: - Amazon.com (en-wiki-philipinas.org), networksolutions.com/GEEVEE ONLINE VENTURES and WORLDNIC . The DMCAs were filed in 2013 and 2014. One hub had every other paragraph copied in entirety, some were put through a very bad translating tool because most of it doesn't make any sense. But it is her content just the same. When you get to the end, that's where it shows awordlover's copyright with her full name Anne DiGeorge with excerpts from 4 other hubs which were gathered from the HP sidebar at the time the scraper scraped the original article. Fibromyalgia solutions has since voluntarily shut down the one site they had, where awordlover's work was copied over 450 times on their products and put her name on testimonials where they said she was a customer. They replaced the site with fibro solutions and went from an 'org' to a 'net.' They moved all the info over to new site using the same model - an advertising firewall with nothing but scraped or outright copied content. They are their own host for their newly made site. About the host of the third copied work, I have never had good results with networksolutions.
I received that email also. I'm glad they were listening to our advice in the other thread about reviewing hubs over again on HealDove.
I have several HealDove hubs and I feel safe too, I always specify my personal involvement with the issues I discuss as per the Quality Guidelines Google posted. I also use a special bio for my HealDove hubs.
Well, this might be the impetus for me to move a bunch of articles to one of my sites that I've been thinking about moving for awhile. Depending on the work involved in keeping them on HP. Not enough pay to work that much on it. Especially if they do well on my own site anyway.
I wouldn't worry, we all got the email. I think its because of all the hoo ha about healdove diving like an olympic swimmer! They are just trying to get us to make sure its up to scratch so we earn again from that site.
Is HealDove diving? I'm not aware we have access to audience stats anymore for any HP site.
Its been on here for days promisem, so yes it seems that its true
I understand some people are reporting a decline in traffic, but I haven't seen any stats about the entire site.
Paul Edmonson did confirm that "Healdove was hit by the latest update" 3 weeks ago on the Forum post.
http://hubpages.com/community/forum/140 … k-a-tumble
I haven't seen any emails, at least not yet. I'm glad this is happening. But it is strange that so many emails went out to hubbers who produce pretty decent hubs. Are HubPro Premium and QAP that out of step with Google guidelines?
After reading here, I opened each of the 3 hubs to edit mode in order to see previous edits and do a smoothover before the experts got to them and upon investigation, all 3 of the hubs are part of 5 hubs which were copied over 4 years ago. (before HP subdividing changes). So knowing they were copied (since HP is who notified of the events) I am surprised they were moved over to Healdove at all. I would think HP would want to keep material on the site that wasn't copied and distributed to over 54 other sites. Each of the copied hubs in circulation still have someone else's name on their copy and although DMCA reports were filed on each one, the hosts and webmasters have not complied to take them down, and Google won't act to take them out of their search engines until there are responses from the hosts. They still rank high in Google but the DMCA statuses have been in limbo for over 4 years.
Many of the copied hubs are on pirate sites with no known host to contact or they are being used as frontage for advertising of medical products.
Because much of the hub traffic comes from internet searches meaning keyword and SEO info is good on each one, and knowing they do make money, I hesitate to pull any of them out of circulation to unpublish them. By doing so, it validates the copies that have other 'author names' on them as their own. As long as mine are in existence with the original dates on them shows my DMCA filings to be valid as the original author.
HubPages does not always detect the plagiarized copies. I have always found copies of my hubs that HubPages never informed me about. I use Google Alerts to notify me of copies.
Google will remove from the index if the host refuses to take it down. I just had that problem last month with several copies of one of my hubs. I reported it to Google after having no success with the host. I received a reply email after about two weeks from Google indicating that they removed it from the index.
The copies, of course, are still there, but I noticed the AdSense ads were blanked out, so I suspect they lost their AdSense account too. As for me, no one can find it via a search and that's all that matters.
So go ahead an file you DMCA notice with Google.
DMCA Google Index Removal - https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905 (select "Web Search")
Report Adsense a Policy Violation - https://support.google.com/adsense/cont … ion_report
Aworld, I have two hubs that have been copied. Two of my best hubs, too. I am waiting on my DMCA complaints, they sometimes take a long time. They are still pending in the Google dashboard. Thanks for input Glenn. This is one issue that does frustrate me. I write something google loves and someone steals it.
Why would you "pull any of them out of circulation to unpublish them"? You can edit them without pulling them out of circulation or unpublishing them.
HP does not seem to penalize your articles if they are copied, as long as yours is the original.
The problem is that those copies are competing with you for traffic. As long as they do not outrank you in the SERPS, that probably does not have a huge impact. I would still pursue having them removed though.
Because of being copied, they are losing some traffic and the message of each post is getting distorted with each copying. Some copies are after I tweak and most are before the tweaks. If the hubs are still being copied, I was ruminating that taking them out of circulation would remove future copying. But what it does is validates the many author names on them now so any one of them can claim ownership if mine is taken out of circulation.
