When I first began writing here at HP I was terrible, but I still got moved to Soapboxie with ease. Now that I've improved, I can't get a single article through to that specific niche site.
My three best articles on Soapboxie, allegedly, are as follows:
https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Polit … r-Neighbor
https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/No- … Accept-You
https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Is- … ocial-Norm
As we can all see, these articles are nothing but walls of verbose text and probably would not make it to Soapboxie if I, myself, were the one to publish them again. However, I see others getting moved there with subjectively-worse articles than these and I am wondering what I need to do to get things moved there as well. The articles I'll use as an example of what I want moved are these:
https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/ … Presidency
https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/ … ir-Tenants
Both of these examples are much better than the previous three, at least aesthetically-speaking but I'd argue they're better in every way. Yet, when I compare these to one another I don't see why my fresher articles are denied without a second thought other than the copy/pasted editorial response. Should I give up on Soapboxie and move everything to Medium since they do better there anyways, or keep trying here on HP?
Any help is appreciated. Thank you in advance.
Kyler, I only did a cursory scroll of each of the two articles you mentioned in the latter part of this post. The first thing I noticed is you don't attribute the photos/images you're using. That's something that should be done for every article, even if they are your own. The second thing I noticed, is your articles are very opinionated. I know that's how you express yourself in the written word, but perhaps HP/Maven are no looking for that. If your commentaries are doing well on Medium, that might be a better option for these types of articles.
I'm not looking to criticize you. Just thinking about possible reasons for your conundrum.
Photo credits and opinions aren't enough to hinder transfer, and that is evidenced in the example articles both transferred and those that are not. However, all my photos have the backlinks in all their metadata so it is inaccurate to say they aren't ascribed to their owners.
It can't be so simple as that, but I have considered it as a possible source of the lack of transfer.
I took a quick look at your use of photos. You are not properly attributing them. Here is the HP Guide to Proper Image Use: https://hubpageshelp.com/content/Learni … -image-use
My understanding is that articles with photos that are not properly licensed and attributed are not eligible to be moved to the niche sites.
All of them are attributed according to the legal rights and personal demands/desires of the owners, and as for what is proper concerning being transferred I have a myriad of different articles transferred to other niche sites using the same method as in the ones I am seeking to improve to have moved.
If the images are truly the issue then HubPages would remove many of my articles already transferred to niche sites. I've even had articles transferred where I was unknowingly infringing on copyrights, so I'm not sure HP actually refers to their own guidelines in the majority of cases. However, perhaps it wouldn't hurt to start offering attribution regardless of what is or is not actually necessary; I'll keep thinking on that.
I'm just trying to figure out the discrepancies between what I have transferred, and what they refuse to transfer. Comparing and contrasting everything seems to only create more questions.
I've adjusted the sources for the pictures so that I no longer need to consider that facet of the discussion in any way, shape, or form. Let's see if it has any positive effects.
I wanted to pass along this link to HubPagesHelp . . . we have tons of great resources here and tips for how to improve your articles.
I think the problem might be your desire to move them to soapboxie. I read the article about tenants and I didn't think that it was a soapbox type article. Isnt soapboxie about opinions. Your article seems to be a guide or how to. There may be other niche sites better suited. For example, toughnickel.
To be honest I didnt find anything particularly wrong with the article. So other than trying a different niche site, I am stumped too.
I thought it fit under the "activism" section of Soapboxie after reading a few of the recent activist guides there. It felt more like a social issue than anything else. It doesn't really fit under the real estate section, and the legal section seems a bit too above my authority on the subject.
I thought about applying it to a company and location specifically thinking it might do well on wander wisdom, but then I realized wander wisdom doesn't really want social issue guides. Ugh.
You ended up being 100% correct about submitting to ToughNickel, as the Landlord article has been moved there. It was just edited and moved there today!
I've had some similar experiences, where I've had articles rejected that I believe to be similar in style and quality to ones already accepted. I suspect that there are perhaps factors other than quality that are taken into account when they're assessed. For example, if the topic has already been dealt with many times.
I'm just speculating, because I don't know the answer myself. Some of the criteria for acceptance is also very vague. Individual editors may also differ in their judgements too?
What I do know is that it's now harder to gain acceptance to the niche sites than it used to be. That's maybe caused by a combination of Google getting more fussy and the competition getting tougher?
If only I felt my fresher articles were similar in style and quality, then I could rest easy knowing they absolutely suck like the ones I already have on Soapboxie.
