|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.|
Having hubhopped for a wee while, I came across the usual dross. Low quality, spun content, copied content. Of the ones I hopped through, 7 (no avatar, profile info etc) had just joined and thrown up hasty hubs that were basic SEO stuff - written just for a couple of backlinks.
Then there was this one Baptism, one that was one of several.
Anyone can check (and this is not about lambasting the hubber, it's an example) and will note that an awful lot of the text is duplicate. It will fail Copyscape.
My question: we are covering spun, duplicate, low quality, pictures, promotional etc - what about religious stuff like this? The fact is it is not the entire work of the author, period. Does the fact that it's religious exempt it from the new TOS?
And whilst we can sit and argue back and forth that quoting religious text may well be necessary to the hub, the fact remains that when it's done to this degree it turns a hub into a duplicate one.
So - to my point: I, like many other hubbers, have pretty much lost all the income I was making on HP. Whilst I find the changes tough to keep up with, I believe it is for the good of the site and its users overall.
I want HP to at least find it's feet again. So, is there a certain group that are exempt? I didn't flag it by the way, as I still don't know where HP stands with these hubs. And there are many, thousands and thousands, just like this one.
Are we ignoring the religious hubs that match the one above? This is not about a witch hunt, this is about being senseible. Such a hub does not meet with the TOS.
I never know what to do with the religion ones either - I can't make a balanced judgement because it's not really my area.
What concerns me is that the hopper presumably measures visits without flagging as being eventually OK for viewing. So if we just skip over them they get passed.
As for the other non religious quality improving - no it isn't. It's the same as ever. These people are not going to go away.
The normal rules of TOS must apply regardless of the content - or the whole thing is a crock.
Because I do not like religion I have never flagged a religious hub, as I don't want to make a prejudicial decision. I have seen some hubbers with nothing but religious hubs which are just quotes from a religious tome.
There are exceptions made with poetry (for example, quality and length), but beyond that all hubs are fair game AFAIK. You can flag these hubs. Moderators will then make their own decision.
No one knows hubhopping like frogdropping so hopefully hub hq can heed her words.
lol that made me smile for real
Thanks everyone. Religion brings traffic, I'm not completely stupid, and that's got to be a good thing.
This is about pinpointing whether or not religious based hubs are exempt from the TOS, in the same way as poetry is from 'low' content due to the word count.
@ Earnest - I never flag them either, but for me it's because I'm unsure where they stand overall re the TOS.
It's hard to offer an opinion based hub, in that subject area, without quoting text, but when it's to the point that the hub wouldn't pass copyscape, what then?
I don't flag hubs based on the subject...same as I don't not flag hubs based on the subject.
UW I don't flag hubs that don't contravene the TOS, so we're on the same page If I've been unsure in the past, I've asked and the HP team have emailed me direct.
I flag hubs when I'm hopping if they don't meet with TOS. I'm not interested in the subject, I have no favorites, I don't use personal bias - I love dogs for e.g., therefore if a dog related hub needs flagging according to the TOS, it gets flagged.
I'm fair, always have been. But religious stuff I completely ignore, as though they're a taboo. And it's that that we need to change.
Writing about religion should not allow the hubber some kind of false immunity. That is unfair, no question.
If you want to have a flagging field day, just go into "hubbers" and click "latest." You could go all day and all night and never get done, I promise.
When I go hubhopping it is all I see. Hubs made 42 mins ago, or 2 mins ago. Some text and 2 backlinks.
I'll bet there aren't many quality hubs going out right now. I think a lot of the top hubbers aren't publishing as much. Most hubs I see I want to flag, but I end up not knowing what to do on them so I leave them.
I used to do that when I first started writing here
My favourite offering from the hopper this morning!
'Please look over this specific advice first. Some plus size layers are designed to hit your hips while others gently graze the joints'
Would you want to wear a coat like this? Outerwear for masochists LOL!
There's no harm in flagging, so I just did. I'm not sure it falls into the category of copied content, but it's extremely annoying for sure.
