Update on Editor’s Choice Hubs

I wanted to provide an update on Editor’s Choice Hubs.  We started the program to recognize great Hubs.  Over the last nine months we have selected almost 20,000 EC Hubs and a handful are getting added every day.  We’ve had lots of great comments that Hubbers love the recognition, but the data hounds in the community say: that’s great, but do they get more traffic?

When a EC Hub is selected it gets moved from the author’s subdomain to the main HubPages.com domain.  When an older Hub is moved it can be a bit of a wild ride.  Sometimes Hubs jump way up and other times they come down.  Overall, they’re slightly up (~2%).

Over the last few months, I’ve had the opportunity to see several sites (outside of HubPages) that have done major movements like this and in some cases it has taken two years for a significant traffic shift after creating clusters of high quality content.  So, I think there is still a chance that we will see a major traffic move, and it appears that there is some slight traffic benefit in the short term on average.

I hope Hubbers stay with the program and hang in there with us for the long haul.  We are working on several improvements to the site.  I’m very optimistic about the future of HubPages.  Stay tuned Hubbers.

Everything You Wanted to Know About Controversial HubPages Issues but Were Afraid to Ask

When I was in Austin attending SXSW Interactive, I had the pleasure of meeting up with Marcy Goodfleisch for some coffee at Whole Foods flagship store, which I find to be one of the world’s closest equivalents to heaven.

Over some tasty tea and coffee Marcy asked a lot of really good questions on behalf of herself and Hubbers with whom she is acquainted. After we both acknowledged that it would be best if someone beyond just Marcy got our open, honest answers, we decided it would be best to compose a Q&A blog post featuring all the burning questions y’all have that we have yet to answer in a prominent manner.

We’re hoping this will be the first in a series and can help clear up your major questions and concerns. Enjoy!

Does Google penalize us for Hubs that aren’t Featured?

No. Hubs that are not Featured, though perhaps still known to Google, do not count against your online reputation with regard to Panda. It is as though they do not exist (though your friends and followers can still access them).

Many Hubs that are not Featured would be a liability to their owners should they continue to be Featured, simply because they may not be particularly high quality or because (even if they are of high quality) Google’s search algorithms, for some reason, decided they were not particularly important or useful and did not give them high rankings in search results (hence these Hubs saw very little traffic).

Do un-Featured Hubs lower our rankings within HubPages?

Featured status does not affect rankings, but both rankings and Featured status are a product of the quality of one’s Hubs.

‘Rankings’ on HubPages (whether or not your Hub is featured prominently on a Topic page or on others’ Hubs) are influenced by Hubber Score and HubScore.

Your Hubber Score is a product of:

  • The collective quality of your Hubs (as shown through HubScore, which factors in human and algorithmic ratings received through the Quality Assessment Process)
  • Your activity within the HubPages community (i.e. whether you regularly publish, provide high quality Questions and Answers, leave insightful comments on Hubs, and help other Hubbers in the Forums)

Should you have many Hubs that are not Featured because they get particularly low quality ratings, your Hubber Score and HubScores might be lower, and in this case, it does mean that your rankings will be a bit lackluster.

That said, if you write high quality Hubs that get high quality scores, and many of them happen to not be Featured, your rankings on HubPages should not be negatively affected.

What does it take to get Hubs automatically approved without going through QAP? Why are some Hubbers given this benefit?

All Hubs by all Hubbers go through the QAP. Sometimes the process is faster than other times. It depends on the time of day and our present load of Hubs to process.

How important is the HubScore (the number related to each Hub), and what, if anything, is it used for?

HubScore is a general reflection of a Hub’s success and quality (this includes human quality ratings as collected during the Quality Assessment Process). We do not recommend paying that much attention to it. Think of HubScore and Hubber Score as a rough reference point and a means of gauging the experience of other Hubbers.

How significant is Hubber Score? Can you share the factors that go into it?

Hubber Score is basically an average of your collective HubScore with a few additional behaviors (like your activity on the site) factored in.

Things factored into a Hub’s HubScore include:

  • Human ratings collected as part of the Quality Assessment Process
  • The amount of traffic your Hub receives, including traffic from HubPages as well as other outside sources
  • The length of your Hub
  • The uniqueness of the content within your Hub (copied content typically scores lower than more unique content)
  • The number of comments
  • Your overall Hubber Score

Things factored into Hubber Score include:

  • Your collective HubScores
  • Whether or not you have signed in recently
  • Whether or not you are active in the community (by regularly publishing Hubs, commenting on others’ Hubs, asking and answering good Questions, and posting to the Forums)

Does Google care about HubScores or Hubber Scores?

