Appealing to Fellow Canadian Ed the Sock

Today was a real blow to my ego. Just as I was feeling empowered to represent writers and charities who were treated unfairly and denied their rightful earnings, a Wikipedia editor removes a supporter's post. 

Yeah.

Apparently, telling the truth and having supporters and charities provide additional proof just isn't enough these days. No, according to "Cyphoidbomb" (a Wikipedia editor):

"... only when mainstream news websites start to care about this petition and write about them from an analytical perspective (i.e. not just press releases) should we care about petitions."

This Wikipedia editor added insults, innuendos, and tried to belittle my (our) Change.org petition. In fact, since the Talk:HubPages page can still be edited, I felt it important to include screenshot proof of just a few sentences of Cyphoidbomb's response.

Naturally, I felt Mr. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Wikia deserved to know what happened. So I wrote him the following:

Dear Mr. Wales, 

I want to report an editor who (I believe) has a "conflict of interest" with HubPages, Inc.

In the past (May 2015), I have successfully added facts to the HubPages Wikipedia page – but not without great resistance from "Cyphoidbomb".

Yesterday, a supporter of my Change.org petition added factual information about my efforts to the HubPages Wikipedia page. We were both shocked by the insults and innuendos that he or she used on the Talk:HubPages page.

Instead of launching into a back-and-forth debate with this person, I decided to update my petition supporters (and you).

In the meantime, I will take the high road and just work harder to let "mainstream media" know about my petition.

It's a shame that (according to Cyphoidbomb): ONLY when "certain media care about writers and their charities" that Wikipedia will consider including such fact-filled information. (I don't believe that this is YOUR mandate, though).

Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas (or Happy Holidays).

And so, here is where fellow Canadian (and someone I admire greatly) Ed the Sock comes in.

Many of you (actually 3,902) read my piece Bring Back Ed The Sock Please. Below is a screenshot of my stats page (compared to other comedians I wrote about like Jerry Seinfeld, Larry David, Jon Dore, and the cast of 22 Minutes). Obviously, Ed the Sock rules!

Well, I recently discovered that Ed helped Work Together For Fun (WTFF) collect 1,000 pairs of socks for homeless people in Calgary, Alberta. In fact, Ed volunteered for it. He told CBC news:

"I saw them on Twitter and volunteered to help because, well, you don't see a lot of charities or anything else that involves themselves with socks."

Well Ed, I'm hoping you can help promote our petition: HubPages' Writers are Entitled to All Earnings and Removal of Their Author Content. I will contact you privately to try and "work something out" with you.

Addendum: I just voted in Ed the Sock's Biggest A-Holes of 2015 poll (you should too).

December 30th, 2015: Ed the Sock's Biggest A-Holes of 2015: The Bottom 5
January 1st, 2016: Ed the Sock's Top 5 Biggest A-Holes of 2015! (NSFW)

Wishing all of you a Merry Christmas (or Happy Holidays),

Rose

Bravo Google: The Truth Has Power

I'm thoroughly enjoying how effective my first Change.org petition, HubPages' Writers are Entitled to All Earnings and Removal of Their Author Content, has become. And yesterday morning, I posted a YouTube video that reveals we (unofficially) have supporters in the hundreds.

I still haven't heard back from the IT team at Change.org about what could be a bug or glitch in my stats graph, though.

Some of you may may recall my November 8th blog post, Contributor by Google: Great Idea, Wrong Business Endorsement. The gist: on page 3 a photo of Paul Edmondson, CEO of HubPages Inc. – the business my petition is targeting – was shown along with three other site owners.

Well, tonight I see that on page 3 of Google's Contributor website information page is Jack Herrick, the founder of wikiHow. Could it be that Google has dropped Paul Edmondson's photo endorsement? I hope so. I'll certainly be checking Google's Contributor page more often.

Google's Contributor website now shows Jack Herrick on page 3 / Fair Use

On another note, I know many of you are too busy to write to the individual charities that Squidoo automatically sent some (or all) of our earnings to. These charities no longer receive a portion of our earnings, instead HubPages keeps it all. I've already written to the ones that I donated to but I'm going to start writing to the others on your behalf.

Lastly, I hope all of my American friends and followers had a fabulous Thanksgiving holiday. I'm Canadian, so I celebrated last month.

Remember, the most powerful thing you can do is tell the truth. Honesty is still the best policy.

Cheers!

Online Writers: Get Every Penny You Deserve and Avoid Identity Theft

Recently, I began a Change.org petition: HubPages' Writers are Entitled to All Earnings and Removal of Their Author Content. But it's also about sending a clear and strong message to other site owners that writers will no longer tolerate the theft of their work, identities, and earnings.

Photo by Rennett Stowe (tomsaint on flickr) CC-by-2.0 / Text added by RoseWrites

What is even more disturbing, is the requirement to surrender tax information (such as SSNs) in order to receive earnings (as on HubPages). The IRS determined years ago that HubPages does NOT require it; but HubPages will not pay you until you give it to them.

In fact, they keep all of your earnings (including Amazon and eBay royalties). Check out their Terms of Use (deceptively hidden) under "Account Closure and Inactivity."

Crazy!

