I don't understand the reasoning behind penalizing authors for multiple links to the same domain. My Cedar Point hub has been flagged for violations because it repeatedly links to the cedar point website. I have no personal investment in this site at all, but I have a violation warning. The same goes for my venomous snakes of north america hub. I had to remove one of three outgoing links to the same domain, a site that I have no personal investment in.
I guess that I just don't understand this. I've been writing for Hubpages for three years now. I've had one hub (fairly) flagged in the past, and dealt with it by simply deleting it since it was one of my earliest hubs. But this is ridiculous! Three links to the same domain? Shouldn't there be some hubbers who are protected from this kind of thing? My hubberscore is always over 90, usually over 95 and on the days that I log in usually goes over 97. I hop frequently. I produce quality content for Hubpages. But I can't have more than two links to a single site?
It would make sense if the site in question was one I owned!
What can done about this? It appears that there isn't any way to personally appeal for a review, and I don't want my hubs unpublished.
I posted about the same thing this afternoon already on the forums. I have not heard back from Hub Pages staff yet...there were a couple of suggestions by other hubbers, you might check it out, it didn't help me much. But I maybe missing the point.
Who said I was above the rules?
After three years of successful hubbing, with only one previous violation (which was also due to a rule change), one would think that there are authors here on Hubpages who would be *trusted*. Once upon a time (back in the days when a "follower" was a "fan"), individuals with a hubberscore over 75 had exceptions to some of the link restrictions. That rule appears to have been changed, and I can't see any *valid* reason for that to be the case.
I am not linking to promotional sites. The site to which I'm linking don't sell anything. They aren't trying to get anyone to *buy* anything. The purpose for them being on the hub at all is in order to provide further information to the reader, who may wish, for example, to know how to identify venomous snakes *and* know what to do if they are bitten by a venomous snake, etc.
Have you *read* these rules? You can't even link more than twice to source images that are being used on your hub. What this ultimately means is that our hands are tied in terms of sourcing our information. We can *not* source and thereby violate copyright. Or we can source and break Hubpages rules. Tell me how that makes sense?
Ultimately, there is a reason why people are moving away from Hubpages and Squidoo to work with and on other platforms. I can't honestly blame those who have taken all of their business to Wizzley or Zujava. I've been faithful, but I'm getting fed up with these two. If I wasn't finally making money on both, I'd take my toys and move on to another playground.
What's interesting is that neither panda nor penguin hit my pages. If Google doesn't think I'm being "overly promotional" then why should Hubpages take such a drastically different standpoint on my hubs? On anyone's hubs?
I can think of only one reason why anyone would prefer not to see a system whereby an author is "trusted" above a certain hubberscore: He or she is unable to reach that hubberscore due to their activities or lack thereof on the site.
If HP has to set the bar higher, fine. Authors over 90 hubberscore certainly ought to be trusted. Or maybe I'm wrong, and hubberscore has also changed in how it's calculated.
As with anything, frustrating the authors is only going to cause them to take their business elsewhere, which is *not* good for Hubpages in the long run. Those who leave will have others to fill their shoes and to replace them, but why frustrate the members who earn you money? The rules don't even make sense!
"shouldn't there be some hubbers who are protected from this kind of thing?"
I won't even mention the word pretentious.
Not exclusively, no.
But why should there *not* be a group of people who have proven over years at Hubpages that they do *not* produce spam and junk on Hubpages?
I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so argumentative with me. I won't go into the guesses I have as to the reasons.
To see and understand the reason that high aren't "trusted" just hub hob for a while. Maybe through older hubs.
The garbage produced by high scoring hubbers is phenomenal and a good part of the reason HP was slapped so hard by Panda. HP has made great strides in cleaning up the site but has a long, long way to go yet.
Far better to set up automatic filters to take a look at everything published that to let any at all simply have free rein to publish whatever they want to.
The hub was moderated by the system not a person. HP has updated their system to detect the extra linking. The rules clearly states that you cannot have more than two links to the same domain in the same hub.
The rules have been there for a while, so the way I see it is this. If you break the rules by having more than two links then your hub is going to be moderated.
The Good thing is that HP does not unpublish hubs for that violation, they give you a chance to fix it so I see no problem there.
