Quality assessment - help!

1. 79

   Jeremy Gillposted 7 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
2. 80

   Stacie Lposted 7 years ago

   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"

   replyreport
   1. 0

      TessSchlesingerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      GDPR Deleted
      1. 76

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         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?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            TessSchlesingerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            GDPR Deleted
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               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.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  TessSchlesingerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  GDPR Deleted
                  1. 76

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     "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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        TessSchlesingerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        GDPR Deleted
                        1. 79

                           Jeremy Gillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              TessSchlesingerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              GDPR Deleted
                              1. 77

                                 Barbara Kayposted 7 years agoin reply to 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.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    TessSchlesingerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    GDPR Deleted
                                    1. 79

                                       theraggededgeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       I don't see any attacks, Tess. You asked for feedback. People have tried to provide it. Even if you disagree with it, you can be gracious... and then ignore it

                                       report
                              2. 79

                                 Jeremy Gillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 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.

                                 replyreport
            2. 79

               Jeremy Gillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               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.

               replyreport
      2. 81

         Titiaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         There's nothing wrong with links to back up your story, but in most publications they're grouped at the bottom of the text.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Barbara Kayposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I agree with this point.

            replyreport
3. 79

   Chris Tylerposted 7 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Titiaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see those extra lines either.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Chris Tylerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         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).
         
         
         
         
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 0

            TessSchlesingerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            GDPR Deleted
            1. 79

               Chris Tylerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               I know. I was replying to someone else who didn't know what lines I was referring to.

               replyreport
         2. 75

            RonElFranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport