Saturday, August 28, 2010

New personal blog

Because you can never have too many blogs, I've started another one.  This one is called Off-topic, and it's a place to put everything that doesn't fit in here.

My first post is about an exciting exhibit of the work of women photographers that I saw today (actually yesterday, because it's now the wee hours of the morning) at the NY MoMA.

Untitled #92 by Cindy Sherman (1981) in the New York Museum of Modern Art's Pictures by Women: A History of Modern Photography

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Blogger has a better comment spam filter!

Blogger has started using a new spam filter, which they say is "much better" than the old one.  It's actually Google's spam filter.  In my experience, that filter works great in gmail.

Because of this, I'm taking the annoying word-verification box off of my comments.  If spam starts coming through, I'll have to put it back, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it will be okay.

Like WordPress and gmail, Blogger will now be showing us the comments it deletes, so that we'll have a chance to either delete them permanently or mark them as "not spam."  They're still rolling out that feature, and not everyone has it yet.  If you do, you'll see a "Comments" tab on your blog's backend, between the "Posting" and "Settings" tabs.

This is via Blogger Buzz, via the "Reading List" section of the Blogger Dashboard, which has a ""Blogger Buzz" tab.  I almost never look at that, but I just happened to today.  There are several useful things in there!  I'm going to have to try to remember to look at it more often.

The rather unappetizing photo of Spam is by Matthew W. Jackson, via Wikipedia, some rights reserved. 

Trying out Webanswers

I've been trying out a new (to me) site, Webanswers.com.  It's very similar to Yahoo Answers.  Someone posts a question, and whoever wants to can add an answer.  The questioner then picks one answer as the "Best Answer."

The site pays via Google Adsense, so you need to have an Adsense account to receive payment.

I like answering questions, so this seemed like it could be a good fit.  There is a catch, though.  You won't start getting paid until you have 10 "Best Answers" or 200 answers.

Getting 10 "Best Answers" sounded easy,  but I'm finding out it's not.  The problem is that most of the people asking questions never bother to pick a "Best Answer."  So far, I've answered 29 questions, and out of all of those, only two have had a "Best Answer" picked.  I got one of those two, but at this rate, I'll probably need to do the full 200 answers before I become eligible for payment.

If I ever get that far, I'll post an update on how this is working out.

Question mark graphic by George Shuklin, via Wikimedia Commons.  Some rights reserved. 

Friday, August 20, 2010

Salon rips into Associated Content

In an article posted today on Salon.com's front page, Scott Rosenberg (co-founder of Salon) ripped into Associated Content, fuming about how AC articles were showing up at the top of the Google News search results page.

His basic argument will be familiar to anyone following the commentary about content sites (usually, in this genre of rant, called "content farms" or "content mills") that's been all over the net lately. AC articles, Rosenberg writes, are "crappy." Google, once as reliable as an old friend, has let him down. In its early days, "It would always return the best links. You could count on it." Now the search engine serves up "drivel." "I can't help thinking," he writes, "the game's up."

I have mixed feelings about the general argument, and maybe I'll discuss that at some point. But what I want to focus on now is the way that Rosenberg links to a specific AC article, quotes it at length, and then trashes it.

It makes me wonder how I would feel if a writer on a prominent site had picked on one of my content-site articles that way. Would I be mortified?  Yeah, I think I probably would.

I'd like to think I'd be cool enough to just shrug and be grateful for the extra page views and pennies such exposure would bring, but I don't know if I would.  Could I take the attitude that having an article trashed online was the modern equivalent of having a book being banned in Boston -- something that did wonders for sales?

As a third alternative, might I actually agree with my hypothetical critic?

I do think that Rosenberg is right when he expects Google News to have higher standards than Google's general page. In fact, when I first starting writing news (basically summaries/syntheses of already-published stories) at Associated Content, I was both thrilled and embarrassed that my stories were picked up by the Google News feed. Thrilled because -- well, who wouldn't be? Embarrassed because while I believed my writing, for what it was, was okay, I knew it couldn't compare to original reporting done at a newspaper with strong editorial oversight.