Yeah but if that is the problem, my hub was up for two months, and I check for violations with the grey button every day, it never picked up anything. And there were not two links to the same source. There is something more too it. Several people are having the problem. But if we are nit picking, I like your writing Cardisa, very stylish and poised about how you use your grammatical posture, yet if you run a comb through your hubs, you have a few borderline violations too. It is a Good thing that HP does not unpublish, it would be better if their matrix for violations was not randomizing, or whatever the problem actually is. Keep on Hubbing.
Hey Blake, the point I was trying to make is that we should just do what it takes to move on. I find the bickering in the forums quite exhausting. It wasn't meant as a criticism. I guess when she mentioned flagged I immediately got my defenses up because people tend to think that only elites flag stuff.
I had to remove two links yesterday as well so I am not excluded from this. I just took it with a grain of salt.
A couple weeks ago my hub was moderated for an unrelated link even though the other hub is from the same category but slightly different topics. I removed it without complaint.
I came to realize that if I want to make it on HP I have to just suck things up and move on instead of fighting the system.
I didn't mean to infer that a human had flagged the hubs. I'm sorry that was the inference. That was *not* my intention.
Indeed, it's been discussed on Squidoo lately that it might be *better* if the flagging was being done by human hands, since those humans who are doing the flagging are able to actually analyze the data in a subjective manner, whereas the filters catch everything and anything and often catch things unfairly.
In this case, I removed the "extra" links in the cases where the moderation was fair in accordance with the stated rules. But in the majority of cases, the links were in no way promotional. I'm not earning any kind of a commission by linking to informational pages on the Cedar Point website. I don't work for Cedar Point and I don't own their website. I get *nothing* out of these links except for the opportunity to inform the reader.
The same thing goes on the snakes hub. A *human* would have seen that, and if a human had flagged them (particularly the latter), it would have surprised me.
I flag hubs all the time, by the way, and I'm not an elite. I'm also not discriminatory. If I think that the lens violates TOS, I flag it so that a human being can check it out.
It's the *filters* that bother me.
Maybe this is what is bothering janesix so much. I don't think that anyone should get a pass from human moderation. What I'm saying is that a protected group should be able to pass the filters and then be moderated should the hub be *flagged*. That makes sense to me. It's how it used to work on Squidoo until the most recent Google craze.
BTW, Panda *helped* my hub traffic. Again, this is probably a sign that any "violations" on my part aren't the type Hubpages is trying to prevent.
If the rules have changed, then they should change the rules?
Direct from FAQ:
My Hub was moderated for being overly promotional; what does that mean?
Purely promotional offers and Hubs designed only to promote other sites or businesses are not allowed. In particular, the following actions are likely to get your Hubs identified as overly promotional:
including more than 2 links to any one domain((((((SEE BELOW)))))
linking to the same domain in the body of the text AND in an RSS feed
short "teasers" with links to "read more" at another site
linking to sites/pages/Hubs that are unrelated to your Hub's topic
including links to a page that contains largely the same content as your Hub
Please note that promotional links are links that you have any interest in promoting (your blog, your Website, affiliate offers, etc.). Links to well-known Web resources which you don't have any personal interest in (like Wikipedia, news sites, encyclopedias, open directories, etc.) >>>>>are exempt from this limitation.<<<<<<<<<
Simply reduce the number of links to any domain to a maximum of two. As others have said here, it's a method to limit the attractiveness to spammers, who want to litter their Hubs with as many links to the sites they want to promote as possible.
But there were meant to be exemptions for non-commericial links which I feel should include all government, museum, scholarly publication, university sites and archives such as for pictures--at the very least.
There is a balance between discouraging spammers and discouraging all users. Some topics will legitimately really require multiple links to different sections of a website.
Right PS, like what if you are doing an expose on a single corporation like Google. There is the coporate web page, the gmail web pages, google trends and a million other important links, since they are all on Google.com/ I guess we just put a link to Gmail and Google Goggles and leave the rest to the alchemists to figure out.
Yes, absolutely. I remember you had some noncommercial, innocuous links that were getting flagged. In that case, you'll want to contact our support team to make sure that that site is added to our "safe list" of noncommercial, trusted authorities.
I thought they were, they seem to be off it again. Should I send a list of the links that are suddenly being flagged--or just wait to see if this is a glitch and goes away? Because I, like many others, am getting multiple new flags on multiple old hubs.
