I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the main thing that has dragged hubpages down in this latest algo change is the amount of crappy content posted on here over the years.
I understand the reasoning behind the latest changes regarding ad placement and reduction of amazon and ebay links and I think they will help, but I think hubpages need to create some systems to reduce the amount of rubbish already on the site, including removing a lot of the pages on oversaturated spammy topics, as well as having better systems in place to prevent new crap from being posted. If hubpages has plans to do this in the near future it would give me a lot of confidence that we can get this site back where it belongs.
My suggestions are that an army of hubbers over 85 score are recruited to go through hubpage by hubpage and flag substandard content, maybe on a by topic basis. Some hubbers are doing this but it's so hit and miss we need a structured and systematic approach.
Secondly I would like to see either new hubpages queued before they are published, where hubbers can review them and hit yes or no, rather than the system we have with hub hopping where everything is published and then we have to try and find the rubbish, and/or a requirement of 10 moderated hubs published before free publishing rights are given (as infobarrel does).
I love hubpages. I want to see it rise again. I believe that a big clean up will have the most impact.
If you agree sign your name here!
Or it could be just because Hubpages is a content farm, and Google decided they don’t like content farms. EzineArticles, Buzzle, Infobarrel, and many other sites has always required human approval before publishing and used keyword density tools. WiseGeek does not seem overly saturated in spammy topics. But they all got slapped.
If Hubpages does really want to clean up though, the first thing they should do is get better software to prescreen submittals and counter robots. The hub that was nothing but “asd as dsa sdd sdsd sdsa” etc… should have been handled by software, not by humans.
It is not clear that this would help Hubpages recover from the slap though. It could be argued that nothing Squidoo did ever really helped them recover from their previous slap – people just got better at promoting\backlinking to compensate.
And as Ryan said, Hubpages has to be careful about amputating income if at best it is unclear whether this will benefit them in the long run. The Squidoo example doesn’t look particularly promising.
I keep getting told that Squidoo members are notoriously good at backlinking, and I see that as the final stage of my recovery plan. I am working on-page right now, and then I will be propping up each of my hubs with several backlinks each (for a couple of particularly important hubs, probably a fair few more than that).
My older hubs are holding up better, they have more backlinks (or to be honest, they just have SOME backlinks). I actually believe that backlinking IS the way forward for us as individuals, alongside other things. It could also explain why Squidoo held up much better than Hubpages.
There are plenty of Hubbers who don't backlink at all, that became my strategy, changing that habit was a mistake. I used to say that giving a Hubpage 3 or 4 backlinks when it first leaves the house gave them a head start in life. And that appears to have been proven as true now.
If every hubber was to go and build 4 or 5 backlinks per hub (not a great deal, even just a few), they WOULD see improving SERPS over the next 6 months. Next month (April) I am having an assault on backlinks, that is stage 3 of my strategy.
Even low quality backlinks, such as SheToldMe, Snipsly, Redgage and (shameless plug) Excerptz, have some benefit.
I believe that potpie girls analysis was definitely onto something where she said that of all the content sites eHow had the least % of pages on spammy topics (such as how to get your ex back, mesothelioma, forex, etc), in fact eHow had removed a lot of them in the last year, as did squidoo. Since these were the content farms least negatively affected by the algo change, it's helpful to look at why.
I think making this a priority can only help.
I think only potpie girl has championed this argument, and Hubpages itself was somewhat of an outlier to the argument in her post. WiseGeek seems to be an outlier as well. (And one of the main authority figures around here, Sunforged, has said the argument was pretty meaningless the last I read.)
Making this a priority off one person’s speculation is…uhmm…misguided…
…like burning witches to appease God…
Misha: I know your English language skills aren't up to snuff, so let me help you out here. Merriam-Webster's definition of 'witch hunt' is:
1: a searching out for persecution of persons accused of witchcraft
2: the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (as political opponents) with unpopular views
So please tell me again how flagging crap hubs is a witch hunt?
Flagging hubs is not. Creating an hysteria against some people or group(s) of people is. See your point #2. Ask Ralwus...
