The fish/Beefheart/Harry Styles bouillabaisse one?

That was nommed and rejected.

Kind of expected. But as I said in the moany piece the other day, it was written and submitted by way of experiment as much as anything.

If I can write weird, quirky stuff like that and still get it boosted, i.e. read by more than 8 people, it's worth continuing.

But they have clearly changed both staff and criteria in the Curation department, and stuff that in the past I felt 'this could sneak in' and often did - both as writer and nommer - is now getting nixxed.

It's back to 'there must be one clear and single point leading directly an actionable life lesson' or 'lowest common denominator airline food' that everyone would understand, I fear.

Which again comes down to their unintelligent use of data in the distribution process.

If they can use the data they have to separate out 'Music' people who want (another!) review of the latest Taylor Swift album, because that's what they've clicked on and engaged with, from 'Music' people who want more offbeat takes on less familiar artists, they can be more effective in matchmaking for readers and writers, and bolder in boosting, confident that their algorithm will send it to the right people.

It's surely just basic data science in 2024. They're in California, FFS, not a cave in Afghanistan.