THIS is what I was asking. Precisely THIS. I'm frustrated that I've been so misunderstood here.
Let me try to explain this AGAIN.
I have a hub called "venomous snakes of North America." It generally fares quite well and at one point made me the majority of my money on Hubpages. That hub linked out to the same domain three times on the page (until last night, when I got the warning and tearfully removed one of them). All three different sections of the website were very related to the content of the hub and were useful to the reader. None of them were in any way promotional.
In other words, I don't own the site to which I was linking.
I do not receive any kind of payment for linking to that page.
It does not benefit *me* in any way to link to the site in question.
The only person it benefits is the *reader*.
If the filter is picking up these kinds of sites, since there is absolutely *no* way for it to tell the difference between a site about snake species and a site selling snake oil. This is the problem with filters, and is one of the reasons that people are taking their business to places where the filters work better than the way that they have been here (or on Squidoo, where we're encountering a lot of the same problems).
I've been called pretentious, but what I am is *frustrated*. I've been here for three years. Only one of the flagged hubs contained an actual violation according to the TOS. I corrected that, but it's still showing as moderated.
If there's not going to be a protected class of hubbers, I'd like to see a few *other* things:
- A protected class of sites. Wikipedia, flickr, and other sources of both information and photos so that we can accurately source our images, for example.
- An easy method of appeal that is obvious to the hubber. I *still* don't know how to contact anyone about the supposed violations, other than to come to the forums!
- If there has to be a filter, a filter that catches the hubs on initial publish instead of at a later date. This is too confusing!
How do I contact someone about this problem? I know the link I want to put back on the page, or I can get it. Considering the content of the hub, it's actually quite important.
I also want Hubpages staff to consider that this *is* encouraging the breaking of copyright law in that hubbers cannot source their images or their information properly without being flagged by the filter.
There is a bug right now that is erroneously marking Hubs as having violations when they don't. There is an announcement on your Stats page to this effect.
Since none of your Hubs has actually been moderated, and we do have this bug in effect, I would suggest waiting until the bug is fixed, and when it is and you're still seeing that those >2 links are being flagged, then contact our support team. They can verify that the site you're linking to is not to your benefit, and whitelist it.
I wasn't seeing anything about the bug last night and I didn't check the stats page today. That's good information to have.
I *did* check the forums and didn't come up with any information, which is why I made a thread to ask about what was going on.
If you don't mind me asking, does the hopper not result in human flagging of the majority of violating hubs? I know I hop regularly and flag like crazy when I do. It's to *our* advantage too that Hubpages be the best that it can be.
Why would you link out to 3 sites that you have no vested interest in? Giving someone else free traffic with 3 links is no way too make money,
The rules are against not linking to promotional sites. Evidently, that now includes encyclopedias and Wikimedia commons.
The increased restrictions force me to not link to sources. I had to remove links to the source of some of my photographs (Wikimedia Commons). I also had to remove a link to an encyclopedia article which I had linked to so that readers could verify that what I was saying was true. This doesn't do anything to reduce self-promotion, but it does give the reader a poorer experience, because they can't go check out my claims for themselves as easily.
If that's what they want, I'm happy to comply, but I do think that it results in a poorer quality of product because of the corners that I have to take.
Wouldn't it be safe and legal to assume that you should be able, to list the website ie. mickeymedia.com without the html://www. and not hyperlink it. And state where it came from some people could go there on there own.
Don't get me wrong I am a copy leftist, and am against all things involving plagarism etc etc. I have my opinions, but we are supposed to link to sources. If not, we will be violating much bigger deals, chillereffects , US supreme court rulings, library of congress, copyscape etc.
I will wait till there is something more from HP to be sure. I dont think you sounded above anything Brooke. I get where yer coming from. Lets hope it all is a wash somehow. And janesix I am sure is just expressing interest oddly. Freedom of speaking. Keep on Hubbing. Blake4d
Yes, I had a violation too which had only 2 links to a state sponsored site. I had to remove one of them even though the site I linked to had no monetary interest at all. Obviously the HP system is a clusterfu*k. I've never encountered this before on any of my hubs and I seldom link to other sites because of it. This whole place is going downhill fast.
