My hub was published after only 3 hours

Jump to Last Post 1-13 of 13 discussions (29 posts)
  1. paolaenergya profile image93
    paolaenergyaposted 3 months ago

    This is odd but I'm not complaining. My latest hub got processed in 3 hours instead of 48 hours and got published/featured on HP today. I think it's a personal best. Has it happened to you and how long did it take?

  2. PaulGoodman67 profile image95
    PaulGoodman67posted 3 months ago

    I thought that the timing of getting onto the niches depended to some extent on the availability of (human) editors.

    However, I always thought that just getting published was a more automated process and so the timing was pretty consistent.

  3. paolaenergya profile image93
    paolaenergyaposted 3 months ago

    Hi Paul, not sure I explained myself correctly, I meant that my latest hub got onto Hubpages, not a niche site, in 3 hours instead of 48 hours. My previous hub took the whole 48 hours to get published on Hubpages. I also thought the process was automatic but there must be some facts that hold back some hubs compared to others. It could be to do with word count as the 3 hour hub was shorter than others.

    How long does it take for you?

    With regards to niche sites, last time I had a hub that was manually edited it took about 8 days to get to a network site but  recently one I submitted to the editors weeks ago is still in limbo so who knows?

    1. PaulGoodman67 profile image95
      PaulGoodman67posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, I understood you and I thought my answer reflected that.

      As a process that I believe is largely or wholly automated, I wouldn't expect much variation in timing but maybe I'm wrong.

      The assessment for niches is manual, as far as I can make out, and so the timing can vary a lot.

      24 hours is my average to just get published and it's pretty consistent, though I'm not sure why it matters.

      It may be quicker for you because less people are submitting nowadays, I don't know. It's always been "up to 48 hours" but usually it's faster than that.

      I don't personally see getting onto hp.com or Discovery as important, except as a stepping stone to the niches. It's like an administrative hurdle.

      The publishing stage is there to weed out the worst rule-breakers.

    2. WriterJanis profile image90
      WriterJanisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I know there can be different waiting times for the niche sites depending on how busy the editors are. Some have happened to me quickly, then I have one from last July that I'm still waiting on.

      1. paolaenergya profile image93
        paolaenergyaposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Wow, last July? It may be worth emailing the team to get a progress report. Good luck!

        1. WriterJanis profile image90
          WriterJanisposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Thanks. I've heard it's best not to email editors as they are already so busy and this isn't the only article I've been waiting on for months.

    3. Matt Wells profile imageSTAFF
      Matt Wellsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Remember that the Quality Assessment Process starts over if you edit your article while it is going through the QAP. I'm not saying this is what happened when your last article took 48 hours, but it may have been the reason, and it's just good to know.

  4. paolaenergya profile image93
    paolaenergyaposted 3 months ago

    Thanks for your insights Paul.

  5. Miebakagh57 profile image73
    Miebakagh57posted 3 months ago

    Many of us writers here have come near sure a trend. But we had not took notice of the time frame.                                    An article passing the QAP is not automated. It's read by an editor.                                That said, many writers like me here are not publishing weekly again. That means less stories waiting before an editor. And so agreeing with PaulGoodMan67, the 48 hours time is being reduced.                                 How long it took a read to land on a niche site can have similar time frame, on first publication.

  6. paolaenergya profile image93
    paolaenergyaposted 3 months ago

    I keep an eye on when a hub goes live so I can share it on social media. I made the mistake of sharing a popular hub while it was still in Discovery where it gained a lot of traffic, only to dip when it got published on Hubpages. I still don't know how much the QAP is automated and how much is manual but I guess it's a mix of both?

    1. theraggededge profile image95
      theraggededgeposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      The other way around? They start off on HP where they cannot earn, then go to Discovery where they may earn with enough views. If good enough, they then get moved to one of the network sites.

      1. paolaenergya profile image93
        paolaenergyaposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        My bad, to correct what I said earlier it was the other way round aka when my hub got moved to Discovery it no longer had traction from social media.

        1. theraggededge profile image95
          theraggededgeposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          I think it's fine when it goes from Discovery onward. There's a redirect. But hp.com is basically a dump. If articles stay there (and I have a few) they are doing nothing.

          I should sort them out smile But I can't be arsed, as we say in the UK big_smile

          1. PaulGoodman67 profile image95
            PaulGoodman67posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah, hp.com is Hell, Discovery is Purgatory, niches are Heaven (or at least they used to be!) smile

            It's niches or nothing for me. My experience of Discovery is that normally traffic is so low, any earnings are measly. I try to get stuff promoted but sometimes you have to throw in the towel.

          2. paolaenergya profile image93
            paolaenergyaposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            I know the feeling! Then again, one of the key criteria for keeping hubs in niche sites according to the guidelines is that they are evergreen and in my case a few either never "graduated" beyond HP or got demoted from niche sites.

  7. paolaenergya profile image93
    paolaenergyaposted 3 months ago

    Paul you have a really good track record with the niche sites, well done! I had a few hubs being demoted from the niches due to low traffic. Oh well.

    1. PaulGoodman67 profile image95
      PaulGoodman67posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I may be wrong but given how many published hubs there are in the niches, I think the editors have focused on improving the best stuff and demoting the articles least popular with search engines. The stuff in between has largely been left alone.

      I’ve certainly had hubs demoted. I try not to take it personally as low traffic can be caused by a variety of things, it’s not always a quality issue.

      1. paolaenergya profile image93
        paolaenergyaposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, I agree. I also think the focus is on evergreen content and I must admit some of my hubs don't pass that test anymore... It's all good, this year I have been doing more work researching evergreen topics.

        1. PaulGoodman67 profile image95
          PaulGoodman67posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          The problem with evergreen is that eventually the market gets saturated.

          It was way easier ten years ago to find topics that hadn't been covered extensively.

          That's more the problem for me. The competition levels are huge now and it only gets worse.

          It feels like a decline is inevitable on that front.

          We're completely reliant on HP finding ways to boost our work in the search engine rankings, as what worked a few years ago, now gets outcompeted.

          We can maintain and improve hubs but there are limitations.

  8. paolaenergya profile image93
    paolaenergyaposted 3 months ago

    Thank you Matt for taking the time to reply. I'll experiment with my next hub, downing tools after I hit 'publish' and see how long it takes. Does word count matter with processing time, i.e., do shorter hubs take less time to go through the  QAP?

    1. Matt Wells profile imageSTAFF
      Matt Wellsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Word count does not affect processing time.

  9. Jan Saints profile image86
    Jan Saintsposted 3 months ago

    That should be Discover, not Discovery, by the way.

    1. PaulGoodman67 profile image95
      PaulGoodman67posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, it’s a mistake I often make!

  10. Venkatachari M profile image86
    Venkatachari Mposted 3 months ago

    Glad to hear this. It happened to me some years back. It took less than 4 hours, but not beyond that period.

  11. paolaenergya profile image93
    paolaenergyaposted 3 months ago

    Thanks Matt. Keep up the good work!

  12. Miebakagh57 profile image73
    Miebakagh57posted 3 months ago

    The buttomline is that the 24, 48, plus hours are stipulated suggestions.                                       And anything can happen, like when you 'publish' an article, it immediately lands on an editors desk. And he or she goes to work the stuff.

  13. Miebakagh57 profile image73
    Miebakagh57posted 2 months ago

    It's worth the editors effort to informed a writer the problem with a story, instead of letting the piece to linger in limbo.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)