|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.|
HubPages made the news a few days ago by being the host site for an author announcing that cancer was cured...
http://www.kxlh.com/news/beware-scienti … s-notice-/
I should have clarified - It was NOT HP that announced it, but rather, an author on HP.
It may not have been HP directly, but indirectly they granted the author the ability to publish the article.
Yep, things are indeed in a mess here! I checked out a few of the other hubs written by the cancer article's HP author. No wonder HP got the heck slapped out of them (actually us too) by Google.
for fun, visit his "hot" hubs and highlight various sentences. Copy and paste them in quotes in google to find the composite copying...
https://encrypted.google.com/#hl=en& … mp;bih=657
https://encrypted.google.com/webhp?hl=e … mp;bih=657
https://encrypted.google.com/webhp?hl=e … mp;bih=657
and it goes on....
Let's face it, we are the only conscience HP has!
Or did you want to focus on the fact that there seems to be exemptions given to the 50/1 ad rule? 82 words and 8 ads for this hub?
http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_Foun … ers_Say_NO
How can other hubbers be allowed to have an exemption?
I could just be sick at the disparity ....
There is little hope things will change for the better as long as these type hubs are allowed here. Hp knows about the crap still here, but as long as the crap makes them money and is not pointed out on the forums, it will be allowed to remain.
There is nothing strange about the 50-1 rule being waived in these type cases, money talks and bulls--t walks. Does this engender trust in HP's staff and mods? Of course not, but we are expendable and the money is the most important facet of their jobs. It's the American way!
I thought there was to be no exceptions. Maybe this user is a staff member?
I suspect that the HP staff are drowning in the amount of hubs that need moderating. There must more they can do to automate certain things.
This was automated. We all got warning emails to fix them.
I thought the same! I wonder why this guys hubs were not removed or having been altered to meet the changes many hubbers were forced to tackle?
Something is screwy with these hubs remaining on the site. I do not believe it is merely happenstance at all! It is stuff like this which causes us to wonder just how honest HP is! Perhaps someone from staff can give a reasonable excuse for why these hubs were not automatically deleted! But I doubt it!
I checked one, and it was a duplicate of another article published at the end of June 2007.
The hubs was published 3 years ago according to the comments, but it is not quite 4 years since that other article was published so maybe it would say 3 years until the end of this month?
I took a bit of a wander around today Randy, and found that the ipod5 hub and it's profile pulled. You may remember it was crud and got over a million hits in 3 months from scratch without other hubs or more than a minimum profile.
# 3 new ones have been started with no profile details, and the one hub.
# Alexa still scores Iphone5 as hubpages top query.
Hope you're keeping well.
Hey Earnest! Yes I am doing well, sort of. I had a full oxygen tank fall onto my big toe last Thursday but I don't think it is broken. It is a rather strange purplish color at the moment but I don't think it will fall off.
I think the junk is being published faster than we can find it here. It's just a matter of time before we get slapped around again if these articles are still allowed to remain on HP. But what can we do about it except move on to other venues.
How's the weather down under? We are going through a drought here with temps in the high 90's and no rain in sight. Glad I'm not farming much this year!
On top of that, the below excerpt is pulled from the article you linked to...
The link being circulated via Facebook and other social media sites is to a poorly-written HubPages article which states, "Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug.
Ahem...we are high quality writers who don't post deceptively titled hubs. right? RIGHT?
Goodness knows that I haven't posted one that has been tweeted almost 14,000 times!
I must be doing things wrong...
...... and in other news, HP has also crushed hunger, cured thirst and is working on bringing world peace
This, however, is the problem with the rules for successful Internet writing as seem to be voiced just about everywhere.
1. Assume that most people using the net are morons with a reading age of ten or less.
2. Dumb everything down so they don't feel too challenged.
3. Don't make them read more than 400-500 words, because they will get tired or bored. If this means you cannot go deeply into the subject, too bad.
4. Avoid any hint of a woolly statement. People want positives. A sentence along the lines "On the basis of these studies, XXX may in future potentially offer some options for the treatment of YYY" is anathema. Readers will only take note if you say "XXX is a new cure for YYY !!!"
5. Do not give extensive lists of references, especially with links to each of your sources. Too great a density of links is penalised by the search engines. Anyway, they will leave less room for adverts...
The hub in question is a perfect example, as shown by its massive readership. A hub presenting a critical, scientific review of the same topic would probably be lucky to get 20-odd views a week.
Hubs about 'miracle cures' are possibly part of the problem here -
'For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?'
That is a quote from Google, the Panda people.
