Full width images on all articles...

1. 78

   jackclee lmposted 6 years ago

   I guess it is official. All articles have the images automatically set to full width starting today.
   I am ambivalent about this decision. I understand the reason it was proposed but still, for some of us with a few hundred articles, it is very time consuming to go back and fix this. In some cases, there are no good replacement images. The resulting format is very un appealing.
   On some of my articles, the images were placed on the side for a good reason. Now, they are all on top of the text module.
   
   Perhaps I should have paid more attntion when this was first proposed.
   Let me give the counter argument, even though it is a day late and a dollar short.
   
   1. Web design and screen layout is an art. Professionals struggle to get the right placement of images and text to make the article appealing and easy to read. Already, in order for simplicity and ease of use, HubPages has restricted that flexibility by fixing the text and images to a standard format.
   I still think there are good reasons to include images embedded in text and gives the reader better context. In fact, in the past, I had suggested allowing images to be left justified in addition to the right justified only option.
   2. One clear example of the use of smaller size images is the case of a long list of people or books...
   It makes perfect sense to have the text on one side and a corresponding photo on the right side and allow the text to flow around it. The same goes to any long list of items...where the image quality is secondary and used just for identification purposes.
   Go look at Amazon books for example. The cover of the book is shown as a thumb nail image. It identifies the book but not intended to provide every detail of the cover.
   3. A matter of speed and size. When an image is made full size, it increased not only the screen real estate but it takes longer to download and transmit the image due to the larger file size. 
   There are times when we access an article via our smart phones when we may not have the high speed access. This makes downloading and reading the article much more difficult and it increases the data usage. All this is unnecssary and overkill since the final screen is only approx. 2 inches by 3 inches on an iPhone.
   4. Not everything requires a high resolution image. Some graphics are just fine in low resolution. There is no quality loss. Why force a full screen treatment?
   
   These are my opinion and I hope people take some time to digest.
   What is done can be undone. Nothing is cast in stone.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      jansharesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I feel for you, jackclee. But I have a feeling what's done is done. You are right about a day late and a dollar short since they did tell us about this some time ago. It seems that a lot of hubbers may find themselves in the same predicament. It will most likely impact the HP editing team as well when articles fall out of featured status due to decreased quality caused by wonky formatting and blurred images. Yes, big changes sometimes bring on more work for all involved. Hopefully, things will work out for you. Good luck.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks, I am not worried. I just think it may be too restrictive for HP to make the claim they want to be the best content provider and place these arbitrary format restrictions that are not needed. IMHO.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            Glenn Stokposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            It IS needed in order to rank well. Google warned us about this requirement three years ago and explained why it’s was important:
            
            https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2015/ … earch.html
            
            That’s why HP gave us the heads up at that time and gave us three years to work on it.
            
            Here is the link to HPs blog in March 2015:
            
            https://blog.hubpages.com/2015/03/30/go … m-release/

            replyreport
2. 96

   Glenn Stokposted 6 years ago

   You had three years to work on this since the first announcement. All the issues you brought up have been covered in the forums over that time period, as well as what I discussed in my article about it three years ago.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Glen, I am sorry I did not follow this discussion sooner. It just seem too draconian a solution. I have been working in digital imaging for most of my career. As much as I like high quality imaging, there are times when a low resolution image is sufficient and desirable for obvious reasons. For HP to ignore those facts and went ahead with this without testing the waters... seems odd.
      When a company makes a change to their web design, it is usually tested months with users and polls and studies before going live... what has HP done to test this before switching? Just asking.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         Glenn Stokposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Don’t you think three years of testing and warnings to get our hubs fixed is enough time?
         
         See my other reply to you with the links to Google and HPs blog.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I got it. Just because more people are using their phones to access hubpages does not mean we need to tailor to them only.
            It is forsaking many users to accommodate the new...
            I for one, does not use my iphone to read articles.
            I prefer on ipads and Mac.
            When you have a full screen display, formatting is still preferred.
            Why should everyone accommodate the mobile users?
            From a user interface design point of view, this is too restrictive.
            I understand why they did it but it is not the best solution.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               Glenn Stokposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Jack, you're focusing on the wrong thing. Saying that you don't use your iPhone much is not a reasonable argument when over 70% of your traffic is coming from mobile now. You need to accommodate those readers. If you chose to ignore the majority of your traffic, you are only hurting your own revenue with a lower Google ranking. 
               
               If you need proof, Paul Kuehn has just verified what I'm saying with his results. Thanks Paul.

               replyreport
3. 71

   William F. Torpeyposted 6 years ago

   The new format for photos has some advantages, but, personally, I am weary of the constant changes in HubPages  rules and regulations -- especially on hubs that were initially published years ago. It might make sense for new hubs, but may or may not be appropriate for older hubs. Constantly changing rules and regulations ex poste facto is, in my opinion, unwise.

   replyreport
4. 94

   Paul Kuehnposted 6 years ago

   I spent two or three weeks at the end of December and beginning of January making all of my hubs full-width in the picture.  Since I had almost 200 hubs, it was quite a tedious chore and it was difficult in many cases finding a suitable replacement image.  Just the same, this exercise was good for me because it raised my hub scores and brought a higher CPM and more income.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      poppyrposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      +1 to this.
      
      I have 150 articles and wet through all of them. It was time-consuming, but traffic improved, as did earnings.
      
      I really think OP could have fixed two or three articles in the time it took her to write this forum post

      replyreport