I've long since stopped writing news at AC, but recently I've been surprised to find some of my non-newsy Helium articles appearing in the Google news feed. The most recent of my Helium articles to show up in Google News is Advantages of Being Shy at Work. Wherever that article belongs on the quality/drivel scale (I'd put it somewhere in the middle), it's definitely not news. Even stranger, two flash fiction stories I wrote -- Mermaids and All This and More  -- are now showing up in the news feed as well.  The idea of putting fiction in a news feed is almost Orwellian.

I have no idea how those stories got into Google News. It certainly wasn't something I did myself. My best guess is that they all must have been featured, at one time or another, on the Helium front page, and that the front page as a whole goes into the Google News index.  That's just a guess, though.

Am I biting the hand that feeds me here? Perhaps. Any time a story gets into Google News (and there have been others besides the ones I mentioned), its traffic shoots up, which is good for both me and the sites I write for. But I'm both a content-site writer and a frequent researcher, and in the latter role, I want Google to be as useful as possible. The critics are right about this: non-news in the news stream dilutes the usefulness of what once was a nearly miraculously powerful tool.

Painting of woman reading a newspaper is "Lesestunde" by Pastell-Gemälde von Carsten Eggers, 1988. Via Wikimedia Commons, some rights reserved: Lesestunde

Helium - A Beginner's Guide -- Overview of the Star System

Update December 5, 2010: Helium radically changed the payment system.  Most importantly, "upfront" payments based on writing stars are gone. The only way to get upfront payments now is to go through the Marketplace system and to give up exclusive rights. That means writing stars have much less significance now. Their only value is that some of the Marketplace articles (it looks like a small minority of the articles, at this point) will be restricted to writers who have one or three writing stars. The rating star system remains the same. You still need at least one rating star to get revenue share income.


Original post below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Helium gives its members stars for both writing and rating. Before you dismiss this as a regression back to grade school days, you should know that how much you get paid at Helium, and whether you get paid at all, depends upon how many stars you have.

The Helium star system is complicated.  It confuses all newcomers and many old-timers. In this, the first of a planned series of beginners' guides to Helium, I'll be giving a bird's eye view of how the system works. Later articles will go into the specifics of how to get and keep writing and rating stars.  After that, some advanced strategies for earning stars in the most efficient way possible.  (Update 12/5/10: Nope, never did get around to writing the rest of the "series."  This is it.)

Why is the Helium star system so complicated?

The Helium star system is like the U.S. Tax Code.  When Congresscritters want to get people to do things or to stop doing things, they fiddle around with the tax code.  They lower taxes for behaviors they want to encourage, and raise them for those that they don't.  Every time they do that, they have to add a new rule, and every year more rules are stuffed into the Tax Code, which was already bulging at the seams.  It's become a huge unwieldy mess that no one, not even the experts, can completely understand.

On a smaller scale, Helium does the same thing.  The Helium powers that be want to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others, so they use the star system to dole out rewards and punishments in order to shape members' behavior.  Whenever Helium thinks of new things it wants us to do or to stop doing, it adds new rules to the already complicated star system.

What does Helium want us to do? 

Helium wants us to do four basic things:  (1) Rate often enough to keep the rating engine afloat.  (2)  Do it without cheating.  (3) Write a lot of articles.  (4) Make those articles good, or at least popular.

Why does Helium care how often we rate?

Helium sees its rating system as being the heart and soul of the site, what distinguishes the site from its competition.  The very name "Helium" is a reference to the rating system, because on Helium, according to an early advertising slogan, quality rises -- like helium balloons.

The system won't work, though, unless people do a LOT of rating.  Some people like to rate, others hate it.  Left to their own devices, the members as a group won't do enough rating to keep the rating engine going.

Why does the system need so many rates?

The Helium rating system gives the rater two articles to compare.  The rater chooses which one is better and casts a vote.  Since so many articles need to be compared to so many other articles, the system has an almost insatiable appetite for more votes.