Google does not care about Hubber Scores or HubScores, but it does care about quality, and HubScores and Hubber Scores are a reflection of that.

What’s more, HubScores and Hubber Scores affect a Hub’s placement within our internal link structure in ways that Google is liable to notice, so while these scores are not something Google explicitly ‘reads’, they are tied to factors that matter to Google’s search algorithms.

What is the best recommendation for dealing with Hubs that have are no longer Featured?

It depends.

Seasonal Hubs that have not had traffic in the off season often just need to be updated (though if you have a particularly high Hubber Score, your seasonal Hubs may remain Featured for up to a year, meaning that even if they get very little traffic during the off season, they may still not lose their Featured status- more about that in another blog post).

Poor quality Hubs that otherwise offer great resources need to be fixed up (improve grammar, formatting, substance, organization, and media).

Hubs that are of high quality that do not get any traffic may need a different title or spin so that they address an aspect of their particular subject that is not already flooded with competition. With proper competitive research and adjustment, these Hubs can definitely be redeemed.

Hubs made ‘just for fun’ that were never really meant to act as useful or particularly detailed and informative online resources might just be left alone. If you want them to enjoy more prominence, they might find a more appropriate home on a personal blog or a platform more oriented toward that type of content.

If keywords are no longer reliable, what do you recommend we do to make a Hub competitive in search engines?

The Google AdWords Keyword Tool no longer shows accurate figures, so what we recommend is using it only to get a rough idea of the terminology people use when conducting queries on specific subjects.

We created a Learning Center entry detailing the new title creation process we recommend, which involves:

  1. Creating short, descriptive titles that mirror a likely search term
  2. Running competitive research on that likely search term to make sure you can beat the competition (check to make sure there are not a bunch of product or place results and that the top results are not flooded with results from popular, trusted brands or already-very-good pages and articles)
  3. Making sure you are genuinely passionate and knowledgeable about the subject at hand. If you are just creating a Hub because you think it will drive traffic, but do not know much about the subject or have much interest in it, stop.

What has HubPages learned from the Panda and Penguin experiences?

Quality matters. Passion matters. Thin articles designed to drive traffic and clicks don’t cut it anymore.

To make it now, you have to be even more patient, passionate, and knowledgeable than before. Ultimately, this is a good thing. True experts and enthusiasts win!

What does HubPages have in mind for the future?

Our journey to provide the best platform for creating content online continues. Our plans and projects revolve around making it easier for Hubbers to earn more, get larger audiences, build a stronger online brand, and become even more savvy as online content creators.

What is being done to rid the site of very old, very bad content?

The first thing we did with the Quality Assessment Process was address new Hubs that are being published, to ensure that, going forward, we are on the right track. All we did with already-published Hubs was remove Hubs from Google’s index that got next to no traffic, as it was quite clear that Google did not see them as worthy of getting much traffic (hence it was a quick way for us to hide Hubs that might be acting as a liability to their authors).

We are presently working through our backlog of older content with the Quality Assessment Process. This takes time and money, so the going is slow. We are being careful to ensure that what we see as high quality reflects what Google apparently sees as high quality. We are also making an effort to target and remove from Google’s index our lowest quality, old content first.

Why would HubPages or Hubbers want high-quality Hubs that aren’t getting much traffic to not be Featured?

We actually do want very high quality Hubs to be featured more or less indefinitely, even if they have low traffic. In fact, Hubs that get top ratings are permanently Featured (it is just very rare for a Hub to get a perfect ten on our rating scale).

The problem is that it is difficult for us to be confident that a Hub is superb, because for cost reasons we stop collecting rating on Hubs as soon as we’ve decided that they are “good enough”. To mitigate this problem, we are looking into ways in which we can permanently feature more high quality Hubs.

Nevertheless, even though we clearly see those Hubs as being of high quality, Google’s search algorithms, for some reason or another, have decided they do not deserve much prominence in search results (therefore they get little search traffic). Perhaps it is because they cover a topic that has already been exhausted online (e.g. getting rid of belly fat, making apple pie, etc.), or perhaps there is something else about the Hub that Google determines to be of low quality that we currently do not factor into our Quality Assessment Process.