Although from a personal view point I find false claims about cancer cures to be offensive, the fact that it may hinder this site or any other is minor when compared to my concerns for a vulnerable reader of any false 'miracle cure claims.
This is the author:
The Hub was also referenced on ATS and Reddit where it was pretty quickly shouted down as being from a "Spam Blog" ie Hub Pages.
The problem HP has with this particular case, is that the linked article that blasted the cancer cure hub is treating HP like a newspaper in a way.
The issue being raised here is one that calls into question the viability of the HP (and squidoo and the rest) business model.
If online publishing platforms like HP are going to be called to task for editorial problems (like a newspaper would be), then they cannot possibly accommodate all the writers they have now. No way. So, they have to cut down to what they can afford to pay editorial staff for. Which makes them an online news agency.
Maybe that's what they need to do. There are too many idiots and morons out there who believe anything they see written down. And people who write articles like that cancer is cured hubber did, have no conscience. HP is an unwitting facilitator bringing the foxes and chickens together in one place. (And clearly nobody is going to hold readers accountable for reason, intuition, or critical thinking.)
Strange how such Hubs are under the HP radar while other less innocuous ones are noticed. Perhaps "strange" isn't the correct word to use, but the description I really wanted to use might be a mite too strong. It would be more accurate, though!
Yeah, don't get me started. lol. Ever since I had to pull the ads from my Butt Naked or Buck Naked hub, I've been pissy on that topic. When well researched, academically sourced articles get stuffed while underwear and bikini hubs don't, well, there you go. Something's not working as expected. lol
This whole thing has gotten so ridiculous I am ready to give up on this site. I honestly do not trust this place anymore. The lack of communication from those we once depended on for answers tells it all!
Isn't there anyone on the staff with the courage, or consideration to at least try and give a few excuses for the way things are going here? What kind of people are we dealing with here? Myself, I would be humiliated to merely ignore concerns from those who put their trust in me. Apparently, we aren't worthy of consideration! Do unto others-then split!
Well, they probably feel beseiged, and not just by Google and competition. I imagine anything they write will be ripped apart in the same way relgion and political comments get thrashed. LOL.
I tend to believe in the higher parts of mankind, and quite despite all evidence to the contrary as I've lived my life, so I'm sure they are doing everything they can to fix it and it a real and meanginful way. They have a lot of constituencies to please, and it's not like they don't have anything ventured here. I expect the mood is grim at the office, people are stressed, and, well, why would they want to pop their head up to speak to the crowd if they're going to get shot at? Better to just fix the problem with your head down.
I could be wrong, but that's what I bet is happening.
You could be right, Shades! But I don't think so! From the responses they have deigned to provide, I suspect they don't really know what to do about the problems they are responsible for having caused by allowing such junk to be published here.
How could some of these obviously detrimental hubs not be noticed by staff when they get so many page views while other, not so serious, hubs be picked out for modification? Did the example used in this thread get a notification? I seriously doubt it or it would not be on display to humiliate those who endeavor to publish useful and concise articles here.
I feel a HubPages sux article will be published in the near future unless we get some type of input from one of the staff members in the know. If there is such a person!
The good news is that there are more cancer cures coming...
According to authors here, tomatoes, garlic, graviola, asparagus, and (of course) cannabis all cure cancer as well!
I am curious why this hub is still up on HP when I did report it for the 50/1 ratio of text and affiliate ads?????
http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_Foun … ers_Say_NO
I will flag it too, Michael! I suggest everyone does the same so HP cannot continue to ignore it.
Check out the first person to comment on the hub, Michael! Jason is the first commenter praising the article. Now do you understand why it is still up? What a joke!
There are 2 articles though, to be fair. One is a long article and the one I linked is the violation for the 50/1. But, yes...Jason should see this and let staff know if they cannot see the "reports" for some reason.
What I want to know is...
WHY was this not taken down back when the rule was implemented???
WHY no e-mail warning to the Author at the start of the rule? And then unpublished by staff?
WHY is this author exempt from the rule we all are having to follow?
It's a three year old hub. I imagine it's off the radar and has been for a long time.
I think that pointing out symptoms of the disease don't do much good at this point. The more people yell and scream and cry hypocrite and other names at HP, the more defensive and reclusive they will become. They're people. Just like the rest of us. Which means A) they screw stuff up. And B) they have feelings.
At some point, someone has to be nice, back off, relent, create space for dialogue, whatever you want to call it. I know it's not as much fun as howling and waving your torch at the castle gates, but we must all work towards the solution. Venting is fun, but gains nothing.
Sorry Shades, I must disagree with you on this particular aspect of HP. No, those of us who tried to stay within the rules have every right to speak out against the obvious junk the staffers have allowed to remain here.