About 15 million US residents have their identities used fraudulently each year. And sadly, it takes victims hundreds of dollars and years of grief to clear their name once this has happened.

Experts say: do NOT give your tax information (SSN, date of birth, etc.) to anyone online.

But My Sound Reasons Just Aren't "Getting Through" to Some People

My friend Vic Dillinger posted my petition link in the HubPages forum. And I had to laugh at the responses. Incredibly, Marisa Wright seemed to get most of the facts straight, but failed to understand one key thing:

What exactly THEFT is. (Perhaps someone out there who understands can explain it to her?)

I guess stealing identities and content "just ain't what it used to be"

Marisa Wright quotes as stated in HubPages forum Nov. 17, 2015

Addendum November 18th, 2015: Thought I'd try an analogy of sorts (shown below) to convey how it feels to have 293 articles (and my identity, videos, and images) stolen and used by HubPages.

Me having a coffee and trying to explain the situation in layman's terms
© 2015 RoseWrites / All rights reserved (that means don't steal, Marisa)

Oh and one more thing, Marisa Wright also stated (which is entirely false), "I suspect if she'd simply asked for her account to be deleted, they'd have done it. Unfortunately each time she has tried, she's also been demanding payment before the account is deleted, so of course HubPages says no."

FACT: HubPages has completely ignored me, the flagging of my profile, Consumer Affairs, and Paul Edmondson continues to block me on Google Plus. My final pay from Squidoo (and Amazon and eBay royalties) were held in escrow (I've never received a penny). It's ILLEGAL to profit from stolen property Marisa. HubPages is held to the laws of California.

Why you believe that HubPages deserves to profit from my work and identity AND keep my earnings is completely baffling. I wonder if you are a kleptomaniac (seriously).

The payment would be far too low (via HubPages 60/40 split) anyways. The restitution ordered by the FTC will probably be set at InfoBarrel's rate of 75 - 90 percent, for the author. Remember? You told numerous authors our work "would disappear" offline. This is precisely what I expected and wanted to happen.

So, naturally I made it known publicly before the transfer (like here, select "Best" comment) that I was putting my articles on InfoBarrel. Hundreds of writers, including Seth Godin and Bonnie Diczhazy, were aware.

If you want to help curtail this from happening to you (or someone you know) and send a strong message to all site owners, sign my petition and share it (you don't have to donate to it): HubPages' Writers are Entitled to All Earnings and Removal of Their Author Content

Who Knew Pages Could Be So Unruly? Paul Edmondson's Update on the Site Move

Tonight, I thought I'd see what the latest news is at HubPages, so I browsed their forum.

The first thread I noticed was by Zach Spangler titled My Hubpro experience - Views are now

"... About 10 percent of what they used to be! They removed all relevant pictures, removed 50 percent of my text, and changed almost everything else. My top gaming article is now averaging 40 views a day when it used to get 300 - 400!"

Yikes!

Moving on, I noticed that Paul Edmondson added a post to his Update on the Site Move forum thread. I was amazed at his ability to fit 608 characters into a 3-paragraph blurb that tells you, well, nothing.

Here is what he had to say. I added my thoughts bolded, italicized, and in square brackets:

"I want to give a little update. The site is still moving over and settling in. We are noticing that several pages [How many pages? 3 or closer to 3,000?] are acting like Google lost them.

We've seen a number of pages go through this [How many? 2 or closer to 20,000?], but it eventually gets worked out and the page [A Freudian slip? ONLY one page now?] returns to it's [sic] previous ranking position. [Not their previous ranking positions?]

My best guess is that in Google's massive infrastructure, data hasn't been fully updated to all the places Google uses to serve a query. [Genius, never would have imagined that!]

This is a pretty major move [Really? Perhaps you were obliged then to provide Hubbers with 7 days notice then, Paul – as stated in your Terms of Use.], so I think we just need to give the pages that are straggling some time to get fully processed. We will keep you updated as we see things get processed."

You can't make this stuff up. Click to enlarge.

Satirical cartoon of Paul Edmondson explaining how pages can
"act up" and "straggle" © 2015 RoseWrites / All rights reserved

Contributor by Google: Great Idea, Wrong Business Endorsement

Three days ago, I received an email from Google AdSense telling me about a new source of revenue for my blog (or website). I was thrilled to learn it meant my readers will see fewer ads on my posts – but I still get paid.

When I selected the types of ads for my blog, I rejected quite a few that annoy me. I will not use any pop-up ads or those that cut into my text. (You guessed it, I barely make any money).

What's more, users can choose to contribute $2, $5, or $10 per month. Apparently, the more they contribute to the program, the less ads they will see. It's an alternate means to help online writers (publishers) focus on creating content without having to worry about too many – or worse, objectionable ads on our pages.

The great thing is that Contributor works on plenty of sites. When readers sign up, they enjoy the "Contributor experience" (aka fewer ads) on my blog and all the other compatible sites. 

Keep in mind: Contributor only applies to Google ads (and is subject to the same auction bids as any other advertiser). Therefore, Contributor by Google cannot guarantee readers a 100 percent ad-free experience – even on sites that only show Google ads.

Gleefully, I decided to display the Contibutor by Google badge on my blog (above my cat editor). Then, I decided to click on it (I wanted to know what my readers would see, naturally).

