All photos but one were snipped today on one of my best performing hubs. Is this a new editing policy in light of Maven? There was a time when we were encouaged to add at least 3 photo images that would enhance our content. The photos that were remove from my hub were not necessary but added interesting visuals to the content.
I'm semi-cool with them being snipped. I just need to know if something has changed so I won't waist time as I'm known to do, looking for the perfect photos for my hubs if the emphasis is now more on text than visuals. Or if we only need one really good image as opposed to 3 or 4. Thanks, HP staff. By the way, I'm pretty certain they were all CC0.
Edit: Yes, I checked the Learning Center. It still says add multiple photos.
Can you post a link to the article so I can take a look?
https://pairedlife.com/problems/Top-10- … ng-and-Why
Thank you, Christy.
Ah, I see. We do encourage editors to remove photos that look like stock photos, are not directly related to the content, and don't contribute to the article's message. I'm guessing your editor thought the ones removed looked too much like stock photos and weren't directly related to the content enough to remain.
Define stock photos! I don't think writers should also be expected to be photographers. Some are, and that's great, but many of us are not and must use public domain photos. I always edit mine a bit, but if I had to take my own photos for every article I write, I'd have to stop writing or stop using images. Need some clarification here.
"Look like stock" seems like an issue I did not know about at all. I understand "not relevant" but are we meant to only have photos that look like we took them?
Same here, psychskinner. It seems to be a tightening up of the use of images. The article in question is old and has been on the niche site for at least a year. The images are only a problem now with the most recent moderation when I updated it. As I said, no sweat. I just need to know so I can adjust how I create hubs. For me, looking for images takes more time than writing the article.
I have problems with this too, because sometimes I use approved photos to show something about my topics. I tend to write long hubs, and people don't read as much as they used to. I had 2 photos taken out of an article last week to go on a niche, but they left the important ones.
But there are times when I really need the picture to illustrate my writing, and sometimes they get cut too. I have instructional articles the editor keeps putting on Letterpile, and they aren't creative writing. I have to make up people to illustrate a point. I've given up trying to argue. I don't know where some of these editors come from and would like to know their credentials.
A professor from NYU asked me if they could use a few of those "creative writing" articles to illustrate instructional writing, this is what makes me wonder about several of the editors.
I think what Christy is referring to is the kind of stock photo that shouts "posed by models" when you see it. To me they make an article seem just a tad less authentic unless they directly illustrate the content. Creative Commons and public domain photos that may seem a little less professionally polished are often less jarring to that sense of authenticity than stock photos.
I don't really mind much what the rules are, but if hubs are edited against them the same standards should be explained in our help and instruction pages.
Thanks, Ron. I primarily use pixabay and photopin and credit the photographers. Occasionally I use public domain. I also use my own photos a lot. I've never used the photo images labeled "stock photos" because you usually have to pay for them and I'm cheap, lol!
A second hub of mine on a niche site, one of my best performers, has also been snipped of what I believe were powerful images that enhanced the content. One photo remains. The bigger issue with this one is that within less than 2 days, traffic has dropped around 75%. Is this to be expected?
https://pairedlife.com/problems/Toxic-R … the-Damage
I think we had this discussion a few months ago and I used my hub tomato is it a fruit or a vegetable to clarify that it was okay to use a stock image that way.
Every single one of my images are stock images. I grow tomato plants but my photography skills are horrendous. It is as Ron says, it's not against stock images, it's against using images that do not really go along with the hub. I do not know what kind of images you had Janshares, but just for the sake of an example:
Having an RV hub (Sondra's topic) on say the best electric induction stoves for an RV and having an image of an RV rather than a stove is something that would not really add to the hub. The chef dude on my tomato fruit or veg hub is as stock as you can get, but it was classified to be okay because it adds to the hub and is relevant. Before HP came out with this rule, I did go through a few hubs back when we were on subdomains to get rid of some not very relevant photos. It does make the hubs seem more professional. Even a photo of your own RV in the example above would most likely be snipped.
And if that was posted in our help pages we would all know it. A "rule" that is not in the instruction is just a recipe for frustration.
Actually this is not what Christy stated. She specifically said that photos that look like stock photos are removed and that this was likely the problem with the hub in question. As someone who also uses stock photos regularly although I spend a great deal of time selecting them, I'd like to know what the actual rule on this is.
Thanks, Brandon. Noted.
Yes, psycheskinner, I'm sure the "rule" has been tightened. The images removed in both hubs have been there for years, and placed on niche sites with said images. I update my hubs every 2 to 3 months, so they've gone through QAP many times, where I get that "Congratulations" email. Anyhey, I'm laying the issue to rest now. Just needed an explanation on what has changed. Thanks for your help everyone, over and out.
Update: This forum thread gives more insight into reasons why HP may be removing images: a new Google algorithm update for images. Thank you Bethieannie and lobobrandon.
https://hubpages.com/community/forum/34 … in-traffic
Just pointing out that the images are not affecting you negatively. So removing images is not necessary unless they want to maintain the magazine-style articles that they say they try to achieve.
No, there was a previous reply here that is now deleted. It was a bunch of links to some mobile games I think. I didn't click on them.
EDIT: I see that the previous post that you replied to is gone as well. Maybe it was the same person, so when they got banned that post disappeared as well.
by Mary Wickison 8 years ago
On your hubs and other online articles, do you use your own photos or from another source?If you use them from another source, do you use the free version where you have to place a credit or do you pay for stock photos so you can use them without? Alternatively do you use sites that allow you do...
by optimus grimlock 10 years ago
Since the changes I've had 20 hubs taken down because of pixaled photos. It doesnt matter how many sources I use it's still the same result. For these hubs I've taken the photos off will this hurt the traffic or not really?
by Sondra Rochelle 3 years ago
Twice now I have received letters from moderators indicating that they don't want me to use "so many" stock photos. This is the first time this has ever happened in almost 7 years on this site, and concerns me greatly. I am not a photographer. I have always used stock...
by Don Bobbitt 6 years ago
I don't know, maybe this is just a disgruntled Rant by myself, alone.I call myself a Writer. By default, this makes me a Reader.And, as someone who has the arrogance to think I am good enough to call myself a writer and a reader, I have opinions, on my works as well as the works of others.So, with...
by Margaret Pan 23 months ago
Hello everyone,Could someone be kind enough to provide me with some feedback on my article "A Quick Guide to Some of the Most Important Vitamins for Your Health" ? Do you think it is likely to be moved to a network site? If not, what improvements would you make? Thank you in advance!
by Marie Gail Stratford 7 years ago
When I first started at HubPages, I wrote several Hubs of around 800 to 900 words. Now the goals for creating quality Hubs include 1250 or more words of content. I've noticed that some Hubbers seem to be padding their Hubs with irrelevant or superfluous content to hit these goals, and I admit it...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven 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.|