PS And this has nothing to do with my English skills...
Yeah, that whole poetry debacle was a shame, although I do think Ralwus overreacted. I just wish the HP team had stepped in sooner to give some direction. He will be sorely missed.
I always have steered clear of poetry hubs. That's partly because I didn't know HP's thoughts on it and partly because my poetry expertise begins and ends with "There was an old lady from Nantucket..."
At the end of the day with this whole flagging thing, people simply have to realize that "flagging" a hub in and of itself does nothing. It's what the moderators decide that's important. I invite anyone to feel free to flag any of my hubs any time if they feel so inclined.
Ralwus has gone
Just a sidenote, but if Hubpages had the largest collection of poets online, then why didn't they establish poetry.hubpages.com?
If they seperated poetry from the rest of the site, maybe even fiction.hubpages.com too, then we may not have any issues with this and the sub-site can have slightly different rules
Yes. He pulled his hubs and he's gone.
I agree about separate domains for fiction and poetry, but then, what do I know? I do know that Demand Media (eHow et.al.) are segmenting their content into specific niches. They've been working on that for quite some time and it's starting to be rolled out now.
I'm pretty sure sunforged has said that hubpages needs to get rid of a lot of crap to bounce back. He'll correct me if I'm wrong on that.
And this isn't about witch burning at all. I know lots of top hubbers who are talking about moving their content and who will certainly not be publishing anymore until they get confidence back in the site. If hubpages made a determined effort to clear the site up, I believe that would help. Matt Cutts has clearly stated that poor content can drag the whole site down.
Im a a bit behind on my google alerts Im guessing that an earlier post where I made the small correction that the PPG list was derived from Squidoo's self created "hands-off" topics and not a google created list would create that confusion.
PPG is pretty successful and her theory has been given some weight around the various professional sites. I wouldnt go so far as calling it meaningless!
I would point out that every single one of those topics could be written and covered in a way that was well researched, balanced and useful, even if it was only to debunk a scam. But they are all honey pots for low quality submissions by opportunists and I would guess that far more of the stuff published is crap than not within those topics. So even if the topics themselves were not specifically targeted (which I do doubt) a high percentage of those topics would probably suggest a high percentage of thin, poorly composed affiliate based rewrites of the same sales copy.
It has been stated loud and clear that a site will be judged by its whole under this algo. If I was the Inquisitor I would be burning folks for not just poor content but also for poor design and composition ... the mark of "poor quality" to a robot is judged by time on site and frequency that the back button is clicked!
That method already exists, and it's called the flag system. People just need to stop kvetching about how somebody else doing something or something new needs to be done and just start using the system that is already in place.
Pick a spam topic you hate, or a category you love and start flagging stuff for admin.
I have been and I know lots of others who use the forums have been too - I guess in all that would be around 100 hubbers out of the hundreds of thousands registered here, taking time out of their day to do a bit of spring cleaning. I just don't think it's enough and it's too hit and miss.
thumbs up response.
But lacking good direction from the HP team, you're going to have people flagging for all sorts of different stuff. But again -- flagging a hub is meaningless. The HP team is the only group that can make any decisions about what to do with a hub. And unless a hub violates HP's TOS, I doubt they're going to do anything to it.
There are folks here (I've read in the forums) who flag for bad grammar, etc. I don't unless it's sooooo excessive that you can't decipher the hub. I really only flag for duplicate, spun, unreadable garbage, purely personal blog-type stuff or anything 200 words or less (unless it's poetry or a photo hub). I don't care about the "not so great" hubs. I only want to get rid of the really, really bad, spammy, crappy ones.
I think you've completely missed the point of why I posted this thread - for one it's definitely not about elitism - I love that hubpages has room all types of quality content including poetry and fiction, but I think the spun, copied, spammy, content is a problem - for all of us. It's good to see duplicate content not being allowed going forward...but what about all the other duplicate stuff?
