Your subject does not conform with our editorial policy. Welcome to the Machine
This banner would be appropriate. But an important part of the discussion cannot be written about.
These are words of doom from a publisher.
Hub pages are a publisher. Therefore they make their living off of advertising. In order to do that they must sell advertising to companies. For companies to buy their advertising they have to advertise to the companies. The companies will buy the advertising if the publishers’ standards and audience match their own criteria. Then price and duration are bargained for, and agreed upon.
The system is good and workable. However the advertisers have the money, the Search engines want the money and there are a whole heck of a lot of publishers who have no bargaining power at all.
Really poor online art/poetry/music does not care. Really good stuff does not care. So right now the only driving force to reckon with at all are money making publishers. Certainly not the artists.
The ---- of Nanking is to this day an issue in Sino-Japanese relations.
In order to meet the standards publishers use electronic monitoring of certain undesirable words and phrases and prevent them from being in association with ads that place restrictions on content around them. There is a word that cannot be used in Hub pages. And there is another that sometimes cannot be used. Both words start with the letter “r” and end with a silent “e”. In another order the letters can spell pear and care. But in the banned arrangement the “A” has a long “a” sound. I think you get the point.
However I somewhat agree with the notion, if it were done by humans.
If you use those words you will probably get a $ symbol which means no advertising on your hub or this dreaded notice: Your subject does not conform with our editorial policy. (Please notice that the notice is grammatically wrong, clearly the “with” should be “to”) So my point is really about the system. Machines and most algorythms simply cannot yet excecute the skill of discernment. Quality of publishing requires discernment.
A light flashes in the dark
Do you remember these phrases
"Does not Compute"
How about "danger danger danger will Robinson"
Do you remember HAL and Dave in 2001 Space Odyssey?
I remember buying a new company car back in 1988 it was a Maxima from Nissan. I swear if you forgot to turn off your lights it would say what sounded like "Lights are on" which was way cool. But the freaky thing was is was programmed to sound more like "rights areon". Which was scary.
Thank goodness the later Star Trek had an android to make it all real. But we will never forget R2 D2.
Welcome to the Machine
Please think about it.
cold or over heated
A strange computer
I have had bad bosses and judges. But I must say that they were bad because they were unpredictable. I have run into bad machines and I must say they were bad because they were unreliable.
My favorite heckling line to an umpire/ref is: Can we play by the same rules as your favorite team.
I never minded a strict ref. When he was consistently strict. But my favorite refs were ones that tried hard to let us try hard and play the game.
Online writing rules are mostly just dandy. Everyone of reasonable mental acuity can play by the rules. But when machines are doing the judging we run into real problems.
The obvious simple solution is to have enough folks overseeing a program so that anomalies and strange results can be instantly personally challenged and corrected or not.
The reason for not doing this is two-fold. Programmers fight and proclaim their program is better than humans and bean counters hate for people to have a job.
We can do better as the graph shows there are good parts to all aspects, synergism is the key not isolation and power struggles and cheap anti-labor attitudes.