In a thread a few days ago, a discussion began about accounts which have been here quite some time and have a lot of published hubs that are noticeably breaking Hubpages ToS. Despite the accounts being flagged repeatedly, the accounts and most of their hubs still remain.
The staff answer to the reason was that the accounts were on probation but staff hadn't gotten around to moderating all the hubs published by the account as yet, since not ALL were against ToS (meaning they couldn't just enforce a blanket ban.)
A particular account mentioned was http://hubpages.com/profile/www.ibuzzup.com
I did an experiment - a few days ago I reported over 30 hubs on the account. Interestingly enough, all but two of those hubs have been unpublished.
What I'm wondering is why the moderation queue is more likely to moderate single hubs than entire accounts - especially when the entire accounts have a lot of hubs which are against ToS.
Well stated. It sounds like HP still has a lot of work ahead of them.
They really do have a lot of work ahead.
I'm with Wry, though. If a hubber has several hubs with gross violations (not in the category of pixelated images, deceptive tags or other minor problems) then it might make more sense to immediately go through the whole list from that hubber. I very often find that hubbers with bad violations have more of them, usually of every hub, whether they have 5 hubs of 500. When a dozen bad hubs are found, simply unpublish all of them.
I would think that it would eliminate more garbage with less effort and in less time than randomly looking at hubs. Although I would hope that the process is not random.
Well that's basically what they did to Spacey Gracey.
The moderators don't randomly look at Hubs, they work through the flags raised by Hubbers and by the automated filters, in strict chronological order.
If I understand it right, that's how moderation has always worked, and HubPages doesn't see any reason to change it - however personally, I agree they should be taking a step back and rethinking it, in light of the new situation.
But I think the order they look at a single hub vs an entire account is on a different level of some sort.
Yes, that would make sense (taking flagged hubs in order).
I would agree that they may need to re-think that strategy in recent times, though. I really expect that we are getting a lot of spammers being kicked off of other places and/or having their work devalued by google and wanting to crank up again somewhere else.
Just an observation , if you notice the account pointed out by
WryLitt; it seems to be from a website, similar to HP.
It makes one wonder if the articles come from that web site. The numbers raises eyebrows, over 2000 hubs ? in less than 2 years, that's what, 33 hubs per day?
The HP staff cannot hope to review them in a timely manner unless somehow this becomes automated.
@SunSeven: The math is an approximation; 33 x 730=24090 which is approximately what the account has. My concern is that the account is a web site address ; www.ibuzzup.com. If I am wrong, then I apologize, it just seems odd.
i have flagged a few- they are obviously spun and follow a pattern- i was so excited- is used so often! IT totally lowers the tone of this site
It would be nice if when you flagged something you got some feedback on whether it was really 'flaggable' or not. I am not 100% sure that I am interpreting some of the issues correctly (like substandard or overly promotional).
This is pet peeve of mine, but the ruling appears to be that JUST the URL or URL + login is deceptive. But add the single word "review" to the title and that is completely ok. This author fixed everything by doing just that:
Personally, I disagree. The definition of deceptive is "likely or designed to be misleading". Read the comments where people think that these hubs actually belong to the company under review. I have flagged several where people left personally identifiable information like usernames, passwords, phone numbers etc thinking they would get a response back from the company under review. It is safe to say that the hub "was likely to mislead" because it did trick at least some of the readers.
Even the high quality ones-the true reviews of sites- are misleading.
I do find it fascinating that my hubs that violated a rule get pulled down immediately but these groups of authors with millions of views get placed "on probation" and are allowed to continue "misleading" people.
But that is just my opinion and it's not shared by the decision-makers.
If I was to be fair and follow the moral path,i would have done what the moderators did.I would have punished the bad and only the illicit.If that person has great hubs that are not deemed punishable,i would leave them and let them add to my site's content. A win win situation if you follow the moral path.
Clearly there are accounts set up in HP where the only purpose is to spam.
Why is it so difficult for HP to terminate them?
My point is NOT pointing out the number of spam hubs.
The point of this post was to point out that HUBS and ACCOUNTS are moderated differently.
A HUB that is flagged will be taken down in a relatively short time while an ACCOUNT may have its posting privileges removed but takes a LOT longer (often months) before moderators unpublish its hubs, especially if there are a lot of them.
The only way to get an ACCOUNT's hubs removed fast is by flagging EACH hub.
Uh, OK, so why is it so difficult for HP to remove an account? Maybe HP ought to change its rules/methodology about taking down entire accounts. If I were in charge there at HP, this is exactly what I'd be proposing: if it's a spamming account, get rid of it without waiting for flags against its individual Hubs.
