Talk:HubPages

a7 Notability and Importance

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)

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

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)

Quote scraping from the TOS

In this edit I removed content submitted in good faith by RoseWrites. It wasn't for a while that I realized that was reverting the bulk of a very recent edit. Anyhow, no disrespect intended. I don't quite see the point of including quotes from the company's Terms of Service. That's their business. What we should be describing in the article is what the company does, what they provide as a service, when they started, who the main actors are, who are served, and the rest of the Ws. If there are any problems that the company needs to clarify for their customers, that content belongs on the company's site, not at Wikipedia. An enyclopedia should not be shouldering that burden. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

To address Wikipedia Editors and Cyphoidbomb: Since the title of this section is Structure, I felt it was misleading to only have the following statement about earnings: "If members sign up for one of HubPages "affiliate and earnings programs", the members are eligible to earn funds from the ad revenue generated by their pages."

There are strict criteria that a member must meet on HubPages in order to be compensated. They include surrendering tax information (even though HubPages does not require it) and to not be "inactive" (according to what HubPages defines as "inactive"). My original Terms of Use addition was not meant as a "scrape" but to provide the whole truth about the "Stucture" of HubPages. I can reword it, but I felt with a citation that the original wording was (and is) the proof that readers require and deserve.

Do Wikipedia editors have the power to decide what to include or do I reword that section? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseWrites (talk • contribs) 04:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi RoseWrites, I think you're already on the right track in your comment above, which already begins to summarize the TOS sufficiently. Something along the lines of: "...members are eligible to earn funds from the ad revenue generated by their pages, provided they adhere to specific criteria in the service's Terms of Service agreement.^[1] For example, users must maintain consistent activity, must provide tax information...^[2]"

Naturally we don't need every criterion, only a representative sample. Our job here is to provide a summary overview, not to include every detail about the service. To answer your last question: as this is a community project and articles are ever-evolving all editors have a say in these matters. Per Wikipedia's BRD cycle, you make a bold edit (which you did), I revert, (which I did), and then we discuss (we're doing that!) Ideally we'll discuss in a friendly manner and arrive at something that achieves both your goals as well as mine. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, My apologies. This was my first edit. I completely see your point and I agree. I will summarize the TOS instead and add a "representative" sample as suggested (later on today). Thank you for explaining the process as well. Best, RoseWrites (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No probs. I've already taken care of it, but of course feel free to tweak as necessary. As you have also found out, I couldn't use HubPages own website as a reference because of a blacklist, so I've asked that the Terms of Use page be added to the whitelist just below your whitelist request. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, It was so kind of you to make that edit, thank you. I just tweaked it slightly. For example, you stated members need to "maintain current tax information" (which we all do) but I felt it important to write it as "submit current tax information to HubPages (including SSN)" since I was taken aback that this was required. Also, if any ONE of those criteria are not met, HubPages keeps all of an author's earnings, permanently. You had stated as "If these criteria are not met, the members' earnings may be forfeited." I hope you find my changes acceptable. Once again, thank you. Sincerely, RoseWrites (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@RoseWrites: It seemed to me that this content was under the section on inactivity, which tended to suggest that if you became inactive, or closed your account, and if the other criteria were not met, then you'd forfeit the money. If you could clarify that for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Yes, it is deceptive (I feel) that HubPages Terms of Use has coupled "Account Closure and Inactivity" into one section. I asked in InfoBarrel's forum: "It would appear that HubPages has made it a condition of being paid that you hand over your tax information. Since I'm Canadian, can you tell me if HubPages requires you (assuming you are a US citizen) to give them your SSN prior to being paid?" and Deborah-Diane responded, "Yes, I did give them my Social Security Number when I started with HubPages about four years ago. I've never had a problem as a result. Periodically, they contact me to make sure my info is all correct." Source: www.infobarrel.com/forum-topic.php?id=12698

I also found a forum post (on HubPages) wherein a Canadian had to "submit her passport" to HubPages (I am still looking for that thread).

Does that answer your question? If not, I'll keep on trying to clarify. Yours, RoseWrites (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested edits

Is there some way I can request a single page to be removed from the blacklist? The HubPages CEO recently wrote an article on the history of HubPages and it mentioned the merger with Squidoo, which is a key part of the HubPages story and not currently mentioned anywhere on the HubPages Wikipedia Page.

38.111.148.243 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of petition content

In this edit I removed content about a Change.org petition that was launched against the company for some reason or another that was submitted by a single-purpose account in good faith. We're not here to promote these common petitions, whether they're about fans wanting Invader Zim to be brought back on the air or if they're from a bunch of angry people who want to shake stuff up at HubPages headquarters. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Like any other subject, only when mainstream news websites start to care about this petition and write about from an analytical perspective (i.e. not just press releases) should we care about petitions. Wikipedia is not a breaking news site. We're not here to report every new thing that happens to every subject. A good question to ask when submitting this stuff is, "will anyone care about this in 10 years?" If the answer is "who knows" or "probably not", then the content probably doesn't belong in the article, even if sourced. Per WP:V, "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb, The Change.org petition has already been through several checks and balances. This is not "soapbox" material. Witnesses (including authors and charities) have come forward to offer support and additional proof.

On Wikipedia, Apple Inc. has included info about "a class action lawsuit in California." The paragraph concluded with "on November 7, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing each and every claim brought against Apple by the employees in this case."

If you feel this Change.org petition is frivolous, why not let the facts "speak for themselves." Once California's attorney general, Kamala Harris, has dealt with this petition, you can update this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwatson2016 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Gwatson2016 Two points: 1) You don't have consensus for the inclusion of this content as another editor (myself) has objected to its inclusion. Per WP:BRD if you are reverted, the onus is on you to open a discussion on the article's talk page until consensus for inclusion exists. I opened the discussion for you. Restoring the content was inappropriate and has been undone. Thankfully there is no deadline at Wikipedia, so waiting for consensus is always an option. 2) I have no idea what argument you're trying to make by bringing up "checks and balances". Again, we're not here to promote petitions, as any yahoo with an opinion can start a Change.org petition. Big deal. This doesn't translate to encyclopedic content. And as I've already said, we're not a breaking news site. As for your Apple example, the references used that make the content noteworthy are two National Law Review articles here and here. These articles describe the lawsuits from an external perspective, not from an internal one. In contrast, the Change.org petition only represents the primary source, i.e. the people who are complaining. So far no external analysis of this petition from reliable published sources has been provided. Reiterating what I said above, "only when mainstream news websites start to care about this petition and write about from an analytical perspective (i.e. not just press releases) should we care about petitions." The mere existence of the petition doesn't guarantee inclusion. Until then, your recourse is to find and include news sites that are reporting on the significance of this subject, or to wait for input from other editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)