Let me be perfectly clear about the sub-par work which defines these posts: they have been permitted for limited times on very few occassions, but have failed to garner new readers. Old readers lack value; still, some writers, whether awful enough to drive the readership away, or, less perceptibly bad, weaken the taste and curiosity of readers in a manner that prevents their enjoyment of new voices, come and go. Neither of these latter problems are evidenced in a study of the current selection; mere mediocrity is what it is. It served a purpose, filled up space that could lure savvy marketing groups as an available, if costly, opportunity.
Some bluffs have tells. A logical approach demands players adjust. Still, if the opponent spots your adjustment, you have no game. Sometimes, therefore, losing moves must be played. These posts exemplify such cleverness, the bluffer must bluff himself. This takes great refinement: the choice of hand must be specified and narrowed, the wager must have a loose but low limit, and the number of opponents must be increased so as to confuse with competing strategies.
There are many people who assist an editor. All must be tasked with keeping a guard on the work, and fixing it: by title, placement, grammatical choices, fact-checking, types of clarification and specification, and byline attribution.