I've also tried to take into account that they've claimed the expectations have been set for higher standards, but then I browse through what they are allowing and much of it is hardly dissimilar (good or bad) from my own content. Now that photo credits have been brought into the mix it is really the only thing I stopped doing on my social drivel articles, so I've adjusted and am waiting on the results of that adjustment.
We'll see, I'm sure we can all figure it out eventually.
To be totally honest, it mystifies me why an article is rejected too. One of my best articles, as far as I'm concerned, was rejected for a vertical site recently and it makes no sense to me. It was very original and unique, well-written and relatively popular, as attested by traffic and comments. Sometimes the rejections are pretty subjective and arbitrary.
Right? That's why I can't stand when HubPages staff offers copied and pasted responses and links even after you request a little more specific criticisms. It is almost as if they want to gaslight you.
It has been rumored that certain topics, especially those on Soapboxie, are vetted with a much closer attention paid to agendas. Like HP and Maven expressly disassociating themselves from anything to do with Blue Lives Matter. However, I'm not sure how credible those rumors are outside of what is directly observable.
Not sure what to do, but hopefully the staff will offer constructive advice for all of us at some point.
I've read your articles too and to be honest, I don't see what's wrong as well. But I don't write for Soapboxie, so I don't know what that niche site looks for.
Allow me to share this, though. I write for other platforms, and recently, my editor and I decided not to have any byline for an article that is likely to attract trolls. Trolls who would come after me more than they would attack the site.
In the case of your Trump write-up, perhaps the editors do not want pro or anti Trump folks to swarm Soapboxie, or you? No idea though what's the issue with the tenants one.
And yes, I know I'm being incredibly positive here and that will come across as naive.
I think the landlord/ tenant article is full of useful information. You could submit it to DenGarden if you deleted the first few paragraphs where you talk about going in to battle. Start the article with the callout entitled Important Consideration and the rest seems good to me.
I think the Trump article will date very quickly. Regardless of the merits 'for and against' I wouldn't spend any more time on trying to please HP editors on this one. You're a good writer. Don't let a small setback stop you from producing more 'evergreen' articles.
I should've used one of my other articles as an example other than my Trump one, I didn't have much hopes for it to begin with. It was plagiarized by someone else at some point, as well, so its value has already diminished substantially.
I won't be writing very many articles such as that one that will fit on Dengarden, and I didn't want to dilute my "brand" by branching into a site I'd probably never be featured on again. Soapboxie, LevelSkip, Letterpile, Patientslounge, and that relationship one whatever it is called are my main targets and host the brunt of my work.
Others plagiarizing you isn't generally important on here. Google generally knows which was the original, so it doesn't affect traffic. Yes, it's immoral, yes, it's illegal, but it doesn't affect much. All my best articles have been plagiarized multiple times.
Soapboxie, Letterpile, etc. are in some ways the easiest ones to write for as they are often opinions and creative work, but they generally won't ever earn you much, if that's of any importance. I see no good reason to reject Beth's advice. I write about everything from travel to DIY to social issues and it's never done me much harm that I can detect.
I'm not rejecting it so much as thinking in the long-term. On LevelSkip many of my articles are advertised on my article pages, same with the other niche sites, and they push a lot of traffic toward one another. If I only have one article on DenGarden, which makes sense because I don't often write articles that would fit there if at all, it wouldn't benefit me in the long-run to submit it there.
The plagiarizing was important because it wasn't an evergreen article, and its value was already pretty low, the initial burst was what I was looking for and that opportunity disappeared when HP marked it duplicate and forcibly unpublished it rather than checking publish dates. Took me weeks to get it republished, and now it is no longer relevant; lesson learned.
I don't really understand what you mean about the Dengarden thing. The only trouble with writing a broad scope of articles, in my experience, is writing the biography for the profile page. You see your traffic as being "pushed" around between articles, I get almost all mine from Google.
I misunderstood you on plagiarizing. I thought you meant you'd been plagiarized, but I now believe that you're saying that you were the plagiarizer, albeit by mistake.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I was plagiarized, HP unpublished me against their own standards for duplication (they admitted it already), then the mistake was corrected weeks later after the relevance of the article had passed. I'm not sure how, "It was plagiarized by someone else," can be misunderstood as me plagiarizing, either; let me know how I can be more clear in the future to avoid this misunderstanding.
Most of my traffic comes from search engines as well, but having everything in one area boosts the traffic efficiently, and it amplifies the quality of life for my readers even further than I can do just by hyperlinking relevant articles alone. I'm not really interested in getting into why having everything in one area is better, but the idea that I'll probably never write for Dengarden in any meaningful way again should be enough of an explanation. If not, oh well, it isn't important that you understand.