Yes, last night I got violations for my get a student loan in Canada hub, which has links to all the government departments you need to contact for a student loan. This is just needed research and there can be no hub without this information. So, I will have to move this one if it cannot be resolved here.
Wouldn't it be nice if HP had someone to address these concerns. They do not have anyone capable doing so, apparently. The lack of caring by TPTB here is the worst I've seen since joining 3 years ago. They have no one with any sense of loyalty to the members at all. Just look at the amount of problems folks are reporting lately. Not a word from anyone from staff. Not very encouraging for the future of this place.
Not to be a homer but I assume HP has created and updated the rules to keep the standards high, which is best for all of us.
You've been here 3 weeks, I've been here 3 years. Don't assume anything here. I used to feel the same way before we were hit hard because HP allowed garbage to be published because they were making money on it and it hurt those of us who honestly tried to publish quality content. Don't believe me? Ask around. I do not state things without having personal knowledge and experience with them. I suggest you do the same.
Might be related to Penguin. Webspam pages often have multiple links to the same site. Hubpages might be thinking that anything that makes Penguin think 'webspam' will harm your account and the site.
You've been limited to 2 links to a specific external site for as long as I've been here. It's supposed to cut down on spamming, I think. It's a clumsy rule, admittedly, but a rule nonetheless!
The rules do seem to be getting applied more stringently now. I have 20 hubs flagged for the first time for multiple links to sites like the official website of the New Zealand government, or a museum. I will try and get them changed but I am in no great hurry about it.
I suspect this is a glitch on HP unless there has been a change in the rules on internal linking too. I got about 8 of those red skulls when I checked my account just now, and as far as I can tell the only places I have linked to more than twice are internal, e.g. other hubs I have written that are related to the hub I am including them on. Other than that I can only imagine it is links to places like flickr when correctly attributing photos I have used from there because on some hubs I have four or five pictures from flickr on one hub with links back to the source as per the requirement for correct attribution.
Does anybody know if these rules apply to YouTube embedded videos? It does not seem to clearly stipulate that or not, it would be the only other explanation for the one hub I am currently waiting to be republished, but ole red skull is still up. I have deleted all links, and I never did get any warning or instructions internally?
Do YouTube embedded links count as external links or not? Anybody...?
Yes, that's my problem: the Flickr pictures. I have two hubs with the "more than 2 links to a single domain" skull. Not sure what to do, really. We have limited sources for pictures when you really cannot get your own. I wonder if we can't just cite the image URL without a proper "link". I emailed the HP team and am waiting to see what to do.
I've never had a violation and yesterday I got three.
Welcome to the club, I have had various issues with my writing, but it usually works out. Take it as a badge of honor, now you are beginning to be a real writer. I have been writing for 20 years in some capacity, only 2 on hubpages and ten years doing web work, etailing and design. You are really nobody until you are banned and kicked in the teeth. But it teaches ya the patience it takes to keep at it successfully for the next twenty years. Keep on Hubbing, Blake4d
I would site it and forget the live link, unless the image requires a live link, then you may have to find another pic.
I had to fix two hubs today with more than 2 links to the same domain. I really didn't even realize it, but in one hub I have 2 links that simply go to pictures of the named people. I removed one of them.
The hub of mine I just checked only had links to my own similar topic hubs and to morguefile attributing photos correctly. This has to be a glitch as there were no external links apart from the photo attributions.
Thanx MH. That hopefully is correct, that is what I thought when rereading the TOS and Agreements, rulepages for the tenth time this year alone. Lol. I did see that the link rule applies to 2 photos from the same website, maybe that is something for your situation? Photos, no matter how attributed I guess are considered links. Anybody wanna verify what I am saying?
Mine were associated with image source attributions.
The catch 22 - HP wants us to Attribute images.
When those attributions come from the same base URL the page violates HP rules.
Solution; don't use URL to attribute images, use text instead, or delete the attributions, both of which which violates HP rules - I guess.
Can't win, Who knows????
Some of my violations have been generated by the RSS capsule - no solution there - just delete them I guess.
What happened to duty of care? Surely this should have been tested properly and announced - with suggested fixes if the rules have changed or the phantom has been given new instructions. Where did I store my phantom ring?
Maybe you could get the Opera browser and store it there...
On many images a link back to original source is compulsory, but no worries, this is a glitch as I predicted. I have already had an email response to my emailed query essentially confirming this.
