Is a photo of oneself considered self-promotion?

1. 60

   TessSchlesingerposted 3 years ago

   I'm still trying to figure out why an article of mine was removed from a niche site.
   
   The article was up for some sort of professional editing. They changed all the photos - to absoloutely awful ones. None of the language or wording was changed.
   
   The photos were all the right size.
   
   I had inserted a photo of myself demonstrating that everything I said about the colors I was advocating was true.
   
   I asked why the article would be removed from the niche site. I was not answered - it was just removed.
   
   To my mind, this was either ignorance or malice. I have since been told by editors that photos have nothing to do with whether something to do with traffic.
   
   Anyone got any ideas? It was one of my top performing articles.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      lobobrandonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Please clarify what you were told, it seems like there's a typo in there and it does not make sense to me. Relevant photos would not be removed unless they are of low quality. I've never posted a photo with me in it, but I am referring to the usual regulations.

      replyreport
   2. 69

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I think the challenge is relate to the size of the photo? The bigger the better, right? A photo of ones' self has never been an item of self-promotion, unless it is linked to a business.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Nope, it's not linked to business, and I asked them about the photos. I also checked the size of the photos on hubpages. My photos were fine, and I never received any reply as to what exactly was wrong with the piece. I find it the most extreme form of disrespect.
         
         Currently, one of the editors has been really lovely. She has sent me links to all my hubs that need to be rewritten, etc. I have complied - not a problem in the world.

         replyreport
   3. 93

      OldRosesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Really interesting article.  Here are my suggestions:
      
      1.  Attribute the photos.  You must indicate the source and licensing of any photots that you use, even your own.
      
      2.  The selfie of you is blurry.  HP doesn't like blurry photos.
      
      3.  Write a brief intro paragraph and then move the current first paragragh to the end of your article to act as a summation.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I've take a look at your selfie, and I am agreeing with OldRose, because "stellar photos" instead of blured image is best on hubgages sites. You can replace it with another picture in the same costume, and same make-up.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Okay. Thanks.
            
            Would have been nice to have been told what exactly the problem was.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               You're welcome. But would the hubpages editors did that? Rare were actually the times the hubpages editors wade into the forum to promoted the good of a writer's article. They barely do so while on desk.

               replyreport
      2. 60

         TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks. Will do.

         replyreport
   4. 83

      samanthacubbisonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Hello,
      
      No, a selfie is not self-promotional. Your article was not removed due to photos specifically, though OldRoses' suggestions are sound in regards to future articles.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Marisa Writesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Did they remove the Amazon capsules and you put them back in?  That would be the most likely grounds for removal.  It is almost impossible to get Amazon capsules accepted these days. The fact that your first capsule features the wrong lipstick (same brand, but the wrong colour) wont have helped.
      
      You can still use the same paragraph recommending the product, but you need to use an in-text link instead.
      
      Your selfie picture looks too small to me.  What do you mean by "right size" for the photos?  I usually use slightly larger photos so the reader can see the larger size when they click on the photo.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Okay. I'll check all that. But the only think they chanced was the photos. Nothing else. And the only think I put back was the photos. In the blurb, I say the color is approximate. Actually, I need to rewrite the article anyway.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Marisa Writesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            As others have said, the selfie is too small. 
            
            I'd be interested to know what criteria you use to size your photos.  I can't recall whether HubPages ever issued advice about the optimum size for images.

            replyreport
2. 95

   Beth Eaglescliffeposted 3 years ago

   Can you post the URL of the article that was moved?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Am I allowed to? It's the one entitled "How to Make Green or Hazel Eyes Look More Green" and it's in the spotlight, so you should be able to find it. I don't want to be accused of promoting my hub here.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         lobobrandonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         For future reference, if someone asks you are allowed to post a URL, until then it is considered self-promotion. Nice article.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Beth Eaglescliffeposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            +1 

            replyreport
3. 88

   NateB11posted 3 years ago

   A relevant aside: Years ago they edited one of my articles and removed a photo and the traffic to that article dropped to almost nothing and it had been getting very significant traffic. It killed me and I'm still not sure why they nixed the picture. All I know is that it pretty much destroyed that article in terms of traffic.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I can give you an idea. I learnt a lot about visual during my years on Google Plus. Some days I would get 1.5 million views in 24 hours. Such was the power of a photo.
      
      If your article is linked to other sites, a lot of your traffic might come from those sites, and those sites have the first picture on your article showing up alongside of your article.
      
      People click on the article because they are drawn to the first picture. If that picture changes, the traffic automatically drops because it's not the title that draws them - it's the picture!

      replyreport
      1. 92

         RachaelLeflerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, it's weird to me that a HP editor told you that a photo had nothing to do with traffic. Your header image is going to make or break your traffic.
         
         Smartphone cameras can have quality and detail loss when they go to a computer screen, and if the size is enlarged. I can't put pictures I took with my cell phone on Shutterstock for that reason, it usually creates noise that has to be fixed with a photo-editing program, and even then, it's hard to get them accepted. I'm guessing maybe your selfie looked ok on your phone, but images can look different on the internet on different devices.
         