You can flag an account/profile as well as a Hub...can't believe spammers' profiles haven't been flagged as often as individual Hubs. What's HP waiting for?
Wry, maybe you should post this in the "Report a Problem" section.
The HubPages staff aren't around in the forums much which is understandable,but one would hope they're keeping an eye on the Report section. That way we might stand a chance of getting an explanation of how it works.
True. I did ask Jason about this in a thread but he said he had no idea because he hadn't moderated since '07
This is one thing that concerns me. The HP team seems to have left Jason to deal with the forums because the moderators are so busy, but he doesn't have as much knowledge of the process as we think - and he doesn't want to disturb the moderators to ask. Which leaves all of us feeling discontented and ignored!
Can I ask what kind of violations that we are talking about here? Were I to look at that persons account, it sounds like I'd not get to see much of what you were talking about.
If you're referring to the account in question, (ibuzzup), you'll see that many of the titles would lead people to believe the hub is the actual website of that company. Deceptive.
Many of the comments on the hubs also show that people believe the hubs to be ways to contact the actual website in question.
An example of a deceptive hub (published over a year ago):
http://hubpages.com/hub/www-homedepot-c … ine-Survey
Note the comments on this hub.
This is sad. Over 1,000,000 views for this hubber with a profile of "1"! It's impossible for me believe these hubs haven't been noticed by HP staff before! Allowing such crap as this on the site is exactly the reason HP got Panda slapped.
This stinks to high heaven!
i flagged a few website review hubs for people leaving personal info in the comments. They believe the hub is actually the website under review.
The title "deceptive" means that it is misleading...intentional or not, these have proven to be misleading.
They bring in millions of views, so does HP unpublish them and watch their views get flushed away? That is a lot of revenue that they would forgo.
and I agree that these hubs do not, in any way, shape or form support Googles series of questions for webmasters. Can anyone say that these are good user experiences?
Of course they should be unpublished. Let's keep a close eye on this stuff and see what happens next. HP can't very well leave these up while others are getting tossed if the site has any integrity at all! We've pointed these out so HP cannot claim they didn't know about them.
If they leave them up, we can contact Google about this problem and they can have a little come-to-Jesus talk with HP themselves. I don't care how much money this crap makes HP, especially if they tout quality as being desired on all hubs.
I often have a look at a hubbers account if I come across a hub that is an obvious copy, or spun etc..
More often than not when I look at a selection of their hubs they are all the same...
I have flagged individual hubs (those that I looked at) then flagged the author as they have obviously get the same issues with all their hubs and explained in the little message box why...
Nothing seems to happen!!!!!!!!!!
Have you noticed the hubs you flagged may be taken down but the account isn't?
I am not aware of any accts being taken down as a result of my flagging. These are very valuable hubbers for HP...
If people have copied multiple hubs, spun multiple hubs or all of the hubs are in terrible english or in a foreign language - REMOVE the account!!!! If they want to tidy the site they need to take action, why wait for other hubbers to flag each and every hub when it is obvious that the whole account is being run by a less than honest individual!!!!!
These accounts have blatantly spun and copied articles for each and every hub but they don't remove them...or are they in the queue?
Perhaps an employee is the culprit! This would explain a lot of these hub being left alone. To HP staff-Feel free to prove us wrong or at least give us the courtesy of addressing this issue. If not, we can only assume we are correct in our suspicions!
Moderating an account is a much bigger deal than moderating individual Hubs. We typically don't consider moderating an account as a whole unless the Hubber is underage or repeatedly violates HubPages rules.
Consider it this way- if a Hubber joins HubPages and isn't so familiar with the rules, he or she could publish quite a few Hubs before our moderation team starts to see that there's something wrong. This Hubber might then have a bunch of substandard Hubs on his or her hands, and will only realize this is the case when one of those Hubs gets moderated and he/she is reminded of the rules.
Is it then fair for us to just kick them off the site? Of course not! So we remind them of some violations and hope they take heed of our rules and revise all of their Hubs. If we find that Hubbers have repeated violations, and if they are repeatedly resubmitting substandard work, then we will moderate their entire account.
But we've got to give them a chance, no? You're all pros. You know the rules. But certainly you can agree that not all of them are intuitive, and that there's a bit of a learning curve
So to address this issue: we aren't as harsh up front because we want to give honest online writers a fair chance. And it takes a while to work through flagged work and to give Hubbers warnings - as you know, we've taken on a bunch of (really cool!) new moderators, and they're still getting up to speed with the new rules, too.
I hope that answers things ^_^;; - let me know if it doesn't.
