Bogus Google violations on my hubs!

Jump to Last Post 1-12 of 12 discussions (29 posts)
  1. RonElFran profile image99
    RonElFranposted 2 years ago

    I just received notice from Google that ad serving is being blocked on two of my hubs because violations for "Dangerous or derogatory content" were detected.

    The hubs are "How Abraham Lincoln Fired General John C. Fremont" and "Ulysses S. Grant vs Robert E. Lee on Slavery" - not exactly racy or provocative content!

    I've asked for a review of these pages. But I wasn't able to see exactly what was the content Google's filters thought was bad. Does anybody know how to find out specifically what they think is wrong?

  2. Rupert Taylor profile image97
    Rupert Taylorposted 2 years ago

    Hi Ron

    I don't think there is a way to get an answer out of the mighty G. You pretty much have to guess. I've had these notices a couple of times. So I try to put myself into the mindset of a spinster lady who has never touched even sherry trifle and closely examine the article for offensive content.

    I had one Civil War piece rejected because it showed an etching of a traitor being hanged in the very far distance. It caused the Big G algorithm to shudder and twitch in horror and spit out its warning about graphic content. I removed the image and all was sweetness and light again.

    If memory serves, and it probably doesn't, there should be a link in the Google missive to a list of what is offensive.

    Perhaps, someone else has some more cogent advice. I shall watch for it.

    1. RonElFran profile image99
      RonElFranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Rupert, maybe I just don't have enough imagination - anyone, whatever their station in life, would have to get pretty creative to conjure up something offensive in these articles. But, of course, that's the issue, isn't it. Google's watchdogs aren't human. I hope they are using an AI algorithm that continually learns and will get smarter about this as human reviewers slap its hands for making stupid mistakes.

      1. DrMark1961 profile image97
        DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I wrote an article about skin diseases in dogs. I included a photo of a dog with a skin disease. Google┬┤s watchdog spotted it after a few years and took the ads off of my article.
        Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
        From what I have seen they are not getting better, just more intolerant.

        1. RonElFran profile image99
          RonElFranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I'm hopeful it will get better over time. Although there are still major issues, a sufficiently trained AI system should be able to take context into account and handle this without generating a lot of false alarms.

    2. DzyMsLizzy profile image94
      DzyMsLizzyposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      If they're so touchy as all that...I dunno! 
      Reminds me of a story I read once many moons ago, I forget the source, but supposedly a true accounting of something that really happened.

      It seems an elderly, prudish woman had called the cops to complain about neighbors sunbathing in their birthday suits...
      The cops came, looked out the window, and said they couldn't see anything.
      To which the woman replied, "Well, stand up on that chair, and you'll see plenty!"

      It would seem that "The Big G" is a lot like that old woman--there's nothing offensive, but they're determined to look for it and claim to find/see it!!

      Disgusting, maddening, sickening, and oh, by the way--that's censorship!!  Aren't we supposed to have freedom of speech and of the press in this country?  And yet, it seems this kind of thing is getting worse, not better!

  3. Beth Eaglescliffe profile image97
    Beth Eaglescliffeposted 2 years ago

    Sometimes issues with Google like this are hidden somewhere in the comments section. Possible issues may be:

    In several of the comments on "Ulysses S. Grant vs Robert E. Lee on Slavery" the words bondage and whipping are used. Maybe these are flagged by Google?

    Mark Schweickart's comment on "How Abraham Lincoln Fired General John C. Fremont" contains an odd-looking contact email. You could try deleting his comment (and your reply) and see if that solves the problem.

    Great articles by the way. I enjoyed reading them.

    1. RonElFran profile image99
      RonElFranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks, Beth. I can see how a not-so-smart algorithm could get upset if it doesn't realize the context of some of the words associated with slavery. If that's what triggered this, I don't think writers can do anything about it except hope the algorithm gets smarter! Thanks for alerting me to that email - I'll check it out. That I can do something about.

  4. Glenn Stok profile image97
    Glenn Stokposted 2 years ago

    Ron, I complained about this to the staff a while back and they fixed it at that time. But it might be happening again.

    The problem was that Maven was placing sexually oriented ads on our hubs. You have to catch it when it happens and take a screenshot to report it to the team. But it's not easy to do since they appear randomly.

    Asking Google to review by clicking the review button in your AdSense account usually clears it up because the questionable ad won't be caught the next time (hopefully) their bot examines it.

    Beth mentioned an important issue too. I always delete comments that don't add value or that have wording that can confuse Google. What Beth found on your hubs could actually be the problem in your case.

    1. RonElFran profile image99
      RonElFranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Glenn, I hope that the Maven ad thing is not the cause. Because if it's not fixed and keeps happening, will we be getting continuing violations, and will Google finally lose patience and do something drastic? I was hoping to avoid having to spend time culling comments, but maybe I'll have to do that. Thanks.

  5. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image92
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 2 years ago

    Had a page about what a not so nice person Winnie Mandela is. Wasn't a very good page at all, but it got a lot of traffic at times. It was nearly seven years old when suddenly it became completely inappropriate.

    Strange world we live in. We're being judged by robots. And we seem okay with this.

    1. RonElFran profile image99
      RonElFranposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      We mustn't complain about our robot overlords. After all, they know where we live.

  6. hardlymoving profile image98
    hardlymovingposted 24 months ago

    Lincoln = Republican.  Republicans are evil. Military men serve their country. Republican fired military man serving his country.  This is bad.  Block the article!

    Grant = General  Lee = General  Generals fighting with each other from the same country.  Cannot co-exist, make peace.  This is bad.  Slavery is bad.  Block the article!

  7. Kierstin Gunsberg profile image97
    Kierstin Gunsbergposted 24 months ago

    Ron, I had this happen as well. My content was considered sexually explicit adult content (they were medical articles about pregnancy). I filed for a review of the content through Google and they fixed their mistake. I think it's more algorithm error (picking up on particular keywords) than anything else.

