Hide slop post from planet

I read that post and it's complete fiction, it misrepresents the past ten years of Drupal releases, so would recommend the entire site is suspended from planet.

Agree, the blog post makes no sense whatsoever.

It's quite incredible that despite being mostly nonsensical, it is somehow also egregiously inaccurate!

May somebody point out the reason for removing that article from Planet Drupal?

@avpaderno every paragraph of the article is egregiously inaccurate and it looks like it was entirely LLM generated.

There is a list of topics which are not acceptable for an article added to a Planet Drupal feed. Removed articles are the ones about those topics.

Sounds like we need to create a policy about this first, seeing as it is a relatively new problem. Because it is a really bad look for d.o to be promoting blatantly false information about the project, but it's fair enough that there are policies to follow.

Should we make a new issue to create a policy about content accuracy?

It does seem a little odd to have to write "Posts must contain accurate information" but hey, at least then we can point to it :)

For me those bullet points are examples rather than an exhaustive list.

I also think this falls under:

""I Love Drupal!" posts that don’t provide valuable, actionable content to readers"

This is the opposite of valuable, actionable content, it's actively misleading.

I'd also class it as spam, in the content farm sense of spam.

I agree that it's not meant to be an exhaustive list, but it also would be easy to add:

• Posts that contain objectively incorrect or misleading information
• Posts that summarize widely available material (e.g. release notes) without adding additional insight

Posts that summarize widely available material (e.g. release notes) without adding additional insight seems a good point about content that should not be added to Planet Drupal which seems better than "I Love Drupal!" posts that don’t provide valuable, actionable content to readers, for which I do not see what actionable content is expected to be, and better than Posts that contain objectively incorrect or misleading information.

Whenever those points are an exhaustive list or examples, they should not be stretched at the point that they are used for arbitrary articles somebody does not like. They should also be based on objective criteria that can be objectively evaluated.
Furthermore, Content that is great for Planet Drupal and Content that does not fit Planet Drupal should not contradict each other. For example, there is probably nothing actionable in notes from a past presentation, but notes from a past presentation is listed under Content that is great for Planet Drupal.

Yes, before a feed is rejected basing on its articles' topics, Planet Drupal guidelines should be changed. Issues about policies are posted on the site moderators queue where, for example, #3475624: Articles on Planet Drupal should have content notices if they are generated using AI such as ChatGPT can be found.

I moved the article in a "hidden" category. The only way to see that article is accessing the specific source link, where that article shows Categories: Removed posts. People reading Planet Drupal will not see it.
Since changing the category for single articles is always possible, and since site moderators have access to https://www.drupal.org/admin/config/services/aggregator where that "hidden" category is linked, that change can be reverted at any time.

better than Posts that contain objectively incorrect or misleading information.

Curious why do you don't think this is a useful guideline? The post flagged here does not fall under "summarising widely available information", I added that based on these other posts:
https://www.dynamosys.com/insights/2026/drupal-11410-fixes-critical-secu...
https://www.dynamosys.com/insights/2026/drupal-1149-steadier-sidebar-and...

The post flagged here contains a number of statements that are simply untrue:

Historically, major CMS upgrades were treated as little more than UI refreshes.

The platform is fundamentally altering the rules of engagement. Instead of merely suggesting best practices, Drupal 12 enforces strict architectural modernization right at the server level.

Drupal 12 changes this by aggressively stripping out all deprecated core APIs.

Just to name a few. For me, it is extremely problematic to promote content like this, as I think accuracy is probably the most important criteria for content that is being promoted.

Also these are completely unsubstantiated assertions. It's not an argument that is wrong, or even an argument based on incorrect assumptions - there is no argument or background there at all.

Posts that summarize widely available material (e.g. release notes) without adding additional insight is about the full post, while Posts that contain objectively incorrect or misleading information can also be about a single phrase in all the post. I would rather decline a feed because the full content of its articles, rather than a single phrase in an article.