Yes, but this doesn't address the mentioned profiles with many substandard (thousands in some cases) hubs which remain published even after being flagged by numerous members.
How can these writers ( with a profile score of "1") escape your attention so easily? Especially when they have over 1,000,000 views? Ordinary members can find these type hubbers, as has been noted on these forums many times, so your "really cool" mods should have no problem quickly eliminating their junk.
Also, define "really cool". Perhaps it means something different now than it did in the 60's and 70's!
Simone, that's exactly what we're talking about in the examples given here. These are Hubbers who have large numbers of flagged Hubs, and the flaggings are for major violations, not small things.
The main concern Hubbers are expressing, and which we're getting no response to, is this:
We are seeing good, experienced Hubbers having Hubs unpublished for fairly minor violations, while there are huge amounts of spammy Hubs still on the site. We feel HP should be looking for ways to prioritise the removal of the worst offenders.
This is only one of several threads which have been suggesting other ideas. No one from HP has joined any of those discussions, except to say "we know best, go away and play quietly, children".
HubPages used to listen to Hubbers' suggestions and if they couldn't adopt them, they would explain why. We're all getting frustrated at being ignored, especially when we're trying to help.
I added an entry to the bottom here:
We actively review questions/issues that come up in this Forum. We can't possibly respond to every individual post that comes up, which is why we add new entries to that same thread when we see common questions come up.
For very specific questions regarding moderation or what's necessary for compliance, please contact us.
Jason, if you're going to add something to an existing thread, then please add it as a new post.
No one has any way of knowing that post has had new information added, so how many Hubbers do you think will read it?
It's the same with the FAQ - it's been updated to include an explanation of tags and a few other things, but how does anyone know that?
Really cool = awesome
And I don't imagine they've escaped our attention. I'm sure that Hubs that really are substandard and should not be on the site will be removed - we haven't said we're done moderating, right?
We have metrics built in that help to clue us in when we're looking at profiles that are likely to have many substandard Hubs, so we're definitely on the lookout for these writers. It just takes time to get to all of them. But the flagging really helps, so we appreciate it!
I really appreciate your response, even though it really doesn't tell us any more than what has been previously stated. It shouldn't take too long to clean this junk up as we will continue to point out obvious suspect accounts by both flagging and posting them on the forums if they are not removed after a short period of time.
We all want this junk off of this site to regain the loss of credibility which I blame directly on these type hubs. Unfortunately, there seems to be more being published everyday to replace those removed.
But thanks for at least posting something.
Your bow is really cool!
Oh drat! I'm honestly not trying to dance around anything. I really do want to answer any questions or address any issues.
Is the question: Why does the junk still exist even when it is flagged?
To that, the answer is:
1. We can only moderate so quickly, so even though it SEEMS like we should be keeping up.... man... you should see the actual volume and pace... it's hefty O_O
2. Some things that Hubbers flag remain published because the flagged content does not technically violate our TOS or standards. Believe me, there's a lot of stuff we WANT to take down (or at least that *I* want to take down) but we made clear rules and we make a point of stickin' to 'em and playin' fair.
Obviously we don't want to see crappy stuff out there. But hey... we don't want to be nazis, either. And we *have* upped our standards significantly... and caught a bunch of flack about it... it's kind of a darned if you do, darned if you don't thing. We're doing the best to make this site as good as it can be for everyone.
If that doesn't address the issue, dumb it down for my limited cognitive capacity and I'll take another crack at it.
Okay! Perhaps it may be your responses to me which aren't "dumbed down" enough rather than mine.
Take the article Wry Lit gave for an example:
http://hubpages.com/hub/www-homedepot-c … ine-Survey
and these comments on the hub:
Hobbs,DB 5 weeks ago
why are you not accepting the User ID and Passwords off of my Sales Slips
LPierce 4 weeks ago
Why did you stop caring telephone for your home in the store in the Maryland area?
Dr. P.J. Galasso, Ph.D. 2 weeks ago
Bayne served us and on each of three questions he came up with the correct answer and did it with sincerity. He is an outstanding representative of yours. It is service like this that keeps us coming back.
Are these people not deceived by the hub? Personally, if I were HP I would worry about being sued by Home Depot or any other company for allowing these hubs on here in the first place. Some are so convinced by these type "reviews" they leave personal info on them, such as passwords and account information.
I don't know what you guys are doing and I'll bet you are sure busy, but apparently you didn't start out by checking those with thousands of hubs bringing in millions of views with an extremely low profile score. Because this one has a "1"
Perhaps giving us a list with hubbers similar to that one will aid us in helping you eliminate these more quickly.