Does it really work?

Yes and no.  This question is often debated on the Helium boards.  In my opinion, rating is correlated with quality, but only weakly.

Rating creates a sort order for articles.  On Helium, unlike many other content sites, several people write to the same title.  Articles that are rated higher rise to the top of the pack for that title.  That's the "helium rising" part.

On paper, the Helium rating system sounds like a brilliant idea.  Content sites have always had a problem with people trying to "game" the system. If a site rewards people for the popularity of their articles, based on a simple "rate my article" system, then there will always be people who will organize themselves into groups, known derisively as "click circles," to rate each other up.  The result is that a lot of crap gets rated highly.

Helium's innovative idea was that instead of raters choosing which articles to rate, they would be given articles in a semi-random way.  The authors' names would be stripped off, so that the raters wouldn't know who wrote the articles they were evaluating.  That, combined with the idea of comparing two articles, rather than just voting for one at a time, sounded as if it was a great solution to the problems of "click circles" as well as to any problems of grade inflation.

One problem is that it's still possible to game the system.  It's much harder to do than in a simple "rate this article" system, but it's not impossible.  A second problem is that raters who are themselves bad writers may not be able to recognize good writing.  A third problem is that because rating has become required to receive certain payments some, perhaps many, raters just want to get through it as quickly as possible.

The result?  Despite Helium's innovative rating engine, the top slots of titles are sometimes filled with very bad articles.

Why can't I just get my rating over with quickly by voting for articles at random?

Helium uses an algorithm to keep track of the way you rate, and it penalizes people who rate inconsistently.

You mean the system is looking over my shoulder and judging me on how I judge articles?

Yeah.  It's disconcerting.

I'm confused.  How do I actually get rating stars?

That's complicated, and this post has already grown to monster proportions.  I'll be covering that in a later post.

Didn't you mention writing stars earlier?

To make things even more confusing (ha), Helium has two separate star systems, one for rating stars, the other for writing stars.  Each works differently.

My head hurts.

That's not a question. Writing stars are based on a combination of how many articles you have written and how highly they are rated.

What do you mean by "a combination"?

Well, that gets a little complicated too.  For now, the most important thing to know is that both quantity and quality (or, more accurately, how highly your articles have been rated) count when it comes to your writing stars.

So how does this all affect my money?

Helium pays for articles in two ways.  One is by revenue share, where you get a certain percentage of the income that Helium gets for the ads on your articles.  The other is by "upfronts," where you get a small flat fee for publishing certain kinds of articles.

Rating stars affect whether or not you receive revenue share.  Writing stars affect whether or not you receive upfronts, and if so, how much they will be.

Clip art of stars licensed from the Clip Art Gallery on DiscoverySchool.com

Thursday, August 19, 2010

My article is on the Yahoo Movie site

An article I wrote on Julia Roberts and the making of Eat Pray Love has been picked up by Yahoo Movies.  It's the first item listed on the Yahoo Movie front page under "Today's Features."

I wrote the article a few weeks ago as one of my monthly "featured contributor" arts & entertaiment articles for AC.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Why are my Associated Content page views so low?

Although I have more than 100 articles posted on Associated Content, my revenue share earnings (which at AC are based on page views) are usually only about four dollars and change per month.

Old news

One of the reasons for the low pages views is that I wrote many news articles in 2007, when AC was paying a standard upfront fee for them. As a result, almost a third of my entire current inventory of AC articles consists of news articles, most of them written during 2007.  There is obviously little reader interest in news stories that are three years old.

There is one exception, though: an article from March, 2007, about illiteracy in Washington, D.C., is still going strong. Not only is it the fourth highest article for all-time views, it is also the fourth highest for views this month.  Why is it doing so well?  I don't know.

What else is doing well?

My highest page view earner this month is "Top Ten Songs by Simon & Garfunkel."  As of today, a little more than half-way through the month, it has 597 page views, which equals 96 cents in earnings.  It looks as if this one article alone will account for more than a fourth of my total revenue share, and that's been consistent month after month.