If a Hub is not particularly exceptional, and if it is not getting a lot of search traffic, we therefore figure it would be safer to not have it count towards a Hubber’s reputation as determined by Google’s search algorithms.

The current topics on HubPages seem a bit out-of-date; is there any plan to update them?

Christy Kirwan is updating and expanding the HubPages Topic Pages right now (and has been for several weeks). We welcome new suggestions!

Does it help drive traffic in any way to have Topics associated with Hubs? What use are they?

Organizing a Hub within a leaf-level Topic Page increases its odds of being Featured on that Topic Page’s front page, so we recommend publishing Hubs within very specific leaf-level pages and on new Topic Pages (many of which are featured in the Weekly Topic Inspiration Program).

How can I be a better Hubber? How can I help the site?

Keep publishing high-quality Hubs on subjects about which you are particularly passionate and knowledgeable.
Focus on quality, not quantity
Hop and rate Hubs through the Hub Hopper
Point people toward official HubPages resources (the FAQ and Learning Center) when they have questions

This Isn’t Over!

We hope to publish more posts like this in which we set the record straight about anything you might be wondering about as we further refine and develop the new-and-improved HubPages. Should you have any particular questions that ought to be answered in a blog post like this, please send me an email.

Big thanks to Marcy Goodfleisch for sharing these questions with me and inspiring this post!

Your Questions, Answered!

One of the many things that we are excited about this holiday season is about how well our Hubbers are doing on the Q&A section of HubPages. A recent report generated by our wonderful Ari Lamstein shows that a third of questions asked on our site get answered in less than 10 minutes, 70 percent get answered within 1 hour, 90 percent within 8 hours, and, in time, 99 percent of our questions are answered within the site!  Isn’t that wonderful?

So if you were wondering about the cure for hiccups, or the best way to bathe your cat, go ahead and ask here. Our marvelous Hubbers will have an answer for you, pretty darn soon, and they may even go ahead and write a Hub based on your question – after all, just in the last year alone, 3034 Hubs were written based on questions asked on the site.

Also, noteworthy: Q&As  do very well in traffic terms as well. In fact, the last year, collectively, all Q&As received more than one million page views. So the next time you have a question, or need advice, HubPages is an excellent resource for you.

The Secret to Finding High-Traffic Topics for your Hubs

Over the last four years, I’ve published over 150 Hubs in my livelonger account, and have experimented with various types of topic sources. Some of my Hubs have been major hits, with over 100,000 views and several hundreds of dollars in my AdSense account; others barely got any views at all. Let me share with you the worst sources of high-traffic topics, and the best sources, for me, at least.


  • Anything covered in the news
  • Anything with a “newsy” title
  • Reprinting anything viral (funny videos, etc.)
  • Reviews of individual low-cost products (things that aren’t heavily researched online by people before a purchase)
  • Anything personal

These types of Hubs usually only got traffic from other Hubbers, fans or people I know, with a tiny/nonexistent trickle of searchers from Google beyond that. As traffic- and money-bringers, they were not good at all.


  • hyperlocal reviews
  • better-titled information that is already available online on a single page

These kinds of Hubs do tend to get a trickle of search traffic. Better-titled versions of topically-grouped local reviews (“Best vegetarian restaurants in Orange County”, for example) outdo reviews of individual places, which face stiff competition from the likes of Yelp, CitySearch, etc.


  • better-titled information that is only now starting to become available online
  • a much, much better treatment on a topic than what Google serves up as the first result (more capsules – like videos, polls, pictures, videos, etc., and a better writeup)

Following these approaches to sourcing topics has worked consistently well. If I’m a bit ahead of the curve on a topic, and publish a Hub on it with a search-friendly title before the large groundswell of traffic comes, I can usually rank and do well on it. The same goes for Hubs that do a lot better job than the 1st search result in Google on the same search term (better information, pictures, maps, charts, etc.).


  • topics that I google and can’t find a comprehensive answer in any one of the top results Google sends me

I can’t stress this enough. My top three Hubs – which represent over 40% of my Hub traffic – were sourced from this method. I was curious about something, a friend was curious about something, or someone in the Answers section was curious about something (one of each in this case!), I googled it, and the first few results were pretty bad. I had to poke around several sites, digging through pages, to stitch together a comprehensive Hub that really addressed the topic. From all of my research, I was able to put together a Hub that addressed the topic far more directly and thoroughly than any of the sources I found in the first few search results could.