Oh, and if this one doesn't break the TOS then please explain why or dumb it down even further so we aren't so confused.
It's so good to be able to actually ask a real person questions, Simone. I hope you realize I am not trying to make things difficult for you, just trying to understand what is or is not allowed to be published on the site. Thanks again!
Misleading and deception go hand in hand! Obviously these commenters were mislead.
If I was mislead...I would just hit the Block button that Google has installed.
I just looked at the Home Depot page by Ibuzzup. I would see this page as "Overly Promotional." It promotes another site by the link.
You are seeing the same thing I am Michael. I looked through many of this members 2500+ hubs and they all seem to be crap of the worst kind. The only plus I can see for these types of hubs is in hopes searchers will quickly click a Google ad just to get away. But hey, that would make money for both the writer and HP even if it didn't offer any useful info.
Of course, the people paying Google for the frustrated ad clicks are getting nothing for their money and, as we have recently witnessed, the Panda bites us on the wallet in revenge.
Notice how many of the hubber's titles have www. in them? Another easy way to find crap easily.
Hey...if it works to get heavy traffic to our Hubs, then why not everyone just add the www_whatevertitlewewant_com to deceive viewers and get them here. Doesn't matter if it is only a scheme, right?
One or two like this, I can see as a hubber that needs the moderation by hub to show the problem with this. But with sooo many, it is obvious what is going on.
Nope, still dancing around it.
It's pretty simple really. Does HP (and not you personally) consider hubs that intentionally set out to deceive visitors that they're something that they're not (such as the login section of another website) to be acceptable?
Personally, I'm not bothered either way. But it's always nice to receive a clear, honest, and direct answer. Just so we all know where we're at.
Read the subtitle "What's the deal with misleading Hubs?" here:
If a Hub that was moderated as misleading is changed so that it's no longer misleading, then it's allowed to be republished.
OK, now we're getting warmer.
So what we're saying is, that titles such as 'www.********.com' are acceptable, if it can just about be passed off as a review of the site. But placing something like 'login' or 'sign-in' in the title, makes them deceptive?
Neither is acceptable; both are deceptive (at least to me; I suspect the moderators would agree).
But "www.****.com review" is fine if it is indeed a review of that site.
Good to know.
As far as I'm concerned, that's now as clear as can be.
Okay. So merely because SOME people are deceived, as indicated by them leaving phone numbers, passwords, login info etc. doesn't necessarily mean the hub is deceptive? I guess I'm just not "really cool" enough to tell the difference, so I give up! UNCLE!
Just kidding, of course! I love a mystery!
OH, nooooooo! You didn't tell me "where to buy" here in Arkansas! That is sooo deceptive!!!
Flag! Flag! Flag!
Ahaa! So the issue of what is defined as misleading was the issue? I've amended that part of the FAQ forum thread (http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/74274) to read thusly:
What’s the story with misleading Hubs?
If you see a Hub that has a misleading title (e.g. has "www.something.com" or "Facebook Login", etc), PLEASE flag it. Such Hubs do not meet site standards and we have a moderation category for it ("Deceptively Titled").
That said, we do not entirely outline all descriptions of sites and services. Existing ones, if flagged and moderated, may be republished so long as they remove deceptive wording, titles, and tags.
I had spoken with the moderaters before about this issue, since I wasn't clear on it, and according to our rules, so long as the Hub's title, text, and tags are not deliberately misleading, the Hub is OK. So what Jason said above is entirely accurate.
I know that most site / domain reviews, on the whole, are pretty lame, but if they're not outwardly misleading, they're OK. We have to draw a line as to what is deceptive SOMEWHERE, or else none of us would be able to publish, seeing as we're only "certified" experts of professionals in a very limited number of areas.
This is great, Simone! Now, please give us the criteria for how your moderators decide if a hub is deliberately misleading. This way, we can push the envelope and make as much money as we can. And coincidentally, you guys can too! A win-win situation for all of us.
Or would you rather have quality content on the site?
I noticed on the thread Jason added to that you guys couldn't ban anyone for not following the rules. Why not? Is this against the law or something?
The ibuzzup account has at least 75% of their hubs as the addresses and names of websites. Visitors believe this and leave feedback, confidential information and complaints about the site in question.
This is ridiculous! Were you on Helium when we were trying to get honest answers from the stewards, Marisa? This reminds me of that time.
Lets face it, HP is making money from this crap and they are reluctant to remove it, especially as Google has punished the honest folks right along with the compilers of these type hubs and cash is in short supply because of it.
