Why are there random videos heading Network site articles? Is there an option to remove that feature? I find them distracting and sometimes misleading to the content of the article.
Could you attach a screenshot? I'm not sure what you mean.
Oh, ok. Those videos are featured on every Network Site. We are working on creating more diverse content for each site. So they will be more relevant in time.
That would confirm my conflict with the idea. Someone who visits my articles will most likely assume that I added the video. This is not a big deal if the video's content is compatible with what I wrote. However, it is a big deal if the video's content is in direct conflict with what I'm trying to share. I'm not sure I fully trust algorithms to make those decisions and attach my name or content to those video choices.
In all fairness, if additional material is added to an article apart from the author's wishes, especially right at the top, it should be made abundantly clear that the author of the article has no control over its placement. Or, video placement should be at the bottom of the article as supplemental information with the origins of the material noted.
Thank you for getting back to me.
Agree 100%. People come to that page for the article, not the video. I have gone to niche site articles before and thought I was in the wrong place because of the video, so goodness knows what random visitors think. Adding my vote to move these down the page. They dominate the landing on that page and distract from the content, which is what people are here for. I am not sure why you would want to distract from the content or give people another reason to click away. Put it in a sidebar, or have it as a popup in the corner. People can click to enlarge it or unmute if they want it. In the meantime, they can actually get on with reading our content, which is why they came to the page in the first place. It really annoys me and I have no doubt it annoys others too.
How many videos are you planning on making? Unless you are going to make thousands, I don't see how that would work.
Could you program the video capsule so it selects a random video based on words in the Hub title? That's the only thing I can think of that would work.
I hope that changes.
The problem is that relevance is impossible otherwise. Take my Hubs as an example. Currently, if someone clicks on one of my Hubs about flamenco, they'll see a video about jigsaw puzzles or gaming. They'll think, "whoops, I'm in totally the wrong place" and click back.
The same disconnect applies on many of the other niches. The breadth of subjects covered is simply too great. Just try it yourself on a few random Hubs and you'll see what I mean - even the videos made specially for the site are too far removed from the relevant search term.
In Hobbylark's case, you might say, "eventually we'll make a video about performing arts", but even if you make a video about dance in particular, it's more likely to be about ballet or hip hop than flamenco. When someone comes to my Hub to get information about flamenco and sees a video about hip hop, they're going to think, "whoops, wrong subject" and go back to pick something else.
A dear friend persuaded me to come back to HubPages but I am now wondering if it was worth the effort I put in.
They are a step up from the old videos that appeared that were not related in the slightest, no matter where they were located. I understand that it can be difficult as we iron things out on our end. It's still in the beginning stages, but we believe that it will be a positive change in the long run. Of course, it is up to you as to whether you wish to stay on the site or not.
As I asked in another thread, can you explain WHY you believe adding the videos will be a positive change in the long run?
The videos were not there when the sites were first transitioned. So someone must have taken the decision to add them. There must have been a reason for that. Surely we deserve to be told what the reasoning was and why it will be so beneficial in the long run?
Improvement or not, It's not right to add material to someone else's carefully crafted content.
When other suggested articles are at the bottom it is obvious that these are suggestions generated by the site itself. The banner video makes it look like it's part of the information presented by the author.
That "whoops, wrong place" is one reason the number of impressions is decreasing. I see all kinds of wrong videos on my articles, things that there was no way I would have added (and that an editor would have snipped as being unrelated to the subject matter) and I have seen a drop in impressions. It has to be related.
My impressions are showing 1k more than the last several months. I find that hard to believe, but that's what my HP stats are showing. I don't know how that is possible when the pages take so much longer to load now.
As far as I can tell earnings are very similar to last month despite the increase in impressions. Compared to last year for this month though everything is much lower (which has been the trend all year for me).
However, of my top earners the videos are not as unrelated as for yours. I don't agree with the videos, but in my case it has not been as detrimental (at least for now). I can see how having cat videos on the top of your articles is causing a huge impact on your impression and bounce rate. Most dog people that I know have strong feelings about cats and vice versa.
My big complaint is that all the network sites are in different stages of these videos. Some still show ads before the video and others go straight to the video. Some sites have the video scrolling and others do not. I do not like that this new feature went live before it was ready. It probably does not make a big deal for organic traffic since those readers do not know how the other sites look, but as a writer it bothers me.
I also agree with OP that I do not like that we do not have a say on what kind of content is on our articles. I have seen some videos that I would not want on my content if I wrote for those network sites. As writer's we are in charge of our content, and it is not obvious that authors did not write the content, nor that we approve or necessarily agree with said content. When we are not even able to deny the video or explain that it goes against what we believe I think the content becomes problematic no matter how much more revenue we could possibly gain from it.
We put a lot of work into all our articles. It is unfair that these videos are placed on the very top of our articles. And who is it that gets the benefit of revenue from them? Not the writers I am sure
My biggest issue is not having control over what gets attached to what I write. I carefully select images and videos that are very specific to the topic I'm trying to share. Presently the banner videos are simply distracting, but I can see where this could lead to greater troubles. What if the algorithms throw in a video that's in opposition to my topics. In this case, it is a lot more than a simple distraction. Oppositions work great in forum arguments but not for article heading videos.
If we have to have the videos right on top of the article, we should at least have the option to select them, or they should let readers know that they were not selected by the author who wrote the article. Better yet, place them at the bottom while noting their source.
I've been told off for starting a new thread to ask a related question, so I'll repeat it here.
Before Maven, if a contentious change happened, a senior decision-maker would come to the forums and explain the rationale, e.g. in the current situation, they'd say something like,
"We apologise to Hubbers for the problems with the videos, but based on our testing, we are confident that once the video feature is bedded down, it will enhance traffic."
