As many of you are certainly aware, there have been a lot of changes made recently to both eHow and Demand Studios. Demand Media appears to be on a quality binge, which isn't a bad thing. We've all seen the heaps of awful articles on eHow, and hoped that they'd be taken down. But, are things going too far?I was instantly upset by this, because I write many short how-to articles and didn't know how I could possibly find sources for some of them. "How to make Chip Shop Curry Sauce" comes to mind. I wrote this article after the policy had gone into effect, but before I knew about it. When it gets sent back, I have no idea how I'm going to source it, as I just used a few online recipes to create it.
Well, today I sat down to write, feeling extremely sorry for myself, but knowing that I had to try, and it wasn't all that bad. I was able to find reputable sources for most of the articles, even on the easiest of topics. Using Google Scholar is extremely helpful for this. (If you don't know about it, you should check it out. There's no better way to search for online source material.)
This sudden change at DS feels all too familiar. Many people had articles deleted by eHow in the recent article sweeps due to perceived low quality. I agree with Demand Media in many respects. There need to be higher standards of writing on the site. It has to hurt the site as a whole, writers included, when new readers stumble upon a poorly written, non-actionable, garbage dump of an article.
So, I've made a decision. Where I once would have complained that they weren't considering their writers when making these changes, or that they don't value our work, etc, I will now roll with the punches. Perhaps it is our fear of change and the looming insecurities that provoke such a strong unwillingness to adapt.
Well, I will adapt, because the internet is a changing entity. Things are not going to remain the same forever. As web writers, we will always have to adapt to the climate. I often become so comfortable in doing things one way that when someone tells me I must change, I go off the deep end. Here, I'll try to remember that adapting will be my livelihood. While some writers will leave because they can't take it, I will flourish. It's survival of the fittest in our world, my friends, and I invite you to join me in seeing it through to the end.
The changes that have been made are not unreasonable. They are not going to kill us, but may - just may - make us stronger, better, more experienced and sought-after writers.
13 comments:
So, after reading your post, I hopped over to DS and checked it out. (I had noticed the new resources field, but hadn't known they were making it mandatory.) The un-cited articles I wrote since then were published with no problem, so they must be easing into it a bit.
I agree with you--these changes aren't unreasonable at all. You can use offline sources as well--so you could cite your grandma's cookbook for cooking articles, etc. They also said that if you absolutely couldn't find a reputable source to cite, to include a note to the copy editor explaining the issue. So, it's not a big deal, really.
Thanks for pointing this out. I had no idea. :-)
Thanks for posting about this, Willow. I didn't notice anywhere that this applies to eHow...did I miss something?
I have done over 40 articles and have not used a the reference box, only a resource box if I have one. All of my articles have been passed. I did find out that they changed the requirements for a how to become a plumber or how to start a plumbling business. I have not seen the change in writing, but was made aware of it through an editor.
I'm okay with references although sometimes it's hard to find good ones.
Also, are you on info barrel? Do you like it? I couldn't find a post on it.
M
@Jenny - The articles I wrote after the change (before I knew) were also all accepted without re-writes, so I'm thinking the editors might have been told to take it easy on us at first. :)
@truthseeker - No, it doesn't apply to eHow. I was referring to the different changes at both sites recently. Sorry if I confused you! :)
@dailan123 - They did change the requirements so that ALL articles need a reference. However, I don't think the rewrites have begun yet. I think it's probably because some of the editors might not be aware of the change yet (just like the writers) or they were told to take it easy at first, since everyone is getting used to it. I had all 8 of mine that I wrote with no references accepted. :)
@Motherhood - I AM on infobarrel, and plan to do a write up of my experiences soon. I haven't got around to it yet. Yes, I like it as far as rev share goes. It hasn't been as profitable as eHow and Suite 101, but I also haven't given it as much effort. I also like the interface and the ability to be much more creative with your articles than other sites. Watch out for my review post soon. :)
Yes- I had one that I'd written BEFORE the reference rule started, it had been sitting unreviewed for almost 2 weeks- sent back for a reference, I was like WTF? It's not a big deal. Like you said,we roll with the punches, keep our eggs in many baskets and just keep writing.
Wow, that's too much! Lol. As always, it depends on the editor with DS. Hehe.
Nice article! Thanks for the reminder on staying flexible -- it does make us stronger.
Bonnie
I just want to say thank you so much, Willow, for all the invaluable information. As A newcomer to freelance writing, I think you've saved me hours of wasted time.
Miranda
Thanks for the info. I shall consider this as I am thinking of diving into the sea of freelance work. Oh my...
Wow. They certainly have high standards, and that's a good thing. Imagine in 2009 paying writers $5 to $15 for an article.
What's next? Footnotes and an index?
Exactly what kind of stuff do they think they'll get at those pay rates?
I do hope you guys realize that because you're willing to work for slave wages, you push down the wages of all writers.
And just think, you've got competition from India who are willing to work for $2 per 500 words (and sometimes even less $$!)
Yep, boggles the mind.
Hi, Blair. Thank you for your comment, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with...well, just about everything you've said.
What boggles my mind is that people think DS pays slave wages. I make $30 to $45 per hour writing for this company. I don't know about you, but where I live that's a pretty good wage.
I'm sure Demand Studios expects to get $15 worth of work for $15. I don't take jobs that pay less than $30 per hour and I'm sure each writer has their own limit. If DS didn't pay this much, I wouldn't write there. If it takes you 2 hours to write an article for the site, it wouldn't be worth it. If you're fast and familiar with writing web content, it's well worth the pay.
The bottom line is that each individual must make their own decision on what's worth their time. If someone wants to write for $2 an hour, it doesn't affect me one way or the other and I certainly wouldn't put them down for it, as people seem so quick to do these days. Arrogance is not becoming, in my opinion.
I completely disagree with this theory that writers working for low pay somehow affect the industry standard. This simply isn't true. There will always be scummy people who buy crappy content for pennies, but these people will never be successful. Eventually they'll have to pay for good content or quit.
Webmasters and media outlets aren't going to start buying content from non-English speakers simply because it's cheap and available. There will always be a market for solid writers and solid writers will always be able to make a good living if they know how to market their skills, regardless of how many poor writers are willing to churn out the crap for a few cents.
Demand Studios seems to be working hard to make itself better, which is nice to see. I started writing for them after visiting a Demand Studios review site that painted a pretty good picture. I'm happy so far.
Post a Comment