I read the post, read his profile and then his first two hubs,
It's OBVIOUS he didn't write them and if you copy the first paragraphs from them and paste them into Google you will immediately find the real owners.
Yet there is NOTHING under the Flagging reasons that covers this.
I know it is stolen content, we all know it is, but we can't flag it?
This needs to change.
I flag it and put other, I also list the site it was copied from.
Seems to me that this has been addressed many times by the staff here at HP. I think everyone needs to be just a bit more patient as the staff has already told us that flagging a hub can take up to a week or longer to get eyes on it.
Labeling people as content thieves is not productive either especially since you don't know if that content was purchased as part of a PLR package giving them full rights to distribute and reuse as their own.
Granted, HP is not the place to post PLR articles and maybe that needs to be addressed more clearly and I would be all for a block of any new submissions of duplicate content.
Pcunix, I 100% agree. With all of this latest talk as well about substandard hubs etc, wouldn't it make sense that copied content is the most substandard of hubs, just for the immorality of it? I mean, stealing others content, and putting it out as your own, HAS to hurt Hubpages credibility across the net. I don't understand why it wouldn't be allowed to be flagged. It kind of angers me, that its not more frowned on if not, and its possible I am not in possession of all the facts here. Help me out here people if I am missing something!
In essense, people would be making money as well, off of stolen content, and Hubpages should want to be as far from this kind of activity as possible. I sure hope its not about revenue for hubpages. When I hear about stuff like you pose in your OP above, its THEN i personally start to realize more of what might be considered by other sites as lesser quality content. Stolen content would be way up on the list of a lesser quality site. Man that is discouraging.
How about putting it under TOS Violations since it's not original content?
But that isn't in the TOS.
Unless it's "mislead users of the origins of the Hub Content contained in Your Hubs" ?
Stealing someone else's work and posting as your own, would be considered a violation of TOS and yes because it misleads the reader.
I was under the impression that HP only remove stolen content when it is either stolen from another hubber or someone else files a DMCA.
Having said that, I flag and will continue to flag content that is obviously stolen from other sites.
That is correct.
It has been stated in the past the reasoning behind it, that if they were to police every hub for stolen content then they could be held liable if any slipped through the cracks.
So the onus is on the owner of the copyrighted work.
Also, sometimes its not glaringly apparent who owns the work because there are PLR articles that can be legitimately bought and published without needing to credit the author or the source. Often they will bring up many duplicates and people can be confused as to who was the first to publish it.
Why add something that doesn't need to be, when it can be done under TOS violations. You can still put stolen content and where from in the white box.
To put another unnecessary choice among the list makes no sense.
Then why have any choices?
Put everything in the white box and call it all TOS.
However, I think Izzy is right: I think HP ignores this until the copyright owner complains.
And that kind of willful ignorance might be part of why Google lowered the boom.
That makes sense to me. That is exactly what I was thinking. If so, good for google. (Just my opinion.... people put so much into this site, that others that copy stuff just bring everyone else down. That stinks, and I hope Hubpages would be more for all the people over supporting some blantant copiers.)
Also, you know how when you create a new hub, the reminder is always there, that copied content will be removed? (Or something like that?) These people that copy, are testing hubpages like a kid tests their parent, to see what they will do, and its a kind of mocking the system, imo. I would hope Google would lower the boom on sites like these, no matter who they are. Again, if I am missing something here, someone chime in and help me out here.
I think that is pretty standard among UGC sites - what does seem obvious to us usually can probably get tangled, when users have many different monikers across the web. Proving that you are the original rights holder could become overly time consuming for the staff.
Blocking all new submissions of dupe content would of course correct that issue quickly.
We get a few choices of how to report such content.
Under "spam" it says "Designed primarily to promote other sites, especially hubs containing unrelated links, links on duplicated content, or more than two links to a single site." This language covers any duplicated content on a Hub where there are outgoing links, whether or not plagiarism can be proved.
Under "low quality" it says "Is very short, contains a large number of broken links or videos, or consists of unoriginal, nonsensical, difficult to read, or purely personal content." This language says that unoriginal content is in violation.
Are you sure you've found content that doesn't fit into one of the above options for reporting it to admin?
No, it probably fits into one of those, though I didn't think of "unoriginal" hat way.
But will it get taken down? I think not.