Quote, "The automatic warnings on Hubs with more than 2 links to a single domain is a new feature, but if you click on the amber-colored warning itself, you will read that as long the links are not promotional, you do not need to do anything, nor will the Hub be penalized."
I think that what makes it worse is that the rules clearly state that the two link rule also applies to image source attribution.
I can see how linking to a single source one time to source multiple images may be do-able. I'm not sure that it's *legal* but Hubpages doesn't seem to be interested in what is or is not legal, only what affects their ranking in Google. However, what about cases like using CC images from Flickr or from Wikimedia? Where does that leave us?
Alright, so there's a glitch. Where's the white list? I want to see it, if possible.
No it doesn't. Image attribution is fine, and I know this from HP having formerly made this mistake in flagging, and then when I emailed them they apologised and removed the flag, admitting it was an error!
The messages on one of my moderated hubs stressed that links in the image source attribution *do* in fact count.
"Links in the image source field of images count toward this limit."
Now maybe that only counts if you're plugging in random spammy urls into this area. And maybe spammers do that. I guess I wouldn't know why, since I'm not a spammer and I tend to leave spammy pages pretty much immediately (after flagging).
As you suggest, I can only assume this means if the links lead to a spammy site. Usually sites that offer free images are legitimate sites like flickr, Morguefile etc and these sites are not an issue. I would have assumed we were now all using these kinds of sites for our photos and not randomly going to sites to use pictures which of course could cause a problem if it was a commercial site promoting a product, service etc and the link was used in attributions more than twice. I now have a good number of articles with well over two images on them from Morguefile and/or Flickr and the only time I ever had an issue with a 'red skull' HP quickly removed the flag when I queried it and apologised saying it had been an error.
That accounts for creative commons, but not for fair use. What if I use a picture of the cover of the book which I'm reviewing? Fair use, provided that I provide an Amazon capsule with the product link so that the reader can purchase the item I'm selling. If I want to review the fan that is currently cooling me off, the rules are the same. I can use the commercial photo for commercial purposes, though I *can't* use the same photo as, for example, a pun on the term "fan" if referring to a fan of the book I'm reviewing (for example).
I'm not really sure how attribution works in these cases and I've simply not been attributing since it's implied that the attribution is included in the amazon or ebay capsule where the item is being sold. But if one were to decide to attribute these items, what would that amount to in terms of the links being considered "spammy."
Like I've said, I think that the human element is a reasonable request.
One solution could be to enter the attribution as text (including the url) and not as a link. Otherwise its Catch22. For more than two images from the same source. You have to consider the HP Phantom and Penguin.
I must not be understanding Penguin, because I thought it had something to do with link farming. There's obviously a connection, but more than two links to the same domain seems a bit restrictive, particularly when it comes to necessary attributions. *Not* attributing can cause penalizations by Google as well.
Time to rerun the diagnostic (bottom of the accounts page) and see if they go away.
Very interesting. I wasn't aware of this. Something to keep in mind while sourcing.
by Blake Ford Hall5 years ago
Hi, thanx for even taking the time to see what this forum post is about...It is one of the few I have ever made. Just not much of a forum type guy. Love to read the debates from afar, anyway...I am trying to comply to...
by Kathleen Lewis7 years ago
I have a hub that is nearly 3 years old, has a high Hub rank, and generates a fair bit of revenue for HP and myself. It is all original content and has several links to other websites. Each of the links...
by DallasColdLaserDR6 years ago
I noticed that when I checked my backlinks all of the ones from hubpages were 'nofollow' links. Should this be the case? (I've written several articles and I'd hate not to be getting the most out of them.) Or do I need...
by Peg Cole4 years ago
Is there a way to get rid of unwanted traffic sites that attach a link to our hubs without our knowledge? I try to individually monitor my hubs for suspicious traffic and have written two letters to the offender who has...
by HemperorsCloset5 years ago
Howdy,If the contents of our hubs is our property, as hubpages reassures us it is, then why is there such strangling posting restrictions as to choke the breath from the spring blooms of free speech? ,
by Scott Bateman15 months ago
I'm very happy with the results of the niche sites. It's a win-win for HubPages and writers like myself. But I'm a bit curious about the process for choosing Hubs that go on those sites.One of my most successful Hubs on...
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.