Concisely: The article would perform better both in traffic and quality of life when put onto Soapboxie. On Dengarden it would not be as efficient in the long-run. It's all about measuring long-term gain versus short-term consequences, which isn't even relevant for my Trump article lol.
How can you plagiarize by mistake? It's not immediately obvious to me how that is possible.
The bio thing presents difficulty for me as a write on a wide variety of topics. I can't claim any particular expertise in the medieval monarchy of Portugal (a current project) as well as the care and feeding of rutabagas (a past successful Hub). So, I use a single, generic bio pointing out my long indentured servitude in journalism in the hope that readers will deduce that over the centuries (as it seems) I have learned how to research and, subsequently, write.
In the end, readers really have to figure out credibility for themselves. Just because I say I've been in the writing racket for a long, long time doesn't necessarily make me any good at what I do. It's for readers to judge no matter what the bio says.
You'll have to quote whatever made you believe someone said they plagiarized by mistake, but since it has been brought up it is possible to suffer, "cryptomnesia". The only thing I've ever done is unknowingly used pictures that did not have a proper license for sharing, because the host was not vetting their archive while claiming their pictures were all public domain.
I'm also unsure of the relevance of the topic of bios outside mine and Paul's ongoing dialogue where it was mentioned briefly, so idk what to say to that.
Kyler, Aren't bio and brand closely linked? I see them almost as aspects of the same thing.
Along with profile pic, writing style and tone, etc. It's all about building credibility and imho a consistent package can be built without strict consistency of topic. Though I'm sure it doesn't do you any harm at all to have a narrow focus.
Rupert, two examples where I "plagiarized" by mistake on here in the past: (That's to say, set off the duplication alarm bells.)
1. I published a piece of writing that was mine, but it was also posted online somewhere else, by me at an earlier date.
2. I also did it by writing an analysis of a song lyric, by quoting too much, even though the lyric was in the public domain.
I've never heard the terms interchanged that way, but that was definitely not how I was using it, and I clarified what I meant briefly in my last response to you.
I don't do a narrow focus, but for the same reason HP has niche sites I'd like to have my articles in the same areas. If I branch into Dengarden I'm diluting my "brand" because I will most likely never write an article suitable for that site ever again. It's a long-term thing rather than the immediate gratification of being transferred to a niche I've never written for, nor plan to write for specifically.
However, if HP gave me the finger and said it is Dengarden or nothing, I'd probably adjust my writing style from Soapboxie-tier to Dengarden. It just doesn't seem like the type of thing Dengarden hosts.
Hi! Kyler, does moving articles to soapboxie improve viewership? I have many articles but the viewership is low and articles that are simply on author view have sometimes six times the viewership. I wonder about it, so I really don't bother.
It does improve viewership, but Soapboxie is as its name suggests, a widely opinionated niche site. The traffic from there is lower than any of the other niche sites I am on, and I'd guess it is due to the anecdotal nature of most of the articles there. Most of my traffic to Soapboxie comes from my own advertisement of my work.
by Cholee Clay 4 years ago
I have an article that an editor has made substantial changes too. Including adding a bio that they wrote themselves. I have not seen an edit this bad in quite some time on one of my articles, and I do not want to go through the whole article and rewrite half of it. I've already spent countless...
by Cholee Clay 4 years ago
I'm curious if anyone knows if the new editors that were hired have completed the training and are on their own now, or if article standards have changed for some reason? The last few months I've had some very old and not updated articles moved to niche sites. I'm happy more of my articles are...
by Michael Kismet 6 months ago
I already have a number of hubs moved to the Hubpages network sites, but haven't really seen a drastic traffic change in said hubs. So, is it worth the risk to submit one of my hubs that already receives a decent amount of daily views to a vertical site?I'd hate to see aforementioned hub drop in...
by Eric Dockett 3 days ago
I don’t want to make too big a deal of this. My interactions with editors over the past few years have been very positive and I appreciate their work. There are some excellent people on the HP editorial staff today.However, I think there is always room for improvement, suggestions, and constructive...
by promisem 3 years ago
I have been pleased with the audience and revenue for my articles on HubPages since joining the site some years ago.I commend the company for creating the successful niche sites at a time when similar sites were folding. My existing articles that moved to those sites have done even better than...
by Jean Bakula 5 years ago
I just got the "happy" news that one of my hubs about Cancer Moon Sign People has been moved to Exemplore. I don't feel happy, it was moved there months ago, and there was nothing wrong with it. It was well written when I wrote it.I give links on hubs like this so people can find...
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.|