jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (32 posts)

This article has become unfeatured after 5 years

  1. DrMark1961 profile image100
    DrMark1961posted 5 weeks ago

    Last night I went in an edited a capsule so that it would be full width, which is what HP wants everyone to do. The article I edited has been published and featured since 2012. When I went in and edited, however, the editor that read it decided that it was no longer going to be featured. I was told to proofread the article. (To avoid any confusion, I do want to point out that I will just delete this hub before paying someone to proofread it. The traffic does not justify it, which may be why the editor did not want to spend any time on it.)
    Seriously? Isnt this why it is not worthwhile for us to edit articles any longer?
    If so inclined I would appreciate any comments/suggestions.
    https://hubpages.com/animals/Is-My-Dog- … Other-Dogs

    1. theraggededge profile image99
      theraggededgeposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Don't delete it. I can see a few things to fix. You helped me with my dog so I'd be happy to have a go at it tomorrow, if you like?

      Let me know. I'll contact you when it's done so you can let me have your email address.

      1. Bedbugabscond profile image97
        Bedbugabscondposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        The one quick edit I can see is that at the very bottom it is not full length and there is a links capsule. Personally, I would remove the links capsule. Don't delete the hub, it has a lot of potential.

        1. DrMark1961 profile image100
          DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          I think I agree with you on the article on eye contact, but the listing of intelligent dogs is relative and I think that link should stay. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

          1. Everyday Miracles profile image86
            Everyday Miraclesposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            No. Links capsules of this sort are outdated and "clunky." If you want to include the links in your article, then you should make them inline links with relevant anchor text. Keep them related to the article and link them appropriately in the inline text of the article. Not only are they more apt to get clicks this way, but it is more visually appealing to the reader and more likely to pass the QAP.

            1. DrMark1961 profile image100
              DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Do you know of any studies that support the statement that inline links get more clicks? I think it is not as visually appealing and does not provide enough information to the reader, which would lead to less clicks.

      2. DrMark1961 profile image100
        DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Thanks so much for your help. I know I can approve, but I have not had an article unfeatured for years, and was upset, to say the least.
        If you have any ideas you can just use the email on my profile page.
        Thanks again, so much!

        1. theraggededge profile image99
          theraggededgeposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Happy to help. It's late here now, but I'll get to it tomorrow. xx

    2. Will Apse profile image92
      Will Apseposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I don't want to give you a hard time, so I will just give you a couple of observations.

      The article comes across as having a very personal and rather eccentric perspective. For example, you suggest that your dog is your therapist and that she practices walking meditation everyday. This could make sense if you framed the article in a humorous way, perhaps.

      You use some words in a way that will have negative connotations for native English speakers. You talk about 'manipulating' a new born puppy to induce 'stress' and make its brain work harder. That sounds rather cruel. Both 'stress' and 'manipulation' have negative meanings in everyday speech.

      If you said 'handling a puppy promotes early learning' that would sound a lot more dog friendly.

      I reckon you need some kind of scientific evidence to back up you claims or perhaps references to the experience of professional dog trainers/handlers.

      The Amazon ad makes the article look like a selling exercise. Also, that book is rather old (1994) and the info is inevitably dated.

      1. DrMark1961 profile image100
        DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Will, thanks for your observations. Are you familiar with seizure alert dogs? It is not a humorous matter for those persons suffering from epilepsy.
        Manipulating puppies to cause stress is part of the super-dog intelligence protocol, a program designed by the US army. Just handling a puppy does not do the job.

        1. Will Apse profile image92
          Will Apseposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          You should explain this in the article. And also be aware of reader sensitivities.

          1. DrMark1961 profile image100
            DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            Yes, that is a good point. I  mentioned that when recommending the book but should explain it more fully. Thank you.

    3. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image100
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      OK Doc, I'll take a close look at the first section so that you can see the kinds of problems you are having.

      First, I would not subtitle this section.  It's an intro, and should not be part of the main composition.


      The first part should read

      All dogs have a basic (level of) intelligence based on their natures.

      For example, they are easy to
      (and these items should be bulletted)
      house train because it is natural (for them to) not mess up their home,
      bite-inhibit them because it is natural (for them) to respect (their) leader and
      obedience train them when we ask them to perform natural movements like sit and lie down.

      But is it natural to (expect them to)learn new words and odd behaviors?  (You shouldn't begin a sentence with a conjunction, so this sentence should read):

      Given this information, we need to ask ourselves whether it is natural for them to learn new words and odd behaviors.

      This should be the end of the first section because it is a lead in to the second one.

      What I see here is you leaving out important words that help to clarify what you are trying to say.  I also see misuse of conjunctions and other punctuation marks.

      When you are used to doing something, you would tend to communicate differently than when you are trying to explain something to a reader.

