Talk:HubPages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Internet (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
WikiProject Companies  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

a7 Notability and Importance[edit]

I see there's some past, but let's look at the present situation:

HubPages is mentioned by relevant Internet sources to an extent that makes it notable -Mashables -TechCrunch -Quantcast

HubPages gets a lot of traffic (over 6,000,000 unique views/month)

Hubpages is the first site to integrate Google AdSense API to share revenue with writers

HubPages has a lot of content -with nearly 100,000 individual hubs. -and an average of 67 visitors/hub/month.

HubPages is at least as notable as Squidoo -Relatively equal traffic -Much higher traffic on a per hub basis mroconnell (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hubpages was selected as one of two case studies for Google's AdSense API (the other site was Blogger) http://code.google.com/apis/adsense/hubpages.html mroconnell (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Updated the Google Adsense link since the previous link was bad.

In spite of my criticism below that I think hubpages is a scam (which has nothing to do with notability), I would agree that HubPages is solidly notably. Here's a Washington Post article about it: [1]. Here's another article: [2]. Cazort (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Removed edits referenced above can be seen here. Flowanda | Talk 22:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed competitor section (January 2011)[edit]

I removed the competitor section because it was unsourced POV. Similar companies can be viewed by clicking one of the categories at the end of the article, which will provide more up-to-date listings of other websites or companies. Criticisms (as well as praise, etc.) of the company should be sourced to news reporting from sources meeting WP:RS. Flowanda | Talk 22:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


Hubpages seems to be spammy wasteland of poorly written articles similar to what you would see on a cyber squatter's page of loosely related links. Couldn't there be some mention of this on the wikipedia entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.97.118.2 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested edits[edit]


I'd like to make a few corrections to the current page.

"HubPages is a user generated content, revenue-sharing website." should be: HubPages is a writing platform and revenue-sharing website with a focus on long format, media-rich articles.

In the Structure section:

“...(usually 400 to 1,500 words)” should be: (usually 700 to 1,500 words)

“...by a 50/50 split with publishers.” should be: by a 40/60 split with 60% to the publishers.

38.111.148.243 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As to the first edit, what is the difference between " a user generated content ... website" and "a writing platform" and can you supply a source that supports this proposed change?
For the second proposed edit (to the structure section, again can you provide a source that supports this change? DES (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there a more neutral phrase we could use other than "media-rich", which sounds awfully "talking point-y" to me? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm being prohibited to link to HubPages FAQ to cite my sources. Is there some way to fix this? 38.111.148.243 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be on the blacklist, see this selection of discussions:
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2008#Request_unlisting_of_hubpages.com
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2011#Hubpages.com
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2012#Hallettestoneoin_Seazoria_Dragons
CaptRik (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I was to understand from the guidelines that as a HubPages employee, I can not request that the page be removed from the blacklist due to a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.148.243 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

come to my talk page and place the URL to the FAQ or About Us there replacing the hubpages.com portion with {domain} -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
sorry for the delay in responding. the hubpages websites FAQ and about us [3] pages can only be used for content that is not unduly self promotional i have made some edits to the article to in some ways address your concerns that things were being misrepresented. however, we are not here to ensure that the article is filled with marketers hyperbole or meaningless jargon. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm marking it as declined to take it out of the queue for now. The first request was a promotional re-wording. The second and third looked like proper corrections and perhaps acceptable use of a primary source, but I notice the text itself is no longer in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 17:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)