Top contributor Will Stape talks about Diplay-only articles in the following article and why there is a lot of value in this "free" work.
Before I provide the link, though, I want to reiterate that while this is a good option (I should know because some of my biggest paid months have been when I've just published DO articles), you shouldn't also dismiss upfront payments just because it seems hard to figure out. Getting declined? Then head to the forum and place it in the Workshop where experienced contributors can tell you why.
While I don't always have time to write on AC as much as I'd like to, I still see the value of utilizing both the DO side and the upfront side of AC. Don't stop because you may be getting frustrated with it. Doing so will hurt the amount of money you could make.
If you want to read more about the "upfront" topic, look in the right column at the label cloud at the top and click on the word "upfront" to see more posts.
Profit Power of Writing 'Display Only' on Associated Content
Don't like giving it away? Hate the idea of dealing in freebies? Does the thought of publishing display only give you the chills? Here's why you shouldn't hate nor fear the 'free' on Associated Content.
Read More
Showing posts with label decline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label decline. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Thursday, December 17, 2009
If You Want an Explanation, Do Not Go To The Forums
Maybe that's a little harsh but the last two times that I've had a complaint or wanted to know if glitches were site wide, I was told by AC staff to notify which ever email address they gave me if I needed to speak about something like that again, which indicated they did not want me posting such in the forums. No big deal, though.
First, the "Content Missing" glitch is something that occasionally pops up. It seems like the glitch is on a sporadic time line. Every so often, when it seems like everything else is going okay, the AC servers say, "Wait. Let's hiccup!" and they do so by hiding our content which hurts page views badly. If you ever have a "Content Missing" message, email the Help Desk. Don't go to the forums to see if it's a site wide glitch. You should only do that on holidays and the weekends when there's no one there to fix a glitch so that you can panic and gripe with everyone else over hundreds and thousands of lost views. :)
Second, if you have submitted content for upfront that is getting declined and YOU ARE 100% SURE that you've done the research necessary to ensure that it is a good candidate for upfront, then contact AC Admin to respectfully ask that they take a second look and why. I've had three pieces of content over the last month that have been declined and that I appealed by doing this. In each case, AC agreed that they warranted further review and I ended up getting upfront offers for each of them. (When I get back from Christmas break, I'll make a post about what I do to research an article I've written to see whether I offer it for upfront or not so feel free to bookmark or follow.) Like I said, BE SURE. If you aren't sure, it's best not to appeal. And if you do decide to appeal, don't have an attitude that your s*** don't stink. Be respectful about it. AC staffers go through oodles of emails and content every day. I imagine them a little like the postal service, ready to explode some days especially with the insults and abuse that is often thrown their way.
I hope everyone has a great holiday, however you celebrate this time of year!
First, the "Content Missing" glitch is something that occasionally pops up. It seems like the glitch is on a sporadic time line. Every so often, when it seems like everything else is going okay, the AC servers say, "Wait. Let's hiccup!" and they do so by hiding our content which hurts page views badly. If you ever have a "Content Missing" message, email the Help Desk. Don't go to the forums to see if it's a site wide glitch. You should only do that on holidays and the weekends when there's no one there to fix a glitch so that you can panic and gripe with everyone else over hundreds and thousands of lost views. :)
Second, if you have submitted content for upfront that is getting declined and YOU ARE 100% SURE that you've done the research necessary to ensure that it is a good candidate for upfront, then contact AC Admin to respectfully ask that they take a second look and why. I've had three pieces of content over the last month that have been declined and that I appealed by doing this. In each case, AC agreed that they warranted further review and I ended up getting upfront offers for each of them. (When I get back from Christmas break, I'll make a post about what I do to research an article I've written to see whether I offer it for upfront or not so feel free to bookmark or follow.) Like I said, BE SURE. If you aren't sure, it's best not to appeal. And if you do decide to appeal, don't have an attitude that your s*** don't stink. Be respectful about it. AC staffers go through oodles of emails and content every day. I imagine them a little like the postal service, ready to explode some days especially with the insults and abuse that is often thrown their way.
