Important to note: According to this HubPages forum post: http://hubpages.com/community/forum/135470/the-future-of-mother-hubpages#post2801224 "... Hubpages has relocated from one of the most expensive commercial areas in downtown San Francisco to a co-working space 20 miles north suggests they aren't currently in a great financial position." And just two days ago, another Hubber stated: "Along with whois, the DMCA fax number is still San Francisco. However, you do got [sic] me wondering... But my speculation is some HP employees live in Berkeley and HP decided to do a secondary office there with Minna Street still being HQ. Interesting, maybe HP could chime in on this?" Apparently "it changed in early February" and (no surprise) HubPages' staff never chimed in on this thread. This new or secondary address for HubPages Inc. is: 2120 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94704 – good to know for those seeking legal redress. On another note, someone named "Hearts and Lattes" observed what I've suspected for some time now. In this forum thread: http://hubpages.com/community/forum/135384/niche-sites-and-comments-section s/he asked: "Are comments mandatory on the niche sites? It seems every hub I see has a lot of comments on it." What I believe is probably happening is that the Editbot is fixing up comments left by ? which HubPages hopes search engines will interpret as "updated, active and relevant". When, in reality, many of these pages are the work of authors that HubPages deems "inactive" or something similar. In other words, these are pages that HubPages reaps 100 percent of the profits from (and the author does not receive their rightful share of the earnings). It also tells me that HubPages is trying to "cut the author" out of the loop. To test this out, I went to PetHelpful(dot)com and clicked on "11 Dogs that Look Like Wolves" which was apparently updated October 25th, 2015 and authored by someone named "ARSH". When I clicked on ARSH's name, I only saw the date s/he joined and a few sentences. There were no other links to a profile page or where readers could find him or her at all. In the comments section, the "Hub Author" is identified as srai01 and I thought 'for sure clicking on it would lead me to a profile page' but it doesn't. At the bottom of the page, where it invites you to submit a comment" it states: "New comments are not being accepted on this Hub at this time." Since I never joined HubPages, I'm not entirely sure what is controlled by the author or by HubPages. But I certainly feel the author is being downplayed on these pages. And when I read Christy Kirwan's following response to a question about referral links, I felt similarily: "We don't support that feature on niche sites, and we recommend using the "Sign Up for HubPages" link and adding your tracker if you want to invite someone to create an account." Source: http://hubpages.com/community/forum/135271/new-niche-sites---referrals#post2798103 Hmm, of course, HubPages "could" be outsourcing content creators and/or people to comment and then running the Editbot over it all to "fix up" the content (including the comments). Will it fool Google and the public? I doubt it. I wrote: Can the HubPages' Editbot Fool Google and the Public? for those who want to know more: http://roserightswrongs.blogspot.ca/2015/09/can-hubpages-editbot-fool-google-and_20.html I'm still sifting through information about HubPages' tentative plans for niche sites. So far, there seems to be plenty of glitches and not much communicated (in terms of their future). I'd be prepared for a sudden closure (and take any screenshots of earnings you are owed). As I've mentioned before, HubPages will no longer provide a week's notice of any major changes. See my update titled URGENT: You Need to Decide Before February 9th, 2016: https://www.change.org/p/kamala-harris-hubpages-writers-are-entitled-to-all-earnings-and-removal-of-their-author-content/u/15307542 As for Pinterest, it appears that they are STILL keeping that phony account up so HubPages can continue to profit 100 percent from my identity and my content: https://www.pinterest.com/source/sousababy.hubpages.com/ And here's the thing: I "get" that people want to defend this type of account as "not the same as a regular Pinterest account" but in every functional aspect - it IS! People can re-pin my work, send, like, and comment on it just like on my REAL Pinterest account: https://www.pinterest.com/R_Webster/ Everything on it is mine (my identity and my work) but it ONLY profits HubPages. So, relabeling and using clever wording isn't going to fool me (or anyone with common sense). Sadly, I continue to get bashed in the InfoBarrel forum for stating the obvious: http://www.infobarrel.com/forum-topic.php?id=13409&page=2 I seriously don't understand the hatred directed my way since I am continuing with this petition to protect other writers (not myself). How this Pinterest-thing might impact anyone on HubPages (or their niche sites) is open to debate. But there have been plenty of complaints like these: shay-marie wrote: "I know that this was addressed days ago, but Pinterest is marking Pethelpful links as spam and straight up blocking the site. I am not able to update some of my old HubPages links on Pinterest, and those same hubpages pins are not redirecting to Pethelpful. Traffic is tanking. Please look into this." Source: http://hubpages.com/community/forum/135334/pethelpful-is-live#post2799860 wordscribe43 wrote: "I am having the same issue. Pinterest says it blocked the link because it may lead to spam. I have two Pinterest accounts. When I log into the other one and try to Pin my PetHelpful hub it says there are no images to save... Which is of course not the case." Source: http://hubpages.com/community/forum/135334/pethelpful-is-live#post2799987 Apparently, Paul Edmondson has tried to address this several times with Pinterest. The next day, shay-marie added: "Pinterest won't let me change my own pins to Pethelpful links either. Whenever I try to edit one of my pins with the pethelpful URL, I get this: Oops! Sorry! We blocked this link because it may lead to spam." Source: http://hubpages.com/community/forum/135334/pethelpful-is-live#post2800121 Other issues which I found disturbing was the lack of photo attributions. In this forum thread: http://hubpages.com/community/forum/135465/where-is-the-photo-attribution OldRoses asks: "I published a new hub and noticed that the photo attribution is missing on the published version. In the hub tool, I have filled in and saved the source (my own photo) but it is not showing up. Is this something new? Does the source only show up when it is not the author's own photo? Well, according to Kylyssa: "That's how it is supposed to be. They don't seem to see visible attribution as important anymore." Hmm, not a wise decision for any platform or online writer today. But it certainly helps scrapers and plagiarists, doesn't it. Oh and did you hear? HubPages "botched the ad rotation" but what irked me is that people were thanking Paul Edmondson for only PARTIALLY making up for it. Yeah, HubPages was getting 100 percent of the impressions (for "x" amount of time, who knows?) which strengthens my hunch that most of the niche site pages are by "inactive" authors (or similar) – pages that HubPages reaps 100 percent of the profits from is my point. And once it is discovered, in this forum post: http://hubpages.com/community/forum/135334/pethelpful-is-live#post2799059 Paul Edmondson states: "We are sorry we botched the ad rotation code. We are going to make up for it and then some on PetHelpful and TatRing. 80% of impressions will go to Hubbers Feb 25th to March 3rd for PetHelpful and 80% will go to Hubbers Feb 25 - Apr 23 on TatRing." Whoa, generous (I guess) depending on who you ask. I'll be in touch, Rose