December 09, 2009
READERS RESPOND - Are Content Mills Lowering the Quality of "News" on the Internet?
printable version |
Share on Facebook
Last week, I wrote:
With all the hubbub about content mills (and how many believe they are responsible for declining pay rates for freelancers), I can't help but wonder if they are also contributing to the decline of the quality of writing on the Internet. I thought I'd review some articles at some content mills to see if they really are publishing/reselling material with common, easy-to-spot errors. You probably won't be very surprised by my discoveries. While I did find plenty of great articles, I also found plenty of errors.
I also discussed the disturbing trend of some content mills hiring writers to rewrite other writers' work.
You can read more HERE.
Below, I'm sharing readers' comments that arrived after the article was published. Don't miss the last one!
BLATANT ACTS OF PLAGIARISM
There's a guy on one of my LinkedIn groups that keeps posting links to his articles on (a content mill website). Invariably, they are "summaries" (i.e. blatant acts of plagiarism) of news articles written by well-known publications, sometimes with credits and sometimes not. The most audacious example was an "article" he wrote that was a summary of an Onion.com article (the satire site) with the funniest lines included. Even though he cited The Onion, it sure looked like plagiarism to me. I've complained multiple times to (the content mill) about this guy's articles and other "summary"/plagiarism examples, but never heard a response.
Kathryn Kingsbury
http://www.kathrynkingsbury.com
DUMBING DOWN THE CONTENT
Hi Angela,
Your newsletter is one of the few that I have continued reading from year to year. I agree with you. However, it isn't only the 'Content Mills'.
Over the years, I've noticed a lack of writing ability. Reading comprehension on an educational level has also declined.
I run my articles (and compare them with other writers) through a reading level program before submitting them. I've found the average reading level on-line at elementary school levels, with 5th grade the norm.
That has been a bit discouraging as articles I have written for a few on-line directories have been rejected outright or returned with 'suggestions' to dumb the content down for their readers.
I write for adults seeking information. So does this mean we go the 'Dick and Jane' basic literacy route to survive as freelance writers in the consumer market or ignore the trend and focus on a select, albeit smaller audience?
Danica
REWRITING ARTICLES IS LIKE PLAYING THE CHILD'S GAME, TELEPHONE
I was glad to see your comments on the content mills. I was afraid my view on what should and shouldn't be was becoming warped with age. At 73 years, I am definitely of the old school. The things I hear and read these days through the various media are poorly written, filled with misinformation and sometimes deliberately slanted. A lot of it harkens back to education in the schools and the failure to adequately teach grammar and good writing. The same holds true for mathematics, evidenced by the inability of many who handle money to make change.
I have seen the ads that say, "need articles rewritten." My first thought goes to plagiarism, but I also know that rewriting is like telling secrets. By the time it gets to the last person, it no longer represents the original. The frosting on the cake is the texting abbreviations so prevalent these days, and little by little I hear teens and sub-teens resorting to that in communicating verbally with family and friends. They will never know the beauty of words and their ability to adequately express feelings, emotions, and important information. What worries me the most, however, is the use of these content mills, and poorly written media articles to lead the reader to a particular conclusion, rather than to the path of investigation and learning for themselves.
I have the 1914 reprint of a dictionary, originally printed in 1889, which has 10,000 tissue thin pages, and stands nearly 18 inches when closed. What a gold mine of words. While some are truly archaic and would no longer be useful in this day and age, most of them are beautiful, vibrant and exactingly descriptive. We're losing more than content as we move down the road of rewrite and text messaging ñ LOL.
Ethel Geary
IF IT'S IN PRINT, IT MUST BE TRUE!
Hi Angela,
I enjoyed the article on disturbing trends. It's something I grumble about to my son quite often. So often, in fact, it has started falling on deaf ears. Yes, there are too many people who believe if something is in print, then it must be true; my elderly mother included. Trying to convince her otherwise is impossible. One of my pet peeves is Wikipedia where "anyone" can make entries. Whether the entry is factual or not is always a concern. My son is 30 but still believes Wikipedia is always factual. Recently, incorrect info was entered on President Kennedy for the fun of it. It was corrected rather quickly, but what if a student looking for info for a school paper had happened onto the incorrect information before it was rectified?
There used to be a saying: "A picture is worth a thousand words." Decades ago, if there was a picture of someone doing something wrong, you could count on it being true because doctored photos were so easy to spot. Today's world of photography is an entirely different bear. Most home computers now have software the average person can use to doctor photographs. But one usually needs specialized software to check on whether some professionally doctored photos are real.
