Thanks for sending me the best message you've ever sent me.
You didn't need to say that you "regret" to let me know that I lost writing permissions. I didn't take that message as bad news, but as good news.
Why?
I stopped writing regularly for you guys back in early 2009. Since then, I wrote two articles for you. I wrote the first one in the fall of 2009. I wrote the second one in July 2011.
Your editors kicked both back, I subsequently abandoned both articles. I did so because of the history I had with you guys the last weeks I wrote for you.
After the first article abandonment, Demand Studios sent me a survey. You tried to gage why I wasn't writing for you guys. Though I was tempted, I didn't want to tell you guys what I really thought.
Lucky for me, your survey found me while I was combat deployed to Iraq.
All I had to say was that I was deployed, and that I didn't have time to write. That seemed to satisfy you guys. That was a legitimate excuse. I honest to God didn't have time to write for you guys.
But, it wasn't the main excuse, nor was it the only excuse.
What was my first reason?
Many of your Content Editors are incompetent when it comes to article subject and audience.
I say "incompetent," because many of your Content Editors didn't have working knowledge on the topic they were editing. Many also didn't understand the audience.
For instance, I wrote an article on moving household goods to a specific country. Your Content Editor requested that I provide specific, for that country, moving procedures.
My previous logistics experience, with the military, dictated that including those procedures was unnecessary. International moving companies take care of the "specifics." They provide guidance to their customers.
These "specifics" were also too broad for a simple "how to" article for eHow.com. They required articles of their own.
And, depending on new laws, or laws being repealed, those specifics could've poisoned the article's accuracy.
This is just one, of many, examples that lead me to give a reaction. This involved dropping my jaw, raising one eyebrow, and giving the "Huh?" reaction to their feedback.
Many of your content editors consistently failed to understand the target audience. For them, this was guesswork. This was something they did while working as staff editors.
Or, they relied on your reports on reader trends.
That's nothing like going to unedited "how to forums" on the internet, seeing what's highly rated, seeing what tone and structure works best, and seeing what the audience wants to see.
Consequently, your Content Editor's requests didn't meet the, "would this keep the reader up at night," litmus test.
That's just one example of audience research. Your software may get numbers and trends, but they won't capture human emotion. We're talking about the very thing that motivates people to read the article through.
You're not going to get that through guesswork, or by saying, "I think the audience would want this."
The audience doesn't care if you're trying to win the Pulitzer Prize in journalism. They don't care about your editorial contributions to the article. They care about getting information that'll enrich them, or help them solve a problem.
They want to receive it without the article talking down to them, or treating them like they're retarded.
They want to receive that information as if it were coming from a normal person... speaking with conversational English... not some point Dexter sounding like a library hermit.
Conversational English doesn't always lend itself to strict grammar rules. Your "quality and standards," don't allow for the normal rhythm and flow of conversational English.
What was my second reason?
Your content Editors are anonymous to the writers.
I've written content for publishers and marketers. I knew their names, and what they looked like. Their feedback, professionalism, and people skills are far superior than what I've received from your content editors.
Their feedback was both, professional and actionable. They treated me like an adult, and didn't talk down to me.
Now, there were some Demand Studios exceptions. I've received respect from three of your editors; Richard Lally, Soren Bowie, and the editor that responded to my survey comments. They presented their names to me.
Since CE's are anonymous, they could act in ways they wouldn't act in public. I'm not the only one that has had issues with the CE's abrasive attitudes.
There's a website that former and current Demand Studios Writers frequent. That website is chock full with writer complaints over CE behavior. This includes feedback delivery. These complaints are legitimate. I received better treatment from editors whose names I knew.
What was my third reason?
Many of your content editors don't do as they preach.
It's true that their comments won't be published. But, as Content Editors, they're in a leadership position. They have to lead by example.
Don't like the leadership concept?
Well, as the subject matter experts on formal writing, they need to lead by example. If they have issues with a writer's writing, they should express it with comments that follow proper grammar, structure and spelling.
I don't know about you. If someone is going to give me a grammar lecture, while writing like a D+ average 5th grader, I'm going to give him/her a grammar lecture. So will many other writers.
Here are some ways to lift moral among your writers.
* Assign CE's to subject areas or assign writers to CE's.
* Require CE's to have a profile, with their real name, accessible to the writers. This is important. Writers have the right to know who they're working with when they receive feedback.
* Remove the two strikes and you're out penalty with article kickbacks.
* Allow for a way that writers can evaluate their content editors. These ratings should be averaged, and have an impact on the CE. Assign rating levels to the CE, partly based on this feedback.
Good luck with your future operations... you'll need it.
The writers at the website that I referenced are just the tip of the iceberg. Most won't tell you about your shortcomings.
Many need your money. Angering you will risk that cash flow. Many hope that things will get better with you. They'll give you more chances, like I did.
My last two, sporadic, articles, was me giving you two more chances. With, or without, your "writing permissions removed" message, I would've never written another article for you.
If you guys continue on your trend, many of your writers will "slip into the foggy mist" and quit writing for you.
A happy writer is a productive writer. Your business depends on having a legion of writers producing your content for you. Without your writers, you'll have to produce your own content.
Since many of your Content Editors think they could write better, that probably wouldn't be a bad arrangement for you.
If your writers aren't happy, you're going to end up with a high turnover rate.
Best Regards,
/S/
P.S. Doesn't meet your standards of quality?
The more accurate term is, doesn't meet your subjective criteria.
Let's face it. Ehow.com has become the tabloid version of Wikipedia, holding as much credibility. Your recent Ehow.com articles leave plenty of room for improvement.
P.P.S. Please delete my Demand Studios Account. Thanks.