It's worth a try, but I gave up hub hopping a month or two before "the episode" because a lot of the time what I flagged wasn't acted on. I got the impression that they disagreed with my interpretation of the rules.
I've noticed even after this incident, a lot of the stuff I have flagged hasn't been taken down.
I just did some hopping and found plenty of stuff to flag, as usual, including one guy who joined 3 hours ago and so far put up 9 hubs, all of them copy/pasted from reliable sources on the web.
He's aiming for the higher paying keywords - mesothelioma and car insurance.
See, now that kind of thing is so frustrating, and if the community here doesn't speak up and out on it, perhaps hubpages management thinks its ok somehow. If its allowed, I want to know and soon, so I can take my writing elsewhere.
Man, I used to brag on this place so much, and was proud to put my content here. Maybe that can be salvaged if I see things change. As these topics perhaps die down, I am still paying attention to these things. Its not like we get 100% of the clicks here anyway, hubpages gets a lot too. I sure hope its not about allowing junk for corrupt reasons. Will be watching and waiting.....
OS - Did you read the posts above yours that described in detail why the staff operates as it does re dupe content? It has been explained very clearly above in this very thread.
I am sharing my views on it, and there aren't that many reasons that would allow for that to occur, especially since every single hubber and hub is warned with each new hub creation to not do that (copy any content). There are things being done and said by hubpages then that seem contradictory. What else explains that, as they say it will be removed...and it then isn't?
That might just mean that they don't really mean what they say then, or that they want what comes with that. I and others are just noting that something else that may "come with that" is that hubbers find it very discouraging and just plain wrong. Its just good for me to know if that is what is going on, and silence on some thing unfortunately for those being silent, says a lot. Its not illogical at all, to default to what we know for sure to be happening as a result. That isn't opinion. I don't fault any site for running itself how it wants to be run. I do fault if they give off another impression however, and expect people to not notice or mention it. The truth, whatever it is, is a good thing for all to know, don't you agree? What has been said above, doesn't contradict what I just said there. Its actually only just one possible explanation that I saw. I am commenting on the fact of the matters at hand. Hope this helps in knowing where I was coming from.
I certainly agree that presenting a public face that markedly differs from reality is NOT good policy.
However, there are alternative explanations (and they were presented above by others so I need not repeat them).
I am uncomfortable with prolonged silence though..
Aficionada, one more thing to add to the above... I don't think that people not either knowing about their content being duplicated, nor reporting it even if they do know, is a good enough reason to continue to allow the conduct to go on, especially in light of HP own rules, mainly no dupe content or else removal. Its not just in the rules buried somewhere, its in front of our face daily, those of us that write hubs. You create a hub, agreeing to not do that, with the "threat" of it being lost if you do. People report bold copied content, and then I see excuses for not doing what was said would be done.
Just echoing others here, I didn't come up with it, just pointing out facts or reminding people of them.
Honestly, you may be saying something that I'm not following. But these posts explain it to me in a way that clears it all up to me - possibly not correctly in your view, but in a way that satisfies me:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/68977?p … ost1505862
This says - to me - that copied content may actually belong to the person who has posted it.
If you see a Hub and think it is copied, the best thing to do is to notify the person whose work was copied so that they can file the complaint. That way, the staff is not in the middle of the question about who it actually belongs to.
Thanks Aficionada, that helps me to know where you are coming from. I was referring to people copying ebooks and other outright copied content, like from Wikidpedia, etc. I myself, have been "guilty" of copying my OWN content (by mistake, when I first joined) from say a google blog. It was not "copied content" at all in my own eyes. So I think this is where we had a possible disconnect in understanding there.
The other side to the points that you noted was just what I thought, that the TRUE (other owner, not oneself but an author say of a book, etc) ought to be the one to make a complaint before a hub could be removed or unpublished at least.
For instance, the hub I had to "fix" was my own content, and the name on the google blog was very similar to my own here. I was encouraged to send a letter to the other site, in case the content was stolen from ME, but it was all my own content. I knew it wasn't copyrighted and I gave myself permission, lol etc. You get the idea. I appreciate you taking the time to explain where you were coming from.
There is a lot more going on and very blatant copied content from people other than themselves. Hope this helps.
