jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (14 posts)

help would be appreciated in regards to hub being featured

  1. film critic profile image79
    film criticposted 5 days ago

    I've done several rewrites.  I've changed the titles.  I've taken out all links, added some back in.  Added photos.  Removed photos, etc.  I don't mind doing rewrites, except that I may be taking even further in the wrong direction.  Anyone with insight on the problem with this hub - your thoughts would be appreciated.  Thanks!!! (I would also like to know before writing other hubs, to avoid the same problem.) https://hubpages.com/entertainment/New-Media-Web-Series

    1. Marketing Merit profile image87
      Marketing Meritposted 5 days ago in reply to this

      The main issue is probably the link to Stareable which may be seen as spammy. Also, you don't provide the source of your images and it is unclear if you have permission to use these.

      1. film critic profile image79
        film criticposted 5 days ago in reply to this

        Thanks!  Appreciated!  In one of the rewrites, I had taken out the Stareable link, but I will try adding info on the pic.  Thanks!!

  2. Jeremy Gill profile image87
    Jeremy Gillposted 5 days ago

    Good news: this Hub is loads better than most that are requested for review. You have photos, videos, and few grammar errors. Your efforts are definitely starting to show, and here are my ideas:

    1) Your first text block is simply too long. Use sub-headings or other methods to help organize the information.
    2) However, your overall Hub may be a bit too short. If it's less than 700 words, see if you can add interesting and well-formatted sections to get to at least 700, preferably more.
    3) Uncapitalize the word "Independent" in the first section.
    4) Personally, I'd remove the comma in your title.

    My guess is that the main issue is organization. Use bolding, bullet points, tables, or other methods to sub-head your larger segments, and best of luck.

    1. film critic profile image79
      film criticposted 5 days ago in reply to this

      Thanks Jeremy, much appreciated!

      1.) I will take care of that...
      2.) Hub is 1200 words, but maybe longer still?
      3.) Will do
      4.) Will do!

      I will rework the organization.  Again, much appreciated!!  Thanks!

      1. Jeremy Gill profile image87
        Jeremy Gillposted 5 days ago in reply to this

        It's really 1200? Then I may not be the best at estimating word amounts at a glance ha.

        1200 words should be more than enough.

        1. film critic profile image79
          film criticposted 5 days ago in reply to this

          Haha!  No worries.  If you did guess correctly, I'd point you toward some jelly bean jars.  smile

  3. Mary Florence profile image79
    Mary Florenceposted 5 days ago

    Hi film critic! I notice that you for the subtitles, you capitalise every word, for example "Excavating the Internet for Quality Short Form Content". Try this instead;
    "Excavating the Internet for quality short form content."

    But you never know, it could be something as simple as deleting the comma in the headline just as Jeremy has suggested.

    1. film critic profile image79
      film criticposted 5 days ago in reply to this

      Hey there Mary, got it!  I will try that.  Thanks!

  4. pen promulgates profile image80
    pen promulgatesposted 5 days ago

    Honestly, I don't know if it's just me or others feel this too.
    I don't understand what does 'wall of noise in your title mean?' You haven't either explained that later in your article. As pointed out by others, the comma is not needed. Also, 'Wall of noise' is not a search friendly title users will use on Google.

    Your writing is hard to understand and rambles and confuses the readers.
    The first few paragraphs are only texts that speak about finding reliable sources. It looks wordy and spammy.
    The main point is still missing.

    Your subtitles are vague in meaning too.

    There are many punctuation errors.
    Grammar is incorrect too.
    For instance, you start by saying 'recently, I had been....'
    If it's recent, it is mostly in the present.
    So it should be, 'recently, I have been...'

    The next line 'I wanted to both indulge in...' can be rewritten as 'I wanted both, to indulge in...'
    as you use 'and' later, you might as well avoid writing 'both.'

    Further you write 'filmmakers have access too' when it should be 'filmmakers have access to'

    Later, somewhere in your article you have written through twice when it should be once.

    I think you must frame the article more specifically. What I mean is you can write two articles. One about how to find a good web series online, wherein you can mention the reliable sources. For instance, stareable.com.
    Mind it, it should not sound promotional.

    The second one can be about the web series blue light and bitter homes and gardens.

    For punctuation errors, use app Grammarly. It will correct many mistakes. Most of the grammar issues is also taken care by Grammarly.

    Hope these help.
    Good luck.

  5. pen promulgates profile image80
    pen promulgatesposted 5 days ago

    I guess it's got featured as it shows posted 21 hours ago on the slider. So no more a problem I guess!

    1. film critic profile image79
      film criticposted 5 days ago in reply to this

      Hey, thanks for your notes above.  I will use them while taking another look.  But, no, it is not yet featured.  It may look as if it is posted, as I believe you have the option of publishing them regardless of whether or not they are featured.  I am not sure how it works, but I think that just mean that people can see them if they go to your profile, but that they are not promoted by Hubpages?  But again, not yet featured.  I will take another crack at it later today.  Thanks for the notes!!!

  6. pen promulgates profile image80
    pen promulgatesposted 5 days ago

    You really highlight good points.
    Stareable.com is good.
    I also saw positive comments on the web series you have suggested. That means people like it.
    Rework on making it more presentable and specific, and proofread on readability. It serves as a good article!

    1. film critic profile image79
      film criticposted 5 days ago in reply to this

      Appreciated Pen!  I will work on this one a few more times before moving to the next.  Thanks!!

 
working