You didn't need to say that you "regret" to let me know that I lost writing permissions. I didn't take that message as bad news, but as good news.
Why?
I stopped writing regularly for you guys back in early 2009. Since then, I wrote two articles for you. I wrote the first one in the fall of 2009. I wrote the second one in July 2011.
Your editors kicked both back, I subsequently abandoned both articles. I did so because of the history I had with you guys the last weeks I wrote for you.
After the first article abandonment, Demand Studios sent me a survey. You tried to gage why I wasn't writing for you guys. Though I was tempted, I didn't want to tell you guys what I really thought.
Lucky for me, your survey found me while I was combat deployed to Iraq.
All I had to say was that I was deployed, and that I didn't have time to write. That seemed to satisfy you guys. That was a legitimate excuse. I honest to God didn't have time to write for you guys.
But, it wasn't the main excuse, nor was it the only excuse.
What was my first reason?
Many of your Content Editors are incompetent when it comes to article subject and audience.
I say "incompetent," because many of your Content Editors didn't have working knowledge on the topic they were editing. Many also didn't understand the audience.
For instance, I wrote an article on moving household goods to a specific country. Your Content Editor requested that I provide specific, for that country, moving procedures.
My previous logistics experience, with the military, dictated that including those procedures was unnecessary. International moving companies take care of the "specifics." They provide guidance to their customers.
These "specifics" were also too broad for a simple "how to" article for eHow.com. They required articles of their own.
And, depending on new laws, or laws being repealed, those specifics could've poisoned the article's accuracy.
This is just one, of many, examples that lead me to give a reaction. This involved dropping my jaw, raising one eyebrow, and giving the "Huh?" reaction to their feedback.
Many of your content editors consistently failed to understand the target audience. For them, this was guesswork. This was something they did while working as staff editors.
Or, they relied on your reports on reader trends.
That's nothing like going to unedited "how to forums" on the internet, seeing what's highly rated, seeing what tone and structure works best, and seeing what the audience wants to see.
Consequently, your Content Editor's requests didn't meet the, "would this keep the reader up at night," litmus test.
That's just one example of audience research. Your software may get numbers and trends, but they won't capture human emotion. We're talking about the very thing that motivates people to read the article through.
You're not going to get that through guesswork, or by saying, "I think the audience would want this."
The audience doesn't care if you're trying to win the Pulitzer Prize in journalism. They don't care about your editorial contributions to the article. They care about getting information that'll enrich them, or help them solve a problem.
They want to receive it without the article talking down to them, or treating them like they're retarded.
They want to receive that information as if it were coming from a normal person... speaking with conversational English... not some point Dexter sounding like a library hermit.
Conversational English doesn't always lend itself to strict grammar rules. Your "quality and standards," don't allow for the normal rhythm and flow of conversational English.
What was my second reason?
Your content Editors are anonymous to the writers.
I've written content for publishers and marketers. I knew their names, and what they looked like. Their feedback, professionalism, and people skills are far superior than what I've received from your content editors.
Their feedback was both, professional and actionable. They treated me like an adult, and didn't talk down to me.
Now, there were some Demand Studios exceptions. I've received respect from three of your editors; Richard Lally, Soren Bowie, and the editor that responded to my survey comments. They presented their names to me.
Since CE's are anonymous, they could act in ways they wouldn't act in public. I'm not the only one that has had issues with the CE's abrasive attitudes.
There's a website that former and current Demand Studios Writers frequent. That website is chock full with writer complaints over CE behavior. This includes feedback delivery. These complaints are legitimate. I received better treatment from editors whose names I knew.
What was my third reason?
Many of your content editors don't do as they preach.
It's true that their comments won't be published. But, as Content Editors, they're in a leadership position. They have to lead by example.
Don't like the leadership concept?
Well, as the subject matter experts on formal writing, they need to lead by example. If they have issues with a writer's writing, they should express it with comments that follow proper grammar, structure and spelling.
I don't know about you. If someone is going to give me a grammar lecture, while writing like a D+ average 5th grader, I'm going to give him/her a grammar lecture. So will many other writers.
Here are some ways to lift moral among your writers.
* Assign CE's to subject areas or assign writers to CE's.
* Require CE's to have a profile, with their real name, accessible to the writers. This is important. Writers have the right to know who they're working with when they receive feedback.
* Remove the two strikes and you're out penalty with article kickbacks.
* Allow for a way that writers can evaluate their content editors. These ratings should be averaged, and have an impact on the CE. Assign rating levels to the CE, partly based on this feedback.
Good luck with your future operations... you'll need it.
The writers at the website that I referenced are just the tip of the iceberg. Most won't tell you about your shortcomings.
Many need your money. Angering you will risk that cash flow. Many hope that things will get better with you. They'll give you more chances, like I did.
My last two, sporadic, articles, was me giving you two more chances. With, or without, your "writing permissions removed" message, I would've never written another article for you.
If you guys continue on your trend, many of your writers will "slip into the foggy mist" and quit writing for you.
A happy writer is a productive writer. Your business depends on having a legion of writers producing your content for you. Without your writers, you'll have to produce your own content.
Since many of your Content Editors think they could write better, that probably wouldn't be a bad arrangement for you.
If your writers aren't happy, you're going to end up with a high turnover rate.
Best Regards,
/S/
P.S. Doesn't meet your standards of quality?
The more accurate term is, doesn't meet your subjective criteria.
Let's face it. Ehow.com has become the tabloid version of Wikipedia, holding as much credibility. Your recent Ehow.com articles leave plenty of room for improvement.
P.P.S. Please delete my Demand Studios Account. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment