Syzygy - 8:57 pm on Sep 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Oh, I'm not disputing the certainty that there are many different levels of quality in content. What I'm wondering is why there should be differences in editorial standards between the online and offline versions of the same product, and why rates of pay should be dependent upon whether the work is to be published online or offline - particularly when online versions can have larger audiences.

Let me broaden this out. Why do webmasters (in the main) see content as something that can be had so cheaply (a few £/$ per 1,000 words), whilst the offline world still values it highly. Why don't webmasters see content as being of more value than they do? Is it because too many webmasters see content as padding for made-for-adsense (MFA) sites?

Why should a writer get paid a handful of coins from an online source when, if they were actually any good, they could get paid ten times more in the offline world? Is it because those commanding such low rates aren't actually any good and that many webmasters wouldn't know quality content if it came up and slapped them with a wet kipper?

I don't know; this is what I'm wondering...

Syzygy