So that’s my secret: when Google’s results frustrate you, take that as a signal and create a Hub that will earn you visitors and money for years!

HubPages Mobile Usage and 2011 Prediction

We’ve been watching mobile usage very closely at HubPages and I think we have some interesting trends to report.  The first interesting thing about mobile usage on HubPages is there were 3.6 million visits from mobile devices in November.  The iPhone is the #1 device, with 1.4 million visits, but Android usage is growing more quickly, and even though the iPhone has a large lead, Android, with .8 million visits, will close the gap in 2011.

A point of note beyond the growth of mobile smartphone use in general, (which Nielsen predicts will be owned by one in two Americans by Christmas 2011), is

usage pattern.  Mobile usage peaks and declines nearly at the inverse of browsing the web on the computer.  Saturday and Sunday, two of the lowest traffic days on HubPages, are the highest traffic days for mobile devices.  Also, on weekday evenings when computer traffic declines, mobile traffic picks up.


We have seen significant growth in mobile consumption.  HubPages continues to grow at a good clip, (we have seen over a 7.5% increase in unique visitors to the site month over month for November), however mobile usage is increasing at a greater rate with over 17% month-over-month growth.  I think there is a possibility that by the end of 2011, mobile can be responsible 25% of consumption on HubPages.  It’s aggressive growth, but possible.

We have a belief at HubPages that mobile consumption and tools for Hubbers will be a large part of our future.  We recently released an iPhone app for HubPages, and this is only the beginning.

Article-Based Web Sites and the Future of Print Media Companies

I remember when I first started using the web in the early 90’s.  Web sites were quite ugly with blinking text, slapped together images, and unstyled text. But in those days, we weren’t too bothered by that.  There was an excitement about the possibilities of all the information that could soon be available on the web.  With the slowness of modem connections at the time, I thought that article-based web sites (or online magazines as I would have said then) was where the action was going to be.

I guess looking back, I was pretty naive not to see that broadband was inevitable and the web was not going to be a great repository of articles but an active social network.  I had thought that urls were too nerdy and would prevent nontechnical folks from using the internet directly rather than going through a more user-friendly website such as AOL or at the time, Prodigy.

I wasn’t completely wrong about the impact of article-based web sites.  The print media today seems close to extinction unless it can reinvent itself online.

I thought that Clay Shirky wrote a very interesting essay about the future of TV and I think that his observations apply equally well to the print media:

The most watched minute of video made in the last five years shows baby Charlie biting his brother’s finger. (Twice!)  That minute has been watched by more people than the viewership of American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, and the Superbowl combined.  (174 million views and counting.)

Some video still has to be complex to be valuable, but the logic of the old media ecosystem, where video had to be complex simply to be video, is broken.  Expensive bits of video made in complex ways now compete with cheap bits made in simple ways.  “Charlie Bit My Finger” was made by amateurs, in one take, with a lousy camera.  No professionals were involved in selecting or editing or distributing it.  Not one dime changed hands anywhere between creator, host, and viewers.  A world where that is the kind of thing that just happens from time to time is a world where complexity is neither an absolute requirement nor an automatic advantage.

Wikipedia has demonstrated the force that article-based web sites can have. It has also demonstrated the power of crowdsourcing as an important source of content creation. Recently, Huffington Post has been attracting lots of attention as it has risen rapidly in traffic and readership.

Nothing to my mind speaks better to the changing state of the print media than a list of the top article-based sites.  The list below is based on US unique visitors as estimated by Quantcast. I am also excluding sites that do not focus primarily on articles such as Facebook, Yahoo, Google, AOL, and Microsoft.

Here’s the top 20 list for June 18, 2010:

  1. Wikipedia (75M)
  2. Blogspot (58M)
  3. Blogger.com (52M)
  4. Answers.Com (47M)
  5. About.Com (45M)
  6. eHow (44M)
  7. WordPress (30M)
  8. Huffington Post (26M)
  9. imdb (21M)
  10. cnn.com (20M)
  11. webmd (18M)
  12. Associated Content (16M)
  13. NYTimes.com (15M)
  14. cnet.com (15M)
  15. bbc.co.uk (15M)
  16. tmz.com (15M)
  17. people.com (14M)
  18. HubPages (13M)
  19. WashingtonPost.com (13M)
  20. examiner.com (13M)


A list like this is a bit deceiving.  NYT owns about.com, Associated Content is owned by Yahoo, and Blogger consists of both Blogspot (for readers) and Blogger (for writers). It also doesn’t tell you which sites are on the rise, on the decline, or staying roughly in the same spot. Still, it is very interesting to note the new names that are appearing along side the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, People, and CNN.