And there, three pages down, I see the faces of (I'm guessing) four successful website owners. My jaw dropped open when I saw a photo of Paul Edmondson, the CEO of HubPages included among them. Click image below to enlarge. I am citing "Fair Use" since I am only using one page for recognition and demonstration purposes.

Contributor by Google when "Learn More" is clicked. Photos on page 3. Fair Use

WHY Google? WHY?

There are likely over 26,000 people that are completely disgusted by the unethical, illegal, and deceptive business practices that HubPages has engaged in. Several hundred online writers have witnessed what I have recorded. It is clearly documented in my Consumer Affairs complaint which I invite you to review.

And what about how Paul Edmondson slags Google (even to the FTC)? Remember Paul Edmondson's 2011 post in TechCrunch where he stated:

"Apparently, Google's Panda update has been punitive only to platforms other than Google's."

Paul Edmondson mentions he has "reached out to Google seeking feedback and guidance" but "there has been little response to our inquiries ..." He even mentioned sending personal emails to Matt Cutts, Google's head of web spam.

Paul becomes redundant and continues with:

"It seems that publishing platforms that are not operated by Google are at a distinct disadvantage ..."

More blah bah, and Paul Edmondson ends that post stating:

"Google is not being transparent about their new standards, which prevents platforms like ours from having access to a level playing field ..."

Funny, but Paul Edmondson even mentions having "a responsibility to moderate their [own] content appropriately" which is something that HubPages isn't able to do by my records, by their numerous forum posts, and by elite authors like Vic Dillinger.

Yet, in my experience, Google has made it crystal clear via Webmaster Guidelines what is acceptable and what is not.

Gee, I never even joined HubPages, yet I know the following problems were identified for HubPages:

Satirical cartoon of Paul Edmondson and  Google violations
and his continued unethical and deceptive business practices
© 2015 RoseWrites / All rights reserved

1) Alt tag violations and duplicate photo titles

2) Rich snippets

3) Ad problems

4) Unnatural links

5) Spam

6) Automated editing of content AND comments (without the prior knowledge and permission of content owners)

My complaint about HubPages with the Federal Trade Commission was accepted on April 9th, 2015. 

And yes, I know that it takes 1 to 3 years (on average) for any form of restitution to be ordered by the FTC.

Clearly, HubPages is breaking the law. And even though I cannot afford to take them to Federal court, doesn't make what they are doing acceptable – even if the majority of writers "went along" with their plan.

I have written over 30 articles and plenty of blog posts about the unethical, deceptive, and illegal practices of HubPages.

My main objectives:

1) To nullify the HubPages Terms of Use so that every author (past and present) can have their author content removed permanently (if they choose) – especially their tax infomation (SSNs, passport info), and date of birth. 

The IRS determined years ago that HubPages does NOT require it. I even updated the Wikipedia HubPages Talk Page to inform the public.

2) Ensure that anyone who closes their account on HubPages (at any time, past or present) receives all of their earnings (including Amazon and eBay royalties) for the entire time HubPages posted their content.

Rationale: No one is held to any contract by a company that breaks the law (and continues to do so). 

Furthermore, HubPages has breached their OWN Terms of Use by:

a) Not providing authors (Hubbers) with 7 days notice of any major changes (like the recent removal of subdomains).

b) By limiting some Hub authors to only 5 article deletions per day.

How disgusted am I with HubPages?

Words cannot even express how completely appalled I am with HubPages and Paul Edmondson. He's tried (through numerous shills and trolls) to bash me. I even wrote Chronicling How HubPages Has Bullied Me which I invite you, Google execs, to read.

Does Google Need HubPages THAT Badly?

I sure hope not. My gut tells me that money is the only interest that Google has in HubPages. 

But here's the reality: I am one of thousands of loyal Google readers that know the truth. And I'm vocal (most aren't). The majority is silent.

Do you really want to keep Paul Edmondson's photo up on your brand new shiny "Contributor" program webpage? Because his endorsement will hurt you, I guarantee it.

Here's My Recommendation For Page 3 . . . Click to Enlarge

RoseWrites (not Paul Edmondson) should endorse Contributor by Google

Paul Edmondson: Will HubPages Be Sold?

Recently, Paul Edmondson (CEO of HubPages) announced the end of subdomains. And frankly, I'm surprised that no one has openly asked him if he plans to sell the HubPages domain in the near future.

Satirical cartoon of Paul Edmondson explaining how Hubbers are "too afraid" to ask if HubPages will be up for sale soon and how surprised he is that his TOU is null and void. © 2015 RoseWrites / All rights reserved (Click to enlarge)

The same people keep chiming in (in the HubPages' forum) about how good it will be to have all these "silos" and that the reader is given more information by replacing the author's pen name with a category.

Weird – because the URL probably already contains the topic information. If I'm going to write about an automobile, you can bet that I'll put the name of it in my title (URL).

Oh and it looks like original authors will have less statistical information about their Hubs. Paul Edmondson stated:

"Hubbers will no longer see data about their content consolidated in GSC (Google Search Console), but they can add specific URLs if they choose."

Charming.

Oddly enough, only a couple of people have made mention of how much traffic they lost when their work underwent "editing" by HubPages or when their work reverted back to the HubPages domain via Editor's Choice.