I hope everyone has a great holiday, however you celebrate this time of year!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Issues Cleared Up (Somewhat)
Image removal issue: Apparently I didn't pay enough attention to the rights on the image. At least that's what my AC buddies in the forum tell me. It's hard for me to believe that after so many months of putting pics on articles that I've suddenly started doing something wrong when the guidelines haven't changed since I've been with AC.
My only gripe with this is I had to get help from the forums about this issue. In response to the email I sent to admin, I got a very vague and weird response. The responding email simply said, "Hi Pamela, Photos were removed from items in that particular assignment. Thank you." Um, duh? That's why I wrote in the first place. The assignment was a targeted one to me specifically and stated nothing about not being able to put an image with it. But it isn't worth my time to spend more brain cells on this particular issue.
My latest article about breast reduction published without the image I put with it also. I got the image from morgueFile so I know the rights were appropriate to use. I can't see where a woman's covered up chest area would be considered off putting unless it was someone who viewed the whole article different from what it was intended. Let's face it; we live in a day and age where a woman can't even feed a baby in public without someone getting offended because their mind is always on the sexual aspect of breasts instead of thinking of health and other issues. But I'm not gonna push the issue. I'll just choose a different theme of picture for my next breast reduction article.
As for the article I mentioned in a previous post about being declined for upfront even though I'd done the necessary research to ensure that it was unique; I got a nice little letter that stated they agreed the article was worth a second look. This was followed by an offer for upfront payment. So that not only gives me a little bit of faith in AC, but it also tells me to trust my gut. It was a standard medically related topic that was highly focused. I'm glad I questioned it instead of taking the decline.
In the meantime, I have one assignment due that I have to get done today as I'm having surgery later this week and need to prepare. But AC seems to be full of glitches this morning. Nothing really unusual. Just sucks that writers' time is being spent on waiting for glitches to be fixed instead of working. eHow has been the same way for over a week as well.
My only gripe with this is I had to get help from the forums about this issue. In response to the email I sent to admin, I got a very vague and weird response. The responding email simply said, "Hi Pamela, Photos were removed from items in that particular assignment. Thank you." Um, duh? That's why I wrote in the first place. The assignment was a targeted one to me specifically and stated nothing about not being able to put an image with it. But it isn't worth my time to spend more brain cells on this particular issue.
My latest article about breast reduction published without the image I put with it also. I got the image from morgueFile so I know the rights were appropriate to use. I can't see where a woman's covered up chest area would be considered off putting unless it was someone who viewed the whole article different from what it was intended. Let's face it; we live in a day and age where a woman can't even feed a baby in public without someone getting offended because their mind is always on the sexual aspect of breasts instead of thinking of health and other issues. But I'm not gonna push the issue. I'll just choose a different theme of picture for my next breast reduction article.
As for the article I mentioned in a previous post about being declined for upfront even though I'd done the necessary research to ensure that it was unique; I got a nice little letter that stated they agreed the article was worth a second look. This was followed by an offer for upfront payment. So that not only gives me a little bit of faith in AC, but it also tells me to trust my gut. It was a standard medically related topic that was highly focused. I'm glad I questioned it instead of taking the decline.
In the meantime, I have one assignment due that I have to get done today as I'm having surgery later this week and need to prepare. But AC seems to be full of glitches this morning. Nothing really unusual. Just sucks that writers' time is being spent on waiting for glitches to be fixed instead of working. eHow has been the same way for over a week as well.
Friday, November 6, 2009
A Declined-for-Upfront Article and Image Removal
There are hundreds to thousands of pieces of content that go through the AC reviewers every week. There will be mistakes and, as this blog has demonstrated before, there will be inconsistencies. But when it happens to you, it ticks you off. After all, if it is your content, they should be paying attention, right? While in a basic sense that sounds rather narcissistic and silly, in another sense, everyone should be as concerned about the quality and appearance of their work to care when something is declined or "altered".