Which is one of the main reasons why they won't be unpublished.
I got an email from the eds. My page concerning Hip Replacement Recovery cannot remain on Healdove, as it is.
Bit of a shock, since they said they would looking at the site over 'the next few months'.
The ed's criticism is entirely reasonable, however, and I will probably comply.
This is what the ed said:
"Do you have personal experience with hip replacement surgery? If so, please briefly discuss your experience at the beginning of the article. This will help build reader trust and help boost your credibility on this topic. What was your recovery like? How long did it take? Did you regain full mobility, etc.? Any updates since you wrote this article 7 years ago?
If you do not have personal experience with hip replacement surgery, please cite your sources. Where did you find your information? Which articles, websites, etc., did you consult? You can add a section at the end of the article that lists your sources (please include as much information as possible about each article).
I know you wrote this article a number of years ago, but sources are very important when it comes to establishing the credibility of your content."
Hardly unexpected given the fact that the page has never been updated and there were different standards in the Paleocene.
I used to be a radiographer, and hip replacement surgery was the worst. After surgery, you have to do a x-ray called the danelius miller. This shot has to be taken through the groin, which means you have to lift up their legs and expose their groin. Keep in mind the patients were still under anesthesia. Some of them got a little violent about this. Most people were so drugged up they don't know we did it.
I hated my days in post op.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your email with us. It gives others an idea on how to comply.
A similar thing has happened to my best earner, uncontrollable copying.
On the upside...
1. ) Such an article proves to be useful to many readers and that is, to me, more important than the money. It's nice when people listen to what one has to say.
2.) If and when HP folds, my stolen article will still be out there floating in websphere with all the other longer lasting stuff.
If you use the Google DMCA route, you only need fill in one form and then copy and paste all the offending URL's into it. It is pretty quick.
Once they are gone from Google, the copies no longer affect you.
https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools … 7&rd=1
Why is wikiphilipinas untouchable? It looks as though it's modelled on Wikipedia, so one way to fix the problem would be to sign up for an account and then simply delete the offending material. That's what I did when someone copied some of my text on Wikipedia.
I have not experienced something like this yet, no email for me, even though I have a couple of hubs in the HealDove directory. However, what I do not understand and what is somehow disturbing, is that the hubs in the ToughNickel directory can not be shared in most sites as they get flagged as "articles or links which may lead to spam content". How could this actually happen? This directories are meant to be "safer" than our own hubs, as they are edited by hubpages which has removed the sentences which are too advertising, or the amazon products which as hubpages analyzes, are not linked to the content of the hub and may be there only for earnings purpose. Even though ALL amazon products get removed once the hub is edited, which is not fine, because all the products I have featured in my hubs are actually linked with the content of the hub, still I accepted these changes. What I can not accept is the flags that I get now if I want to share hubs from a certain directory! If they are flagged as hubs which may lead to certain spam content, than Google sees them the same way, which may affect their appearance on Google Search. Any thoughts on this?
What you're referring to is Pinterest. And specifically it's a problem with ToughNickel, which has been banned by Pinterest for spamming. I had reported this in another forum and Paul said he is working on it. But it never got resolved. Others have also reported it for a long time already. I have a feeling there is nothing HubPages can do to resolve the issue with Pinterest.
I got one of those too! I didn't read it carefully and thought they were going to edit it for me! Looks like something that was sent to everybody. Timing doesn't work for me though, since this is my busy time at work.
by Katherine Tyrrell5 months ago
This is worth a read Updated Google Quality Rater Guidelines target fake news, low quality and clickbait"It includes a link to Google's REVISED (March 2017) Search Quality - General GuidelinesIn terms...
by Nell Rose5 months ago
If we find that our new site for health is falling drastically, wouldn't it be a good idea if we scrapped it and gave it back just as hubpages again? I keep reading that google only likes professional health articles....
by tritrain6 years ago
Here's an interesting message from Seekyt, which mentions Hub Pages fondly."Important DecisionMake sure you've read the news to the right before reading this paragraph. ---->There is always a way to get around...
by Sakina Nasir10 months ago
Hi everyone! ☺ I had submitted my hub to PetHelpful.com and I got an email today saying my hub was eligible for submission.Here is the link to my hub:http://hubpages.com/animals/The-Untold- … bird-MatesHere is...
by Laura3 years ago
Hello,I'm new to Hub. First a compliment. After coming off another content site, and researching others for a long, long time, it's a Godsend to come to a place that demands lengthy, quality work. I value quality...
by ryankett6 years ago
Yes, I understand, the algorithm could settle. I'm not holding my breath though. What can Hubpages do to appease Google?I can see nothing less than:- Taking out the bottom 40% of articles in terms of quality.-...
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.