Yes, now every Hub author is automatically opted-in to the Editor's Choice program.

Earlier this year, I wrote HubPages: The Truth Behind Editor's Choice and found a startling difference between what Paul Edmondson reported and what numerous Hub authors found to be true.

Main points:

• An average loss of traffic of about 50 percent
• Loss of income (related to loss of traffic)
• High bounce rates
• Loss of link juice from 301 redirects
• Inability to track the statistics for your entire subdomain
• Loss of author identity
• Loss of Google author rank
• NEW: Loss of having featured Hubs in a given category*

*Interestingly enough, I found out that only "a few Hubs are shown over and over" in some (all?) categories. Because when DrMark1961 inquired, Matt (HubPages' staff) replied:

". . . we do not show all Hubs on a subject, but only those that meet specific criteria."

Gee, I wonder what that "specific criteria" is?

I'm guessing it's the "Editbot-fixed abandoned content" that Robin Edmondson confirmed they keep on the platform. (The Edmondsons don't need to share any revenue with the original author on those).

Will HubPages Be Up For Sale?

I think it's definitely something that might happen. According to Wikipedia, as of December 7th, 2013 (before the importation of Squidoo content with and without authors' consent), HubPages had 73,969 published users.

Those published users, I'm sure, wanted to be paid. And since only "active" Hubbers are eligible to receive their deserved earnings, that meant over 70,000 people have surrendered their tax information to HubPages (who doesn't require it, according to the IRS).

Hmm, that's a "hot database" that I'm sure will command all kinds of attention and bids if HubPages is for sale.

Should Hubbers Try to Get Their Author Content Removed From HubPages?

Absolutely.

You can cite how once the law is broken (re: HubPages - Squidoo deal) that any contract you are entered into is null and void. You are not required to uphold any contract with a company that breaks the law.

In a post by Van Thompson titled Laws Concerning Unethical Business Practices & Breaches in Contracts, it states:

"An unethical business practice that is legally prohibited may be a breach of contract, but could also be a legal violation that nullifies all or part of your contract."

Which means: YES, you CAN remove author content from the Service. And YES, you ARE entitled to ALL of your deserved earnings.

1) Cite my Consumer Affairs complaint (which is permanently and publicly available). It has garnered 25,766 views and 46 "helpful" votes to date.

2) You can also reference my complaint (NO: 61039505) which was accepted by the Federal Trade Commission on April 9th, 2015.

3) Call (it's FREE) the California State Attorney General's Whistleblower Hotline at: 1-800-952-5225 and explain the situation to them.

Will Google Compromise? Implications of the HubPages' Editbot

Anything automated that is used to trick search engines eventually becomes punishable by Google.

And so it should.

There are plenty of devoted writers and researchers online that are willing (and happy) to produce fresh, updated, relevant, useful content. Really.

Click to enlarge: Satirical cartoon of how search engines will be fooled by

the edits and tweaks of the new HubPages' Editbot © RoseWrites / All rights reserved 

So, I'm beside myself right now wondering how the HubPages' Edibot can be implemented (without penalty) to tweak ANY content on the HubPages website without the prior approval of original authors.

Software can be implemented that simply notifies an author of "suggested edits" – we already have it.

So why would HubPages need (or want) to use Edibot?

It's clear.

Robin Edmondson stated March 23rd, 2015 in a forum post (since removed), but I kept a screenshot:

"... some of the accounts we are editing are abandoned."

And by "abandoned" she means "inactive."

Inactivity – according to the HubPages Terms of Use means ANY of four conditions. And, here's the kicker: you forfeit any and ALL of your earnings if these apply to you.

1) No change to your earned balance for over six months (so, if you have $100 sitting for 6 months plus a day, HubPages doesn't "roll it over" – they keep it).

2) Your account has expired tax information (even though the IRS made it clear that HubPages does NOT need it). To make matters worse, in this recent InfoBarrel forum thread, I cited proof that one person could not even obtain food stamps "because she filled out tax information" for HubPages and unfortunately "a pay statement needed to be submitted." Sadly, she hadn't even made the minimum $50 payout on HubPages.

And herein lies the proof that Google needs (and I corrected the Wikipedia page) that HubPages' first email to ALL former Squidoo authors qualifies as PHISHING.

That email stated:

"Welcome to HubPages! We are thrilled to have you join our community. We just finished importing ..."

Wait, I didn't join. Do you see how manipulative the wording is? This is phishing. Why? Because further along you must do four things to access YOUR content and collect YOUR deserved earnings.

Yes, both your content and earnings were kept from you, until you permanently joined HubPages.

What? Permanently join?

Yes, also in the HubPages' Terms of Use (as I explained in this InfoBarrel forum thread):

"You may not remove your author content from the Service."

So, you see, not only were Squidoo authors under duress to join HubPages (or forfeit their final pay from Squidoo), but writers had no idea that they needed to permanently join HubPages AND surrender their current tax information (including SSNs) simply to access their own content and earnings.

And those are just two (of the four) conditions that the Edmondsons feel makes an author "inactive."