I just flagged a hub that claims that cinnamon and honey "cures most of the diseases if taken regularly by the patient suffering from various diseases." This hubber also recommends giving honey to all age groups, despite the fact that it can be fatal to infants. She also advises that diabetics should use honey because it's a "natural sweetener." Let's forget the fact that it impacts blood sugar just as much as white sugar.
And btw folks, eat all the McDonald's you want. "Two tbsp of honey with three tsp of cinnamon powder mixed in one cup tea water reduces the level of cholesterol in the body by 10% within 2 hours of consumption of this mixture,if taken thrice a day any chronic cholesterol is cured."
Sheesh. I'll betcha that hub doesn't get taken down. This is ridiculous.
And you flagged it as what? My biggest problem with the flagging reasons is that you can't find one for misinformation.
While I agree with your medical assessment of the dietary advice given in this hub, where in the TOS does it say that untrue claims about the facts of reality are not allowed to be published here?
Judge it on how well it is written. Judge it on whether it's original rather than duplicate. But don't judge it on truth or falsity. That's not our job. That is the job of every reader: to think for himself!
I agree. If I felt strongly about it, I'd challenge them in the comments.
I did leave a comment. Whether the team does anything about the hub or not, I don't know. And I agree in principle about assessing the technical aspects of hubs rather than the substance. I don't usually flag based on content.
In this case, however, I felt as though not flagging it would be like watching a car speeding toward a child in the street and not doing anything. This hubber recommends rubbing honey on the gums of teething babies. That is extremely dangerous and could lead to the death of a baby. There's a world of difference, IMHO, between bad advice and dangerous advice.
Wow, that is dangerous. Babies don't yet have the flora in their digestive systems necessary to kill any botulism spores that may be in honey. That's what makes it deadly. I have a friend who's a nurse. This concern is real.
Maybe I should search out the hub and leave a comment too...
I agree. On at least one other writing site I know, there are people to whom an article can be reported for fact checking or similar issues. (Of course, I did report something once. It was an article that told people to fill bottles with marbles, tape the top, and turn it into a rattle for babies . I figured, hazards issue aside (and if anyone were to take that "tip" seriously), there could potentially be legal issues for the site, itself (disclaimers or no disclaimers).
I think and mind you this is just my opinion, but all the negative talk about hubhopping may prevent the better quality hubs from getting published right now as these writers don't want to get caught up in the madness. I know a lot of it has to do with being unsure whether it will make a difference to publish a new hub with all the Google crud going on, but this hubhop talk certainly doesn't lend a positive to wanting to publish anything here right now.
Lynne so far as I'm concerned it isn't difficult to publish a hub within the TOS. I've published hundreds with no issue. Those that use HP as a means of sharing information, helping readers, offering insights, reviews - whatever - can publish happily away (to their hearts content) so long as they meet the guidelines.
Anyone that doesn't will be one of two types: ignorant of the full TOS because they're new or relatively new and haven't yet worked out what's not allowed or the type that don't give a monkeys, the spammers.
Better quality hubs won't end unpublished. Flagging does not cause a hub to become unpublished. What does is when it's looked at by a moderator and they note something that doesn't comply.
I realize that, but like I said it is just my opinion that all the talk is negative and while I agree we need to help clean up the site as best we can by hopping hubs and flagging, I don't see the need to bring it to the forums in a negative aspect.
Negativity only begets more negativity. There is way too much of that going around right now as everyone is down with the Google slap, so flag do what you feel is right, but don't bring it here. Bringing it to the attention of the moderators who are the ones to make the final decision is all that is necessary.
Negative? The whole shebang just got negative. I'm asking publicly because we may all learn from this. Let's just pretend I didn't ask. Then the mods figured this out and thought 'we'd better tell the hubbers'.
Where do you think it's going to be made public? The forum. Like they do everything else that they want to highlight.
However I apologise for upsetting your or anyone elses sensibilities because I came up against something that I feel is important and needs airing.
I'm also greatly pleased that every time I've started a highly positive thread (and there are many), you've entered into it with the same spirit, and thanked me for lightening the mood.
FD~~I'm really not questioning the original OP of starting the thread. You had a valid question and one that needs to be addressed as far as I'm concerned.