They would then answer questions about the testing and what their research says about why the videos will be good for us.
I don't need a senior decision-maker to make a personal visit to the forums, but I do think that the writers are entitled to understand the logic behind the decision.
If the answer is just, "HubPages staff have no idea why Maven has decided to put the video on top and we have no channel to ask anyone for an explanation, so you'll just have to put up with it", then I'm very disappointed.
I certainly did not want it to come across as "telling you off." I only said that it would be best to keep comments/concerns in one thread so you wouldn't miss any updates. It can be a little difficult for me to follow several of these threads at once.
We have stated that we believe that once the video experience is refined and there are more of them, it will enhance traffic. We asked that users be patient and thanked them for their understanding. And I did answer why the Maven has decided to put videos on top. It is because that is where the media player is currently. We are working on a way to move it. We do have a communication channel with the team, and that is what they said. A senior decision-maker will not tell you anything different.
What I do not understand is why the decision was made to start the videos before they were completely ready. There are several Maven sites that do not use this feature so surely it was not necessary to implement the videos immediately. Marisa also asked this same question farther up this thread and it went unanswered. I understand it has to be at the top of the articles, but why did they have to be rolled out so fast? My concern is the loss of revenue and high bounce rate that could occur while working out the glitches and creating more content, will not be able to recover once the additional videos are added.
My other concern is that it is going to be almost impossible to create enough content to cover every category/subcategory within the network sites, so even when all the videos are made, some content is still going to have unrelated videos attached to them. This was also an issue Marisa brought up earlier that really wasn't addressed. It's hard to be understanding and patient when there are still a lot of unanswered questions.
I'm assuming it will take weeks if not months to create all these videos and it seems like the staff is still working out how to determine which articles get what videos, but it would be nice to get some sort of timeline or more concrete answer on how many videos are actually being planned. For example can we expect one for every subcategory, or will it be more broad than that? Owlcation - Humanities (they all get one video), or would it be broken down further to theology, languages, history, ect all get their own video? Is the number of videos something that is still being worked out?
If there is no "HP" staff and everyone is Maven, I'm also wondering why the videos say HubPages. Is there a reason Maven does not want their names on the videos? On the other sites the actual site names are on the videos (SI and Sugar & Sports for example have their website names or logo in the videos). Would it be possible to do the same for HP's network sites so instead of HubPages it says Owlcation, Dengarden, ect?
As Shesabutterfly points out, the video was not visible on any of the Niche Sites when they were first transitioned, and several Maven sites do not use this feature either. So although the media player is there, it doesn't have to be visible.
That means that someone, at some point, made the decision to turn the media player on. I'm only asking WHY?
... and since it's patently not ready, why is it not being switched off again?
Because we needed to replace the media that was showing up previously. The new videos didn't show up because we were still displaying the previous ones. So the media player was already "on." The location just changed because of the new platform, which we are trying to address. We hear and understand your concerns, but the videos will stay as-is for now.
Not all Maven sites follow the same setup, so it is not helpful to use them as a guideline.
So, would it not just be better to “refine the experience” BEFORE implementing it? If this is not the end goal, or the ultimate experience we want for the reader, then why implement it at all? Wait until it is finished. Workshop it some more behind closed doors until it does what you want it to do. I can’t see how it makes any sense to add a half-baked implementation of a feature when it is not ready for prime time.
Exactly. Monitoring things like bounce time and clickthrough for a video that's totally irrelevant is meaningless, so why not keep it switched off until a decent selectoin of the right videos is displayed?
Please reference the corresponding forum post with Q&A regarding this feature. https://hubpages.com/community/forum/34 … m-feedback
I saw that when it came out. I still don’t see the logic in testing it on all the sites at once. In addition, user experience and feedback is important, but I would hope that feedback from writers is also important. There are lots of good suggestions in this thread for how to refine the experience. I hope they are considered.
I've seen them & some if the ads have absolutely nothing to do with my work, but it is what it is...can't change it.
by Samantha Cubbison 9 months ago
We are excited to announce that Exemplore, SkyAboveUs, CalorieBee, and Soapboxie have been rendered by our front-end publishing platform and are currently live! LetterPile and HowTheyPlay and are soon to follow!
by Kenna McHugh 10 months ago
Now that HP has reformated the niche sites, my articles have unrelated videos at the top of my articles. For example, my "Ten Books on How to Live a Happy Life" has a video on butterflies. That is all you see unless you scroll down. All I see is the video on butterflies. It is...
by Keith Schroeder 9 years ago
I imagine a few people will notice as my hubs disappear here and appear elsewhere. So I write this forum and my last hub detailing my discontent.There have been issues in the past, but nothing I would leave over. A lot of very good hubbers picked up and left Hubpages this spring and I thought they...
by John Hansen 13 months ago
Does anyone else find the Maven recommended articles that pop up at the bottom of the hubs you are reading to be totally unrelated to the type of articles you read? For instance I keep getting things like “Sexy 70 Year Old Women, “ “Female Fitness Models and Competitors,” “Are Blacks the Cursed...
by jellygator 9 years ago
I submitted a hub about the difference between assertive and aggressive women called "She's such a Bitch: So Why Does He Love Her?" and I can't figure out exactly what's blocking it from publication.The bots flagged it as possibly containing inappropriate content, and sent it for a...
by Kyler J Falk 4 months ago
I'm dying for a reformat as it concerns the placement of ads on articles, lest I be forced to unpublish and move all my articles in favor of a site that works harder on QoL (pretending I even matter here, lol, let me have my pretentious crybaby moment). Most annoyingly, it is the videos and...
Copyright © 2021 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.|