My all-time highest page earner is an annotated list of New Year's Eve activities in San Francisco, with a total of 12,415 page views.  As you would expect, it lies dormant most of the year, then comes alive in the fall when people start making their New Year's plans.  Ironically, this article was written in 2006, and when I tried writing an updated version last year, the update flopped.

Second highest earner of all time is the Simon and Garfunkel top-10 list.  Third highest is about  freelancing humorous greeting card ideas, fourth is the illiteracy in Washington, DC article, and fifth is a primer on identifying the parts of a sentence.  Sixth is on the top ten songs by the Beatles, written for the same call-for-articles as the Simon & Garfunkel one.

I'm not seeing a pattern here.

What else is tanking?

Besides old news articles, many other articles have dropped out of view, getting no page views at all.  Some were reprints from Helium.  Some were movie or book reviews.  I know that reviews tend to get little traffic, but some of the no-hitters were unexpected.  I would have thought that non-evergreen, but still current, articles, such as one on events this spring/summer in Bryant Park and one on what the actresses of LOST are up to, would still have a bit of juice in them, but neither received a single page view this month.

Is it worth worrying about?

For the most part it's a mystery to me why some articles on AC do well and others don't.  The only conclusions I can draw are that "Top Ten Songs by [...]" articles draw good traffic (though that conclusion is based on the very small sample size of two articles!), and that Helium reprints tend to do poorly, perhaps because of the infamous Google double-posting penalty.

When one article out of 119 accounts for more than a quarter of all of my page views, it feels as if luck may be playing a large role.  While I know that some people do very well with revenue share on Associated Content, that doesn't seem to be in the cards for me.  The vast majority of my income there has come from the upfronts, and I'm not sure if there's much I can do to change that.

Photo is of the eye of a red-tailed hawk. It's by Steve Jurvetson, via Wikimedia Commons. CC Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Flash fiction story on Helium's front page

My flash-fiction story Mermaids is on Helium's front page, at least for the moment. Whoever picked it -- thank you.

Photo by Oosoom of bronze mermaid fountain by William Bloye in the University of Birmingham, England.  Some rights reserved.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Who's on First? (The problem of choosing a voice)


Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third

There's been a lot of discussion recently on the Helium forums about whether it's okay to write in first person ("I"). The question appears academic, at this point, as the company seems to have already decided that it wants to move away from first-person writing. TPTBs have sent their stewards, Helium's large contingent of volunteers who keep things humming behind the scenes, out to spread the anti-"I" word. Helium has also started including instructions on some of the article input pages, which say (with perhaps unintentional cheekiness), "it's not about you."

Helium seems to want to get on the Demand Studios bandwagon. In addition to shunning first-person narratives (or at least confining them to a "creative writing" ghetto), Helium has also started a kind of eHow-clone area, the Zones.

Demand Studios, meanwhile, asks for second person -- but a kind of second person lite, where we are to avoid using the word "you" too often. While puzzling at first glance, this instruction actually does make some sense -- after you squint a bit and tilt your head to the left.

So when it comes to voice, Helium is on third. Demand is on second. Who is on first? Yes. Who is on first? Yes. Who is on first? Associated Content.

AC is holding out for first-person narratives. For a long time, they've said their ideal article is one that starts with personal experience, then moves to factual information in the middle and/or end. Yahoo, which recently acquired AC, seems to have compatible views. Yahoo has a particular interest in local content, which meshes well with AC's interest in personal experience.

I'm curious to see how it will all turn out, whether the first-person-phobic sites, Helium and Demand, will pull ahead of the first-person-embracing AC, or if it will be the other way around. I think I can see the answer now, yonder, way over there, standing tall on third base: I Don't Know.

For more information about the comedy duo A & C (not to be confused with the content-site AC), see Abbott & Costello Meet the Internet

Demand Studios articles get $11.81 per thousand page views

According to an article posted this morning on CNNMoney.com, Demand Studios gets an average revenue of $11.81 per 1,000 page views on sites that Demand Media owns, and an average of $3.39 on sites that its partners operate.