The negative I am speaking of is all the following comments that bring up the crud that can be found. Ok, it's great that we are all willing to help out and find this stuff, but does everyone have to point out the obvious. I don't think so. I think many, as am I, are frustrated and this is where our frustrations come out in this form.
The thread should have really remained on topic of what to do with the copied content in religious hubs, but it did not. The moderators or site admin would have or should bring this to our attention as to what to do with the content of these types of hubs and yes they would probably addressed this in the forums.
I'm really not challenging you to be more positive and I do think you had a good point. It just fell by the wayside is all and that is what upset me not the original question.
I'm sorry I upset you. I really didn't intend to do that. I was just stating what I felt about how the thread progressed from your original question. I'll go back to my corner now.
Lynne I am not offended, nor upset. I know this is a common theme online (in forums) to play the injured party or feel offended. There's no need to return to a corner, I didn't know you felt as though you had one.
I have (in truth) noticed that you're helpful and my words were meant in banter.
And yes these things do go off-topic and become something they were never meant to be. However I like to think I (me lol me) kept on point. And even then, this is not about religion, it's about duplicate content and where the line is drawn, if there is
LOL, yes I have a corner. It's the one where I try really hard not to express my opinion in the threads and only offer up advice that I feel will be helpful. This is one of those times I should have sat on my hands, lol.
I would not flag that hub. I don't see it as duplicate or copied content. It's presented in a topical manner and would help someone trying to find specific verses on the subject.
There is a topics section also for quotes and sayings.
There are thousands of searches for verses and quotes, etc.
@ Rebekah I didn't flag it. And I'm aware of the high traffic both religion and quote searches can bring.
What then is this type of hub? Duplicate? Quotes? Somewhere in the middle?
And still I say that copying and pasting is exactly that. Quotes, passages of text or otherwise. IF HP wish to remove dupe content then to my mind that means anything that involve large bodies of copied text.
As far as the religious hubs go, if it's quoting text from scripture and then explaining the meanings and background in their own way, I don't see a problem with it. A lot of people actually look for these kinds of things to see other's interpretations and knowledge of scripture.
If the article is all quotes and none of it is the author's own words or thoughts, I would see it as a problem.
That's my two cents.
I guess I don't see it in that light at all. As far as I understand using quotes in an article, it's fine as long as it hasn't been lifted off the page in sequential order, like copying a page.
He uses quotes that pertain to each point he's making in the hub.
Actually, I think the manner in which he presented his topic is done well and with creativeness.
I see top hubs which were simply 'copied' (gathered) from another source churned out all the time. It's info that could easily be found from doing a simple search, it's not original, and yet it happens daily here. I guess everyone has different opinions.
ok, I'm off to work.
I agree. As far as quoting religious text from scripture, if it's done in a way that's meant to educate and not just to be lazy and steal another's words and pass them off as one's own, then I would say it's a helpful article.
I would say it's not a violation of TOS because there's no violation of copyright and it's impossible to discuss or teach religious topics without quoting scripture.
As I am relatively new here, although I do Hub Hop daily, I don't flag anything. I see Hubs that I would definitely flag but as I am new to this digital realm I believe it would be arrogant for me to judge yet. I hope that I am doing OK, I get positive comments and have yet to get flagged so far.
While I'm (I guess) asking questions, I wondered about these guys. These all use the dot com misdirection stuff. What's going on with these hubbers?
2331 hubs - 3 years
104 hubs - 4 years
120 hubs - 3 years
103 hubs - 7 months
125 hubs - 4 years
2677 hubs - 20 months
Well, I kind of wonder, too, not so much about them, because it's clear what that game is, but why there isn't an HP rule in place about using the dot com construction in the way these folks are using it.
With that said, I admit to having used it on my most recent Hub, because if I had used just the name of the site alone in the title and not added the ".com", it would have looked like a typo.
What appalls me is the number of comments those Hubs (not mine) generated where it's clear the visitor thinks they are on the actual dot com site.
Its likely the comments are faked, copied from unrelated places or even from the original site, thats a standard method to make sites, articles look older and give "social authority"
the construction doesnt bother me at all, its only the poor quality of the content. if someone wants to attract all the traffic that was destined for yahoo.com and then describe yahoo.com or offer (their perceived) better alternative in a valuable way, more power to them.