Going by the many comments others have made regarding this issue on numerous other threads I'm not the only one who feels that hubpages needs to share their plan (if they have one) regarding site improvements on quality. I wanted to bring all of those who have ideas or thoughts about it together in one place. Of course not everyone's going to agree that something different needs to happen and that's fine.
The problem as I see it is that hubs only get flagged if someone who fully understands the rules spots them and that is very hit and miss. It also doesn't deal with crappy hubs pre the hub hopping feature. I spent an hour going through hubs in the affiliate marketing topic the other day, I flagged loads and didn't even scratch the surface.
Where's the "Like" button?
I think hubhopping is a good way to help staff and Irohner, I wasn't implying in any way that HP staff weren't doing their jobs. Quite the contrary. What I was saying was there is a huge discrepancy here among the writers about what "good" writing really is. I also have concerns about people being unprofessional and flagging hubs simply because they have some weird ax to grind with the author. Yes, it's that kind of world, folks.
I am of the opinion that poetry and photo hubs don't belong here. But that's my opinion and probably not that of HP. That's why when I go hubhopping, I leave those kinds of hubs alone. I don't fear hubhopping at all and you're right, the only people who should are people who have substandard or spammy hubs. I think the hubhopping tool is enough. That coupled with the hardworking HP staff will help us clean up. And possibly a review of new hubbers work to see if they make the cut.
I totally agree. But what you need to understand is that flagging a hub does not hurt the hub, its score or the author unless it violates one of HP's rules. And even then, the flagger has no control over what happens. That's up to the HP team.
Now, voting it down could hurt it I suppose, but those are two very separate things. I just don't get why people are all up and arms about the flagging when they should be worried about people voting hubs down for the reasons you outlined.
There is nothing wrong with flagging really bad hubs, but…
The person that started this online petition called on Hubpages to make certain “spammy” keywords a priority simply because one person (Potpie Girl) speculated that this is what Google is targeting. Most people here demanding action seem to think whatever they are demanding well accomplish some goal in appeasing Google. The evidence from Squidoo seems to indicate otherwise.
Sites using human editors, requiring pre-approval before publishing, limiting topics, etc… got slapped just as bad as Hubpages. There is no indication at all that implementing any of this will derive benefits.
Uninformed people demanding action to appease a higher power…what could possibly go wrong...
Shouldn't it be more like a French Maid uniform...cleaning up the crap on HP? Or is this a nurse because she's taking out the crap in a bedpan?
For some reason this picture is making me feel all funny inside.
Me too. An old pic of me that's resurfaced (yet again) and one I was told would be used for a house cleaning product.
Lol - same here. She's a hotty
@the frog - If this is you....watch out world!
Well we'll see what changes Hubpages have in the pipeline - I'm just happy that they do have plans in progress to tackle spam more thoroughly. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a reduction in hubs on certain topics.
What makes you think I'm uniformed
I know But I wouldn't say I was uninformed either.
What information do you have that making “spammy” keywords a priority will appease Google, other than Potpie Girl’s speculation (which Sunforged seems to regard as dubious)?
Like frogdropping has eloquently said - it's the amount of spammy content attached to those spammy keywords that's the problem. No doubt there are some very good articles on hubpages on things like affiliate marketing for instance - I have read some excellent ones by sunforged, Mark Knowles and the like - but percentage wise I would estimate that for every good, informative article on the topic there are 50 more spammy ones (I do quite a bit of hubhopping). The good stuff on HP is being weighed down by the rubbish IMO.
My views come from listening to people like sunforged and Mark, reading voraciously the many articles that have been published since the panda update, and being an active hubber for nearly 2 years, I'm aware of the massive amount of rubbish on the site. The rubbish can be in any topic area, but some subjects seem to attract more than others.
Because hubpages has had practically an open door policy, the site has been severely abused by spammers and I think as a site they need to remove a lot of that content to help with their reputation, both in the eyes of the search engines and in general across the web.
I was concerned that HP had not really put forward much of a plan and I was worried that this would cause many excellent hubbers to move their good content which I think would be rather disastrous for HP, because then the ratio of good to crap would have been even higher. HP need to keep writers here confident that they are doing all they can and have plans in place for improvement by communicating with us more regularly. We've only had a few blog posts in the last month and many were getting jittery (may still be jittery).
