jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (35 posts)

What on earth does this mean?

  1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
    Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago

    I have been off and on Hub Pages all day. I just saw a message on one of my hubs that frankly floored me! Would someone please explain this message?

    "Please review the automatically generated warning below, and correct the problem if possible. These warnings are only visible to you, the author. Please click on the warning to learn more.

        Warning: Advertising has been disabled on this Hub based on moderator review

        The content of this Hub has been reviewed by a moderator and it was determined not to be suitable for advertising. In order to protect our relationships with advertising partners, ad serving has been disabled on this Hub. To learn more please review the FAQ entry Why were ads disabled on my Hub?

        Because this Hub was identified manually, and not through our automatic filter, this status will not change if you modify the contents of your Hub. Therefore, if you do make significant changes please contact us and we will review them as soon as we can (please include the title or URL of this Hub in your message)."

    The hub is totally innocuous. I am at a loss...

    1. Matthew Meyer profile image75
      Matthew Meyerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It is related to this image that is not ad-safe.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/11885433_f260.jpg

      Please email us at team at hubpages dot com with any further questions.

      1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
        Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you, Matthew. I would never have dreamed that would be an issue. I would think that a photo of a malnourished child was acceptable. I find that very strange.

        I'll remove it.

        1. Barbara Kay profile image85
          Barbara Kayposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It may be because he is unclothed. Google has rules about that.

          1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
            Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Barbara, it must be. I am still flabbergasted.

            1. Swisstoons profile image78
              Swisstoonsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              My guess would be that a picture like that would only be compatible with ads having to do with charities.  It would almost certainly preclude HubPages running any humorous or humorously-illustrated ads.  Likewise for ads about pizza, etc.

              1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
                Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Swisstoons,
                That may be, however, there are multitudes of hubs that address very serious concerns, like malnutrition - which is why the photo was there in the first place. Quite a few photos are difficult to view, as they wrench the heart.

                It is difficult to understand how a photo of a starving child would be deemed to be "inappropriate"; especially because none of his private areas were visible.

                1. Matthew Meyer profile image75
                  Matthew Meyerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  These images are not prohibited, they are simply not ad-safe and having ads enabled on Hubs with images and content not appropriate for ads puts your AdSense account at risk for a policy violation and potential ban by Google.
                  http://hubpages.com/faq/#adsdisabled

                  1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
                    Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I see. I cannot say that I understand the reasoning, about this particular photo, but I do understand that somehow it has been deemed to be "not ad-safe".

                    Off to read the link you posted, again.

                    Thank you, Matthew!

          2. relache profile image84
            relacheposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Google also has standards/rules about including image that are unsettling and distressing to viewers.  The image of a human being who is on the verge of utter starvation and shown naked to accentuate that fact is not considered to be appropriate for all viewing audiences by them.

            1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
              Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              relache,

              I see. That better explains it. I read what Matthew directed me to, at the link he posted, and could not find a specific reference to explain why it was inappropriate.  Thank you!

            2. Anna Marie Bowman profile image87
              Anna Marie Bowmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, heaven forbid we talk about subjects that others may find distressing, never mind the fact that serious attention could be drawn to said issues. I had a similar problem with a Hub I wrote on child abuse. It delves into unpleasant topics about child abuse, without going into graphic details. It is more about recognizing signs of abuse in children. It was flagged with the same thing, that ads have been removed. The subject matter is more important than any potential revenue generated by the Hub, so I left it. I have never had my account disabled, or shut down, so I guess, as long as the ads are disabled, it's ok.

              1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
                Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Anna Marie, I completely agree. If I shared about a lot of the "hell and high water" that I have endured in my life, complete with photos, it would not be considered suitable for ads. However, it just might help other people who have had abusive marriages, find a way out of their situation.

                So much of what is important in life has to do with helping others, and often what is necessary to bring tragic circumstances to light, is NOT pleasant to look at or think about.

                I believe most advertisers are more interested in selling products, and to date, no one has invented an Anti-Child Abuse weapon, or a Prevent Malnutrition Now packet. If they had, our topics would be acceptable.

      2. Shades-of-truth profile image87
        Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Matthew, I removed that photo, although the link in your post still works. The dollar sign with the slash through it is still there. Any ideas as to - why?