Those eHow articles are pulling in the cash!

Overall, the company is losing money, though.  Again according to the CNN article, Demand Media lost $22 million last year, and $6 million in the first six months of this year.

Photo by TW Collins, some rights reserved.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

How to stay sane while writing for Demand Studios

You can drive yourself crazy by trying too hard
To write for Demand Studios without going nuts, you've got to stop being a perfectionist.

Demand Studios is all about speed.  The company's goal is to produce huge amounts of content as cheaply as possible.  (For details on how this works, see the fascinating Wired article, The Answer Factory.)  DS aims for a quality level slightly higher than most of the other content sites.  If you've seen how much wildly inaccurate and barely coherent stuff floats around the internet, you know that's not saying much.

Many writers tend to be obsessive-compulsive perfectionists. That creates a culture clash between Demand Studios, which wants to get things done fast and cheap, and writers, at least the compulsive ones, who want to get things done absolutely right.

From the "Wired" article :
Here is the thing that [founder and CEO Richard] Rosenblatt has ... discovered: Online content is not worth very much. This may be a truism, but Rosenblatt has the hard, mathematical proof. It’s right there in black and white, in the Demand Media database — the lifetime value of every story, algorithmically derived, and very, very small. Most media companies are trying hard to increase those numbers, to boost the value of their online content until it matches the amount of money it costs to produce. But Rosenblatt thinks they have it exactly backward. Instead of trying to raise the market value of online content to match the cost of producing it — perhaps an impossible proposition — the secret is to cut costs until they match the market value....

Still, Rosenblatt says he is trying to place a new emphasis on quality. “There’s a constant debate internally,” he says.
(And who, I wonder, is the person who argues against quality. That must be a strange way to spend a workday.)
“This might sound crazy, [Rosenblatt says,] but I’d rather spend more and put more quality into the process. Long term, we’ll make more money by increasing quality.”

But when he gets into the details, it’s clear that he’s not moving far from his Henry Ford model. “We’re not talking about $1,000 videos, so a couple dollars here or there can make a serious difference. For instance, pay an extra dollar for fact-checking.”
DS wants quality -- but not if they have to pay very much for it.  If they want a dollar's worth of fact-checking, they're not going to get perfection.  For their fact-checking buck, CEs apparently quickly spot-check writers' references.

It's a nice sentiment to say that writing is not only about money, but it's better to save that idea for other projects. At DS, it is all about the money.  It's self-defeating to stick to your own self-imposed standards when those clash with DS's carefullly calibrated ones.  You can avoid a fair amount of stress by giving DS what it wants, and not a smidgen more.

For a truly neurotic perfectionist, that may be easier said than done.  Here are some tips, gleaned from things I tried that helped me increase my DS writing speed dramatically:

1.  Let the CEs do their job. Rather than rummage through the guidelines every time you need to  look up an obscure style point, give it your best shot, and then wait and see if the CE accepts it.  If she does, you saved yourself the time of hunting for the information.  If she doesn't, you've still saved time.  Either the CE will correct it herself, or she'll point out the problem and ask you to make the changes.  Either way is faster than trying to find a tiny speck of information buried in the huge PDF files. [12/15/10 Editing to add: The guidelines are now available in regular HTML format and are searchable, which makes them considerably easier to use.  The general point still holds, though -- it's a waste of time to look up every obscure point of style, because the CEs are not consistent in following the guidelines.]

1a -- Always look at the "track changes" to see what the CEs have done.  That's the easiest way to learn the guidelines.  Although ...

1b -- If you're confused about a particular style point, the CEs may be confused as well.  DS is constantly hiring, and many of the CEs, who are apparently thrown into the assembly line without any training, are new and have not had a chance to digest, or perhaps even scan, all of the style guides.  The style guides themselves can be unclear, and the rules change so often that no one can possibly keep up.  Your guess may be as good as the CE's, and one CE often contradicts the next.  If that happens, don't worry about it.  It actually lets you off the hook.  If no one else knows what to do, how could you be expected to?

