https://hubpages.com/literature/Essay-T … Conscience
Hi, if you have ten minutes, could you please browse through the above piece and point out anything I need to do to improve it?
Good article, not much to add. The picture of Thomas Aquinas is used twice, although the accompanying quote is different, so perhaps it can slide. Beyond that, there's perhaps a few too many links to other pages.
and maybe too many outside links?
otherwise I like it.
A small mistype? "As a consequence of CambridgeA Analytica’s business model of using personal"
Yup. Thanks. Fixed.
I'm curious why so many people in forums have an issue with links.
Bear in mind that all serious publications use links to verify what is being said. They are essential to the credibility of the piece. And one needs to prove everything one is saying. In other words, to get away from it simply 'being an opinion,' one needs to bring in the heavy weights.
I'm also unclear as to what you mean by 'outside links.' Surely the links have to be outside. Who on Hubpages is a scientist, world renounced scholar, a billionaire, a Nobel winner, etc. These are the people I link to for verification of what I am saying.
In all the years I have been on hubpages,, I have never been told by an editor that I have too many links, and if there is one thing I do, it's back up what I say. I want to be taken seriously by those who matter.
There IS another option, though, and that is to provide your own, unique and new data points.
You want to discuss how far away the moon is, provide information on what equipment you used to make your measurement, how and when it was used and the calculations supporting your claim as to the distance. Or if you want to talk about the incidence of measles in the world, count the cases.
So much of what we see on the web is simply regurgitating what someone else did, usually including their conclusions. If that's all we can offer then yes, we need that source to be expert, but what has happened to doing original work?
Clearly you don't read much of what I write...I don't regurgitate anything. I am an extremely analytical thinker with a solid information base acquired through reading a book a day for more than half a century plus having traveled extensively and lived under different political dispensations in both the third world and the first world.
That said, every single scientist and researcher backs up their work with empirical evidence.
Your post, however, does not answer the question I asked. What is the problem with providing links that add to the conclusions one is drawing?
I don't seem to have made myself clear.
A scientists does his own research, his own tests and experiments. He compiles his own data and draws conclusions from it. A researcher might do the same thing, or might simply draw conclusions from the work others have done, and usually the same conclusions. In that case, nothing new is being added except another opinion; there is no new information, no new facts, no new knowledge. Just a different take, a different interpretation of what we already know.
Not that there is something innately wrong with that, but it seems to be 95% of what we hear any more. It's as if no one can do their own legwork any more; the best they can do is to provide a link to someone else's work that is assumed to be done properly without ever checking it for veracity.
No one is willing to put the effort into producing new knowledge, only in using what others worked to produce to give an opinion on what it means. And in today's world (not pointing at you personally) that most often means carefully choosing whose data set will lead to the desired conclusion and discarding those that don't fit.
Okay, so let me get this straight. The reason I shouldn't use so many links in my work is that I must now produce world class break through data, experiements, etc. that have never been done before? Is this what you are saying?
If you're making a general statement about the fact that most people don't think , I would agree with you. They also don't check facts, don't read books, believe what is said on social media, and couldn't spot a non-sequitur if it bit them.
However, what has this to do with the fact that so many on HP seems to think I use too many links. Have any of you actually checked where the links go and how they are related to my work?
I have NEVER had any comeback on any of my articles (and I get my work selected for niche sites fairly often) with the complaint that I am using too many links.
I suspect the real issue here is that some don't realize that my links either go to sites that verify what I am saying or they provide extra information. That's because there's been a long tradition on content writing sites to use links for promotional purposes. I think they assume my links are for promotional purposes, and that hp will remove them.
"They <links> are essential to the credibility of the piece."
This whole thing is a response to that statement. Indeed, the first sentence I wrote was "There IS another option, though...".
When it comes to links intended to give authority to your article, I agree with the others; the best bet is probably to make a link capsule at the end and put them there, particularly if there are a large number of them. I also tend to think that if you require lots of links you are doing little but recapping what others have said; you are regurgitating the same data (and probably conclusions) already available.
So I maintain in an article that it was Donald Trump's campaign that paid for Hillary Clinton's emails to be handed to wikileaks. I must now go and prove all this information by myself. I have to fly around the world, interviiew people, track emails, speak to Julian Assange, talk to Christopher Wylie, and only then can I mention that fact.
I don't think so.
The credibility of my argument about developing a moral conscience is my work. However, I use examples from life around us in order demonstrate what I am saying. Precisely because most people don't read, or they read tabloids rather than serious investigative journalist pieces, I provide links to show that my data is correct.
From long experience on sites like hubpages, I get too many people telling me the events never happened or aren't true or some such uninformed remark. So I put in links that people can't come back to me and tell me I'm talking rubbish. I make sure that all my links are credible, reliable, well established sources.
As for putting the sources at the bottom of the articles, sorry, that is not AP practice. In a news article or a feature article, the link is provided in the body of the article where it is required.