I realize news shows on television need interns and interns need experience. Another pet peeve is the news scroll bars at the bottom of the screen on news stations. Whether it's the AP or an intern, I'm constantly irritated when LA is used instead of L.A. or vice versa. When their is typed instead of there, your instead of you're, cents instead of sense, or hear instead of here. Then there's always its versus it's. Or to, too, and two. And that's just the beginning. Too often there are misspelled words which are obviously not typos. And it doesn't just happen on television. I constantly see such things written in printed newspapers where obviously a spell-checker was used but no proof reading. Too many people just count on spell-checkers, not caring whether a correctly spelled word is the wrong word. I do expect more from a paper newspaper than online as I have to pay for the paper one. No longer can you have your child read a printed newspaper for correct language skills like my parents could when I was growing up. Proof reading in most paper newspapers seems to have gone out the window as much as online!
I see a future where our written language slowly devolves into the shorthand of text messaging and smiley faces. People of the future will look at "written" language as a lost ancient language. Alas, the new language will not even be as elegant as the languages of the Egyptian hieroglyphics or the Mayans or Aztecs. It's devolving into what will become lazy gibberish!
I'll bet you touched a nerve with this subject with many readers!
Karen
POOR CHOICE, EVEN IF HE DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF CLIPS
You only cited a couple of (content mills). I've found several more. The rise of so-called "citizen journalists" has led to the fall of "professional journalists." I "signed on" to several of these sites to investigate the possibilities. Some of the members of our local writers' club are writing for examiner.com, but I consider it a poor choice even though I don't have a lot of national clips.
I'm very unhappy with our local newspaper. They literally have cut the size of the paper as well as had three layoffs of staff. They're getting "wannabe" writers to write for free to fill in the space around the ads, while carrying little news of note. They've focused on going after the politicians (an easy target.) They've increased the subscription rates three times this year, and I'm not sure how much longer I can sustain my morning routine of reading the paper at breakfast. I write non-fiction only for magazines, and I've seen that market dry up this year as well.
John
IT'S MORE THAN AN ART, IT'S A RESPONSIBILITY
Hi Ang,
I'm a writer on a lot of content sites and I have to agree with you. When I first started submitting content articles a little over a year ago, I spent a lot of time just browsing and reading. Many of the misspellings I saw that you found - and others - yes, in the titles, too - made me cringe. I frequently took the time back then to write short notes to the authors to point them out, and in every case, each responded graciously and fixed them. But it was so frequent and took so much of my time, I held myself back and finally stopped. I find myself often going back over my own articles and finding a missing word or poor wording and fixing it, and think 'how did I miss that?'
But I know the basic problem - especially with (content mill contributors) - who need to produce a short article at least daily to get paid. The writers really want to make a name for themselves - for good topics, and for SEO, and for being the most prolific writer on the site, and to make a lot of money. I've read blogs where people said they had written 14 articles a day and that would throw me into shock. I was a tech writer/editor for 18 years and a freelance copywriter concurrently P/T - and I considered myself experienced and a stickler for spelling and grammar, yet I can barely write 1-2 articles a day (and not every day) that I would publish; that is, original articles - what the sites say they want. I write and edit and check and re-edit, rework, check spelling and typos, all the time. I could probably re-type old newspaper articles - but that's dishonest. So how could people write 14 articles a day? Are they all geniuses or is everyone plagiarizing?
But again, feeling the push to write write write rarely leaves any writer with time to edit themselves properly. It's more than an art, it's a responsibility. The writing this generation of children reads on this accessible internet will determine their level of literacy in adulthood and their ability to communicate well with their own children. Today's content writers are living in the moment, dreaming of riches in the future. They should read your articles about that dim possibility.
Most people simply want their own soapbox or a place to park their poetry collection. Rare is the person who will get rich writing for content sites, and the 'pressure to produce' leaves no real time for proper spell checks, let alone fact checking. Many of these writers have never had any mentoring and don't even know how to check facts or cite references. Yet I highly recommend sites like Suite101 who have skilled editors that spend a lot of time working with authors. They are invaluable.
Some writers for most sites have never written anything before. And they may do well, but misspell frequently, miss words, and often have poor grammar. Others have wonderful gifts to communicate information, but use English as a second language and simply cannot express themselves as a native speaker would. We all think it would be un-politically correct to criticize their spelling and usage if they are trying hard, right? Unless the site labels itself for "experienced writers", "native English speakers only", etc. - we have no grounds to complain. But half the readers enjoy that content for what it is, while others may not even notice. These new writing sites are part of the next wave of an Internet in its infancy. It's the way things are evolving, and there simply is not enough oversight. A sloppy blog site with sloppy contributors will have fewer readers and less income to pay good editors. Texting is a language of its own and a blight on the earth, but it's fast and efficient. On the net, since money is the baseline, if people click on the Google ads and everyone makes a little money, no one will complain there either.
On the up side, the good sites may attract better writers and make more money, and then are able to provide oversight that turns poor writers into better writers, and keeps good writers on their toes. This may eventually evolve into more money for the better writers and provide jobs for good editors.