It doesn't take a genius to find these hubs, or to be a staffer, apparently. Being reclusive is one thing, but refusing to respond to the concerns of members who have been loyal, is something else.
They are simply taking the 5th, nothing else makes any sense at all! If they are honest they will face the members to show their willingness to answer concerns. If not, then we get the message. They cannot and should not be trusted to make the correct decisions for us!
I hear you. I just think they probably get the message already. I suspect the problem is bigger than anyone thinks and harder to solve than we'd all like to believe.
A big, complicated mess with lots of frustrated I.T. people, lots of beleagured PR faces, outraged customers, emotions everywhere. Each INDIVIDUAL human FEELING unheeded, unappreciated, judged, condescended too. Etc.
I'm not saying you are wrong in what you've said. I'm just saying, someone has to relent. When there is right on both sides, emotions flare, frustration rages, and conflict never resolves. Somebody has to relent. Even though they are "right."
Cancer, schmancer. Did you know that drinking plain old tap water will cure headache, body ache, heart system, arthritis, fast heart beat, epilepsy, excess fatness, bronchitis asthma, TB, meningitis, kidney and urine diseases, vomiting, gastritis, diarrhea, piles, diabetes, constipation, all eye diseases, womb, cancer and menstrual disorders, ear, nose and throat diseases.
http://hubpages.com/hub/livingwatersave … urescancer
Too much distortion and misinformation with regards to "cures" is already at hand. Even if a cure was found, I am sure it would not become public knowledge, because of the rich and powerful would not want it to be. It would be hidden for as long as possible.
I would be interested in HP's views on these.
1. Are they deceptively titled?
2. Are they considered compositely copied?
3. Why is there a variance in the enforcement of the 50/1 rule?
4. What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
1. The trouble is that if you try to flag a hub as deceptive, you are asked which category is the correct one. The concept of the content being deceptive does not exist, only the category.
4. African or European?
I recently flagged a hub which I thought was giving out risky medical advice. It bothered me that a prolific, active hubber would feel free to tell people to go against their doctor's advice if they wanted to try this technique. The response I received from HP said HP is an open publishing platform and generally allows [medical] content unless there is a warning issued by FDA or another US government agency. It ended by saying they are discussing issuing warnings on hubs that give medical/legal advice, but haven't had time to implement the changes.
I think it's a serious topic and hope something is done sooner than later. People read these articles and assume the author has some kind of credentials. The article I flagged had no outgoing links, no references to substantiate the advice being given. There was no disclaimer from the author.
But on the other hand, these kind of articles are everywhere on the web, and that won't change. The web is a crazy world.
Apparently, crazy doesn't count as long as it makes money here! Is there no shame? What will it take, someone to die before someone says "okay, we may have made a slight error in allowing this hub, but we will now take action to prevent this from ever happening again"?
I hope I'm called as a witness for the prosecution in that case!
One never knows who will find these hubs.. this hub is about pregnancy, so it could also affect the unborn baby. Apparently, it is a high search topic..
There is actually no way of knowing how much damage and suffering has already been caused by these types of hubs! I certainly would not want to be the mods allowing them to remain on HP! It takes a certain type of person to ignore the danger these hubs may cause to the readers.
by Shauna L Bowling2 years ago
I recently had a hub un-featured for engagement, as the half-circle indicates. I think this is an unfair practice and should be eliminated entirely. Here's why I feel this way:Our hub traffic is often affected by the...
by Robin Edmondson4 years ago
We want to continue to reward all of our Hubbers that are doing a fantastic job writing content that readers love. Today we are announcing a new designation for high-quality Hubs on HubPages: Editor's...
by Paul Edmondson2 years ago
Hi Hubbers,We are making some significant site structure changes. http://blog.hubpages.com/2015/10/24/lik … new-again/Please report any issues you find.http://hubpages.com/autosHappy Hubbing,Paul
by VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA7 years ago
Three days ago, I posted a comment in the hub "TN Legislative Assembly Elections, 2011" posted by 'bigfather'. I posted several comments in that hub for nearly one week. I found to my horror that one...
by Nelle Hoxie7 years ago
I honestly can't believe it. But I've checked my spreadsheet half a dozen times. Yes, I just hit the $1,000 threshold for November. (There could be an Amazon return or two tommorrow which will ruin the fun, but for now...
by Randy Godwin5 years ago
So I've deleted all of the idled hubs so far and am wondering when I will have none left. I'm not going to edit anymore until I see some sort of improvement in traffic. Too much trouble for no results at...
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.