Links at the bottom of an article belong to disserations and research at universities. They are not part of the media tradition.
"When attributing to a specific article, video or other piece of content on another site, it is generally recommended to link to the item, unless the content might be objectionable to readers."
"As such, there really is no such thing as attribution to sources because that doesn't really occur in news writing. Instead, AP Style uses in-text attribution generally in the form of direct or indirect quotations."
https://writing.stackexchange.com/quest … journalism
Incidentally, could you please explain to me who on hp does not regurgiate information, including yourself.
In the end, it's your call, but the links could comes across as spammy simply because of their frequency.
HubPages hates when we link to a domain more than twice, and I've seen good hubs become unfeatured just for having too many or poorly implemented links. Point being, be careful because HP can and does crack down on them.
Clearly, you have neither read the hub or checked the links. I NEVER use the same link twice - well, unless I do it in error.
Please tell me where I've linked to an article twice so that I can correct this.
Tess, I am on your side on this one. If you wrote a piece like this all on your own thinking and authority, you would be worth so much money, you wouldn't have time to write online. I've read that it is good to add links to add authority to what you write.
I wrote an essay on moral conscience because it's somethng that's important to me, and it's very unfashionable today. Most people today confuse religious rules with ethics and morality. I wrote what I thought and what I figured out.
However, because I didn't want argument (It's surprising how often my ideas offend others), I googled the idea to see who else thought it. Then I discovered that Aquinas((and others) had the same thought. So I used them to back my argument.
We were taught to do this at the London School of Journalism. No matter what you think - there will always be someone to back you. So when you write a newspaper article and you need to 'prove your point,' you look around for the authorities that have the same view as you do, then you call them and ask them for a quote.
Standard journalistic methodology.
So, yes, one always backs what one says with an 'authority.' I clearly remember my professor teaching us that one must always back what one says with an authority.
I sort of get the idea that I'm being attacked over here. I'm not quite sure why.
Anyway, I'm done. And thank you for your input.
With regard to the million dollars, you have no idea how many people have told me in my life that I am sitting on a million dollar talent. However, when one is autistic, it does't work that way
http://bestebookstories.blogspot.co.za/ … words.html
You're wrong--I did indeed read your hub (which should be obvious from my initial tips). Furthermore, I never said you used the same link twice, I just gave general and polite advice on link usage.
Look before you leap.
As my original comment and many others have noted, posting too many links can come across as spammy (even when not intended to). If I'm putting a link within the text of a hub, it's often to backlink to another article of mine and help the flow of traffic.
But to cite multiple sources and prove you've done your research, a concise references capsule at the bottom should suffice.
There's nothing wrong with links to back up your story, but in most publications they're grouped at the bottom of the text.
There are a few places where you seem to start a new paragraph in the middle of a sentence. It's most likely just an accidental hit of the return key, but it's noticeable enough to be distracting. For example:
In the "The Individual vs the Community", first paragraph, there is an extra line between the words "can" and "not".
In the "What is Moral Conscience?" section, first paragraph, there is an extra line between "Catholic" and "Church".
Other than that it looked fine to me.
That is really weird. It's not me. There is no line between them of my making. I can see, however, that a extra half line is inserted. I'll have to get hold of the tech. people at hp.
Maybe I'm going crazy but, they're still there for me...
Here's a screenshot of what I'm seeing (I added the arrows).
Yes. I said it's a bug. It's not a line space that I am putting in. It's happening automatically. That's why I said I need to speak to the tech people a hubpages.
What's causing the additional spacing is the superscripts in those lines. Apparently the interline spacing is calculated from the top of the next line, so the superscript effectively pushes that line down.
by Weird Birdie 2 weeks ago
Hi,I seek your feedback for my article to pass through the Quality Assessment. Pointing out the areas in which I need improvement will be a great help as well.My Hub - http://hub.me/amlzKThank you.
by Jeff Zod 8 weeks ago
Hi hubbers,I would like help getting my article https://hubpages.com/politics/The-Falla … ican-Dream Featured.I will really appreciate the help.Thanks
by Susan 8 months ago
Please help me pass quality assessment for Twenty First Century Gun Violence. http://hubpages.com/politics/twenty-fir … n-violence
by Andrew C Ross 5 years ago
I see this message when my Hub is rejected: "Heads up! It looks like your Hub is not cleared for publication because it did not pass the Quality Assessment Process. No need to fret; every new Hubber goes through Boot Camp, and all you need to do is improve the Hub so that it meets our quality...
by Dr. John Anderson 5 years ago
The purpose of this post is NOT to moan and groan, but rather to better understand it, by sharing your insight and experiences. Obviously we now have to work using its parameters. Stayin' Alive Ha Ha Ha
by Don Bobbitt 2 weeks ago
It looks like a fourth of my feed lately is comprised of new people wanting the rest of us to tell them how to write. All day I get request after request for help on passing the Quality Assessment. I mean Really? Many of your requests are just one step above being a jumble of mis-spelled words...
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.|