Back to Edibot and What Google Needs to Consider

On October 12th, 2015, I asked in the AdSense Help Forum if what Matthew Meyer had posted 2 weeks ago in the HubPages forum was true. Oddly, no one responded for a week! So, I asked the follow up question: 

"Can someone from Google (at least) confirm what Matthew Meyer (HubPages' staff) is claiming? RE: "on-going issue with AdSense's servers"

Guess not.

And it's funny, but Matthew Meyer's latest update (25 hours ago) makes NO MENTION of the AdSense servers. He's carefully worded his update which now reads:

"Google is aware of this issue, but, unfortunately, we do not have an ETA for a fix at this time. There is a message on the AdSense association for profiles to warn of this on-going issue. That message will be removed and this forum will be updated when we have more information regarding Google fixing this issue."

Why do I get the feeling that this is more about Edibot and not AdSense servers?

I sincerely hope (as mentioned in my post Can the HubPages' Editbot Fool Google and the Public) that Google will make it a violation of Webmaster Guidelines to create or edit content that wasn't editorially placed or vouched for (or that was artificially changed) without the prior approval of original authors.

Can the HubPages' Editbot Fool Google and the Public?

"The more humanity advances, the more it is degraded." ~ Gustave Flaubert (1821 - 1880).

The above quote is over a century old and you'll soon understand why I began with it.

A few days ago, HubPages' product manager, Marina Lazarevic, announced the arrival of Editbot.

The gist:

Editbot will automatically fix so-called "common" spelling and grammar errors on both Hubs [articles] and their comments.

Yeah, Edibot will be changing original commentary!

In fact, Marina Lazarevic even emphasized this point in her post stating:

"Lastly, it's worth noting that the majority of Editbot fixes are in Hub comments."

Now Vic Dillinger's signature "wimmen" will become "women" and other changes will sterilize otherwise colorful content.

And any commentary I deleted on my 351 articles on Squidoo (the site I joined), was deleted for good reason: a moron (or similar type) wrote it.

But now, the content that Paul Edmondson imported (with and without the permission of content owners) will be edited by a machine.

Satirical cartoon of Paul Edmondson explaining how Editbot benefits him. Created September 21st, 2015 by RoseWrites / All rights reserved (Click to enlarge)

What Editbot accomplishes for HubPages:

• Search engines, Google, and the public will be tricked into determining that content (that Paul Edmondson took without owners' permission) has been edited. (It's been newly updated, somehow).
• Search engines, Google, and the public will interpret dubious comments made by morons to be an "intelligent, credible endorsement" of HubPages. 
• The work of "inactive" authors (you know, where Paul Edmondson keeps 100 percent of any earnings) is revised, updated, and has outside commentary that sounds reasonably intelligent or, at least, believable.
• Now monkeys can be trained to type commentary and editbot will make their comments sound good enough to fool Google and the public. And yeah, Paul Edmondson gets to keep 100 percent of those earnings on those "inactive" accounts. (Which I believe outnumber "active" accounts).

In the meantime, the minority of active authors on HubPages will be drawn into checking and rechecking every possible edit on their work. Even the edits that authors cannot change themselves, their commentary.

Perhaps it's time that Google revises their Webmaster Guideline violation which states:

"Additionally, creating links that weren't editorially placed or vouched for, otherwise known as unnatural links, can be considered a violation of our guidelines."

To include:

"Addendum: Creating or editing content that wasn't editorially placed or vouch for (or that was artificially changed) can be considered a violation of our guidelines."

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.

This Week's HubPages Hypocrisies

Image Credits: Doris Day at Blank Chalkboard by velvettangerine on flickr (CC-by-2.0) 

Text (in script font on chalkboard) added by RoseWrites July 5th, 2015 using Pixlr

"People tend to make rules for others and exceptions for themselves." 

~ Anonymous 

1) Profanity used in the title (and URL) of some content on HubPages is okay. But if you object to having such an article show up on your page (in the "related Hubs" section), you will be punished.

2) A stellar Hub (or one edited by HubPro) can be 255 words now. Oh but not if you write it, only if the crack HubPro team has "edited" it.

3) Watermarked images are okay now. But not for you, the mere Hubber, only for the HubPro team of "editors" and "photographers." And if you keep asking in the HubPages forum, you will be ignored by Robin Edmondson.

The HubPages Rules and Recommendations (For Hubbers ONLY):

According to the HubPages Learning Center, the publishing standards state:

"To protect our community of writers, your Hubs must also comply with the Google AdSense Program Policy on Adult Content." Adult can mean: 

Inappropriate language . . . or profanity in the Hub title."

"Watermarked (or pixelated) images and videos on a Hub take away an author's credibility."

"...images (or videos) that contain watermarks are also prohibited. This rule applies even if they are your own photos..."

And on the Hub Content Rules and Guidelines, it clearly lists 

Watermarked or Pixelated as a "flag."

Finally, on the HubPages Wikipedia page it states: 

"The site encourages members to cover a specific subject creating what they call a "hub" with a recommended length of 1150 words or more."

In the HubPages Learning Center, the Elements of a Stellar Hub it recommends "a minimum of 1150 words of truly informative, well-written, useful content." Further along, this mantra is repeated in a heading which reminds Hubbers to write At Least 1150 Words with more blather about it.

Is it any wonder why I don't trust HubPages?

