|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.|
Right now flagging is a purely voluntary activity that relies on the altruism of members.
What if we make it reward / penalty based instead?
If you flag properly (i.e. HP staff agrees), you are allowed to flag more, and get a temporary hubscore boost
If you did NOT flag properly (i.e. HP staff disagrees), you are allowed to flag LESS, and you take a temporary hubscore hit
Your flagging history is only visible to you (and HP staff) so you can adjust your flagging patterns.
(thanks to Yahoo! Answers and hubber pcunix for inspiration)
I kind of really like this idea; something similar passed through my head as well.
Sometimes I ask myself if I'm flagging articles for the right reason, and based off of this system, I know what has been flagged as inappropriate in the past, so I can continue to help better the community.
Great suggestion, keep pushing this. I'd like to see it become a reality in the future.
If you did not flag properly, it could also be that HubPages TOS was not clear enough or that you misunderstood it, not necessarily out of ill will.
Accolades could be introduced to reward people. I think that will prove to be a greater incentive than a small yes / no in your account settings.
There already exists an Accolade that is given for this,
"Great HubPages Citizen: contributes to the community by helping our new users in the Forums, voting and/or flagging inappropriate content for our moderators."
I think getting Hubscore boosts for flagging is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, and would create all manner of abuses.
"Your flagging history is only visible to you (and HP staff) so you can adjust your flagging patterns."
I think making your flagging history available is a great idea so we all know where we are getting it right, and wrong. Maybe a simple "Agree" or "Disagree" would show up beside each flagged item once staff makes their decision. Maybe an optional note they could also add to further communicate if they feel the need.
Tying it directly to hub score is a bad idea. Maybe a separate Flag score possibly. Really I'd much rather know where I was doing good than have another score.
I don't think too many Hubbers (most of whom already flag when they see fit), are all that interested in getting all into a "tattletale"/"brownie points"/"score" kind of mentality, especially on something like flagging (which, after all, isn't why most people come to a site like this, and is only part of what most think is "doing something a extra on the side". Besides, most people (or at least a whole lot of them) will tell you they plain, old, don't care about HubScores.
Those who are looking to boost their hubscore will most likely consist of new users or spammers.
I can see it now. The Hubpage staff gets hit with a mountain of flags that they have to sort through. Now have become human versions of akismet. I see it as a huge waste of manpower.
Flagging is like a 9-1-1 call. Lets not turn in into babysitting for the staff.
edit: shouldn't this be posted in the suggestion forum?
Want to see if any one else think about what should be reward / punishment model itself.
Newbies would be limited in the amount of flags they can make. So the spam is self-limiting. And if they spam enough their quota would be reduced.
(As an example, in Yahoo Answers, newbies start at level 1, can only post X questions and answers every 24 hours, and asking questions cost points, which they have limited amount of. Only when they participated and gotten some "best answers" will they get enough points to ask more questions)
I don't think there's a need for a new system.
After getting above 75, there really isn't any incentives to go higher.
As someone mentioned earlier, there's already a reward for this (accolade).
Your system will create a higher demand for newbies and spammers to flag while hubbers with 75+ score see no real incentive.
If anything, it will deter 75+ hubbers from flagging since they have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Example: an 80 hubber is practically the same as a 75 hubber. While a 70 hubber only needs 5 points to get dofollow backlinks.
In the meantime, newbies and spammers will flag and likely false-flag until their quota is reached. Even if their quota is 1 per day. That may mean 100 false-flags the staff have to sort if 100 spammers want that 5 points.
Your system can be easily gamed. This is not saying the current system is perfect. Just better.
You did not propose any new rewards / punishment, but then you argue that based on the EXISTING reward/punishment, the idea is not workable. Thus, you're not helping at all.
I'm not the only one...
You asked for comments.
Personally, if I were to introduce a change, I would just punish false-flaggers. The current system doesn't do that and that is a potential exploit. I would keep the reward the same(accolade).
Punishing false-flaggers will reduce abuse. Example: Vendetta flagging.
You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say the current system is not "workable." I said it isn't "perfect." It is working fine.
Please don't misquote me again.
I take back "vendetta flagging".
No actions may be taken but mods still have to sort through the top flags wasting time for false-flags. It is possible to create multiple accounts, mask ip's and game the system. It may even be done from ignorance by people not familiar with the TOS.
Based on the comment I made, the point was not to reward flagging.
People still sort through spam even if no action is taken. It doesn't matter if hubpages use a "popular vote" style system. Each vote(flag) is still counted and if they decide no action is taken, then in my opinion, that's time is wasted.
Your argument was basically NOT to reward flagging because... false-flagging (flagged hub deserved no action) is a waste of moderator's time.
But flagging is NOT false-flagging. That would be a strawman.
And wouldn't a reward / punishment model punish those false-flagging the wrong hubs, while encouraging more people to flag the truly substandard hubs?
1. If you bothered to read, I told Relache that I took it back.
2. I never said flagging is false-flagging. THAT is a strawman. Again, READ.
3. I've already explained why your system is inferior to the current system.
4. I was never for a reward/punishment system. Just punishment(unless you consider accolades rewards. I don't)
5. This is your thread. Not mine. Your idea stinks.
1) You said you took back "vendetta flagging" argument. You didn't say about the rest.
2) You wrote "No actions may be taken but mods still have to sort through the top flags wasting time for false-flags. " So you are indeed arguing that flagging is false-flagging, unless you want to take that back too.
3) You explained it with a strawman, see above.
4) So you do agree that the present system (no accolade, no reward) needs change? (as for change to what is up to debate)
5) Yet you agreed half-way. Hmmm...
1. Then why did you bring it up?
6. Your idea STILL stinks
did I mention it still stinks? Yes, this is redundant but you don't seem to take feedback very well so I thought I'd mention it again.
ps. your idea stinks.
So what about ppl who never flag? Will their score go slowly down because they don't participate in that?
I am not into a site that scores me on the basis of flagging the work of other writers. I participate but, I think it will cause argument and fire between the users and I do believe it can be gamed. As long as ppl stick to the rules the way they are, it should be good enough.
How about the most helpful people get extra media exposure on who they are as writers?
by Mikeydoes7 years ago
In light of the Google algo change, it is now obvious and confirmed that hub-hopping is VERY important. I feel that if you publish here, you should hub hop when you can. As it should hopefully increase our revenue and...
by BlissfulWriter7 years ago
If I hit the "flag" button, will the Hubber of the Hub know it who flagged him or her? Or is the flagger completely anomoyous?Hub staff, please let me know. Thanks.
by Sabrina Yuquan Chen (陈玉泉)7 years ago
There are two newly discovered hubbers who have only posted raw translations by using online translating tool, what they did was merely copy and paste the results without doing any further modifications. From the...
by Eric Dockett2 years ago
I don't go around looking for Hubs to flag, but when I come across something with glaring issues I try to be a good HP citizen and alert staff. They have, after all, continuously preached about the importance of...
by cosette8 years ago
Dear HubTeam:I know there have been a few forum threads about this topic, but hear me out please. By the way, this thread refers to the rating down of hubs, not flagging. I have no problem with the flagging feature and...
by mandybeau9 years ago
Just wondering. There seems to be variances in such things as Hubscores and I wonder how much these buttons actually determine this.
Copyright © 2018 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.