I have an article that an editor has made substantial changes too. Including adding a bio that they wrote themselves. I have not seen an edit this bad in quite some time on one of my articles, and I do not want to go through the whole article and rewrite half of it. I've already spent countless hours rewriting this article to get it up to standards, in order to submit it to a niche site. I should not have to go back in and edit, because an editor decided it was their job to change my wording and add capsules I never had.
If this is how it's going to be now, I will not be submitting any more articles to the niche sites.
I just took a look at your article. You're referring to Finding a Pet: Where to Get a Cat, is that right?
It looks like the changes the editor made were minimal and she/he only did what was necessary in order to accept the article onto PetHelpful (corrected some grammar errors, put the title into APA case, and added a section to reflect that declawing is no longer recommended for the pet cat's health and safety).
The editor did add a short, simple bio with info pulled from various places on your HubPages account. Please feel free to change it to better reflect your expertise with pet adoption, but the article will need a bio that adds credibility in order to remain on PetHelpful.
As always, you are welcome to revert the changes the editor has made. Please just be aware that the edits are necessary for acceptance onto PetHelpful and the article will likely be moved back to HubPages if it is reverted. If you'd rather not have your articles considered for inclusion on Network Sites, please let me know and we can exclude your account from editing and article selection.
Yes that is the article I am talking about. I already deleted all of the information that the editor added. Adding two capsules and rearranging my photos is more than making minimal changes. All of my photos are of the same quality so there was no need to change them around.
S/he also added two sentences that I had not stated anywhere in the article. They may have related to what I had already said about declawing, but I do not appreciate someone else adding their own ideas into my article. Especially ideas that I do not agree with. They did not need to add their own section about declawing, I had already covered it. If my information was not enough I could have added more.
If it needs a bio that adds credibility than I should have received an e-mail so I could add one. The bio created by the editor in no way adds credibilty to my article and therefore should not have been enough to get my article moved to the niche site.
I have no problem with my articles being moved to niche sites. What I have a problem with is an editor injecting their own ideas into my articles.
I've looked the article over in its current form and talked with some of the senior editors; we're ok with it staying on PetHelpful as-is. But would you please include a bio that explains your interest in, experience with, or expertise on pets?
I would be interested to know that as well. I just read one where a whole section was deleted and then several sentences completely reworded. It wasn't my work in the end.
I always save my writing on my computer,I had an editor rewrite my article so badly it didn't sound like me anymore, needless to say, I got angry and left them angry feedback, but I rewrote their edits and reinserted my original writing back into my article, they haven't messed with my article with crazy edits ever since I left the RAGING feedback on the article they butchered, and I told them they butchered my article too.
I have a saved pdf file of the article, but I don't actually write in word or anything. I should really start doing that. I will be sending them an e-mail as I don't think it's ever okay to write a bio for someone. Especially one that is broad and doesn't bring any value or credibility to the article.
Did you already have a bio on it, and they took it off to write a different one? If not, I think that is a requirement for niche sites and you probably owe that editor a "Thank you" for doing what they could to provide one so the hub can be moved.
But yes, you can undo any changes they made: you own the hub, after all. It just won't be moved and may be unpublished as well.
No I did not have a bio already on it. It is not required to have bio's to be on the niche sites. I have several on a variety of different niche sites that do not contain bio's yet and they are still on them, and where moved with no bio's.
The editor does not deserve a "thank you" for writing a one sentence crappy bio. Like I said, if they wanted one, they could have sent me an e-mail asking me to add one like other editors have done for articles previously.
I know I can remove/change edits, I've changed minor edits back with no issues of my articles being moved back to the main site. However, in this case I did not want to go through the hassle of rearranging and re-editing some major changes that should have never happened.
The new rule is that they must have a bio. They're not going back and adding them to articles already moved, but they do require them for new ones.
Write to team @ hubpages.com to complain. They've just hired a bunch of new editors. Last time they did that, some of the new hires were overstepping the mark and Robin thanked us for letting her know.
When did this new rule come into effect? I've had articles moved the last week of December with no bio. I also had an article moved to a niche site from another one and they didn't have me add a bio before accepting it on the new niche site. I've also had articles reviewed in January (to ensure they met quality standards) and they didn't have me add a bio. They also didn't add their own. If bio's are now required, why are we not being told to add them after they do quality checks to ensure that our articles are still meeting their standards? I've had things snipped because of quality checks (due to new rules/changes), if they snip/edit content why are they not bothering with the bio's?
In the mean time I'll add bio's to all the new articles I submit from here on out. I still think a quick e-mail would have been nice. Most of the editors that I've worked with who think substantial changes need to be made send me an e-mail and I make the changes myself. Including telling me which articles they think would benefit from a bio. I responded to the e-mail, but I will send an e-mail to the address you have listed as well.