I see no need for legit writers/marketers to temper their marketing strategies simply because it a) works b) attracts the sadly poorly blessed in the brains department.
Its all crap, but its not necessarily against TOS crap .. you have to keep in mind the search terms the searcher uses to find some of this "questionable" content.
"Curing cancer with Monkey Stool" (just an example) ... if your article shows up first page for that, of course as people not looking for the information, we (writers who read it without searching intentionally) will see it as total crap (pun intended) but for whoever actually searches that term, it may be exactly what they are into ..who knows!
As long as the "promise" made by the title is relevant to the content ... everything else is subjective
I appreciate your expertise in all of this, however, if I were not experienced in the online world and searched ATT.com and got one of these Hubs, I'd be inclined to think I'd reached the site I was aiming for. I think that's the value in this kind of "redirect".
But you are quite right. The whole thing could be staged, comments and all.
Whichever, the whole thing is nefarious.
IM sure that is exactly what the purpose is. Im just not sure I consider it my responsibility to help AT&T's customers find their website.
The examples that FD shows are all crap and I dont back them in any way.
But! .. to attempt to come up first for any type of those searches by creating valuable, interesting or entertaining content ..thats web marketing.
I agree with you SF!
I thought that there was a push to clean up the bad content on HP. Whether it helps with the Panda adjustment or not is another story. I would say that most of these are not good content.
http://hubpages.com/profile/gss <-another one
This is a terrifically successful technique though - most of those folks have over 1M views which should translate to a nice income for impression-based ads.
If these were honest reviews of the website, it is pretty reasonable to assume that the hub would at least link to the site discussed...most of the time, they don't, as it might give the viewer a chance to click out with something OTHER than the adsense ad featuring the company they were "reviewing."
Types of "reviews":
My thoughts are that a title with www. somename .com is deceptive. If a person was googling that url, they are not looking for a hub that talks about it. The hubber wants to place on the first page of google in order to get some of the views and redirect them via a paid mechanism to the intended site.
The hubs with "www. somename . com LOGIN or LOGON" are even worse. That is blatantly trying to capture the searcher.
The hubs with "www. somename . com REVIEW" is a bit more debatable. While there may be a legitimate review of the site, take a look at the comments where people believe that the hub "belongs" to the site under review. No matter how good the review is, the searcher feels the affiliation to the intended site.
Look for yourself. Type in "www. login" or simply "www." in the hub search box to see them - my search maxed out at 1,000. Some of them are legit - some are REALLY good - some are junk. How do we differentiate? At the end of the day, if it deceives someone (intentionally or not) then it should probably be addressed.
I look forward to seeing guidance on this.
Its really no different than using "Brand name model XYZ"
If the page was intended to steal login info then its a problem.
But here at hubs, I dont see these hubs as hurting HP, IF the comments were real, then obviously the readers arent being forced away from the domain. I really dont have any terrible feelings in my breast just because a searcher spent 1 minute extra reading a page that wasnt exactly what they expected.
Im referring to the style - as the examples are garbage and are not worth defense. Losing pages that generate millions of page views is bad for all of us.
I think its over reaching to assume that we should be trying to protect the readers or make decisions for them of what they wanted to land on.
If the content matches the promise of the title - thats as far as I ll reach.
No, I dont have any examples of this style myself.
The content of these Hubs never affirms the promise of the title. These Hubs are completely deceptive.
agreed - as far as the examples go.
Im just defending the rights of legitimate reviewers to use similar titles.
for example I dislike the site Factoidz alot.
I reserve the right to optimize an article for
or even www.factoidz.com
My market would be those who are searching for Factoidz or trying to get their for any reason.
If all i said was
www.Factoidz.com is a terrible site that has a history of cheating writers.
Try these alternatives instead:
- I consider that sufficient. Its up to google and factoidz to make sure they outrank me, not my fellow hub writers.