2.  Grow a thick skin. The CEs will cut anything that falls outside of DS's rigid formula, no matter how brilliant. On top of that, most of the CEs, who make a grand total of $3.50 for editing an article, including fact-checking, are in a huge rush, and sometimes they'll make mistakes that will stay in your articles forever.  To stay sane, you've got to stop caring.

Using a pen name is helpful for creating a psychological distance between you and your DS work, as is thinking of the articles as assembly-line products, instead of as hand-crafted artifacts.

3. Avoid getting get too cynical.  Some writers take a defiant stance, priding themselves on how much money they can make by churning out "total crap."  For those of us who don't find that approach satisfying, there is another way.  DS articles are not great writing -- it's debatable whether they are even "writing" at all -- but they can provide a service.  A small service, but a real one.  Which leads me to ...

4.  Be helpful.  In every article, there's an opportunity to provide a bit of help to someone else.  We're probably not talking about changing someone's life, but you can help someone complete a task that had them stumped. You may answer a question that satisfies someone's curiosity.  As you write, try to imagine a person who will benefit from what you write.  Which brings me to ...

5.  Focus on providing a small  benefit to the reader.  Don't try to write a definitive article!   It felt like a breakthrough when I realized I didn't have to write the definitive article, didn't have to introduce something to the internet for the first time, didn't have to add anything to the world's accumulated store of knowledge. All I had to do was present existing knowledge clearly.

I started seeing the work I was doing as being a form of translation.  I was taking something written in murky language and translating it into language that was easy to follow.  I remembered all the times in my life I had become frustrated when trying to assemble furniture using incomprehensible weirdly-translated instructions, and I vowed to write instructions that were at least better than that.

That was the key.  For a few dollars, I would "translate" unclear concepts into clear DS-style words. I started seeing it as a form of tech writing, aimed at non-tech end users. It's not art (though it does involve craft).  It's not earth-shattering. It is useful, though, in its own minor way.  It can be done quickly.  And, because it's not, after all, "total crap," you can hold your head high.  Just don't give up the pen name.

Photo by Jonno Witts, some rights reserved.

Friday, August 6, 2010

July 2010 online-writing earnings

Here's my first monthly earnings report.  I'm going to use it as a baseline, and (I hope) my earnings will rise from here.

Earnings



Notes

Associated Content:  I got upfront payments for two of my featured-contributor articles (I did the third one early and got paid for it the previous month), and a performance payment of $4.65.

Demand Studios:  After being inactive for a long time, I started ramping up my writing there a few months ago.  I've mostly been writing "tips," though I've started branching out to other formats.

Helium:  I made $26.00 in upfront payments for writing 13 new articles, $5.00 in empty title bonuses, and $15.87 in revenue share.  Earlier this year, I had  been making several hundred dollars per month by doing assigned articles in the Helium Marketplace, but that's dried up, at least for now.

Next month

Starting next month, I'll calculate the changes from the previous month.  The month after that, I'll also start comparing the earnings to the average.

About this blog

I've always liked reading blogs where people reveal how much money they make writing for online content sites.  And so I've decided to start my own.  Gulp -- it's scary to go public with this info -- but I think it will be interesting for readers and could be a kick-in-the-pants for myself.

I've been writing on online contents sites since I signed up on Epinions in 1990.  At this moment, as I write this post, I am active on Helium, Associated Content, and Demand Studios.  The mix of sites I write for changes often, though.

In addition to the (scary!) monthly reports of my content-site income, I'm planning to write tips and tricks, news about the content-site industry, and rants/raves about the various sites.

How this works
Every month, I'll post an "Earnings Report."  This will show the money I received in the previous month.  For example, in the beginning of September, I'll post a report for money received in August, even if that money was payment for articles that were actually written in July.

Blogger
Just wanted to say that it's been a while since I started a new Blogger blog (I've mostly been using WordPress), and this platform has come a long way.  It's much more flexible, now, and even easier to use than before.
Related Posts with Thumbnails