Hubs Chosen For Niche Websites, Author Is Advised Issues Need To Be Mounted
Hubs Chosen for Niche Websites, Writer is Told Problems Have to Be Fixed
When our hubs have been once chosen, we had a approach to see what was presupposed to be fixed before it appeared on a distinct segment website. Now I don't see anything like that. It may very well be me, but there was a strategy to see what they wanted added or deleted.
It's totally irritating. Yesterday I was advised my hub on Zeus, the Greek god of the sky, had an "average" picture on it. He communicated with people by throwing thunderbolts, and I had a big, colourful thunderbolt picture on the top. I typically write three,000 phrase hubs, and feel they need colorful photographs to maintain the reader going until the top. I felt it was a snarky and immature remark. Obviously the moderators aren't even studying these hubs to see the main points.
Is this occurring to anybody else? And may I just take my greatest psychic guess about what must do be executed to have my hub moved? I really feel just like the powers that be are getting swelled heads. Average? For an image?
promisem posted 3 days in the past in reply to this
Yes. I had a Hub rejected as a result of the paragraphs were "too brief".
They have been brief (one to two sentences every) as a result of "studying ease" is a rating and engagement factor for engines like google. I now do not know what is an appropriate length for paragraphs.
I've just gone by the identical expertise so I understand what you mean, nevertheless it does sound as though you've been told exactly what they need modified. There isn't any point altering anything, if the email says the problem is the image.
I feel the image appears to be like nice, but if they have a bee of their bonnet about the picture, then you possibly can't make up for it by enhancing other areas. The issue may be that if the moderator is aware of nothing about Zeus, they will think that picture is irrelevant. If it had a caption saying something like "To ancient Greeks, lightning was caused by thunderbolts hurled by Zeus", the connection would be clear and possibly it could be allowed?
Once they first moved the Hubs, the moderators really made the adjustments for you - all you needed to do was go and have a look at the modifications they'd made (by following the link in the Hub or clicking on the little purple pencil). They didn't want us to make every other changes ourselves. Perhaps that wasn't clear to you, in that case it is a pity you did a lot extra work for nothing.
Now they don't seem to be making adjustments, they're simply picking Hubs that are good enough for the area of interest websites and sending us a fast electronic mail to say, please enhance a few things. The email all the time tells you what sort of changes are required and there is not any point making adjustments they do not ask for. So as an example if it says it's essential to address hyperlinks and photos, there is not any level wasting time changing headings or grammar.
The annoying factor is they're often not specific about exactly which hyperlinks or photos or no matter and then it is a guessing game. Not less than in your case they've instructed you the precise problem.
By the best way, your different images aren't credited appropriately, it is advisable find the photograph on Wikimedia Commons and paste in the credit line from there. Just crediting Wikipedia isn't enough.
Jean Bakula posted 4 days in the past in reply to this
Thanks Marisa,
I believed the process had modified. I have a lot bother finding photos for a few of my hub matters, so I have to stretch my creativeness and sometimes use a picture about something else mentioned in the hub.
I used Google Images when I first got here here, and never realized it was unsuitable. I've spent so much time replacing pictures, however I am attempting. Shouldn't the moderator be reading the hub extra intently in order that they get the connections?
I didn't know we needed to credit the Wikimedia photos. I am going to add it to the checklist. When the modifications have been identified in green and purple, I did get that, so I did not change all these for nothing.
Thanks in your help and endurance. Take care.
Marisa Wright posted 4 days in the past in reply to this
I'm unsure you probably did get it (when the adjustments have been pointed out in inexperienced and crimson, I mean). When those adjustments were made, you have been only imagined to open the Hub and take a look at the modifications, that is all. When you did anything in any respect to those green and purple changes, you were doing it for nothing (until in fact you weren't pleased with the modifications). However anyway, it's all prior to now now.
I have not seen your Zeus, so I'm in no position to offer an opinion on its individual merits but I will say that footage are as vital as text to guests.
I not too long ago spent a few days writing a page on pets however could not discover a good image for the lead picture. I published it anyway as a result of, I had put the work in, but a couple of days later, unpublished it. A second fee picture was by no means going to chop it.
Sooner or later, I will come across the pic I want and republish.
You'll want to take pics seriously...
Solaras posted three days ago
Your photographs of statuary are heavily pixilated. The rocks picture of Zeus youngsters seems like it has a net over it (to prevent landslides?) the netting additionally creates a wierd scorching impact.
I simply re-read the OP and realised I misinterpret it, sorry.
I thought they have been saying the primary photograph was "average" however actually it simply said A photo was average, not the first one. Now I look at the other photos, I agree that they are most likely the problem, not the first one.
Here is a greater version of Zeus:
The rocks image is not actually obligatory (and really I might double-check that myth as a result of while I used to be searching for a greater image of it, I found different variations of the story however not that one).
I believe the first photograph is a superb choice, though it could use a caption to elucidate the relevance. Right here is the Hub, by the way, for individuals who couldn't find it:
Solaras posted 2 days in the past in reply to this
Yeah - I think it was Chronos greedily gobbling up Zeus' brothers and sisters that gets Rhea to feed him a rock as a substitute of Zeus, when Zeus was born. That is the only rock story I do know of, however I am no skilled.
Jean Bakula posted 27 hours in the past in reply to this
Thanks Solaras,
Sure, that is the one version of the rock story I found. However the administration told me to go to Greek , and it was all google image pictures. I tried again, and changed a couple of, however am uninterested in jumping by way of hoops, I have other work to do. Thanks in your input.
Thanks for wanting up pictures for me Marisa, that was very good. I resubmitted it a couple of minutes earlier than I noticed yours, so it will likely be probably be rejected once more. When you go to Wikimedia Commons, the place do you go to find free commercial use footage? I still can't find them?