Either way, we are all responsible for our own use of the language. Anonymous, non-judgmental internet writing may actually motivate some of the many nearly illiterate high school graduates- turned-writers to upgrade their language skills. For those who don't know any better or care, nothing can make them take notice of their own poor grammar skills except themselves. It's a new world, if not a brave one, and language is always evolving to its betterment or detriment, much to the chagrin of many. We may simply end up needing a new "Dictionary" to translate for us as we all speak (and spell) the English language popular to our own culture or generation. I don't like where this is headed, but I doubt if we can stop it.
Cheers,
Marie Thomas
Freelance Writer/Photographer
http://www.suite101.com/writer_articles.cfm/welovetheword
http://www.ehow.com/members/wltw.html
http://www.bukisa.com/people/marie.thomas
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/28546/marie_thomas.html
DISGUSTED
Angela,
I'm disgusted with writing mills. My heart goes out to folks who believe that those sites offer good clips for a serious writer's portfolio. When someone pitches an article to FundsforWriters, if they mention they write for these outfits, I immediately read on with a jaundiced eye, assuming I read on at all. The sites pay a pittance (if that), they take advantage of writers, and I find that writers stop improving themselves and their career by getting stuck in the submission game these sites play. The pay per hour is so far beneath minimum wage it's ridiculous. Writers need to realize that they are not building clips with these sites. On the contrary, they are labeling themselves as hobby writers, folks who piddle in the craft and do not write for a living.
Another aspect of these sites is that they are encroaching on search engines in a huge way. As I search for an item, I now note that the top ten or more sites posted are from writing mills. I skip them, because more times than not, they are wrought with errors, mis-information and shallow writing that lacks research (i.e., fluff).
These sites are not worthy clips for a serious writer. It pains me to see so many people contribute to them. These mills offer easy acceptance, and that acceptance is on the level of an addiction. Why move on and increase the chance of rejection when you can submit piece after piece and feel accepted?
It saddens me. It really does. It's as bad or worse than giving writing away for free. (Big sigh.)
C. Hope Clark
Editor, FundsforWriters, http://www.fundsforwriters.com
Writer's Digest 101 Best Web Sites for Writers - 2001 through 2009
Blog - www.hopeclark.blogspot.com
Twitter - www.twitter.com/hopeclark
Facebook - www.facebook.com/chopeclark
THE 'NET HAS TURNED PROPER USAGE OF LANGUAGE INTO MOB RULES
Hi Angela,
I read your article about whether content mills are lowering the quality of news on the internet, and I would ask you who determines what constitutes quality writing.
The internet has turned proper usage of the English language into mob rule--if the majority of people type something into a search engine incorrectly, then SEO marketers and content mills decide that it's the new "right" way to do it. If the people using search engines click through to terrible, poorly written, and badly spelled articles, it sends a clear signal to generate more of the same because that (bad) writing style is resonating with the audience.
I am beginning to wonder if stupid typos like lose/loose are introduced intentionally as a way to capture inattentive, hurried, or ignorant readers using the wrong word in their search terms.
The content mills are awful, but they are only responding to demand.
- Name not published on request
WHEN EARNINGS DEPENDS ON SPEED, WRITERS CUT EVERY CORNER THEY CAN
Dear Angela,
I read your newsletter every week. Great job watching out for the interests of writers. Even with 20 years print experience, the only jobs offers I get are from the content mills. Thanks to you, I've resisted wasting my time.
You are so right about the quality of the writing on many of these sites. But when earning money depends on speed, writers cut every corner they can. Last year I purchased an ebook that claimed to tell how to make big money using low-paying websites. I thought it was a marketing plan. Instead, the author said to bid $5 for each article and to write 1,000 to 2,000 articles a month. She said not to waste time talking to the client about what he wanted or waste time editing your work. Her secret to making more money: learn to type faster.
Another problem for me is the shallowness of the articles. About 90 percent of the articles I've accessed on (one of the content mills) only have information that anyone with any life experience and a bit of common sense already knows. You try to learn how to do something, only to get an intro to the subject that gets you charged up about the topic and no info on how to actually do whatever.
To me the most disturbing aspect of these content sites is the plagiarism. (The book I referenced above) actually told readers how to take someone else's article and make superficial changes to make it your work. That's when I sent for a refund.
But she's not alone. I recently visited a website where the guy talked about how you can't charge as much when the online checks pick up on the fact that you are reusing someone else's material. His advice: go to a hardware store or other business that has its own print magazine or newsletter. He said those are a source of articles you could reuse without being caught, because they were in print instead of online.
Jan
OH, THE IRONY...
Dear Ma'am
I'm sorry to disagree Ms. Angela but I don't think rewriting old news are bad for freelancers. Some people likes to read news with comments on weblogs because they have no time to surf on-line. I agree though on all your other points.
Thank you ma'am.
-Name not published...for obvious reasons