Having said that, when I submitted my latest short story, "A Persistent Journey", I had with it an image of Earth as seen from outer space that I'd found on Wikimedia. The story is science fiction and is all about the main character getting back to Earth for her children. Granted, short fiction and poetry don't do well page view-wise but I enjoy participating, nonetheless. Even so, images attached to articles tend to raise page views, even if only slightly, so I take the time out to try to include photos with every article. I'm very careful to adhere to all the guidelines and giving credit as required. But when the story published (it was an assignment that had to be reviewed before publishing, otherwise I could have published it automatically), it published without the image. I wrote AC yesterday with links and titles in hopes that they will replace the picture I had with it. I will update when I've heard something from them.
Then yesterday, I had an article declined for upfront. Anyone who read my last post here (or who has been experiencing these declines and low offers on a personal basis), knows that AC is like the government trying to cover up Area 51 on this one. AC doesn't acknowledge that anything has changed. But something has changed and the contributors know it.
I've been keeping a better eye on what I chose to submit for upfront lately. Before I submit, I search for the topic both on the WWW and on AC. If it is a saturated topic on either spectrum, then I won't even try to submit it for upfront. So imagine my surprise when I get a "this content doesn't differ enough" feedback with my decline. When I searched the topic, I found no other article that came close to focusing on the one aspect of the topic that I chose to write. I even asked in the forums and had another contributor (thanks, Rose!) who had more experience and expertise in these things then I do take a look at it. She found no problem with the article other then I might could add a keyphrase to it. So, I'm taking a wild leap and I'm going to plead my case.
I am irritated, yes. At this point, I would be likely to be just as well submitting everything as Performance Payment only. But that would be right up AC's alley. They wouldn't have to pay upfront then. Upfronts are a great incentive but if they are going to tell future contributors that they will pay upfront but then don't pay attention enough to what they are reviewing to fairly pay, all it creates is ticked off contributors who feel like they are being ripped off. Not a good thing for a company who relies on contributors to increase their bottom line.
I will update when and if I get a response.
Having said that, when I submitted my latest short story, "A Persistent Journey", I had with it an image of Earth as seen from outer space that I'd found on Wikimedia. The story is science fiction and is all about the main character getting back to Earth for her children. Granted, short fiction and poetry don't do well page view-wise but I enjoy participating, nonetheless. Even so, images attached to articles tend to raise page views, even if only slightly, so I take the time out to try to include photos with every article. I'm very careful to adhere to all the guidelines and giving credit as required. But when the story published (it was an assignment that had to be reviewed before publishing, otherwise I could have published it automatically), it published without the image. I wrote AC yesterday with links and titles in hopes that they will replace the picture I had with it. I will update when I've heard something from them.
Then yesterday, I had an article declined for upfront. Anyone who read my last post here (or who has been experiencing these declines and low offers on a personal basis), knows that AC is like the government trying to cover up Area 51 on this one. AC doesn't acknowledge that anything has changed. But something has changed and the contributors know it.
I've been keeping a better eye on what I chose to submit for upfront lately. Before I submit, I search for the topic both on the WWW and on AC. If it is a saturated topic on either spectrum, then I won't even try to submit it for upfront. So imagine my surprise when I get a "this content doesn't differ enough" feedback with my decline. When I searched the topic, I found no other article that came close to focusing on the one aspect of the topic that I chose to write. I even asked in the forums and had another contributor (thanks, Rose!) who had more experience and expertise in these things then I do take a look at it. She found no problem with the article other then I might could add a keyphrase to it. So, I'm taking a wild leap and I'm going to plead my case.
I am irritated, yes. At this point, I would be likely to be just as well submitting everything as Performance Payment only. But that would be right up AC's alley. They wouldn't have to pay upfront then. Upfronts are a great incentive but if they are going to tell future contributors that they will pay upfront but then don't pay attention enough to what they are reviewing to fairly pay, all it creates is ticked off contributors who feel like they are being ripped off. Not a good thing for a company who relies on contributors to increase their bottom line.