I think it is appropriate to end this blog post with one more quote from Clay Shirky in the same article that I quoted before:

When ecosystems change and inflexible institutions collapse, their members disperse, abandoning old beliefs, trying new things, making their living in different ways than they used to.  It’s easy to see the ways in which collapse to simplicity wrecks the glories of old.  But there is one compensating advantage for the people who escape the old system: when the ecosystem stops rewarding complexity, it is the people who figure out how to work simply in the present, rather than the people who mastered the complexities of the past, who get to say what happens in the future.

Is HubPages the Most Visited Small Web Site in the World?

One of the fun parts of my job is talking to people about HubPages who have never heard of it.  This is not so surprising considering that if you read most articles on social media, crowdsourcing, blogging, or social networking, HubPages is rarely mentioned.  If you check the Quantcast 100, most of the websites there are well-known names: Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Wikipedia, Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.  This makes sense.  These are giant sites and most of their visitors are either members or customers actively using the site’s services.  The most popular sites are for the most part: large and well-established.

For most of these sites, their users and their visitors are pretty much the same people. For HubPages, this is not the case. Most of our visitors will never sign into HubPages and they probably won’t register.  According to Quantcast, HubPages gets visited each month by approximately 20 million unique visitors.  Of this 20 million, roughly 160,000 logged in and did something on HubPages.  Just to be clear, that means that our members represents only 0.8%  of our visitors.

While 160,000 is a number to be very proud of, it is not a giant number.  These 160,000 people were responsible for roughly 55,000 hubs published and roughly 80,000 forum posts on approximately 3500 topics.  That’s a healthy amount of activity.  And yet, these numbers are quite small in relation to giant web sites out there.

Facebook, which is quite open about its numbers, has 400 million active users, 60 million status updates each day, and 5 billion pieces of content shared each week.  I mention a giant like Facebook to point out how small HubPages is in comparison.  And yet, if we judge by U.S. traffic, Facebook is has only 12 times the reach of HubPages (as measured in terms of US unique visitors: 124 million for Facebook compared to 11 million for HubPages) even though their output is more than 1,000-fold greater than the output at HubPages.

Being able to get even this close to Facebook is a big deal.  HubPages is currently ranked #89 in the U.S.

Still, my point is that in terms of the top-100 web sites, the size of the HubPages is still relatively small.  Those 55,000 hubs were published by 15,385 different people and the 80,000 forum postings came from 2,398 different people.  If we define an active user as someone who writes at least one hub a month or makes at least one post in the forum, then in the last 30 days, the number of active users was 16,242.  These 16,000+ were responsible for all the hubs created and all the posts in the forums.

Supporting these 16,000 follks are 14 HubPages staff.  When I started at HubPages almost 2 years ago, there were only 4 people listed on the HubPages About page.  I was #4 (after Paul Deeds, Maddie Ruud, and Fawntia Fowler).  I mention this only to show that HubPages is still a small web site.

I am not sure at what point a web site becomes a  medium-sized site.  We have over 700,000 hubs at present.  At the rate we are growing, we will have over a million in less than a year.  It may be when we hire employee #50 or employee #100.  But when it happens, I have no doubt, that I will be a bit nostalgic for the present time when our active community is small and our reach is rapidly growing.

Is Blogging on the Decline?

Teenagers are blogging significantly less now than they were four years ago. At least, that’s one interpretation from a recent study done by the Pew Internet Project.

Here are the facts cited by the study:

  • Only 14% of 12-17 years-olds report that they blog today versus 25% in 2006.
  • Only 52% report that they comment on blogs versus more than 3/4 in 2006.

In contrast to this, social networking is on the rise:

  • 73% of wired teens are using social networking versus 55% in 2006

It is always good to take statistics with a healthy dose of caution.  ReadWriteWeb, for example, has suggested that these numbers may have more to do with the rise of Facebook (no blogging)  and the decline in popularity of MySpace (has blogging) among teens.  They propose that “it’s possible that teens weren’t ever really into blogging to begin with.”

