Overly promotional, yet it's a 2,200+ word comparison of 4 sites?

1. 76

   Bendo13posted 10 years ago

   Can someone please explain this to me, as this hub was on HubPages for YEARS and saw a ton of traffic, but then I took it down... and only recently decided to bring it back, because I remember how helpful it was and how well it performed.
   
   The hub's purpose is to prove if Bodybuilding is really the best online supplement store, and I compare it to 3 other websites (which are never linked to), so I'm not excessively promoting a site... I'm reviewing it and comparing it to 3 other stores.  They all get talked about pretty much the same, and I'm going to have to mention the main site a few times to actually give a thorough comparison.  But in order to keep from typing the URL over and over again, I just call it BodyBuilding.
   
   My hub is very readable, and doesn't contain a bunch of repeated phrases, bold text or italics that make it hard to read.
   
   There are only TWO links in the whole hub. Yes, they point to the same website, but that's allowed and well within the limits.  A URL typed out as text is not a hyperlinked URL, but I do type out the URL once more in the body text because... uhh, otherwise people wouldn't know what site I'm actually reviewing, they'd think I was reviewing the word bodybuilding.
   
   It's 2,265 words long, so it's not a short teaser, and the whole comparison can be seen in this one page.  There is no such comparison on any other website out there, let alone the one I'm linking to, so this isn't a feeder page at all.  It's a thourough review that serves as a service to people who want cheap supplements... it's compares everything from prices, variety, what's in stock, deals, shipping and payment processing.
   
   And the only page it links to is the front page of bodybuilding's store... and they don't compare themselves with other stores, so I'm not getting it.  Plus there are NO eBay or Amazon capsules.
   
   So, can you explain why this was flagged?  I already sent the HubPages team an email about it, but sometimes they don't respond... in fact, I have no idea who flagged it or who double-checked it, but I don't like being left to figure things out for myself like this, especially whenever it was never seen as overly promotional before.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Cardisaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Can you please post the title of the hub so I can see it? That;s the best way to advise you.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Bendo13posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I don't think it will be visible since it was flagged.  I'll let you know if they approve it here within the hour.

         replyreport
   2. 71

      Matthew Meyerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I would suggest revising the Hub and removing the plain text URL from the Hub title.  The Hub may also do better with more critical review content.
      If you have any other questions about moderation of a specific Hub, please email us at team at hubpages dot com.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      b4u2posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      And adding to his Q, could we use an old hub we previously created for the contest and/or to feature? Thx for any info~

      replyreport
2. 60

   The Examiner-1posted 10 years ago

   Did you edit it and look at the upper right corner to see if they tell what the reason is? Perhaps 1 or more of the links or ads has become promotional or broken while you had the Hub down. I would check them all.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Bendo13posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      None of the links are broken and it just says "need some goals" in the upper right.  This review was completely revamped with new products to compare and everything.  I think they're looking at the URL in the text and counting it as a link, even though it's not clickable.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Go down a bit and you will see a link to a more detailed rejection reason

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Bendo13posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Are you referring to this (which I already responded to in my original post above):
            This Hub has been identified as excessively promoting another site or sites. It may contain too many links, links on short or “teaser” content, too many Amazon/eBay capsules for the amount of text, over-use of keywords and/or phrases, or appears solely designed to procure back links. In order to have it republished, you will need to remove some or all of the links and/or revise or add to the content.
            
            If you would like to make changes to the Hub in order to make it less promotional, please do so and then click the Submit for Publication button. We will review your Hub, and if appropriate, republish it. This process can take up to 72 hours. Hubs without substantial improvement will not be republished, and we will be monitoring any changes made to Hubs after republication.

            replyreport
         2. 76

            Bendo13posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            The first link is after the first 57 words, but that's how it was when it was on this site for 2 freaking years, without being flagged.  So, maybe they don't like a link so soon in the text, but they just denied it for the third time in a row.
            
            So, I guess this review will have no links at all coming from it and I'll add in some amazon capsules... hooray for not letting the review actually serve its purpose!
            