I will update when and if I get a response.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Upfronts Going Down, Down, Down
As the Associated Content library goes up, up, up, upfronts are going down, down, down. It has been this way for years from what I understand. As more content is added across the board, it is a struggle for writers to create new and unique content. Have things changed very recently? On the surface, yes. It is obvious from all the reports in the forums that SEVERAL people are experiencing a sudden rise in rejections and declines for upfront. However, when openly asked about this, AC has given the standard response. Nothing has changed. But it's obvious that something has. Are they just buckling down more? Is a new employee reviewing content? Why can't we get any clear answers? Even an acknowledgment would go a long way into calming many people down.
I still love writing for AC. Sometimes it's frustrating, yes, but I still enjoy seeing my page views go up, I've enjoyed the benefits at being a new category editor at AC as well. But to look at us and say there hasn't been a change is slightly insulting to our intelligence. My upfronts have gone down dramatically and even yesterday, I had a local news story declined for upfront when I've never had a local news story declined for upfront before.
So what's going on? I don't want to speculate. Speculations lead to stupid theories about cover-ups and conspiracies and I'm just not the paranoid type. I do wish AC would acknowledge, though, what we are trying to tell them and tell us what they are doing. In the meantime, though, I've decided to focus on page views instead of upfronts. If I get an upfront, that's great. If not, that's great, too. At least I get page view love which is something very few sites offer.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Pulled Article - Update
I got an unexpected notice a few minutes ago about my original pulled sweeps article. AC republished it and sent me a note of apologies. However, since most of the sweeps listed in the article were null and void now, having been originally published a month ago, I decided to go ahead and take down the article myself, as it was a display only article, before I was able to obtain page views. I didn't want my readers to be reading up on sweeps that they couldn't enter at this point in time.
I appreciate the time the AC staff put in to finding out about the situation, but again, I got no definitive answer as to why it was pulled in the first place, just a "We apologize." And I'm glad that my inquiry did not lead to the other contributor's articles being pulled. I'm also glad that there weren't very many page views initially associated with it because my old page views from the article were not restored when the article republished.
Thank you, AC, for responding to my inquiry and taking the time to look into it for me and I'm sorry that I had to pull the article myself after you guys taking the time to republish it for me. I meant no disrespect in doing so, but I didn't want my readers thinking this was something current when it wasn't.
I appreciate the time the AC staff put in to finding out about the situation, but again, I got no definitive answer as to why it was pulled in the first place, just a "We apologize." And I'm glad that my inquiry did not lead to the other contributor's articles being pulled. I'm also glad that there weren't very many page views initially associated with it because my old page views from the article were not restored when the article republished.
Thank you, AC, for responding to my inquiry and taking the time to look into it for me and I'm sorry that I had to pull the article myself after you guys taking the time to republish it for me. I meant no disrespect in doing so, but I didn't want my readers thinking this was something current when it wasn't.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Associated Content Month End Review
Welcome to the official month end review for my Associated Content writing. This month will mark my fifth completed month with AC. Here's how the stats look so far: My average daily page views are 248 views a day. That's up 27 from last month. My page view bonus earnings are only a few cents shy of a dollar higher then last month. Even though it's not that much, it's still higher and I take pride in that. I published 23 articles this month. That was higher then my goal of at least 20. There are some writers that can accomplish hundreds of articles in one month. Just imagine the page views and upfronts for that!
In any case, the real money came from upfront offers this month. While upfront offers are considered low by most writers' standards, Associated Content is probably the second highest paying site there is when it comes to paying upfront for content articles. I was paid upfront for 12 of the 23 articles this month and pulled in a nice chunk of change for them.
As far as July is concerned, I'm going to be doing something different. I was considering an experiment in page views but I have to abandon that idea for now in favor of something less then monetary. I need to finish the first draft of my novel. Anyone who has been reading my Touch of Fiction blog knows I've been feverishly trying to sell one of my novels and also know that I've been slowly (very slowly) making headway with a new novel I'm writing. I've decided to slack on AC this month in order to focus my attention on my novel. I will be writing a few articles and blog posts here and there as the time and inspiration strike but it won't be near the 20 something count this month. I'm choosing to make my fiction a priority at this time. Creative writers will understand this need.
