Feedback before submitting article to a network site?

1. 64

   Amanda Buckposted 5 years ago

   I wrote this article about the Grand Canyon and a sister article about 3 other sites in AZ.  Wanderwisdom pulled the sister article and took out the link to the Grand Canyon article.  I assume that means it did not meet their requirements for some reason.  I want to submit the Grand Canyon article to them, but wondered if some of you with more experience might be able to give me a hint as to why they didn't pull it to begin with?  If I submit it and they reject it, will they tell me specifically why or will it be a general, "didn't meet our requirements"?  I want to understand what they are looking for and what I did wrong.  Thanks for the help in advance, I appreciate it! 
   https://hubpages.com/travel/Always-Want … es-it-Easy

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Will Apseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Looks okay to me. You use "Grand Canyon" twice in the title which might be overdoing it.
      
      The first article might have been pulled if it got too little traffic from search engines. That should not prejudice the publication of this one.
      
      "Sight seeing" should be "sightseeing". Only typo that I saw.
      
      Might be worth mentioning that all the images are your own. Assuming that they are.
      
      Are any of the links, affiliate links? I see no evidence that they are but how careful are the eds?

      replyreport
      1. 64

         Amanda Buckposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe "pulled" was the wrong word.  What I mean is that Wanderwisdom chose it and took it from Hubpages to their network site, but left the GC one on Hubpages.
         Good feedback.  I am not sure about your last sentence, about affiliate links? (I'm new to all of this.)

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Will Apseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Affiliate links take a reader to a product or service. The writer earns money if the reader buys something, or signs up for something.
            
            They are considered bad practice unless the links genuinely serve the readers interests.
            
            Best of luck with the page. I would submit it and see how it goes.

            replyreport
            1. 64

               Amanda Buckposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Okay, I only had two links; one to the sister article and one to the hotel website.  But in the sister article they chose, they kept my links to the websites for the other places to visit -  though those were parks and rec links, not a business.  Hmmm... well, I will submit it and see what they say.  Thanks!

               replyreport
   2. 66

      OldRosesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The reason why the link to the Grand Canyon article was removed is because Hub Pages doesn't allow articles on niche sites to link to articles still on Hub Pages.  Edit the Grand Canyon article to conform to the requirements of WanderWisdom and submit it.  Once it is moved to WanderWisdom, you can restore the link because both articles will be on the niches site.

      replyreport
2. 84

   Rupert Taylorposted 5 years ago

   My impression is that it reads like promotional material put out by the hotel and railway, when HP tells us it wants uniquely informative articles.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      Amanda Buckposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks, Rupert.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Will Apseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Her crime was enjoying the trip?

      replyreport
      1. 64

         Amanda Buckposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks Will!  Glad to have you in my corner. 
         
         I do wonder if he might be right though.  I'm trying to read through some other articles on Wanderwisdom to see if I did make it too promotional.  It was not my intent, but I'm still figuring out how this all works.

         replyreport
      2. 78

         Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         LOL. It's hard to make me laugh this early in the morning. Thanks.

         replyreport
         1. 64

            Amanda Buckposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            LOL?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Will Apseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               You are definitely not an internet person, but I hope your career here bears fruit. Gonna have to say lol again.
               
               lol = laughing out loud. Old timers prefer it to smileys.

               replyreport
               1. 64

                  Amanda Buckposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not much of an internet person, that's true. But I know what LOL means. I was wondering what (or which one of us) he was laughing at... what struck his funny bone.

                  replyreport
3. 64

   Amanda Buckposted 5 years ago

   Thanks everyone.  I took all of your advice and reworked my article. I think I have a better article now.  I submitted it today.  Fingers crossed!

   replyreport
4. 64

   Amanda Buckposted 5 years ago

   Hooray, it went through. 
   Thanks again everybody!!

   replyreport