If you check out the Technorati’s State of the Blogosphere, it is clear that teen bloggers are not a significant part of the blogging population:

  • 95% are 18 and older
  • 60% are 18 – 44
  • 75% of bloggers have college degrees

At HubPages, for example, you have to be 18 or older to open a HubPages account.

But, there is another number that is worth considering: rate of traffic growth over the last year.  Using quantcast.com as a source:

Now, compare this with the crowdsourced information sites such as HubPages and Squidoo over the past year:

While these numbers just scratch the surface, it will be very interesting to see if these numbers hold over the next year.

So, is blogging on the decline?  I don’t think I’ve cited enough data to answer this question one way or another.

Still, there is one big trend that is unmistakable:  for easy public communcation, blogging is no longer the only game in town.

The Future of Content Web Sites: Content Factories and Content Communities

I was recently reading a Wired article that profiled a company called Demand Media.

The company is one of many companies that are seeking to become a “content factory”.  Their goal is to automate the production of web content that is carefully targeted to capture the most high value traffic from the search engines.  Both answers.com and aol.com, for example, are going after similar models.

Demand Media makes two boasts:  4,000 pieces of content a day and algorithm for identifying topics for authors to write about.  Peter Kafka has recently noted that Demand Media is probably more valuable than the New York Times.

How much content does it take to be considered a thriving content factory?  According to a recent profile from ReadWriteWeb, here are some numbers from the most popular content sites:

wikipedia.org: 56,000,000

answers.com: 37,700,000

nytimes.com: 13,200,000

washingtonpost.com: 12,500,000

ehow.com (owned by Demand Media): 4,850,000

huffingtonpost.com: 4,740,000

I am in no way trying to imply the sites such the NY Times, Washington Post, or Wikipedia are comparable to the content factories.  I bring it up to show how rapidly the content factories are growing.  Michael Arrington has written an interesting post about how the content factories may indicate the decline of “hand-crafted content”

I write all this to compare the content factory approach with the approach that we have embraced at HubPages: what I would term the ‘content community’ approach.

Rather than a factory environment where content is owned by the host site, we provide a crowdsourced environment where the copyright stays with the author.  The author is not limited to a one-time fee for writing content but is entitled to monthly payments based on the ad revenue generated by the pages written (60% of ad revenue generated by an article goes to the author).

Can the community model compete with the factory model in terms of output?  In December 2009, hubbers produced 40,892 hubs.  That’s 1,319 hubs a day on average.  That’s after we unpublished hubs that violated our terms of use.  That number has been on the rise in recent months.  In January 2009, just for comparison, hubbers produced 17,544 hubs (or, 565 hubs a day on average).

Are HubPages hubs higher quality than the content factory articles?  It’s definitely our goal to keep raising the quality standards at HubPages.  Hubscore has gone a long way in promoting quality.  I think that we can do more.

I bring all this up because even if the content factories are starting to get lots of attention, I think that the future lies with content communities.  I believe that ultimately authors will want to retain the copyright for their best stuff.  It is always more fun and rewarding to be part of a community rather than a cog on a wheel that turns according to a master algorithm.

To be fair, eHow, which is owned by Demand Media, operates as a content community so it is quite possible that in the long run, Demand Media will move more in this direction.

Additionally, its questionable whether the content factories will be able to keep up their current search traffic levels.  John Battelle believes that Google will be working hard to put a stop on their influence.  John believes that “2010 is going to be a very interesting year.”

A Record Week For The HubMob! (and a shout-out to Simple Tim, a HubMobster maniac)

Last week Princessa, our very own HubMob Queen, posted up a HubMob topic over here in the forums just like she does every other week. But, after posting that this week’s topic was Toys, something unexpectedly awesome started to happen. HubMobsters began showing up from all over the place and they were publishing HubMob Hubs one after another, after another — it was pure HubMob pandemonium and it was all very unexpected.

I mean, not to say that we all don’t have a great time with the HubMob every other week, but the fact that according to our stats, on average, the HubMob attracts 27 HubMobsters that publish 31 HubMob Hubs and that last week we had 117 Hubs that were published by 47 HubMobsters, I would say that the fun level was definitely boosted a bit. Also, it’s probably worth mentioning that there was a SUPER HubMobster, Simple Tim, who really helped out the cause by publishing an astonishing 22 HubMob Hubs on his own!

So, thanks to everyone who helped set the all-new HubMob record and be sure to join this week’s HubMob, which is all about Body Art. Hub baby, Hub!