    1. Madeleine Clays profile image97
      Madeleine Claysposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      Good to know they reversed their mistake!

  8. RonElFran profile image99
    RonElFranposted 24 months ago

    Unbelievably (to me), after the review Google still says there are violations. What's so frustrating is that the content in these articles comes nowhere near any of the items on Google's list of possible violations. That leaves me completely at sea. So, now I've deleted some comments, and reworded content that could possibly, maybe in a galaxy far, far away, be considered offensive by the most sensitive being in the entire universe. I've asked for another review. We'll see what happens.

    1. Marketing Merit profile image95
      Marketing Meritposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      Hi Ron. My thoughts are similar to Beth's, but I also can't help wondering if it is because slavery is detailed in both articles.

      Google is hyper-sensitive these days. I've received a couple of 'graphic content' warnings over relatively minor things. Similar to Dr Mark's experience, one of these was for a picture of verrucas!

      Your warning is for dangerous or derogatory content. Not sure if you've read the specific policy, but I've copied some excerpts which I feel may be relevant to your articles.

      "We believe strongly in freedom of expression, but we don't permit the monetisation of dangerous or derogatory content. For this reason, Google ads may not be placed on pages containing content that:

      Incites hatred against, promotes discrimination against, or disparages an individual or group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or any other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalisation.

      Examples include:

      Content that encourages others to believe that a person or group is inhuman, inferior or worthy of being hated on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or any other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalisation"


      Unfortunately, Google does appear to be issuing a blanket censorship over certain topics, even if they are factually and historically correct.

      1. RonElFran profile image99
        RonElFranposted 24 months agoin reply to this

        I did read the policy, and that's what's so frustrating. Nothing in my articles comes anywhere near anything on that list. That would be obvious to any person who actually reads them. But I don't think Google has people actually looking at the flagged content, even during the review process - it's all algorithms, and pretty dumb algorithms at that.

        I guess the bottom line is that authors must think about how a not-smart algorithm could misinterpret their wording, even when it's totally innocuous.

        1. Marketing Merit profile image95
          Marketing Meritposted 24 months agoin reply to this

          As Beth alluded to earlier, Google has a list of keywords which no doubt trigger alerts, especially if repeated several times.

          For example, I have several articles about dating and relationships which have received violation notices. Apologies in advance if I make anyone blush, but I used the highly offensive word, sex in my articles.

          I had to go through and replace several of these with words/phrases such as, lovemaking or being intimate.

          Yes, we are at the mercy of bots Ron, but you are not alone in this struggle. I can only suggest you look at what words may have triggered the violation, how often they have been repeated and look for alternative words to use.

          Good luck with this!

          1. RonElFran profile image99
            RonElFranposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            I'm sure you're right, and I've been looking for terms that might be triggers for Google's filters.

            But that leads to another problem. The only wording I've found that an algorithm might flag occur in the questions in my poll capsule. One says "he supported slavery" and the other mentions "people in bondage". To change that wording would mean resetting all the poll votes, which I don't want to do. I've emailed the team to see if there's a way around this.

  9. Kenna McHugh profile image90
    Kenna McHughposted 24 months ago

    What a hassle!!

  10. RonElFran profile image99
    RonElFranposted 24 months ago

    Update

    After making changes, the Fremont hub is now clear, but the Grant vs Lee hub still has a violation on it. Thanks to Beth for her suggestions, which may have been what got the Fremont hub cleared.

    I've reached a conclusion about the Google process. I assumed that a "review" would involve putting human eyes on the content. I now think that's not the case. It seems that Google's review process is that you make changes, then the review just sends the article back through the same algorithm. That's why they allow you up to 100 reviews per month - you are expected to keep blindly changing things until you happen to hit on whatever the algorithm doesn't like.

  11. RonElFran profile image99
    RonElFranposted 24 months ago

    CASE CLOSED

    Finally, the last review resulted in no violations found. But there is a cost. Apparently what did it was when I hid my poll capsule in which the questions contained the phrases "he supported slavery" and "people in bondage". You can't change the wording in a poll capsule without all the vote stats being reset. The HP team tells me there's no way to avoid that. So, the poll capsule will remain hidden.

    Thanks to everyone for your suggestions, which were a great help.

    1. janshares profile image94
      jansharesposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      Glad it resolved in your favor, Ron.

      1. Beth Eaglescliffe profile image97
        Beth Eaglescliffeposted 24 months agoin reply to this

        Glad my suggestions helped.

  12. RonElFran profile image99
    RonElFranposted 24 months ago

    POSTSCRIPT - it may get worse!

    I'm already seeing the pernicious effects of Google's obtuseness about what constitutes "dangerous or derogatory" content.

    I'm in the process of writing an article about an important historical figure who said the following (can you guess who it is?):

    "I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races."

    I have no choice but to quote this and other similar things the person said - that's the whole point of the article! But now I know I have every reason to be concerned that Google's common sense-challenged algorithms will, with a total lack of historical perspective, freak out when they see those words.

    Ah, it has ever been the fate of great writers to be persecuted. And now the rest of us, too.

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image92
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      That's an Abraham Lincoln quote.

      1. RonElFran profile image99
        RonElFranposted 24 months agoin reply to this

        You got it.

        1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image92
          Wesman Todd Shawposted 24 months agoin reply to this

          Persecuted by robots.

          I had a friend who was about twenty years older than me. He was several degrees more backwoods redneck than me. And he made my bit of bi-polar disorder look pretty mild.

          He was certain there was going to be some sort of robot utopia in a hundred years or so. I always loved that guy, but I completely disagreed with him about that, and about many other things.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)