UPDATED: HubPages Bans Top InfoBarrel Author, Vic Dillinger, For 23 Hours (From Their Forum)

Satirical cartoon about author's children seeing a "Related Hub" on their parent's article. Created July 3rd, 2015 by RoseWrites / All rights reserved (Click to enlarge)

Could HubPages be any more idiotic?

One of the best authors I've ever had the pleasure of meeting online was just banned for 23 hours from the HubPages forum.

In case you didn't know, Vic Dillinger is an accomplished author who has so many articles on InfoBarrel's Top 100 that I lost count. [It's at least 40 articles.]

He tells the truth and he's fairly new to HubPages.

Well, I just found out about a forum thread he began titled Use of Profanity in Titles (and other vulgarities . . .). Shown below (click to enlarge):

The gist:

Vic mentions that he found a Hub [article] that used the word "mindf**k." He wanted to know what was allowed and not allowed on HubPages.

TIMETRAVELER2 chimed in. She checked out this author's other questionable Hubs and found similar language (in titles and within the text of articles). She reported it and emailed the HubPages team.

The response from HubPages (over 6 hours ago)?

"I have reviewed these articles, thanks for notifying us." 

TIMETRAVELER2 asked, "and what are you planning to do about it?" [No one knows, but as of  2:15 am ET, the article with "mindf**k" in the title is still published.]

Obviously Vic understands Google's AdSense rules. He is well aware that someone else on the site jeopardizes everyone by using profanity. And, as Vic pointed out:

"I'd hate to see anyone lose out on G money because of one dipwad who can't read a site's TOS and abide by it, instead going for the "click bait" word in the title (and I wasn't searching for it, that piece of garbage came up as a "related" hub on one of my pieces)."

What does HubPages do?

Apparently, when Vic Dillinger tried to thank TIMETRAVELER2 and tell her "keep fighting the good fight," Vic received a prompt that he was banned from posting in the HubPages forum for 23 hours.

Yeah.

HE points out there is a Hub with profanity in the title and HubPages bans Vic but keeps the article up!

Classy.

Addendum July 2nd, 2015

Sometimes I feel like the shills on HubPages are just too obvious. 

Vic Dillinger couldn't be clearer. He was trying to point out a Hub that had the f-word in its title. The four-letter bad one. NOT the others (which Vic explained are probably "not as bad" in Google's eyes). The F-word in a title is probably the most offensive, don't you agree?

It's the word "mindf**k" which (it turns out) shows up in not one, but in 56 other articles on HubPages.

That equates to 56 more times that Vic Dillinger's Hubs may be impacted if (again) any of these show up on his pages in the "related Hubs" section.

It's 56 more reasons for Google to pull the AdSense earnings away from other authors because someone cannot adhere to the Terms of Use on HubPages. Or worse, moderators on HubPages refuse to pull the offending material off of the site.

But it astounds me how derailed this forum thread has become. Not only was Vic "punished" for a day but he's being beaten over the head by a HubPages expert.

She seems oblivious to the fact that HubPages decision to keep "Mindf**k" in the title (or within the text) of 56 articles on HubPages jeopardizes everyone's earnings.

Here are some of her responses to Vic (my thoughts are in italics):

"I have used AdSense for many years and I promise you that HP knows the rules too." [Really? Then why is the word "F**k" in the title of a Hub?]

"I've also been here for a few years and know the ropes [a few years? Vic has been an established author for more than that!] She continues, "so... take a few deep breaths and listen to what I and others are saying." [What? Vic doesn't need to take a few deep breaths and who are these "others"?]

"Those who have a periodic curse word in their hubs are not going to kill your revenue stream... everything is going to be OK." [OMG, we are not talking about a periodic curse word. And Vic isn't just being protective of himself and his revenue stream.]

She carries on like she doesn't believe that "Mindf**k" is a problem. In her condescending tone, she advises Vic, "Hubs you feel cross that line can be reported - and if they do in fact violate the terms HP will remove those hubs or unfeature them."

She goes on and on about it "not affecting your ability to earn money" (since obviously everything on HubPages is about money – not about our kids reading "Mindf**k" aloud or about maintaining a level playing field for all authors on HP).

And gee, thanks for reminding us all that "Google does not care if a periodic mild swear word is used."

That was NOT at all what Vic Dillinger's post was about. Read the title of his post. He was talking about the word "Mindf**k" in the TITLE of a Hub which also appears in 56 other places on HubPages.

Hmm, perhaps Google no likey that!

But this person is far too important to absorb even the gist of Vic's point. She reminds us, "People don't want to listen, they want to get offended. That's fine be offended, I have better things to do with my day."

Charming.

HubPages: Low Quality Hubs and Why Reports Are Ignored

In a HubPages forum thread started by Don Bobbitt, many authors expressed their dismay at the massive number of low quality articles on the site. Some people supported the idea of having two separate HubPages sites: an HP site and an HP-PRO site.

Apparently, Hubbers are flagging content, yet most of it remains on the site. Over the past few months, I've made note of the statistics people have provided.

I understand the HubPages business model and I've tried numerous ways to explain it. In short, HubPages will likely ignore the reports of anything that is making them money. Especially the accounts of those they deem "inactive."