I will summarize some of Misha’s comments for everyone who has apparently missed them over the last few years:
I agree backlinks are important (I've never been one of the no backlinking crew), and they are more important now, but I don't think that means that HP should sit back and do nothing to improve the site. I see it as a joint effort - hubbers do their bit and hubpages do theirs.
One of the advantages of publishing on hubpages, in turn for giving them 40% of our income, was the authority they had which for me meant less of a need for aggressive backlinking. Most pages I wrote here would get on the first or second page of the search results without much in the way of linkbuilding and with a few links could easily get in the top 3 spots. If that authority is lost then there is little advantage over publishing here compared to your own website where one can keep 100% of the income. So I think it's important that HP works to get their authority back.
Although I agree wholeheartedly that there is alot of junk here that needs to come down, I've seen alot of people with a authorscore of 85 or above where I have wondered how in the world they ever got that high a score. I see people with blatantly commercial hubs with author scores of well over 85. And with all the disagreement over whether poetry and other forms of creative writing are legitimate hub topics, I don't know that this "army of over 85" would work. There seems to be too much disagreement about what a legitimate and worthwhile hub really is. Let HP staff handle it.
The HP staff DOES handle it, whether they are reviewing a hub brought to their attention through flagging, automated scripts or simply browsing the hubs themselves. If someone flags a hub improperly, there is no harm nor foul to anyone but the HP team who needs to waste their time reviewing it. They must be okay with that, because they have asked us on several occasions to continue hubhopping.
The ONLY people who should be worried about more people hubhopping and flagging are those who violate the TOS. Full stop.
I agree and I'm sure that Hubpages KNOW what they have to do.
But, we must appreciate the need to work slowly.
There are probably 300000 hubs to remove. Some of those will undoubtedly be valuable content (financially).
Removing those overnight could be catastrophic. The removal of the content needs to be at a rate which will seen replenishment.
In other words, removing 50000 at a time is more realistic, to allow for decent fresh content to replace it.
I see the most important thing as introducing measures which stops the growth of that sh*t content, which is what we are seeing with the new duplicate content rule, the Amazon thing, and probably more rules forthcoming. They had already removed "over backlinked" content recently.
There are other measures which can be taken too. I emailed Paul and Paul a couple of days ago and suggested a keyword density tool, after Darkside alerted me to a prime example of keyword spamming on Hubpages. (I ran it through a density tool and a two word phrase had a keyword density of 8.1%). If I had the word Hubpages at a kewyord density of 8.1% in a paragraph it would probably look like this:
"Hubpages is the best writing platform on the internet, on Hubpages you can make money. Hubpages is a great community and on Hubpages you earn from AdSense and Amazon. Hubpages has a forum, Hubpages also has a blog. On Hubpages there are thousands of hubbers, writing thousands of Hubpages. I have 705 Hubpages, and as a result on make lots of money on Hubpages".
That paragraph actually only has a keyword density of 6.3%!! I don't even know if I COULD achieve a keyword density of 8.1% for the word Hubpages, yet alone a two word phrase!
First fight is duplicate content, then maybe short content? Then maybe keyword stuffing? Etc.
What I am trying to say, and I may as well say it directly, is that deleting half of the site overnight may not be financially viable, a much slower recovery may be necessary; if you get my drift.
I would fully support the top half layer of quality that currently exists on the site being the only surviving content in say a year, but I would hate to see the consequence of deleting that much content in a month or two
Is that why some of the "questionable" hubs are being allowed to remain, do you think? Because they make so much money?
Yeah, I totally see where you are coming from. I think an automated keyword density program would be a great improvement, and I'd set the level at about 1.5 - 2%.
I believe that the quicker the dross is dropped, the more quickly hubbers will regain their confidence in the site and start publishing again (because many of us have stopped) and if this means a big cut in income initially, which it would, then they would just have to swallow it.
Getting rid of crappy hubs on spammy topics such as mesothelioma would be a good start.
