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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
by Jack Lee 7 weeks ago
I have an old article that contains many images. Some are small sized on purpose. They are head shots of people in our group of members. It was published 2 years ago and was featured. Recently, I noticed it became un-featured and the reason given was that it contains too small images.This happened...
by StormsHalted 19 months ago
Hubpages has recently upgraded the format of its site, which now features larger then before images. While this is a very good improvement the image quality has significantly deteriorated because of being zoomed in.Attcahed is an image snipped from the actual article preview showing the extent to...
by ga anderson 2 weeks ago
It has been a long time since I published here, and I have forgotten the process.I have a recently published hub, (5 days ago), that exited pending with that Dreaded Black Circle - Not Featured - Quality. (I do have other Featured hubs)I don't see any indicators of why, or what to fix, and I don't...
by Ziyena Brazos 3 weeks ago
Lately, I've been checking the feed. I've flagged a couple of articles related to spamming one's own business. After looking more closely, I've also noticed published articles (not even articles) that most would consider extremely sub-standard. I'll be the first to admit that I'm...
by Thomas Dowling 23 months ago
I give! I've searched the first 3 or 4 pages of "Getting Help" Forum and I've read the entire Link's Capsule section in the Learning Center (http://hubpages.com/learningcenter/using-hubtool). That Hub, by the way, has a large number of Quick Links in it. How do you create a list of topics...
by Victoria Van Ness 2 months ago
I've been with HubPages for 5 years now. I have almost 500 articles and the majority of them are featured. I publish quite frequently and follow all of the rules. I post my articles to facebook and pinterest, I am part of Amazon Associates, and yet I make very little money each month (nothing from...
Copyright © 2018 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. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|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.|