Why? The answer is simple: HubPages keeps ALL of the earnings on "inactive" accounts and doesn't need to share it 60/40 with the "active" writers.

Well today, I felt that TIMETRAVELER2 was the voice of reason on a thread with a few shills.

Someone mentioned that 47% of her reports were acted upon to which TIMETRAVELER2 replied:

"You're lucky. Of all the hubs I've reported, only one ever got removed!"

She later stated: "I will add it is not the job of the writers here to serve as teachers for those who come here without the appropriate skills any more than it is HP's job."

FatFreddysCat suggested that HubPages pay out (even a penny per flagged article) to entice authors to help clean up the site.

But I found it rather amusing that Dressage Husband would praise and defend Paul Edmondson. I can only imagine that he is poor at math or has a bad memory (or both).

You see, on May 19th, 2015 Stephen Parkin (aka Dressage Husband) began a dialogue with me on Google Plus. In it, he revealed that only 40% of those he reports get sanctioned. (Shown next). Click to enlarge.

Screenshot of Google Plus conversation May 19th, 2015 with Stephen Parkin
(aka Dressage Husband on HubPages) / Click to enlarge

Yet today he stated in the HubPages forum that "most of what I report is actioned."

Hmm, 40% before has since magically become "most." 

What could that number be? 51%?

But he's an expert, apparently. Just ask him or (better yet) let him tell you in the HubPages forum.

In Anticipation of Panda 5 and What Happens to HubPages

Satirical cartoon of Paul Edmondson explaining how Panda 5 will affect Hubpages. Created June 18th, 2015 by RoseWrites / All rights reserved (Click to enlarge)

Today, I was checking out the HubPages forum and found out that Paul Edmondson wrote a Hub (not a post) about the pending Panda update.

After a promotional sentence or two, there is an impressive looking line graph.

Impressive – until you find out how the Net Promoter Score works. It only measures respondents to a survey. It doesn't take into account bad word-of-mouth (such as complaints to Consumer Affairs and the FTC) and those not recommending the company it measures.

Furthermore, the y-axis scale on his upward line graph only ranges from 24 to 28.5. As stated in Gert Van Dessel's article Net Promoter Score (NPS®) – Best practice: "..no distinction is made between a 0 and a 6 score..."

A study by Kai Christensen and Jacob Eskildsen in the TQM Journal concluded:

"The NPS® is a very poor predictor of both customer loyalty and customer satisfaction."

So what's a good NPS® score anyways? 

According to Erica Douglass's December 2014 article What Is a Net Promoter Score, and Should You Implement It in Your Business, typically, a score between 50 and 80 is considered "good."

Okay, Paul tries to show some type of upward trend, what's next?

After reminding us that Squidoo content may have contributed to HubPages "getting whacked hard" during the September 23rd, 2014 Panda update, he tells us that out of 310,000 indexed Hubs, 45,000 are from Squidoo. 

That means only 14.5% of the indexed content on HubPages are former Squidoo pages.

I will add that my profile, identity and 277 of my Squidoo articles and those of (at least) four other authors were imported without authors' consent and/or knowledge. And, HubPages is currently collecting any and all of the ad share, Amazon, and eBay royalties on these. 

Unconscionable isn't it?

Then Paul Edmondson states in his Hub: "...we have been following Google's advice to either fix up or remove pages (avoiding merging because of HP's structure)."

Avoiding merging? Why is that? 

Because credible authors who are in good standing with Google are the only hope for the damaged HubPages domain. Paul Edmondson desperately needs to keep these subdomains on the site (even if he broke federal and state laws by importing, posting, and profiting from content he clearly does not own).

Next, he mentions layout changes but avoids the possibly fatal decision to hide the share buttons. Yes, it's assumed that readers know they need to zoom out to find them. And according to Marina Lazarevic, "...approximately 10% of all desktop visitors (5% of all visitors) will not see the new buttons."

Yeah, even if 5% was accurate (and I highly doubt it), you'd think a sinking ship like HubPages would want to keep those visitors sharing. Unless, of course, HubPages is trying to make life easier for scrapers.

Then, Paul Edmondson glosses over the "few partial manual site penalties." 

What? 

I never heard of a partial manual site penalty, I'm guessing it's like being "a little bit pregnant."

Oh but here's where things start to become clearer

If HubPages "goes under" then you've been forewarned that it will have nothing to do with the HubPages business model.

In fact, Paul Edmondson states that Google doesn't provide any specifics. Hmm, I would think a manual penalty (even a "partial" one) would be clearly written by Google's team.

The best Paul can do is guess at whatever issue Google has with HubPages. Oh and cross his fingers.

Don't forget, HubPages can only survive (according to Paul):

"As Long as Google Doesn't Kill Us." 

Poor Paul!

Satirical cartoon of Paul Edmondson blaming Google for HubPages demise and what Google probably thinks. Created June 19th, 2015 by RoseWrites / All rights reserved (Click to enlarge)

Why HubPages Will Not Fix Stats

I've been reading the HubPages forum lately and there are currently six threads about their stats being inaccurate.

A plausible reason could be glitches, of course.

But the absence of HubPages staff chiming in tells me there is something more dire going on.

It could be part of an exit strategy and sudden closure.

Why?