(all with the assumption , that what I shared was "best foot forward" original and genuine)
again, i dont see the distinction in "www.examplesite.com" and "Brand Name model XYZ" - either way we are attempting to be a step in the "navigation" towards the original creators products.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
If I want to be a step in the navigation toward ATT's products, then I will put a link to the real ATT in my Hub. None of these redirecting Hubbers do this.
as you pointed out - its likely there is that option in an ad, Its still a link.
Maybe, the writer doesnt want to send someone to the original source, Maybe, I want to attract factoidz searchers and say hey, Hubpages is better, I think thats my prerogative.
Whats the difference from our affiliate links that send the user to amazon for "Brand Model XYZ" ? If this was about being fair or the very best option - then we would never link to amazon - we would link to the original product creator ..(most fair to creator) or we would link to the cheapest price on the net (which is what i tend to do) w/o being concerned about aff links
again- these examples are terrible, but I do defend the concept.
I disagree SF. I think it does hurt us.
If I am wrong, then it is a great technique to start capitalizing on. Based on the number of views that these authors are receiving, I suspect that the impression based ad earnings will be pretty nice!
It just seems deceptive to me -
It depends on how you measure "hurt" - the way Google would? .. clicks back, page views, time on page , comments left?
Looks like these hubs are doing the rest of us a service in those metrics.
Could a human, be mad that they were misled and make a bad association to hubpages .. absolutely , but I think we can all agree that these are not the most clever of humans... will they even remember or ever know they were on Hubpages?
I dont know .. but, I do know if I was going to start with any section where I would be concerned about protecting the searchers from deception and misdirection, I would have to start with Health - then Finance - then Insurance - (uh oh - 2 were contest topics!) before moving into something innocuous like a cheesy marketing gimmick
The point of this type of Hub is to generate traffic which results in clicks and impressions for the Hubber.
This kind of Hub not only adds no value to anyone, it capitalizes on other's innocence.
He has 1M+ views as well.
I saw one this morning that could be a very good hub, but it was frustrating to see phrases like this:"he and his crews saw the enormous groves of trees which were existed in bulk and sticky, there were a huge perfume was sprinkled in the area."
Stuff like that makes me not just weep, but cry openly.
Were you able to make out what the hubber was trying to say? If so, a quick email to them in private offering a correction might be a nicer public service than flagging them.
Of course, sometimes it's impossible to tell what a sentence like that is intended to mean.
Aya, there's so much crap being published on HP every day that even when you find an overall worth to the meaning despite the execution, it's sometimes too much to expect anyone to engage with the Hub's author.
That's a personal call, of course.
I sensed the poetry in this clip that Rochelle shared, but what to do about it, especially when there are so many others you'd like to lend your thoughts to?
I'm thinking that HP deserves attention, the attention we've given to it, to operate within its "rules". If a budding author can't follow the rules of grammar, then I have to think about how much time I'm willing to spend on him/her.
HubHopping, I came across a Hub that explained punctuation. Not only were the explanations wrong, the punctuation was wrong as well.
This Hub also appeared in the Hopper yesterday, so I've flagged it twice (I don't know if this was necessary). I think the moderators must have a huge backlog.
I agree, HP has a backlog.
At the same time, there's a huge amount of text on this site that is not valid, to your point.
I have no idea how HP can ameliorate this situation without screening Hubs before they are published.
I hope HP has a grander vision of this than I do.
camlo, ..kind of like the people who come on the forums and talk about everybody else's grammar and typos when they, themselves, pretty much have grammar and typing problems in almost every post they make.
What to do if you come across a religious hub that has an opening paragraph or two, and all the rest is quotations from the Bible. Is that not simply copied material?
I have ignored them in the past, but perhaps this was not the right thing to do - after all, copied content is copied content.
Also, what about "quotation" hubs that have a paragraph of original writing, and then are nothing but motivational, or famous, or funny quotes. Are they not pretty much the same as "list" hubs?
There are two issues here. One is "fair use" and the other is "value added." The US, and probably other countries, have very clear fair use guidelines, with which HubPage articles must comply.
Quoting a text portion, or collating quotes from many sources must add value in order to have any original content. A religious devotional, e.g., might quote a 400-word Scripture portion, but then it had better have twice that in commentary.