         In your article, the selfie lost some detail when it was enlarged, and it's tall, when HubPages prefers images that are wider than they are tall. But also, a close-up of the eyes or at least the face is better to illustrate that the article is about specifically the eyes. I could not even see that your eyes were green at all in that picture. A big rule in photography is that you want to crop out and/or blur visual information that's not the focus. I know you want the dress in there, but a close-up would show more clarity/focus on the topic of the article. A problem is that the face is not detailed enough to show us that it is the forcus of the picture.
         
         Basically, if you're not a photographer, you'd probably do better if you can find a good image online. I went to Google Images, clicked on Advanced Image Search, and tried "bright green eyes, coral lipstick" but made sure to filter it by images that are free to use or share, even commercially. I kind of think this image illustrates the visual concepts you were talking about in the article, but there's many others you could find. https://www.wallpaperflare.com/woman-ta … aper-adddf
         
         The first image you use in an article shows up as a thumbnail, and will show up in other people's Google Image searches, and social media posts when they share your article. So it's crucial to have an image that is eye-catching, interesting, detailed, and also that shows the viewer what the article is going to be about. A professional-looking photo is better for this than a mirror selfie from a smartphone camera.

         replyreport
      2. 88

         NateB11posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, exactly. Plus traffic comes from image searches; that is, Google image search. I've gotten lots of traffic that way over the years. Images are definitely important to traffic. The old advice, in fact, was to use good meta descriptions in images so it would influence traffic. As far as I know this still holds true.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Marisa Writesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            When an editor removes or changes a photo, there is absolutely nothing to stop you putting it back.
            
            This is the first time I've heard of a Hub being removed from a niche site because changes were undone.  Generally it's just an empty threat!   I've put photos back with no penalty whatsoever. 
            
            Samantha has said the move from the niche site had nothing to do with the photos.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               NateB11posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I admit I thought about putting the image back into the article but was worried, didn't know how it would affect things. It's been sitting there with it's minimal traffic for years now, not sure changing it back would do any good now. I generally leave edits the way staff have it, unless I consider it particularly egregious; the only time being, one time they changed a title and it was pretty bad so I changed it to something better.

               replyreport
            2. 60

               TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               This time I put photos back, and they did not tell me why they changed every single photo, and then they removed me from the niche site.

               replyreport
            3. 83

               samanthacubbisonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               @marisawrites, continuously reverting edits can result in an article being moved back to HubPages. I obviously don't have one of your examples in front of me, but adding photos back that are not harmful one time is not reprimandable. It escalates when it's a continuous back and forth and there is a proper reason for the photo to be removed.
               
               When in doubt, contact the team!

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I did contact the team. I asked several times why the photos were being removed and replace with ugly photographs that would have affected my traffic. I was given no answer. It was ignored.

                  replyreport
                  1. STAFF

                     Matt Wellsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     There is no record of you emailing team@hubpages.com about this issue. Please check the address you are sending too and try again.

                     replyreport
               2. 0

                  Marisa Writesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I beg your pardon, I should have been more specific in my reply.
                  
                  When an editor has made a change I don't like, I'll first try to work out why they've done it. If I can't see a good reason, I'll change it back.   
                  
                  However, if the editor changes it again, I'll know they must feel strongly about it - so there's no point in me doing anything further, and if I want to make a thing of it, I need to contact the team.

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     samanthacubbisonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Gotcha, well that's a good practice. Thanks for working with us!

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Marisa Writesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        By the way, is there a recommended minimum size for photos?

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           samanthacubbisonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           When we make cover images, our templates are 2160 x 2160 px. That size always looks good and in focus. After doing some research, 800 x 533 seems like a good minimum. Any smaller and it's not full-width anymore.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Marisa Writesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              Thanks.   I notice that Tess's photos were all less than 520 wide - too small, in other words - which is why I asked the question.

                              replyreport
                              1. 83

                                 samanthacubbisonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 Bingo.

                                 replyreport
                              2. 94

                                 EricFarmer8xposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 This was also something I wondered about. I am glad you asked. I made sure to take note.

                                 replyreport
         2. 60

            TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            +++++

            replyreport
            1. 84

               psycheskinnerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               And pinterest/instagram etc which share via picture -- losing the picture will break those links

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  DrMark1961posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  On Pinterest the link is to the article, not a photo. Why would deleting the photo break that link?
                  I have no idea on instagram as I have never used it.

                  replyreport
4. 69

   Miebakagh57posted 3 years ago

   Writers, yes, there you are. Like as I said no hubpages' editor will like to tell or hit what's wrong with your article to pass QAP and land on niche sites. That is up to you. With some help from your fellow writers, as here in the forum all is fine. Did you noted that  @sumathacubbison neither an indirect sign is  given.                            Significantly, the pointer to OldRoses initial suggestive comments which I uphold were per learning center.       Experience apart, they is still a thing or too to add to the understanding at that unique learning center.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Deleted
      1. 69

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Deleted
         1. 60

            TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Deleted
            1. 69

               Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Deleted