Paul Edmondson: "It's in Section 6 of the TOS" (but he forgot something)

Today I checked out an amusing HubPages forum thread started by Robin Edmondson. Here's the gist:

HubPages has finally found a way to edit any content on their site (whether or not they have authors' consent).

But it is so much more than that, I'll explain:

Pie Chart illustration by RoseWrites created May 17th, 2015. Based on statistics provided by Marina Lazarevi (3% opt-out rate), Paul Edmondson (edited 20% of traffic), and the low percentage of flagged content being taken off the site (success rates are  0 - 48 percent).

As noted in my explanation of the HubPages business model, there is a huge chunk of content on the site that:

1) Authors have no idea is there, like these folks.

2) Authors do not receive any compensation for (no AdShare, Amazon or eBay revenue) because of these four clauses (deemed "Inactivity") in the HubPages Terms of Use:

a) If there has been no change to your "earned balance" for over six (6) months. [So, if you have $500 sitting in your account for 6 months plus one day, HubPages can keep it. I guess they don't roll it over.]

b) Your account has expired tax information that is greater that six (6) months beyond the date of expiration. [Extremely odd, since HubPages has no reason to collect SSNs].

c) You have uncollected payments or unaccepted payments by the payment company into your account for a period greater than six (6) months. [Again, if you try to collect your money after 6 months, it is NOT rolled over. HubPages keeps it.]

d) You have not responded to attempts to contact you at the primary email address for six (6) months from the date of first attempt to contact you (for which no response has been received).

But what if Paul Edmondson refuses to acknowledge MY attempts to contact him?

3) HubPages has (at best) skewed their data about reader satisfaction. As I detailed in a previous post, a score between 50 and 80 is "good" (not 24 to 29). More importantly, a TQM Journal study by Kai Christensen and Jacob Eskildsen concluded:

"The Net Promoter Score is a very poor predictor of both customer loyalty and customer satisfaction."

4) As janderson99 pointed out, "Will HP provide compensation if traffic falls?" [I'm sure the answer is "no."]

And it's telling that Paul Edmondson replies to janderson99 with this line:

"Our goal is to treat Hubbers with respect . . ." HA. I guess respect doesn't come naturally for Paul Edmondson and his team – so they've made it a goal now (something they'll achieve in the future).

But Paul Edmondson Forgot a Crucial Fact

After people complained (naturally) about "editors" being able to tweak their work (without their consent), Paul Edmondson chimed in with this:

"Hubbers do own their content and can take it down at anytime. It's also important to remember when content is posted on HubPages that it may be modified as part of our service." [Don't forget kids, if you remove content, you forfeit any and all of your earnings too].

Hey Paul, did you forget? You IMPORTED work from Squidoo without obtaining the consent of all authors beforehand. So, in reality, any former content owner from Squidoo that did NOT agree to the transfer of his or her work, who was unaware (or dead) is NOT held to your ridiculous TOS. (Click to enlarge cartoon).

Satirical cartoon of Paul Edmondson as he explains why he didn't need content owners' permission and the similarities between "importing" and "posting." Created May 30th, 2015 by RoseWrites / All rights (and lefts) reserved

I'm looking forward to the day that the Federal Trade Commission puts a stop to this.

Cartoon created by RoseWrites May 13th, 2015 / All rights reserved

Cartoon created by RoseWrites May 13th, 2015 / All rights reserved

Author's note: I wonder if Vic Dillinger and others can find anything libelous in this post? The only opinionated phrase I wrote was "your ridiculous TOS." Everything else is based on fact.