This next comment is addressed not specifically to RedElf, but to several who have expressed similar sentiment. It is a disservice to avoid flagging a hub because you simply can't look at anything in that field objectively. (And yes, it's happened to me too.) If you find that happening very often, then you should consider yourself more of a specialist in a particular topic. Adopt that topic(s) and "monitor" the "latest" hubs in that topic. You will be catching those that were overlooked by HubHoppers who couldn't tell what they were looking at.
I have found some really great writers in the hubhopper so not all of them are bad. The best time for me to hop is in the evening there appears to be a greater amount of hubs at that time that are good to read. I like Baptism and I really don't see anything wrong with his hubs, he provides passages and gives his opinion. It would be a little tough to get permission from the authors they are all deceased.
Here's a new one on me. Just wandering through the Latest hubs - I find it makes a change from hub hopping - and six copies of the exact same article (copied) from six different so called hubbers.
I thought the HP software now did some copy checking? These are all about the NFL lockout.
edit: ten copies! Searched for NFL lockout and flagged the rest of them. Most of these hubbers with scores in single figures.
Why are hubbers with a score less than 10 allowed to publish anything?
You published this 9 hours ago. (OK it's the weekend) but I just did what you did and found 13 copies of the same hub!
That gives me headache, LOL
The first article/news/opinion published about NFL lockout (same article) by a writer (who asked permission from the original writer) at msnbc http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2011/0 … l-lockout/ then it was posted by apparently same hubber with different username 13 times, http://hubpages.com/search/include:hubs+nfl+lockout
one of the duplicate hub is already indexed by the G
LOL, all flagged!!
The original has been well copied - google shows 14 results for the first paragraph all over the web!
Oh and one of the hubpages ones is at #1, outranking the original (on my google.com, which because I'm signed in doesn't mean it's the same as everyone else's).
I learnt another way to identify spun or copied hubs today. By going though the hubs/latest feed, you can see the page tags listed without opening the hub.
I'm finding a few with nonsense made up words like 'tgyyys' as tags. Obviously then the writer doesn't know any English, else the automated software doesn't understand tags.
That makes it easier to 'hop' and immediately detect content that should be flagged.
Some good Hubbers use a non-word tag to identify all of their own hubs or for similar uses. I would hope those wouldn't be flagged automatically.
OH my! I just followed your link Maita. I was shocked to see all of those that came up. Exact same title and paragraph. How could these even passed through the Hub Filter is my question?
Guess I need to go read some NFL hubs.
I think the hub filter was busy hitting my hub that was only 349 words and 7 amazon ads instead of the requisite 350! Now that is a serious, serious issue!
Seriously though. the HP folks are busy with lots of tough items. I bet they will take the info that FD found and see how that slipped through the filters, make the changes and head off the next issue!
Try just going up to Hubs, then Latest.
This morning I pretty much wasted an hour going through page upon page of Hubs that were spun, loaded with scantilly-dressed Indian actresses, and one-capsule long advertising Hubs promoting some website or product.
I only found 2 or 3 that were what should be normal, quality, unspun Hubs.
We need automated features that block or discourage this stuff.
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 DK5 years ago
This forum is a place for you to post hubs that you think are clearly of low quality and need flagging. Committed hubbers should follow this forum and check these hubs posted for quality when they have the time. If a...
by Steve Andrews5 years ago
When it was first introduced I was annoyed by it but made an effort to tweak my hubs to get them out of Idle status. Now, a whole load have got zzs against them again and many of them are hubs that at one point were...
by Sherri7 years ago
The question of whether poetry Hubs should have 400-word minimums came up in this thread a few minutes ago:http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/70203#post1528809I've been puzzling about what to do with poetry Hubs I've found...
by Edweirdo7 years ago
I occasionally hub-hop, but most of the time I come away from it feeling like I haven't really accomplished much as far as "improving HubPages" goes.So tonight, just for laughs, I decided to type...
by And Drewson7 years ago
Here's an interesting message from Seekyt, which mentions Hub Pages fondly."Important DecisionMake sure you've read the news to the right before reading this paragraph. ---->There is always a way to get around...
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.