I also need to update a current situation. Associated Content wrote me back about my DO article that had been pulled last month and about the similar articles other sources told me about. (Please note that if you ever have to contact AC about an article, yours or anyone else's, it's not enough to provide a link. You have to put in the title as well.) I provided them with additional information and they said they would get back to me. I applaud their efforts to find the solution to problems such as this.
What are your goals for July?
In any case, the real money came from upfront offers this month. While upfront offers are considered low by most writers' standards, Associated Content is probably the second highest paying site there is when it comes to paying upfront for content articles. I was paid upfront for 12 of the 23 articles this month and pulled in a nice chunk of change for them.
As far as July is concerned, I'm going to be doing something different. I was considering an experiment in page views but I have to abandon that idea for now in favor of something less then monetary. I need to finish the first draft of my novel. Anyone who has been reading my Touch of Fiction blog knows I've been feverishly trying to sell one of my novels and also know that I've been slowly (very slowly) making headway with a new novel I'm writing. I've decided to slack on AC this month in order to focus my attention on my novel. I will be writing a few articles and blog posts here and there as the time and inspiration strike but it won't be near the 20 something count this month. I'm choosing to make my fiction a priority at this time. Creative writers will understand this need.
I also need to update a current situation. Associated Content wrote me back about my DO article that had been pulled last month and about the similar articles other sources told me about. (Please note that if you ever have to contact AC about an article, yours or anyone else's, it's not enough to provide a link. You have to put in the title as well.) I provided them with additional information and they said they would get back to me. I applaud their efforts to find the solution to problems such as this.
What are your goals for July?
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Still Frustrated - Update
I did get a nice reply from AC yesterday about the photo that had been removed from one of my articles. Their response was that they didn't know what happened or why it had been removed but that it was up now (yes, because I resubmitted it) but to contact them in the future should another issue arise like it. Maybe who ever reviewed my original piece decided that I couldn't have taken that picture? I mean, I think it's a pretty good picture and the effects I did on it were pretty cool. I don't know. At this point, I can only speculate why. I've had problems with photos before because there is a very strict rule when using photos on AC. I don't have a problem with the rules, though, and understand why they are in place. But when I use a photo that is from an approved source and cite all relevant credits and it still doesn't get put up with the article, then I feel that extra work to provide a photo is all for nothing. Most of the time, I put my own work up.
BUT, then I get another upfront rejection on an article about proper social networking. I'm going to publish it as a DO (display only) as soon as I get finished typing this. They said it didn't contain enough new information. Okay, maybe I'm getting a little too comfortable with submitting for upfront (I have had many articles accepted this month) that I'm getting a little burnt here.
I think it's time to take the rest of the week off from AC and work on my fiction. Let's start fresh with gusto on Monday.
See you then.
BUT, then I get another upfront rejection on an article about proper social networking. I'm going to publish it as a DO (display only) as soon as I get finished typing this. They said it didn't contain enough new information. Okay, maybe I'm getting a little too comfortable with submitting for upfront (I have had many articles accepted this month) that I'm getting a little burnt here.
I think it's time to take the rest of the week off from AC and work on my fiction. Let's start fresh with gusto on Monday.
See you then.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Not Very Happy About AC Right Now
I'm all about blogging for the good of Associated Content. But I also don't want to ignore the other stuff that comes my way. No matter how much I like AC, no matter how much anyone likes something, there will inevitably be those times that are frustrating.
If you've been following this blog (which has gotten hundreds of hits so I know someone's reading it!), then you know about the sweepstakes article that I wrote earlier in the month that was pulled for being too promotional. I get it. What I don't get is the number of similar articles that have went up on AC this past month which were nothing short of the same format I used to write my sweeps articles. Days after the first article of its kind went up, it remains available to view. I was actually alerted to these articles after more then one source read my blog and contacted me about them. I waited for them to be pulled and when they weren't, I contacted AC yesterday concerning the inconsistency in pulling DO (Display Only) articles. When I hear something, I will update. In any case, it's not that I want another source's articles pulled. I don't. I would just like to know why AC will pull mine but leave other similar articles up.