      If this section is an example of what is going on throughout your hub, you can save it by using language and techniques that clarify your points and also using accurate punctuation.

      Hope this helps.

      1. DrMark1961 profile image100
        DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        The title is at the top because this is not an introduction. When you read an article on the internet, and the first part of the article is a long introduction, do you just bounce out of there and look for something worthwhile? Most people do. I think it is vital to get to the important information right away.
        Your next point, about putting bullet points on the list of dog´s innate intelligence, is very helpful. I will do that when I edit. Thank you.
        Can you give me a better idea about your comment on the improper use of conjunctions?

    4. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image100
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 2 hours agoin reply to this

      Here's an example of an incorrectly used conjunction:
      "Maybe not easy, but it can definitely be done."
      A conjunction is used to connect two complete thoughts (sentences) with a comma following the first sentence.  "Maybe not easy" is not a sentence, therefore following it with a comma and a conjunction is incorrect.
      Instead you should write something such as "This may not be easy, but it definitely can be done".  This may not be easy and it definitely can be done are both complete sentences.

      When writing formally, you cannot use the same language you might use when speaking.

      Also, I would disagree with you about not having an intro paragraph.  All good writing has a beginning a middle and an end.  The beginning tells readers what you are going to say, the middle says it and the end tells them what you just said.  To leave one of these sections out is incorrect,
      Furthermore, introductions do not have to be long.  Check out some of my hubs to see what I am talking about.

      1. DrMark1961 profile image100
        DrMark1961posted 83 minutes agoin reply to this

        Thanks for that information. I wonder about your comment about writing formally, however. We are not writing formally. We are writing to provide information to the reader in an entertaining way (so that he does not stop reading).
        I think that goes back to the comment about having an introduction. One of my articles is "How to save a choking dogs life". If you were to open up that article and read an introduction you will probably just be angry--instead of an introduction I go immediately into the steps on how to save a choking dog. Did I learn to write an essay like that? Definitely not. Does it help more readers? Probably.

        By the way, none of these changes helped this article at all. It still gets almost no traffic. I still do not know if it is better to revamp an old article that Google has already sent back from page one just delete it and write a new one that they have not decided upon.

  2. Bob Bamberg profile image94
    Bob Bambergposted 5 weeks ago

    As you know, I'm not a very reliable resource for improving hubs, especially yours, which are well written and informative...but I do see a couple of things HP told me they frown upon. 

    Beneath the paragraph following the heading "Is My Dog Really More Intelligent:" you have a sentence in bold face.  HP doesn't like bold face or italics, etc. to show emphasis.  Also, below the image of the keyboard, you have a sidebar with a couple of links to other articles.  I think that's a no no, too.  I used to do that and when they edited my hubs for inclusion in the specialty sites, they edited those out.

    BTW, from the image, it looks like Ajej is a hunt 'n peck typist.  She's better than that!  Remind her:  left paw on ASDF, right paw on JKL:

    1. DrMark1961 profile image100
      DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Hi Bob, I think the link capsule is okay as long as it relates to the subject matter of the hub. The email from HP didnt even mention that, which would have been easy enough to fix. The editor commented that I should proofread this, and then she unfeatured it.
      This is an oldie, but...

      (I think this her typing on of those "What I had for breakfast" blurbs from Bubblenews. Remember those?)

  3. Marisa Wright profile image98
    Marisa Wrightposted 5 weeks ago

    You may already know this but just in case - you don't need to change ALL half-width capsules.

    If you do nothing, your existing half-width capsules will become full-width automatically.   The only problem is, they'll become full-width ABOVE their related paragraph, not below.  Sometimes that can look nonsensical - the Amazon product will appear before the paragraph mentioning it, for instance - but sometimes you can get away with it.

    It is SO disappointing that HubPages can't find a programming solution to allow the capsule to expand BELOW the related paragraph instead.  If they'd been able to do that, it's likely no manual adjustments would've been necessary.

    1. DrMark1961 profile image100
      DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Yes, and HP has convinced me to leave well enough alone. I am not going to bother editing hubs that do not get at least a few hundred page views per day. If they want to unpublish some of my articles later because the information is showing up in the wrong place, I am not going to worry about it.
      As you point out, Marisa, this is so disappointing.

  4. Marisa Wright profile image98
    Marisa Wrightposted 5 weeks ago

    People will always be able to suggest ways to improve the text on any Hub, but frankly I don't think it's necessary and it's probably not what the editor wants.  I can see the following problems, which were absolutely fine back in the day, but go against the current rules:

    1.  You have links to your other Hubs. If those Hubs are on the same site, that's fine.  If they're on another site, it's not (e.g. Pethelpful Hubs can link to Pethelpful Hubs but not ones on Hubpages.com).   Also, the links must be directly relevant and useful in the context of the Hub -  they can't just be other Hubs about dogs.