I really like the idea of a HubPages queue - in addition, say a HubPage has to have at least 10 approvals before actual publishing.
I think I'd also make a requirement for the approving hubbers - to have been on HubPages for a minimum of 6 months with a score over 89.
i agre with all that is said- i have hub hopped until i am all hubbed out! i am happy with the moderation queue and would take part as long as the rules were really clear- i know they are pretty clear but if we were moderating we would have to be totally sure. ( i can be a little harsh )
i found a hubber with just photos of ladies and links to other hubs with photos of ladies - i did not think this is a hub!
There are actually lots of hubbers who publish those. They are supposedly acceptable as long as categorized properly -- I think the category is "photo galleries."
oh whoops, i flagged them cos the only words apart from the title, were links, that cannot be for the good of a quality site
I suspect that there are bigger fish to fry, the photo hubs probably aren't playing a part.
They are still best off of the site, but they can probably be last in the queue!
This site doesn't need thousands of articles on Mesothelioma for a start.
The only issue I could see with that is publishing could turn into a "popularity" contest. With so many hubs to be published, quality content will be overlooked.
I do agree that a new hubber should have to have a minimum reviewed Hub count before being able to publish automatically. This would definitely deter spammers.
I agree, Michael. The idea of becoming a "trusted" hubber who produces quality content should be a priority. In that regard, there isn't anything wrong with making new hubbers apply. However, the drawback is obviously the volume of new applications, and how, exactly, to handle that. It would, however, truly cut back on hubbers who show up for a half hour to spam, are flagged, then banned. Perhaps there isn't an easy answer to this idea of applying to become a writer at HP, but at this juncture, I think it deserves some consideration.
The idea of having hubs approved before publication is also fair at this point, but again, the shear volume alone is going to be problematic. It could be that great hubs could sit for approval for weeks (months?) unless a very efficient system is established. Involving volunteer community support is fine to a degree, but at what point do you take advantage of qualified hubbers' time for administrative work, when they are actually here to write and earn money?
The present system is actually quite good for what it is, hubhopping and all, but it is truly a shot gun effect that doesn't focus in a lot of important areas. Perhaps there needs to be brainstorming on how to focus hubhopping or something like it to get to the problematic layers Ryan spoke of.
Thanks, Susanna, for starting this thread, also. I agree with many things several of you have posted. It's a matter of thinking through and creatively doing some problem solving.
I don't have any particular conspiracy theories, but I do have common sense. Hubpages can earn money even if they are low quality.
If you have 1 million Hubpages and remove 300,000 then you are likely going to see 30% less revenues (strawman argument). That is a huge (further) hit.
All I am saying is that it is unlikely that Hubpages can afford to half themselves overnight, they need to tackle one thing at a time.
If you deleted those 300,000 hubs over a say a YEAR in stages, and regained 300,000 acceptable pages of content over the same period, then that may be a different story
there is certainly an element of that, but some of the hubs i have been flagging are over 6 months old and more things like, hello, my name is fred and i am .................... and are 5 lines long- like a blog entry rather than anything else- and nought written ever again
What if they produced a schedule of hubbers with less than 10 hubs and membership over 1 year, that we could all have part of and check?
Sure, whatever will help.
But Google likes working on ratios, for example a duplicate content ratio (10% is better on 20% etc).
Putting in place stringent measures to prevent further low quality content will see ratios decline without the need to even delete anything. Relativity.
There is no point finding 900 things a day to delete if 800 new deletable things are being published each day. Stopping the rot should be the first priority.
Just like any negative really. If you don't stop the drug smugglers then they is no point stopping and searching the small time drug dealers
Dealing with the cause, rather than the consequence, should be the first priority. Automating the process as much as possible is the most efficient means.
If Hubpages ask for help, then I am game, just like most of us will be. But they could essentially introduce further filters which flag up thousands of hubpages without human intervention. More importantly, they can block publishing (like InfoBarrel and their keyword density checker).