You're welcome . And I do actually agree that HP could come up with a (possibly) better system by simply not allowing any duplicate content at all. But then, I don't know how that would affect other Hubbers, and it might be unwieldy to administer. It's certainly "worth debate" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
No doubt it would likely be unwieldy to administer. I sympathize all around for all the variables at play, but not with those that copy bold and blatantly. That kind of behavior tends to create problems for others (in this case hubpages would need more "babysitting staff"). Its frustrating and I respect those that stand up against it. Yes, its worth debate imo too
It's not up to the community. It's up to HP. They undoubtedly make money from duplicated content, so have had no incentive to change anything.
The necessary incentive may or may not have arrived now -we don't know yet.
When I mention the community speaking out on it, I think it is a valuable thing, just like how I view your original post there. That is what you are doing, sharing what you are observing, as are many others on the site. If its wrong, and those people that make the site what it is are discouraged or don't like it because its wrong, its good for hubpages staff to know of it, so maybe they would make some positive changes for all. In this case, making positive changes for everyone, and that also would make Google a bit more happy, will also benefit Hubpages as well, so its really a no lose situation at THIS point. Before, it may have had some benefit for them.
Well, we still don't know for sure what has caused traffic to drop.
Is it duplicate content?
Is it spammy content?
Too many internal links?
Too much backlinking from spammy sites?
Each of those requires different action. If duplicate content doesn't matter, there is little incentive fr HP to take it down. The same is true for all of these.
Of course Google is not likely to say "Our new algorithm gets triggered by .." because that tells spammers what their weak points are.
So this is tough for HP. Yes, they could just do everything likely, but that could cost them serious lost income.
I hear you when you say we don't know the reasons exactly yet, and it could be a number of reasons.
That said, I am responding more to the point of your Original Post there, and talking about copied content. No matter all the other stuff, imo, and even supposedly in hp opinion, (and I think by anyone's moral code) its just wrong to use copied content and pass that off as you own. Its almost a different topic in a way, or could be.
What has happened and is happening now, is that this google algorithm change is really opening up a lot of people's eyes to things they hadn't thought of that much before. Just in people discussing it, you can learn quite a bit, at least about what people think about many different things.
I hear you about the spammers...if you give out the secrets, they will just adjust accordingly. Also, it often doesn't pay to do the right thing in this world, and that is unfortunate. Thus we all have the dilemma.
To add to that, I agree with you in general there. So its like I was saying, I will be watching and waiting like many others have stated as well.
I've flagged many, many hubs that were stolen and many of those were taken down. I agree with you guys that it's not always clear what is dupe vs what is stolen. But in some cases it is crystal clear.
I report hubs as stolen when the material comes from a well-known site, like Wikipedia, when the hubber has many stolen hubs from many different domains or when the author's profile makes it painfully clear that s/he can't speak a lick of English, but then the hubs are grammatically pristine. And I always leave the URL to the original work.
I recently had a hub I came across that was actually stolen from someone I knew. It took me a couple of emails, but they eventually did take it down and it saved Kristie the hassle of filling out the DMCA.
Now, if they stopped allowing dupe content, this whole subject would be moot.
No, it's moot now (moot means open to discussion or debate).
But speaking of this kind of thing, I'm thinking now that HP is being a bit too reticent about this Google stuff. It looks like other sites have already announced changes, but we still haven't heard anything real from HP.
Maybe that's good - but I don't think the troops can wait too much longer.
Agreed, PC. I expected something yesterday, but obviously didn't get it. Perhaps when I come home from work today. We'll see.
moot: you are both right, although I'd never seen it used as you presented. It also means of little or no practical value; purely academic.
If they don't start talking soon, you'll see people start pulling articles. There already seems to be a slowdown in publishing as people are adopting a "wait and see" approach.
On the general Internet, HP is being denigrated widely. Certainly it is wise to think before you speak and to think even longer before you act, but there is also "he who hesitates is lost" and that point is approaching.
I think we need to go back to the "HP has more to lose than we do" train of thought. I personally don't like the fact that Paul hasn't addressed this head on with us and I actually find it rather rude seeing as they are nothing without us writers, but I do have faith in the whole team that they will turn this around and make it work. Or at least die trying.
I share your faith with two caveats.
First, we don't know how much of their income came from junk and stolen content. If it is a significant amount, that could put them between a rock and a hard place.
Second, we don't know what their dependency on continuing investment is. I have seen very good sites go gurgle-gurgle because investors got nervous.