    2.  We all enthusiastically adopted the advice to use Callout capsules for headings.  Turns out HubPages made a mistake - Google doesn't read them as headings so it's bad for SEO.  So now, they want us to put the headings back in the text capsule title line.

    3.  The Amazon link should be fine, but your description is a good illustration of how to get a capsule snipped.  You say it's good to give your dog intelligence tests, but you don't say you've used and recommend the tests in that book.  You need to say that, or at least convey that impression wink

    Personally, I find that requirement intensely annoying.  For instance, I trained in flamenco but they didn't have DVD's in my day, and the books I used are out of print.  I find DVD's or books by asking dance students, or by getting them from the library, but I don't need to use them - I'm retired!  So strictly speaking, I shouldn't be allowed to put them in Amazon capsules because I don't have "personal experience" of them.  Balderdash, I say!   I get around it by saying things like, "For my money, this is the best book currently available on...." or other phrases that use "I', "my" or "mine".  Those seem to be the magic words.

    1. DrMark1961 profile image100
      DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      The email from HP told me to proofread the article, and it also told me to submit it to the forums if I wanted help. I read your other forum about that issue, and I was hesitant to put this on the forum, but I thought it would be helpful to have others look at it before I just deleted it.
      I will check those links and make sure they are falling in the same site. Thanks.
      Good idea on the callout capsules too. I regret having edited so many of those hubs and adding those capsules.
      The Amazon capsule was not snipped. It sounds like I should change it anyway though.

      1. Marisa Wright profile image98
        Marisa Wrightposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        That's exactly why I posted to say editors shouldn't use the word "proof read".   I suspect they're using the word incorrectly.

        In my experience, a Hub would VERY rarely be unpublished for a few spelling and grammar mistakes.  It has to be really bad before that would happen, and your Hub is certainly not in that situation.  For it to be Unfeatured, it has to be something that's breaking the rules, and your links and Amazon capsule are the most likely culprits.

        1. DrMark1961 profile image100
          DrMark1961posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          That makes sense. I have read many featured hubs that have terrible grammar and many, many spelling errors.
          So are we dealing with another example of editor incompetence?

          1. Marisa Wright profile image98
            Marisa Wrightposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            I'm just guessing.

  5. DrMark1961 profile image100
    DrMark1961posted 5 weeks ago

    I want to thank everyone for taking the time to read this article and point out its mistakes. I edited this morning using the comments from this post, and after receiving a very helpful email from TheRaggedEdge, and it is now featured again.

    1. theraggededge profile image99
      theraggededgeposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Good to hear smile

      1. Bedbugabscond profile image97
        Bedbugabscondposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Bev rocks, glad we have members who have so much patience and are so helpful. So glad to hear the article is featured again!

  6. Will Apse profile image92
    Will Apseposted 5 weeks ago

    It is a much better article now and very well written, congratulations. But the scientist in me still wants more references, lol.

    For example, you talk about the “The 10 Most Intelligent Dog Breeds” without a reference.  Does that come from the Coren book?

    Also, the idea that early manipulation of a puppy promotes intelligence is the kind of assertion that would  need some kind of solid evidence to convince me.

  7. anusha15 profile image88
    anusha15posted 4 weeks ago

    You have already got some superb feedback and some great constructive criticism here. I don't feel any need to add to it, but I did want to point this out. I've seldom seen this kind of discussion (especially outside of HubPages Forums) where community members go out of their way and help someone among us who is clearly upset.
    Constructive criticism is as rare as it's required, and rarer still is its effectiveness. Egos clash, misunderstandings prevail. But not here.
    I just said "wow" to myself. big_smile
    I am very glad to be a part of such a graceful community.

    You guys all rock! Keep the great spirit up!!

  8. Jean Harris profile image72
    Jean Harrisposted 2 hours ago

    I'm new and so am spending some time browsing the forums and such to get the hang of Hubpages. I agree, the openess is great.

    About the article itself, could it be that the comments posted after the article are the problem? The first comment I see after reading the article is a half dozen paragraphs long all mashed into one paragraph. It also has rambling sentences filled with commas instead of periods. On top of that the comment is extremely personal in nature.

    I was just wondering if the comments must be held to the same editorial standards as the article itself? Perhaps it's a comment triggering a warning? Again, I'm new, and just curious.

    1. DrMark1961 profile image100
      DrMark1961posted 93 minutes agoin reply to this

      I have a lot of comments like that in various articles. Sometimes people just want to tell me how great their dogs are. I agree with your evaluation of the comment but it did not cause the problems with HP. With Google? Maybe it does. I have heard that if you have comments with profanity, it can affect your article. Perhaps having a rambling comment hurts too.