I'm confused as to why they rewrite complete sentences? I just had one that had a whole section modified quite a bit and didn't sound like me afterwards. Also, I have where typos are corrected on some and others they just say need to be fixed. One article I found where there was one thing wrong, they stated that they wanted me to re-edit it. I feel like instead of helping us, they are just pointing out it is not good enough and moving on. We then have no idea what the real issues are. That is not how a good editor works. When I first had edits done, I found them very beneficial. Now I get one sentence to tell me in a general and vague sense that I need to fix it.
I have seen the threads where they are looking into it.
Agreed! I'm finding edits where whole sections are being reworded or sentences are having major structure changes (which can change the meaning or idea of it) before articles are being moved to niche sites. On the other hand I'm getting the vague description e-mails for articles that are denied. There seems to be no inbetween anymore. When I first started applying to get articles moved I would get an e-mail about specific things that needed edits, or they would fix grammar/spelling mistakes and move the article. Nothing like this current edit, or what I've seen other authors post about in other threads should be happening from editors. I agree a good editor should not be rewriting and changing things to make it sound different than how the author has wrote it.
This editor took the liberty of adding new thoughts to this article that were not articulated anywhere in my article. I deleted everything I didn't like already, but I'll have to go back in and do some more edits as well as add a useful bio.
Maybe I'll just stick to one niche site for now, as I have a good relationship with the main editor there and I know what to expect if I submit my articles to that niche site.
I wouldn't stand for an editor (maybe a new one) adding new thoughts to an article I wrote. That's going too far.
I've complained often about changes editors made, especially if they didn't understand my topic as well as I did, and it changed the meaning. I have also written to the team when they took out links that were necessary to the article as well.
If it's something so major, I would write in and make my case. They are often very cooperative and it could be a misunderstanding with a new editor. Right now I am working on Sources to get a dozen articles off of Exemplore and onto Owlcation, where they belonged in the first place. I do have to put more effort in, since I wrote them 6 years ago, and have to backtrack on the Sources. But nobody touched my writing.
On the other hand, if it's a simple change they make, sometimes it's not worth the time and effort. But do write in and explain yourself, for the most part I always find the staff is reasonable. They are also overworked.
I believe the bios are necessary now. Good luck.
Very frustrating. Sorry you are dealing with this. I haven't had them make substantial edits to one of my articles in a while. When they did, I was sincerely upset about some of the changes that did not make any sense in the context of the article. I was able to get them to revert it back to the way it was once I pointed out to them that what they changed it to was incorrect. It was an utter waste of my time since they obviously didn't know what they were writing about when they made the edits, but at least they restored it once I pointed out to them their errors.
I would not be happy about them creating a bio for me. That's up to me IMO.
Same thing happened to me 2 days ago. I replied to the same email notification and got a response the next day. Robin agreed that the sentence didn't make sense and offered a better sentence to replace the bad one. I was satisfied but concerned that the editor didn't see the glaringly incorrect use of grammar and sentence structure. ???
Edit: Not my bio, a sentence within a text capsule.
Over the past twenty-four hours, my latest hub was moved to ToughNickel.com. However, the editor recommended that I change the title of the hub from what it was to something else. I immediately saw the logic and complied with the request without having a self-pity party.
Please feel free to go in and make changes to your bio. When we are adding bios, we find information from your articles or profile—we shouldn't be putting words in your mouth, so to speak. We would love for you to include a more specific bio! Thanks!
As for the changes, I know that it is difficult to see edits made to your articles, and we try our best to not change your meaning. I'm so sorry if we did. For some of the edits, they were necessary for the article to make it to a Network Site, e.g title not in APA, grammar mistakes in the first Text Capsule, subtitle mistakes. As a side note, the callout was added as a warning. The editor thought it was necessary for the readers to know these points. I hope that you keep the changes; I do think they make the article better. That being said, I do think there were a few edits that didn't need to happen (e.g., a change in word choice that wasn't absolutely necessary,) and I will discuss them with the editor.
Our goal is to work with authors to make sure our articles have EAT (Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness). A good bio, a clean error-free first Text Capsule, consistent APA format, warnings if needed, etc, are all important for this metric.
I am in no way complaining about the minor edits. I completely understand the apa format and the spelling/grammar mistakes. I left all of those changes. I occassionally have those changes when articles are moved, those are no big deal. I don't always catch them as I'm still unsure about some apa format rules.
What I have a major problem with is this bit of information that was added. "Declawing is rarely considered except in instances when an individual is immune-compromised. All declawed cats should be kept indoors as their ability to survive outdoors will be hindered". No where did I ever mention anything remotely close to those words. If the callout is meant to be a warning (I don't see it that way) then I will consider adding it back, but I will find a different place for it. The way the editor set the article up makes it look choppy and terrible on mobile devices.
I have no problem adding a bio. I don't think it's necessary for an editor to create one. I get e-mails often asking me to make changes and resubmit my article. If you want articles that have EAT, then I need to create my own bio. Not have one that is only a sentence long and does not add anything to the article.