For example, a keyword density filter (see my example). I am not a coder, but I know that it is more than possible. If they can flag anything with a 5% or higher keyword density which already exists on the site using a bit of software, and then give publishers a couple of weeks to rewrite, for example, that will defeat keyword spammers overnight.
There are still 50 word hubs in the system, hell there are even 0 word hubs (just ask Darkside). This could be automated to, to identify existing short posts. Same applies, two weeks to increase the wordcount or they will be unpublished.
The way forward, in my humble opinion, is to put emphasis on stopping the rot at the publishing stage. And then having the retrospective clean up.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
you are quite right- close the gates to rubbish, see how the site is and then if required further weeding can take place using methods similar to your description- though I think HP will need to develop different strategies as time progresses as with the nature of spammers- if a gateway is closed they will find a way to get back in.
Based on the posts, I bet I could accurately predict the political beliefs of every single poster on this thread!
But I shall not; this is not a political thread.
I’m with ryankett all the way on this one. And not just this last one, but all of his preceding posts on this thread as well.
Probably the same as mine, but I’m not going there!
I wrote my previous post while having my first cup of coffee. So if anyone has a problem with it, blame it on that.
Well, it's centre-left.
If I were American I would probably be labelled as a "communist" or a "bloody liberal", in the UK I sit somewhere in the middle with most of the country.
In other words, I would love to vote for the "left" if they weren't so incompetant, but would never vote for the "right"
In the UK you pretty much just work out what newspaper makes you nod in agreement. I read The Guardian, that is "centre left" and as such, I just stick with that
You can't vote for them. They shut down. They said the other political parties were too bonkers for them to compete.
I didn't know that - the end of an institution.
Susana: As for the spring clean - it does sound like a good plan, but how to go about it is a different question. Such a huge project would need a huge amount of resources and would have to be done right, first time.
Don't forget - it is less than a month since the change (although it seems much longer!), and I suspect that there isn't enough data for the team to decide upon the best course of action.
I am currently tweaking the good performing Hubs and working on my site - hopefully, a site wide solution will appear in time.
They would do quite well in modern days, so many people are disullisioned.
I would love for them to come back. It is said that many BNP votes were "protest votes".
If the Monster Raving Loony party could bring an alternative means of vote wasting then that is a positive in my eyes and I WOULD probably support them as a member.
There was a man in my area in the election before last who handed out "not represented" stickers to spoil the ballot as an alternative for those who don't want to be accused of apathy (I hate that, when they blame low voter turnout on apathy).
So they would serve a purpose in that respect. And of course, I was fully support of their illuminious dog poop policy! Genius!
What about comment capsule ? Is it a good idea to replace it with new and let old one stay unpublished ?
We're not getting crawler attention like we used to get in the past,so keeping those gibberish and URL spammed comments are not worth to be in our comment collection. What do you think ?
LOOK at the new duplicate content that is flowing this guy has 65 hubs as we speak in 2 days all duplicate http://hubpages.com/profile/digitaldownload
I flagged the profile
I've deleted 100 of my own hubs today. Just decided to take a different direction. I will probably delete most of the rest tomorrow.
One of the things that has to be said is that I was planning to replace them with info type articles, but I am far from sure I will. It is all very well to get rid of substandard articles, but I've had a look to see what viewers to the hub see when they hit the page for the first time.
At the moment the advert layout is horrible.
Really horrible, so much so that if I wasn't aware how much good content there is, if I arrived on hubpages as a new user I would leave right away.
Currently, on my laptop screen, the first thing you see is a top bar of ads, there is about 100 words of content... and on the left there are two massive adsense adverts side by side.
It makes all the articles look bad quality, and IMHO actually looks worse than wisegeek.
Your hubs have top-bar ads? I have not seen any of those on mine for days and days (other ads elseware are still present though). As a result I've had zero revenue. I wonder why others have top-bar ads and I don't!!!???
Maybe a new 'flag' option ?? At the moment you can flag for a number of reasons .. language etc which may just reflect the views of other hubbers .. eg taking offense at 'blasphemous' comments ... maybe there should be one called 'remove ths hub' .. specifically for spammy and complete crap ... would need to be some guidelines of course and hubbers would have to be sensible but maybe red light ones could be removed ?