Because in the HubPages Terms of Use it states:

"In the event that the Agreement is terminated by You (pursuant to HubPages' receipt of Your written termination notice) the entire amount of an Earned Balance in Your account will be permanently forteited by You (and You hereby waive any claim relating to the dispute of such payment and disclaim any and all such interest in such funds)."

In layman's terms:

If you get frustrated with HubPages and quit, they keep all of your earnings and you can never collect on it – ever.

What better way than to frustrate users (if you were to close down a site) than to provide inaccurate statistics?

Lose the trust and people leave. Get them angry enough and they don't care about their deserved earnings, they just go.

I'd be prepared for a sudden closure of HubPages (if I had joined the site).

June 15, 2015 My former Squidoo profile and 277 articles are STILL on HubPages. 

Oh sure, my former Squidoo profile and 277 of my articles are still on the site making money for HubPages (not me). But you see, I never posted my author content or my Squidoo lenses [articles] on HubPages.

HubPages imported them – illegally. And pretty soon, I predict this house of cards will come tumbling down.

My advice: get your content off of HubPages and collect your earnings asap.

Is HubPages Becoming Bubblews?

Satirical cartoon of Robin Edmondson as she address a forum post about HubPro edits. Created June 12th, 2015 by RoseWrites / All rights reserved (Click to enlarge cartoon)

I found it entertaining to read a HubPages forum post titled 255 Words in my Hub..... Er .... Enough? Because the OP, earner, stated exactly what every seasoned web writer would think:

"Go away and write more you moron."

Apparently, the professional team of HubPages editors (and photographers) redid what was a 600-word "masterpiece" and created a 255-word article that "answers the question" according to Robin Edmondson.

Now remember this: HubPro only edits successful articles that garner a minimum of 500 visits a day.

Why HubPages doesn't just get rid of substandard articles instead seems like a reasonable question. Until you understand their business model. They reap 100% of the profits from "inactive" (or abandoned) accounts.

Hence, the urgency to "edit" high traffic Hubs (especially those that put all the money back into the Edmondsons' pockets).

But once this forum post caught Robin Edmondson's attention and she looked over the Hub in question, suddenly she wanted earner to change some things.

What?

The original author has to "fix" their oversights now?

Yeah, she actually stated: "...we should have added a section on why it's not safe to reheat chicken more than once. Maybe you can add that bit..." and "I think we should have changed your title to 'How to Safely Reheat Cooked Chicken'. I'd suggest doing that."

Oh but I truly hope that this author simply takes his (or her) original version and posts it elsewhere online.

Earner promised to "sit by the money pot to see what happens next."

Could this finally cement the reality for some people on HubPages?

HubPro is not about the writers, their work, or their consent. It's all about profit and catering to (what I believe) to be scrapers and identity thieves.

Crazy Ass HubPages Logic

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 reserved (Note: You can click to enlarge cartoon)

The other day, I got into quite the brouhaha with a fellow Canadian who vehemently defends HubPages in the Squidoo "deal."

During the discussion, I stated how deceptive it is that HubPages is tallying registered users. Their Terms of Use (TOU) says, "You may not remove Author Content from the Service." I also pointed out that holding hostage someone's content/earnings and FORCING him or her to join HubPages (to obtain it) is highly unethical, deceptive, and illegal.

Yet I'm amazed to read the same line over and over. Logic that sounds like these comments:

"HubPages didn't acquire Squidoo, it only acquired the rights to transfer and host the webpages from that site." ~ colorfulone (formerly Tipi on Squidoo)

"...not the rights to the articles so much as the right to host them." ~ Stephen Parkin

What's this? A new law? 

One that supersedes the fact that both Squidoo and HubPages made it clear that authors own their content?

What the h*ll else am I going to do with a domain?

Paint it?

Take it to lunch?

The only reason (I can see) for stating authors own their content is to absolve HubPages from having to file DMCA NOIs.

As I mentioned in the comments section of Why on Earth Is Any Squid Filing a DMCA With Google:

"When you buy a domain, the content needs to be either your own or someone's you obtained the permission from to host. The Squidoo domain and its URLs are simply addresses. The act of IMPORTING content (that clearly isn't owned by Seth Godin or Paul Edmondson) is taking (stealing) content (unless each author granted them permission). I did not."

And the craziest argument I've heard is one from Dancingqueen (aka Marisa Wright) who tried this line to justify my profile being posted on HubPages: 

"It is your account because it was created on your behalf."

Without missing I beat, I had to state the obvious:

"I suppose the next manipulation that HubPages will come up with is this: Not only did we create a profile on your behalf, we decided to keep the money your work is earning - since we knew you'd donate it to us anyways."

Other Phrases That Bother Me 

When members of HubPages start to raise concerns about their content or earnings, I often read responses such as these:

"...which you agreed to when you created your account." ~ Matthew Meyer

"You own your content, but you give HubPages rights when you post on HubPages to modify it." ~ Paul Edmondson

Someone named jodijoyous asked Paul Edmondson: "Huh? Are you saying that you can - and will - modify our words regardless of whether we consent? Please clarify."

Paul Edmondson never answered her back.

Well, guess what former Squidoo authors? We did NOT post our content or create our own accounts, did we? Therefore, none of us can be held to the ridiculous HubPages Terms of Use.