Hey. Shesabutterfly! You can go through and change back the edits I will say though, I had a LOT of my articles edited a couple of years ago - titles, bios, whole paragraphs. I'm so thankful to the editors because now I'm making MONEY whereas my writing was just sitting there earning nothing. I know the edits seem arbitrary and offensive at first but if you do want to make money here then I would trust the editors.
I do trust most of the editors. However, if new thoughts or major changes are going to be added to my articles I'm not going to be okay with that. I get e-mails frequently from editors telling me what needs to be changed before it can get moved to a niche site. I make the changes and resubmit. It's easy and my work stays my work. When an editor goes in and adds their own ideas, I'm not okay with that. This is not about the simple edits, it's about changing the way the article reads, is layed out, and ultimately about adding information that is not mine.
Others may not care about those types of edits, but when I'm not included in major changes done to my work it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I'm all for making more money and appreciate minor edits that are done. Sometimes after reading the same article for the hundreth time I miss spelling mistakes and sentences that are not grammatically correct.
I recently had to fix an editor's formatting error. I just fixed it. I wasn't sure how to communicate with the editors as there was only the standard editor's email when I received the notification of the quick edit. I had some words in single parenthesis (a style preference in Australia) and they decided to change one end of the parenthesis to double parenthesis. It was a little messy. I didn't mind it changing to double but it should have been done at both ends. The only other change to the article came just after the parenthesis. It seemed to reflect more of a word choice, but it also gave the sentence a slightly different meaning which didn't entirely hold true to the historical account that I was writing about. I just left it as is, as I didn't know how to communicate with the editors since it just had the standard editors email. And a previous attempt to communicate via this email a couple of years ago resulted in no response.
Figured I should chime in because my experience has been positive. They have done a few minor edits to maybe make a sentence clearer. I've never had a major change made. I had a different opinion on a punctuation change they made and Robyn (Robin?) agreed and told me to change it back. I've always found them approachable and fair. I would definitely just write to them about any issues.
Mine too. I've only once or twice had an issue. Sometimes I'll change it back straight away, other times I'll let it go with the edits to see if it works better. For example I was recently asked to change a title because it sounded a little awkward. So I changed it as per their suggestion. However, traffic fell away because the title was no longer in the keyword order that I'd determined was best. So I've just changed it back and traffic has picked up again. But overall, I've benefited from the editors' input.
I too always write in Word first and retain a copy. I don't have too much of a complaint about the editing. I don't always agree with it however and on two articles they have edited quotes. I always revert those. They are not my writing they are quotes and should be left as they are.
I will also state that the articles that I've had edit to for the most part were helpful, caught typos I didn't notice, and improved the article. On occasion I've had edit which change word choice which also changed meaning, pictures and links deleted for no apparent reason and Amazon capsules deleted despite clearly following the rules for including them (e.g. A first person review of the product which I had direct experience with and which was mentioned several times in the article proper). My main concern is the vague emails which provide no information other than "fix this" which does not give the author the ability to directly address the editors concerns. I realize it takes time to provide feedback but this is part of an editors job and now that there are more editors on board it definitely should be something that is required of editors when rejecting an article for a niche site or not featuring a HP article. I do think the editors are generally skillful and that their goals is to improve the quality of HP content, which will improve overall readership, sharing of articles, benefiting all HP authors. I'd like to say thank you to the editors for this and know that there is a learning curse and they will become consistent in their editing over time. We all just have to be patient while posing questions calmly and respectfully, so the editors and authors can all work together in the most effective and satisfying manner possible.
by Cholee Clay 4 years ago
I'm curious if anyone knows if the new editors that were hired have completed the training and are on their own now, or if article standards have changed for some reason? The last few months I've had some very old and not updated articles moved to niche sites. I'm happy more of my articles are...
by promisem 4 years 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 folding. My existing articles that moved to those sites have done even better than...
by Kyler J Falk 19 months ago
When I first began writing here at HP I was terrible, but I still got moved to Soapboxie with ease. Now that I've improved, I can't get a single article through to that specific niche site. My three best articles on Soapboxie, allegedly, are as follows:https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Polit...
by Jean Bakula 6 years ago
I just got the "happy" news that one of my hubs about Cancer Moon Sign People has been moved to Exemplore. I don't feel happy, it was moved there months ago, and there was nothing wrong with it. It was well written when I wrote it.I give links on hubs like this so people can find...
by Farrah Young 3 years ago
I read on here that articles that aren't moved to the niche sites don't get as much live as those on the niche sites.Would it be wise to continue writing here knowing there's the possibility of that happening, although I try to make my articles optimized in the hopes it will pull in some traffic...
by Misbah Sheikh 8 months ago
Hello Beautiful souls,I currently have 161 featured articles on HP. The majority of them are already on Network sites. A few of them have been in the editors' queue for about 9/10 months. Actually, there were more than 161 articles. Over the course of two months, I deleted nearly ten of my...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|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.|