There are a lot of tough questions for some "lucky" staffer to answer, PC. Do you have any to ask? I would not like to be the chosen responder in this situation.
That is very interesting Irohner about your friend Kristie and her content. What you say at the end is part of the point I was trying to make too. If copied content wasn't allowed, like I thought it wasn't allowed when I joined (and because of the reminder every hub I write) then the whole point would be moot. It would boost the credibility and respectability of Hubpages which in turn translates into $ over time, imo. Either from not losing members and traffic, to not getting a wrist slap in report card from from google, etc.
I went back and looked, and that hubber I mentioned's new hubs are down already.
But he's put more copied ones up, so flagged the profile (again).
Found loads more really pathetic/copied/pornographic/drug-pushing hubs.
Its actual easier to use the Hubs button at the top and the latest feed to see just how much crap is being published on here. Lot of good stuff too, thankfully!
That is good to hear some are gone, but just amazing they put more up. They aren't learning the lesson, and I struggle with the idea of people forcing those over them (in this case Hubpages) to take action against them to stop doing things they know are not allowed and or are wrong. People like this wreak havoc in their communities, whether in a neighborhood, workplace, or online communities.
I hope Hubpages knows it has the support from people like me for taking what may be the tougher role of really cracking down on types like these. The moderators must be very busy people. Not allowing it ever, would mean people wouldn't even try, and the point would be moot again.
Oops, not moot, but a pointless point, that doesn't matter. Just saw the correction of the word moot above lol. Man its funny how words take on their own meaning depending on how people use them over time lol.
Well, you can use "moot" for something that has been settled in law, but most people misuse it as something not worth arguing about. Something that is moot is worth arguing about and the connotation is that the arguments are unlikely to settle anything..
Pcunix, wilderness answered above before I did and so I didn't bother. But you are incorrect in saying that people "misuse" the word as you describe. Like most words in English (and in pretty much every language I know anything about) it has multiple meanings and multiple layers of meaning.
In my dictionary, the adjectival meanings of "moot" include the following: debatable; doubtful; purely academic, of little or no practical value or meaning; theoretical or hypothetical.
Also in my dictionary, it does not say that moot means worth arguing about (as you claim), but rather subject to argument or debate. As we see often, even in these forums, there are numerous propositions that are subject to worthless debate.
No need to continue arguing about the meaning of moot, because that argument itself is moot.
Ok, worth or subject to means the same to me.
I stand by what I said: many people misuse it. They'll say something like "Well, if the Democrat is elected, that makes the plans for the Republican party moot".
No, it does not.
Goodness. I'm sure Random House, Webster, Britannica and others will be relieved to know that they can check with you to find out what is correct use and what is "misuse." I admire your spunk, assertiveness, and self-confidence, but not your knowledge of language/linguistics. Sorry.
It seems to me that in your sample statement, "moot" does fit in every sense except, perhaps, the noun meaning of "town hall." To me, the Dem-Rep statement even fits your meaning, because everything political is subject to debate, and some of it actually is even worth debating.
Would love to continue this, but I have to leave for a while, and there's one more thread where I want to post if I have time.
Bye - It's been real.
by Jessica4 years ago
I found out this morning that this site had stolen at least 2 of my hubs. The more I looked, the more I noticed that it appears every single post on the site is a stolen hub, completely copied in most cases (including...
by PaulaHenry17 years ago
Okay- I'm about tired of this. Hub Hopping today and 4 sex hubs came through. 2 for escort services including phne #'s, one about sex toys with every other word as vibrator and anal sex, and one with sex photos and a...
by Doc Wordinger3 years ago
After more than a year without publishing any hubs, I've decide to start publishing again. First two items on the agenda involved finishing an unpublished hub and responding to comments. Then I decided to investigate...
by Person of Interest4 years ago
Seems they may be less than cooperative...Tumblr was notified of stolen content and given the link. Instead of deleting the content, they came back yammering about permalinks and dog ears. That's the gist of it anyway....
by Roberto Eldrum3 years ago
I had a Squidoo lens which was locked about 2-3 months ago. I had fixed the violations but the greenlight request was never answered. So, it remained locked. Now it was transferred to HubPages automatically. I tried to...
by Rob Welsh6 years ago
These Thieves are back up again.. and once again monetized with that company that has a dollar each way on both the thieves and the Copyright owners... Google!It appears that much of the HubPages content has been...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.