Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I know passion about the topic is key, but what about branching out and going after content topics that are in demand (more $$), would you pros (and semi pros : ) ) advise against picking a topic and becoming a self made expert on it (hanging out at Barnes & Noble all day..haha) AND then putting together site(s)?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Al
I found the writer on eLance, although there are plenty of sites where you can find people who are willing to write for you"
Tim
Awesome! I've used Elance for website creation, but that's it. So do you give them an overview of what to write and they do the research and go at it?
Thanks!
p/g
Awesome! I've used Elance for website creation, but that's it. So do you give them an overview of what to write and they do the research and go at it?
I created a project that defined the topics I wanted to cover. I got bids from $10 to $25 per article. I chose the highest bidder because she knew the subject matter and I liked her samples. As far as the content, she did it all.
They can never have the depth of knowledge about my subject matter that I do myself. or even close to it without 30 years of hands on real world experience. It may get some traffic but is unlikely to be heavily linked and therefore will get low search traffic too.
That really depends on the topic. If the topic is very specialized, that would be true. But does a person really need to be an expert in order to write about Disneyland? That was one of the topics of the articles I paid for.
Today a search for KW1 KW2 KW3 brings up a relevant Wiki page followed by inappropriate pages about KW1 KW2 or KW2 KW3, etc., and my page is nowhere to be seen. But a search in quotes "KW1 KW2 KW3" puts my page at #1 - which is about where it should be as its one of the few pages on the web about the subject. But normal users hardly ever use quotes in searches, so the page might as well not exist.
But pages that relate to major search terms seem to avoid the supplemental trap. I doubt if high PR sites experience this problem, but for me with mainly low-PR information sites its a significant issue.
[edited by: Genuine1 at 4:34 pm (utc) on July 27, 2007]
No. But if anyone can research and write about it then the chances are that they already have and so you become another me too nothing special site.
Exactly, unless the writer can provide a unique, personal, or in-depth perspective on the topic (which the writer isn't likely to do if he or she hasn't been there or done that).
A while back, an Internet advertising executive told me that "There's very little good content on the Web." Advertisers know the difference between valuable content and filler; so do readers, in many cases.
There's very little good content on the Web.
That's 100% correct! It's the shape and contour of the internet landscape and will remain that way until Google, or whoever, determines that the only thing worth indexing is the less than 1% that's "unique, useful and valuable". That would leave all the creative, innovative geniuses who hang out on forums like this to rake in all the AdSense revenues. Shouldn't we all be yearning for that day to come?:)
BTW, I also think it can be said that "there is very little good content in the print media" and not a whole lot on the tube. It's folly to expect that the Web would be any different, and I have no illusions that it will change.
BTW, I also think it can be said that "there is very little good content in the print media" and not a whole lot on the tube. It's folly to expect that the Web would be any different, and I have no illusions that it will change.
Unfortunately, the bad-to-good ratio is worse on the Web because costs of entry, production, and distribution are far lower than they are in print and broadcast. A third-rate newspaper looks like the collected works of Shakespeare next to Billy Bob's Blog or Buttonpusher, Inc.'s users-filling-in-the-blanks Web 2.0 site.
1 - start working on a topic you feel strongly for
2 - work until until you have got your first $20
3 - give the $20 to person B - in return for more content
4 - repeat step 3 a multitude of times and you will surpised to see what happens.
--K
PS Be sure to not miss step 1 as this what will give you the invaluable experience preventing person B to become you competitor and potentially crush you ;)
Maybe some day the algorithims will acquire the acumen of a New York Times book reviewer.
I think eventually the search engines will give less weight to links and give more weight to other ranking factors. They seem to be very aware that links are easily manipulated by web publishers so I'd be surprised if they aren't working towards some innovative long term solutions to that problem.
[edited by: Jane_Doe at 5:48 pm (utc) on July 29, 2007]
Exactly, unless the writer can provide a unique, personal, or in-depth perspective on the topic (which the writer isn't likely to do if he or she hasn't been there or done that).
Just like anything out there, you get what you pay for when you hire someone to write for you. I got lower-priced bids from writers in India and Russia, but I chose a writer who bid more than double because of her experience on the topic. Also, I liked her writing style. I don't have anything against non-US bidders. In fact I chose a designer from Ukraine to make some banners for me.
In general, I find that most one-man-band websites are lacking one way or another. Some look great, but are really thin on content. Others have lots of great info, but they look like they were put together with MS Word. Some are very hard to follow because of the writing style.
It's rare to find a nice-looking site with good content and an easy-to-read writing style that has only one person behind it. In fact, most of the top-notch sites have dozens of contributors. Some have hundreds.
That's not to say that I have a top-notch site just because I hired a few people to do some of the work for me. But I want my site to improve and I realize that can't do everything myself. My passion got the site up and running, and built a fair amount of traffic. But I'm not a great writer, and I'm not a great designer. So I don't see anything wrong with getting a little help to move my vision forward.
Great advice! Thanks
Al
1) Sites that have an editorial focus, which leverage writing and publishing skills;
2) Sites that have an "application" focus (a la FlightStats or TripAdvisor), which leverage programming and other technical skills.
In addition to skills, a publisher should have at least a modicum of vision. It isn't enough to think, "Hey, I'll bet a bunch of 200-word articles on different keywords, with the information cribbed from Wikipedia, would make money with AdSense." As the market gets more and more crowded, obtaining visibility and traffic gets that much harder--and even though the Web's production and distribution costs may remain low in comparison with print media, the cost of entry as measured in intellectual capital (meaning vision, ideas, and real content) is likely to continue rising.
...and even though the Web's production and distribution costs may remain low in comparison with print media, the cost of entry as measured in intellectual capital (meaning vision, ideas, and real content) is likely to continue rising.
Since it appears in the Supporters Forum, I won't elaborate, but, let's just say that a completely contrary view of Google's current and forseeable prospects for making headway toward favoring "content rich" sites is being discussed. Far from it, the thread, begun by a highly respected member of WebmasterWorld, suggests that Google's ranking capabilities fail to come anywhere close to devaluing the mundane and elevating that which is elitist, intellectually tantalizing or cutting edge.
Far from it, the thread, begun by a highly respected member of WebmasterWorld, suggests that Google's ranking capabilities fail to come anywhere close to devaluing the mundane and elevating that which is elitist, intellectually tantalizing or cutting edge.
Taste is in the eye of the beholder, but in any case, it isn't Google's job to serve as a literary arbiter. If someone is questioning Google's ability to do that, he or she is taking potshots at a straw man.
When we talk about "rich content" is this thread, I don't think we're talking about essays in THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY vs. celebrity pieces in PEOPLE Magazine. We're talking about content that's useful and intrinsically valuable in a given context--e.g., an in-depth article on mesothelioma in a search on "mesothelioma" as opposed to a 200-word summary written by a $10-per-article hack or an MFA site with a few keywords scattered among the AdSense ad units. For that matter, a site can have "rich content" (and intrinsically valuable content) even on topics that are "mundane," as anyone who's ever looked up information on how to fix a leaky faucet or how to catch a train from Widgetville International Airport to the Widgetville city center can attest.
