Hubpages, what's with your censors lately? Seems hubs gathering plenty of traffic AND backlinks are getting hit by the censors with little regard to the actual DESTINATION of the links!
I do "roundup" reviews, where I review a whole bunch of Android apps in the same category. And since I review apps, I have to link to a download site for them. As a habit, I link to appbrain.com, which used to be the ONLY way to link to ANY Android app (Google only allowed linking directly to Android Market in early 2011).
(Incidentally, appbrain.com is also nice enough to provide a linkback when they see enough traffic from the source)
So what did I find yesterday? The censor thinks I am link-spamming to Appbrain.com and took my MOST PRODUCTIVE HUB (250 views a day) offline! AND it's breaking my cross-hub links! And this hub has been on hubpages for A YEAR without problems!
I have a SEVERAL MORE of these roundup review hubs in this format. One of them was even highlighted on TWIT.TV's "All About Android" podcast not too long ago which resulted in a spike in traffic. Are all of THOSE in danger of being censored as well, Hubpages?
I don't mind you pruning the tree, Hubpages, but when you take a DRASTIC action like this, it is horribly ANNOYING and discouraging!
The issue with that Hub was not links to appbrain.com, but rather links to a blogspot site that was linked to both in an RSS capsule and in the body of the Hub. If you click on the overly promotional warning, it generally shows you the specific sites you are linking to that are causing the problem.
If you email support with a polite explanation they will add a site to the "safe" list where multiple links aren't flagged as self-promotion.
It's quite clearly stated in the site rules that promoting the same site across a series of Hubs will be viewed as spamming. You'd think that in the 16 months you've been here that you would have found the time to read the site guidelines.
Except that certain resource websites are exempt and you can link to them pretty much as often as you like (e.g. wikipedia).
As this one should be, as far as I can see--it is a neutral, non-affiliate depository of reliable information.
I asked them to exempt sciencedirect and they were happy to do so. Given the subject I Hub about not referring to sciencedirect on a frequent basis would have been a problem.
Sites that get exempted are non-commercial. A site that has advertising on it is defined by HubPages as being commercial. Again, something made clear if you just take the time to read the FAQ here.
Having read the FAQ, I know that exempt sites *can* in fact be commercial (and many of them do carry advertising). They just have to be "well-known Web resources which you don't have any personal interest in". The Hubber has no interest in the site, it is a well known web resource (PR6). So I think Appbrain qualifies.
If you think they don't perhaps you can point out how the site contravenes the requirements, specifically? Rather than just suggesting we... what, lazy? Or making incorrect assumptions about what the FAQs say...? http://hubpages.com/faq/#overly_promotional
Don't be ridiculous. If you can't link to Download.com, TuCows.com, and well known software repositories, then who CAN you link to?
I do the same thing, except I link to Appbrain, the Android counterpart.
By your definition, if I include a ton of links to Microsoft.com, I'd be flagged as overly promotional (of Microsoft).
It's not the link to appbrain.com. That's fine.
You have links & RSS feeds going to another site (a blogspot link; I'm guessing your own). The rule for those is either up to 2 links, or an RSS feed, but not both, so if you remove the link or the RSS feed and resubmit, you should be fine.
I respectfully disagree.
1) There is NO site warning within the detailed explanation. I know about the 3-links-to-same-place rule. That is NOT violated here.
2) My blog is an overall Android app review website, where I review every sort of Android apps. The link at the beginning is to a specific tag, namely "live wallpapers" subject of the hub, that I had reviewed but had not been added to the hub.
The RSS feed is of the overall blog.
That is only TWO links.
Wait, TWO is considered a violation now?!
**** me. :-P
Two links is OK, as is an RSS feed, but even one link PLUS an RSS feed is not.
by Dorsi Diaz5 years ago
I am working on one of my new websites - and I want to link back to my hubs here. How many times is this OK to do on a website page before it is overkill?
by Dorian Bodnariuc9 months ago
"Paranoia" must think some of you, and honestly, I used to think the same. I didn't even believe that this was possible, even though Google mentioned that they have ways to detect link spamming. But the...
by Eugene Brennan4 weeks ago
I've had links to my own related hubs snipped on several occasions (mostly blatant lists at the end of a hub), but some links have been left in place after several snips. So is it acceptable to include a link to a hub...
by Cindy Lawson6 years ago
I am not looking to name names here as this happens quite a lot on Hubpages, but can someone please clarify whether or not it is against the rules for a Hubber to come to your hub, leave a comment and then include a...
by Deborah Neyens4 years ago
In reviewing my traffic sources recently, I noticed that I was getting traffic from a site called traffup.com, which I had never heard of before. I went to the site and signed up for it to see what it was all...
by kschang6 years ago
Dear Hubpages...Seems ANOTHER of my "roundup" app comparisons got flagged "overly promotional", AND "pixelated/watermarked pix/video" to boot. I don't get this "overly promo"...
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.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.