        1. Susana S profile image92
          Susana Sposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It needs to be human reviewed before ads can be reinstated.

          1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
            Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you, Susana. I will contact the team, and let them know I deleted the photo.

    2. peachpurple profile image75
      peachpurpleposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      yes, try writing to HP team and ask them what is the actual problem. If it is the picture, change them.

      1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
        Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        peachpurple,
        I would, but Matthew Meyer IS on the HP team. He said, above, that the issue is that photo.

  2. LindaSmith1 profile image61
    LindaSmith1posted 2 years ago

    That pic is not okay but sexy pics and videos is actually on HP Topics Tree.  Go figure that one.

    1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
      Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I agree, Linda. I have stumbled upon a lot of inappropriate content, and reported it. Some of it is still published, and featured, too.

      What surprises me, is that photo was on another article of mine, that received the most traffic when it was on Squidoo. It was there for four years. No one even hinted that it might not be appropriate.

      Some things are simply difficult to figure out.

    2. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image95
      Marcy Goodfleischposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      +1

      Very good point. I've flagged profiles that are clearly sex-trade 'vendors,' and many haven't been online for years (so why keep them?), but they stay on this site.

      1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
        Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Marcy,

        Why would that be? If flagging a hub for inappropriate content, low quality content, or illegible content is not effective - why does the report button exist?

        Just this morning, I flagged a Hubber who has done nothing more than post spam comments on the forums.

        According to the experience you have had, it is all-but futile to report them.

  3. Shades-of-truth profile image87
    Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago

    Apologize for commenting under my own comment, but...

    I wonder if someone could tell me why the ads are still disabled on one of my hubs. I deleted the photo of the malnourished child, sent an email to the HP team to reevaluate it, and still have the ads disabled. Any ideas?

  4. Tuhin77 profile image81
    Tuhin77posted 2 years ago

    It simply means that the subject on which you have written is not related to any product or advertisements that can be shown. Try writing something related to things with advertisements and has many tags.

    1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
      Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Tuhin77, thank you, but the subject I was writing about did not seem to be the issue, at all. Matthew Meyer, from the HP Team, explained that it had to do with the photo of a malnourished child. It was pertinent to the content.

      Some of the other Hubbers commented also, and the consensus is that the photo is simply considered to violate Google's ad policies.

  5. Tuhin77 profile image81
    Tuhin77posted 2 years ago

    Was the malnourished child nude?

    1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
      Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      There is a link to the photo in one of Matthew Meyer's replies, at the top.

  6. Tuhin77 profile image81
    Tuhin77posted 2 years ago

    Then I don't think it is violating any rule

    1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
      Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Tuhin77, Hub Pages said it is violating a rule - yet, just this morning, in my feed, was the photo of a gal just about busting out of her clothing. That, is "okay", but a malnourished child is not.

      Seems to me that the parameters are skewed.

      Why is it all right to have sexy photos displayed, but not one that addresses a worldwide concern? Something is decidedly "off", when fluff photos are allowed, and poignant, heart-wrenching ones are not.

      1. Tuhin77 profile image81
        Tuhin77posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        seriously...you should complaint about it

        1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
          Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I sent two emails to the HP team, days ago. One, through the link in the "warning" area, and one from my personal email acct. Still, no response, and the dollar sign with the slash is still showing on my hub list, next to that hub.

          Does anyone know how long it usually takes to get a response, after one has edited a hub to comply with the ad parameters?

  7. Tuhin77 profile image81
    Tuhin77posted 2 years ago

    Don't know about the reply time but havn't they told you the estimated reply time? Just be patiend and all the best.

    1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
      Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Tuhin77,

      I did not see any estimated reply time. I did comply with the warning, so would like to see the "ad ban" lifted.

      1. Colin Quartermain profile image86
        Colin Quartermainposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Might be worth emailing them again - I had a similar issue, and had to change a picture.

        They have to manually look at the hub, so I emailed them once I had changed the picture, and ads were enabled within an hour

        1. Shades-of-truth profile image87
          Shades-of-truthposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you, Colin. I have emailed them twice already, and have not seen any change. If it is still up there tomorrow, I suppose I shall send another email.

          I thought it would be remedied rapidly, as yours was.

          UPDATE: Ads have been reinstated, about 73 minutes after this post.

 
working