From your statement it sounds like you are not at all familiar with the various ways one can flag a hub. There is an option for "spammy and complete crap" not to mention specific guidelines for a variety of other violations.
From the flag screen that appears when you click to flag a Hub, you are asked to pick one of these as the reason, and a text box is included where you can point things out to admin or offer up your rationale:
I don't think some of the words that we use for cyber activities are covered under dictionary or if there is any similar word for it all the time. For example, fool= imba noob -used by DOTA/WOW and other MMORPG folks, you can't find it under any dictionary.
I don't know which word we're supposed to replace for the current activity that we call 'witch hunt'.
I wish that everyone would take a step back from obsessive content removal and just realize that their hubs have to stand on their own two feet. If you want your hubs to do well
1.) Tune them and get rid of the excessive SEO that Google now penalizes
2.) Find relevant backlinks by participating in active communities.
3.) Watch your hubs go back up.
As far as Squidoo is concerned they didn't get hit as hard because they already were... and they've already adjusted as best they could...
I've written on both pages and it's harder to get my lenses indexed and ranked than my hubs... Backlinks are essential to success there and that's something they know that they HAVE to do.
HP is a content farm - it's not an exclusive community for heavily reviewed and restricted community and it never will be so focus on your content and you can STILL have success (just like Lensmasters have seen).
I didn't miss the point at all Susanna. Of course, there is a lot of spammy content that we don't like. I think those in charge can figure out what they need to do. I've read these threads also, and to me it sounds like a wave of elitism is forming. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I do trust HP to lay out any changes and clarification as things continue to unfold. I'm sure some will disagree with me, and that's fine, but I'm just sharing my own feelings. now, back to work..
One thing I should have said before, is that one of the reasons I like HP so much is that they have always genuinely wanted to listen to the community and so while I'm sure they have a much better overview of what's going on, we can give our opinions and ideas too.
And just to make it clear I have no issue with poetry, fiction, spelling mistakes, grammar errors or anything like that - I am purely talking about removal of spun, spammy rubbish that is only posted here for backlinks.
There's a good discussion going on in this thread, guys. We appreciate the passion and commitment.
Susana - my two cents. Make it my 0.05 cents (reflecting my reality ).
Flagging is a good way of bringing spam to the attention of the real moderators: Mausmi Mehta, Norah Casey, Brendon Floyd, Dan Lewis and Maddie Ruud. I don't doubt that other members of the team that weren't hired specifically to moderate are also helping - Maddie was a moderator (for e.g.) but is now the Community Manager.
We don't moderate, we flag, period. I can hate to hell and back anything that's written about a subject I love or hate but my opinion doesn't mean squat.
All I will have done is sent a hub to a queue for one of the above to look over. They know what's allowed and want contravenes better than I. That's what they're trained/paid for.
I also like to think that when I flag something I'm making the right call. I don't spend endless hours flagging, never have but when I see something that catches my attention I will flag it up for the moderators attention.
If it then becomes obsolete I feel no guilt. What I did sits square with me. Had 'x' hubber published a hub in accordance with the TOS then the fault lies with them. Not me, not the moderators.
Will this type of on-site behaviour return HP to it's former standing? I don't know. What I do know is that there are rules and they are there for a reason.
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
I'd rather be a part of something that has a reputable reputation, no matter what its overall position is, than one that's known as being disreputable.
As for the spammy keywords, I remain on the fence. What I think is more of a concern is the spammy content attached to those keywords.
Tarred with the same brush and all that.
thats odd .. I know of no alternative ..there is of course Yahoo Alerst and Microsoft Alerts though
Oh well was hoping for an alternative *
* Off to play with new online toys
Well I hope you don't get caught being too vigorous with them!