I also had a picture removed from one of my articles. It was a picture that I took and edited myself and was relevant to the article. Granted, it is not an article that gets a lot of page views but I know statistically, articles with pictures get more page views then others. I don't know how long it had been removed before I noticed it. I had the same photograph on an article before that and it hadn't been removed. Since the article in question was a DO, I resubmitted the picture with the article. So far, it hasn't been removed. I also wrote admin and let them know that I had resubmitted the photo and was wondering why it had been removed in the first place as sources are not notified of picture removals. I received an odd email back, letting me know that they would take a look at the situation and wanted to know the title of the article in question, even though in my original email stood the link to the article itself. I wrote them back. I haven't heard anything back as of yet but the picture remains on my article. That would be fine, but I would still like to know why it was pulled, if not for anything but my future reference when submitting articles. The two articles which have the same photograph was the HIV article (which was also picked up by both the Wall Street Journal and USA Today), which was published first and the photo was never removed and The Other Pam in which I resubmitted the photo with the article.
In any case, when and if I hear anything back about these issues, I will update to let my readers know.
The next problem I've had with AC this week stems from an article concerning toddler transitional objects. I write for USMOMSTODAY as the toddler section contributing editor. So while I write toddler related articles for them, I will offer the article first to AC for upfront. I knew it wouldn't pull in a high upfront but I wasn't expecting them to decline it altogether. Their reason? It wasn't a topic typically searched about. I don't get that. I get a lot of my toddler article ideas from Yahoo! Answers, paying attention to what people ask there and then deciding what to write about. There were many questions about transitional objects. I have also had articles in the past that I've submitted and they've accepted for upfront (even if it was a low upfront) that I know weren't topics typically searched. For example, my article about writing for role playing games, and more recent my article about geeks, nerds, and dorks, and even more recent, A Toddler's Garbage Can Fascination. I see the declined article being no different then any of those subject matters which were all offered upfront payment.
In any case, like I said, I'll update with any new news. That's enough of my griping for now.
If you've been following this blog (which has gotten hundreds of hits so I know someone's reading it!), then you know about the sweepstakes article that I wrote earlier in the month that was pulled for being too promotional. I get it. What I don't get is the number of similar articles that have went up on AC this past month which were nothing short of the same format I used to write my sweeps articles. Days after the first article of its kind went up, it remains available to view. I was actually alerted to these articles after more then one source read my blog and contacted me about them. I waited for them to be pulled and when they weren't, I contacted AC yesterday concerning the inconsistency in pulling DO (Display Only) articles. When I hear something, I will update. In any case, it's not that I want another source's articles pulled. I don't. I would just like to know why AC will pull mine but leave other similar articles up.
I also had a picture removed from one of my articles. It was a picture that I took and edited myself and was relevant to the article. Granted, it is not an article that gets a lot of page views but I know statistically, articles with pictures get more page views then others. I don't know how long it had been removed before I noticed it. I had the same photograph on an article before that and it hadn't been removed. Since the article in question was a DO, I resubmitted the picture with the article. So far, it hasn't been removed. I also wrote admin and let them know that I had resubmitted the photo and was wondering why it had been removed in the first place as sources are not notified of picture removals. I received an odd email back, letting me know that they would take a look at the situation and wanted to know the title of the article in question, even though in my original email stood the link to the article itself. I wrote them back. I haven't heard anything back as of yet but the picture remains on my article. That would be fine, but I would still like to know why it was pulled, if not for anything but my future reference when submitting articles. The two articles which have the same photograph was the HIV article (which was also picked up by both the Wall Street Journal and USA Today), which was published first and the photo was never removed and The Other Pam in which I resubmitted the photo with the article.
In any case, when and if I hear anything back about these issues, I will update to let my readers know.