When I go to inventory photograph sites, there is little to choose from, and nothing for Greek Delusion or Astrology.
Will Apse posted 27 hours in the past in reply to this
Google picture search is all the time one of the best place to start out. Select 'labelled for reuse' and see what there's:
Zeus
Jean Bakula posted 25 hours ago in reply to this
Hi Will,
Yes, I've tried a number of of those and when I put them in Paint to get them in my documents, typically they nonetheless come out so enormous. Then when I attempt to make them smaller, they are blurry. I initially had authorized pics like these, and the message in edit didn't say they were pixelated. The editor was nasty and requested if possibly I had someone else in the home to take a look at them, which I believed was imply spirited. I do have a son in his twenties and they seemed clear to him too.
It seems to depend upon who you get. I've had hubs moved that had google pictures on them, and since there are so few photographs in some areas I write about, see others did the identical. However I don't write right here to be insulted about my imaginative and prescient, for God's sake! Whoever is on the editorial employees goes to lose people if they're continuing to deal with them like that.
Will Apse posted 25 hours ago in reply to this
If you're planning on writing so much, it might be price devoting every week or two to sourcing and manipulating photographs. You would most likely take pleasure in doing it, when you get into it.
There are tutorials for each form task in each form of editor. If you get stuck simply Google the issue.
e.g.
'Pictures come out blurry in paint when I make them small'
In all probability a fix on that page. Anyway, best of luck.
A number of units of out of copyright tarot cards in case you are nonetheless looking for some:
Marisa Wright posted 9 hours ago in reply to this
Jean, why are you putting the photographs in Paint? If you happen to're not going to change them, simply save them in your laptop then upload them straight to HubPages.
I discover it's very uncommon that I need to downsize an image to make it suitable for HubPages. You've got in all probability observed that it doesn't matter what dimension you modify the picture to, it makes no distinction to how big it seems on the Hub. In the event you reduce the photo so it's narrower than the width of the Hub, they may simply blow it up once more - after which will probably be pixelated.
If you happen to feel that a photograph takes up an excessive amount of house on the Hub, then making it smaller will not help as a result of it must be broad sufficient to suit the Hub. So there's just one way to make it look smaller - chop bits off the top and backside. There isn't any point in chopping bits off the edges.
Jean Bakula posted three hours ago in reply to this
Marisa,
I often have to change the picture indirectly, so that's how I realized to do it. Put it in paint, usually make it smaller, and put it aside to paperwork. Everyone has given me data about pictures, and I admire the assistance, I've needed to change all of them in all my hubs over the years, and still have some that I'm regularly doing. The Greek mythology ones are the toughest, although I've been given assistance on this forum. Thanks in your assist as standard.
I wrote down your instructions as a result of though 2 of my Greek Delusion hubs had been moved to Exemplore (which I do not agree with, however am sick of arguing, there should be a Historical past niche that has a mythology sub class). I've a couple of dozen extra which have plenty of views.
I also have another astrology collection that's new and has very few views and they are taking a few of them. Since I've changed and edited them, they are able to go in the event that they get chosen. I already submitted the Zeus one again, however wish I had waited. I found other footage that may make the reduce.
Marisa Wright posted 8 hours ago in reply to this
It's a worry that administration would let you know to go to that site, since they clearly say all photographs are copyright. Someone at HubPages didn't do their homework!
If you click on on the hyperlinks I gave you, it can take you to the photos. All pictures on Wikimedia Commons are OK to make use of supplied you attribute it properly. You will see links to the precise of the photo.
- Click on the top one to download the photo.
- Once you've got uploaded it to your Hub, go back to the page and click on "Use this file on the internet".
Within the box that comes up, you copy and paste the primary line into the "source URL". Then copy and paste the Attribution line into the Supply Title.
Hello,
If the main downside you may have is with the image, I suggest you have a look at as a result of their footage are completely public area and you do not have the author saying what you possibly can and may't do with the picture. Now, you do need to look, but they've some pretty good footage on there.
Jean Bakula posted three hours ago in reply to this
Hi MarySEW,
Sure,I do use Pixabay lots, however even they do not have much so far as Astrology. I've written quite a lot of Astrology fiction articles to show how the signs would behave it I put them in a sure situation, and most of them have been moved to niches. But then I do not need an Astrological symbol, I can use one thing I put in the fictional story.
has quite a lot of good photos too for those who aren't looking for something specialised or a a tough topic. I think Nate B was the one who told us about it.
MarySEW posted 52 minutes in the past in reply to this
Fantastic! Thank you a lot and I am going to take a look at the other sight. I was simply hoping you had that resourse. I know it was onerous for me to search out to start with.
112
by Tina Craven2 years in the past
Have you ever ever seen that you spend extra time allocating footage and pictures to your hubs than you do really writing it?
24
by TIMETRAVELER22 years in the past
With all the adjustments because of the merger with Squidoo, I assumed a few of the incoming writers may gain advantage from a few tips to help them get started with writing attention to the little writing guide within the upper...
31
by Mikeydoes5 years ago
One among my large drawback is, I do basically nothing with pictures and videos. As a result of I'm probably not sure the place I can get them. I'm more or less speaking about pictures, but when their is a few hidden secret with movies aside...
31
by Kathryn Skaggs13 months ago
I'm major curious about the answer to this thriller.... just how much site visitors are those Hubs who make it to the HOT HUBS actually receiving? I know that probably nobody goes to present this up with specific...
24
by Celina Martin3 years ago
Simply wondering, is it necessary to mention supply link while using photos from search engines. And, if I do will it's beneficial for my hub or not?
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective homeowners.
Different product and company names proven may be trademarks of their respective house owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) could earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and ads with companions together with Amazon, Google, and others.
Google Ranking
 |
0 comments:
Post a Comment