I was going to open the curtains, there are at least three houses with at least one window with a perfect view of my desk; the problem is that the residents of two of those houses are at least 60 and contain at least one male
I stopped publishing here some time ago when I could see the way the site was going. But I still maintain my hubs and flag some of the newest hubs, where in the last few minutes I have found some of the priceless spun content below:
you would possibly notice several alternative brands too that work into the low maker however you'll be able to not achieve the most effective style and mix. The low pods offers the wide selection of flavors therefore all and sundry will select consistent with its own style and it's the most effective approach you'll be able to relish on a daily basis in a very distinctive approach
The common ones are like blurred vision and problem in respiratory as a result of you have got worked therefore arduous and your body is exhausted. Timex Heart Rate Monitor Watch would do its perform by monitoring your heart beat from time to time. This becomes a reminder for you to not loss yourself in overstretching and overcome physical limit
and a real gem,
there's conjointly a formidable improvement when it involves its low lightweight photo capturing performances. This way, you'll be ready to capture nice photos even though you're in an exceedingly dark space otherwise you need a heavier lightweight weight. you'll get a coffee lightweight scene mode
I could almost smile if it wasn't dragging the site down. The rate at which this stuff still appears on HubPages is alarming, but I'll continue to do my bit until a solution is found.
You and Susana have both made valid points on this thread, the point is hubpages is still making money from the spammy content that is produced and doesn't want to stop it for fear of cutting the arm off that feeds it.
That's why there is a new writing contest, hp's needs all it's writers producing quality hubs.
If hp'is really serious about bringing about a change then it has to remove those accounts which Ryan mentioned last week that are making hp a lot of money. Until it does that why should you bother flagging hubs.
The sooner hp's brings in some type of reviewing system for newbies and reviews the first ten or so hubs before publishing them the better.
Totally understand were you are coming from Brian. HubPages has hard decisions to make re: revenue vs quality, but I'm hoping that over the next few weeks we will see some action. They say they have things in the pipeline to address quality so it will be interesting to see what exactly. http://blog.hubpages.com/2011/03/improving-hubpages/
I am not in favour for a mass deletion, only a sustained slow deletion of content over a period of time. Cutting major traffic sources overnight is not going to help us.
Raising the quality bar slowly is the way forward, and that means tackling one kind of abuse at a time. Hubpages will soon be bringing in measures to remove all duplicate content on the site. That is great, stage one.
I don't want to see several hundred thousand hubs being deleted tomorrow. As mentioned, I see the way forward as stopping the crap content at the cause.
One the system is in place to ensure that ALL new content is good content, crap content can be deleted accordingly. That way, for each 50000 fresh high quality pieces of content, the site can tackle the next 50000 pieces of sh*te.
If every piece of shite was deleted overnight my traffic would drop 2000 a day tomorrow, and the same would be the same for many, I leech from the 'related hubs' section of various pieces of high traffic sh*te.
That is why I am in favour of a slow cull, with it beginning when the site can stop the spammers and cheats in the first place. Reducing Hubpages from a site which has 1.16 million pages to 700,000 pages overnight will only result in us all losing a huge proportion of our internal traffic.
That's commitment to the site, especially as you haven't been publishing for a while - good on you
Those examples are perfect illustrations of what I'm talking about and I agree that the rate that this kind of stuff is being published is very alarming.
by Marcy Goodfleisch3 years ago
Dear Staff:This request comes from a discussion on another thread. It's being forwarded with the deepest respect and regard for those of you who have created and who maintain the site and the friendly working...
by Robin Edmondson43 hours ago
Please check out our Blog Post on a couple of quality-related changes on HubPages!
by jasoncox837 years ago
Ok this is not for promotional, only as an example of a recently published hub.http://hubpages.com/hub/Is-Space-Travel-Worth-The-CostThat or feel free to visit my hubs pick a random one..Although a few I understand why...
by Mutiny926 years ago
I notice that there is another tactic to get a lot of content published: reuse content from your other hubs.In particular, http://hubpages.com/search/include:hubs … protectionThe titles and parts of a...
by sid_candid6 years ago
I understand it difficult times but what good will deleting hubs do? I see some of the most prolific hubbers deleting heaps of hubs. Have we lost the hope of a hubpages bounce back?
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...
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.