The next problem I've had with AC this week stems from an article concerning toddler transitional objects. I write for USMOMSTODAY as the toddler section contributing editor. So while I write toddler related articles for them, I will offer the article first to AC for upfront. I knew it wouldn't pull in a high upfront but I wasn't expecting them to decline it altogether. Their reason? It wasn't a topic typically searched about. I don't get that. I get a lot of my toddler article ideas from Yahoo! Answers, paying attention to what people ask there and then deciding what to write about. There were many questions about transitional objects. I have also had articles in the past that I've submitted and they've accepted for upfront (even if it was a low upfront) that I know weren't topics typically searched. For example, my article about writing for role playing games, and more recent my article about geeks, nerds, and dorks, and even more recent, A Toddler's Garbage Can Fascination. I see the declined article being no different then any of those subject matters which were all offered upfront payment.
In any case, like I said, I'll update with any new news. That's enough of my griping for now.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Bad Part of Writing for AC
I got an article pulled today. It was an article highlighting various win cash sweepstakes. The feedback to this article said that it was too promotional. This only makes the second article in six months that's been pulled from AC after I've published them as a DO. Even though I know it's not personal, I still can't help but feel like I've been cut down a notch every time something like this happens.
The thing is that I've seen a number of articles on AC that follow the format of, "I've looked up these things online, and here are a few noteworthy ones." That's exactly how I formed my article. I researched through a great number of individual sweepstakes (spending more time then I usually would on an article, I might add) and only chose the ones to write about that were easy, free, and offered a substantial reward. The comments I had gotten already for it the few days it was up was promising. It had 41 page views that I can't get back now. Thank goodness it wasn't higher.
While my first impulse was to be offended, I took a little while to take stock. While I can see the idea that it might be too promotional, I don't understand why it was pulled while other similar content remains. But, alas, it is not my site, I don't own it and they are certainly within their rights to reject it. They pay me to put up what they want. I don't pay them to put up what I want.
On a side note, I had an article awhile back that was rejected for upfront being called a "website review" while another source got an upfront offer for a similar article about another website. Sometimes I just don't understand the inconsistency. I suspect it's the theory of different AC employees have different opinions when it comes to deciphering the guidelines.
It's not going to discourage me from submitting content. On the bright side, I was offered upfronts for two articles today that I wrote last week, one of which I accepted, the other which I declined and posted in the Workshop forum for some SEO pointers in hopes to improve it. I'm almost certain that my next article to be reviewed will be declined for upfront. Guess we'll see.
My week has been all outta whack! Time to regroup and reorganize if I want to reach my 20 article goal by the end of the month.
The thing is that I've seen a number of articles on AC that follow the format of, "I've looked up these things online, and here are a few noteworthy ones." That's exactly how I formed my article. I researched through a great number of individual sweepstakes (spending more time then I usually would on an article, I might add) and only chose the ones to write about that were easy, free, and offered a substantial reward. The comments I had gotten already for it the few days it was up was promising. It had 41 page views that I can't get back now. Thank goodness it wasn't higher.
While my first impulse was to be offended, I took a little while to take stock. While I can see the idea that it might be too promotional, I don't understand why it was pulled while other similar content remains. But, alas, it is not my site, I don't own it and they are certainly within their rights to reject it. They pay me to put up what they want. I don't pay them to put up what I want.
On a side note, I had an article awhile back that was rejected for upfront being called a "website review" while another source got an upfront offer for a similar article about another website. Sometimes I just don't understand the inconsistency. I suspect it's the theory of different AC employees have different opinions when it comes to deciphering the guidelines.
It's not going to discourage me from submitting content. On the bright side, I was offered upfronts for two articles today that I wrote last week, one of which I accepted, the other which I declined and posted in the Workshop forum for some SEO pointers in hopes to improve it. I'm almost certain that my next article to be reviewed will be declined for upfront. Guess we'll see.
My week has been all outta whack! Time to regroup and reorganize if I want to reach my 20 article goal by the end of the month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)