            Watch, they won't even approve it when it has NO links in it... let's see.

            replyreport
   2. 76

      Bendo13posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I just changed it so that the actual URL is only in the title of the hub, and in the two links that are actually hyperlinked. 
      It's in the title so you know what the review is actually about (a website, not a general term).  This should not count as a URL...
      
      Let's see if it goes through this time... if not, I guess the review serves no real purpose, because I'm not allowed to link to site I'm talking about?

      replyreport
3. 76

   Bendo13posted 10 years ago

   Wow... they flagged it because the URL is in the title, the main image and I link to it at the end of the hub.
   
   Really?
   
   How many of you could do a review about Amazon's site without putting the actual URL in the title?  I mean, wouldn't some people think you're reviewing the Amazon... the place?
   
   And the URL has to be in their logo because their URL contains a general term!  How dare I use their logo?
   
   Ah well...

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Bendo13posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      HA! Nevermind... the URL isn't in their logo, it just says this.
      "Body
      Building"
      
      I guess when you do reviews on this site you have to make sure you never show their logo or mention the name of the site so people know what you're reviewing.  Not too happy...

      replyreport
      1. 60

         The Examiner-1posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         You are saying that it has been featured?

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Bendo13posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            When I originally posted it back in 2011 it was featured for at least 2 years.  I took it down because I no longer am an affiliate for Commission Junction, but this website set up their own affiliate program, so I signed up through that.
            
            I then updated all the information and posted it on here, where it was live for like 2 days before it was flagged.  The affiliate link isn't the problem... because I use the same affiliate link on other hubs and they're not flagged.
            
            The problem they're having is that I dared to mention the site I was reviewing in the title, their logo is the main image, and I linked to the site twice in the article. 
            
            How can you review a website, without mentioning the website in the title?  Especially when the URL contains a general term (bodybuilding)...
            "Bodybuilding Review - Is This The Best Online Supplement Store?"...  Do you see what I mean?  No one will expect this to be about a specific site, they'll wonder which store I'm even reviewing, because the title doesn't tell me.  They might click out of curiosity, but I doubt it... especially if they're looking for a review on the site I'm actually reviewing.
            
            That is their official logo, what else should I use to represent them?  That's what their site is called... it's what they go by, and it's the store I'm reviewing.
            
            I knew this was a great store (because I shop there myself) but once my research proved it was the best, I linked to it so they wouldn't have to type it out themselves.  We ARE allowed to have two links in an article without being seen as overly promotional, and I find it really odd that I'm not allowed to show an image about what I'm actually talking about.
            
            Like if I did a review on the Big Mac from McDonald's, I'd want a Big Mac as my main image... And I'd want it in the title... and I'd probably want to link somewhere they could get more info on the Big Mac, if not order one right away. 
            
            Right now the hub has ZERO links in it and I added Amazon capsules... so, if it doesn't get approved now, then someone's being ridiculous.

            replyreport
         2. 76

            Bendo13posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            NOW it's approved...
            A review on a website with no link to the website...
            Amazon capsules to distract them even more.
            
            Boy these strict guidelines sure do make for more efficient reads, don't they?

            replyreport
            1. 56

               DamienAlexanderposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               If I were you I'd just revert all the changes now it's not as if you're breaking any rules it's just a stupid automated system.
               Note: I don't know for certain if the rules have changed what I'd really suggest you do is somehow make contact with one of the staff and explain first.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Bendo13posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  They were the ones that replied and said it was because I had the URL in the title, the company name in the picture and then a link to their site at the end of the article.
                  
                  I made changes like 3 times and the moderator denied it every time.  I'm pretty sure you aren't dealing with the automated system anymore, once it's been flagged and you submit it for publishing.

                  replyreport
                  1. 56

                     DamienAlexanderposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Ridiculous.

                     replyreport
   2. 86

      Marisa Wrightposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Was the URL in the main image in the "source"?  If so, it's a link and it counts as a third link. 
      
      
      
      I rarely even mention Amazon in any of my Hubs, even if I'm talking about a product that's sold there.  I will mention it once, next to the capsule where I point out the product is available on Amazon.  I certainly wouldn't put it in my title. 
      
      
      
      Good question.  It's probably not legal.  I once used someone's logo in my Hub and got a terse email asking me to remove it, even though I was saying nice things about the product.

      replyreport