I'm sorry, but if HP decides this type of misleading junk is okay, then anyone who wants their work respected might as well remove all of their articles from this site. I do not want to have my work associated with any site which allows such obviously misleading articles. I think I'll go somewhere and puke now!
Edited: Sorry Wry Lit, I thought I was quoting Marisa!
I hope HP reconsiders. "I know that most site / domain reviews, on the whole, are pretty lame, but if they're not outwardly misleading, they're OK."
This does not seem to support Google's comments for website managers to review their sites and eliminate poor quality content.
I think the problem stems, as the OP claims.
When people report hubs, the list of hubs moderators have to view goes up. As hubber report hub author account, it isn't separated from the hubs being reported.
Those who author such mess, the flagged profiles should be checked before hubs are moderated. If the author gets banned, then the hubs should be deleted.
There are simply too many authors on HP that are producing and/or produced junk, which doesn't fit any standard of quality, yet remain?
I guess that brings up another question- At what point does a hubber not flag the hubs, but flag author's profile? How many hubs have to be identified before flagging of a profile occurs?
I can only assume a reasonable number, such as 50% of their writing. If they have more than 50% of their hubs which are junk, then just flag the profile and write an explanation. If less, then flag the hubs themselves.
But, I don't know what HP's internal processes are about how they handle them through moderation. I would think that handling profiles flagged would be a quicker task than the moderator's hub queue of hubs that were flagged.
Just my thoughts.
I agree with Cagsil. I would add though that I think 50% is generous. I have come across spun hubs and checked a couple and then flagged the author. I doubt if their other output was much better, and I certainly have no desire to submit myself to reading pages and pages of spun stuff.
If their recent hubs are spun why not just delete the lot? Depends how long it's going to take to check over one million pages.
I flag a profile if I find that 90% of the 10 or so I look at are junk. I don't think I've ever seen an experienced hubber produce only 50%; it is either 100% or around zero. Of course everyone can make a mistake (too many Amazon links maybe), but if they do it 9 out of 10 times, flag the profile!
Newbies get different treatment from me. While I may flag a hub, I won't flag a profile for simple errors - they deserve a chance to learn the ropes. On the other hand, even 2 or 3 spun or copied hubs will get a hubber flagged, but not just 1.
Just my thoughts and reactions - certainly not HP policy I've ever seen.
Adding the word "review" is the way to go. IMHO, nothing has really changed. The text is still crap but if you squint your eyes REALLY REALLY hard it looks like a review.
It still doesn't address the issue of misleading. It's not just the title. The proof of misleading is in the comments.
To be fair, we are at the point where 'if you can't beat em, join em'. I certainly won't argue with the views, especially with the new HP ad program.
Awwwww, come on. Give them a break! They worked really hard all afternoon to come up with a semi-plausible, and semi-believable explanation as to why HP wouldn't be taking any action. Against 'these sort' of deceptive hubs.
We all know what the real reason is. Does it really need to be said out loud?
I'm sure that the decision wasn't Jason, or Simone's to make. And if there's money to be made from them, I might even give it a go myself.
It seems they didnt want to openly ban them,
so they would have the ability to take the better performing terms and let the staff , sock puppets of staff and family members of staff reuse the technique and data from all those that were purged.
Thats not some wacky theory either ... pretty open and shut, from the looks of it!
Hows that make you feel
by Benz B 6 years ago
I am having issues with the hubpages staff. Yesterday I updated a hub that was published in 2009. And notice that I was not allow to resubmit it before it was reviewed. Then I tried to update another one and the same thing. I have since attempted to update a few more and...
by ramesh 9 years ago
i am wondering today that some 3-4 of my hubs has been flagged as overly promotional just a few hours ago..i made some changes and submitted for review ..but i do want to know when the overly promotional flag really applies to a hub..i mean each of these flagged 3 hubs have exactly 2-3 links only...
by DK 5 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 hub has been clearly copied (for example from a PDF file that the plagiarism...
by Sherri 7 years ago
I really can't point any of you to the many discussions there were about whether RSS feeds that display our own Hubs in a specific Hub of ours are a violation of the HP rules or not.I read info that the "best", "latest", and "hot" categories were not appropriate to add...
by Liz Elias 4 years ago
If you report or flag a hub or question, is it anonymous, or does the person know who did the reporting or flagging?It would be a shame to have a retribution war started....
by Jose Velasquez 5 years ago
For the second time my poetry challenges have been flagged for content violations. I do not know why people are offended by something i tried to create to help fellow poets on HubPages, but HubPages has made it clear that my challenges are not appreciated. I will be posting my future...
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.
|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.|