Writer websites...

I have this blog for CDB, but I have a website, too.  I tossed that site up quickly using a WYSIWYG editor.  It's bright orange, relatively featureless and not too exciting.  I think about changing it up and making a more effective statement every day.  I never find the time to do it.  By the time you read this, however, that may have changed.

 

Occasionally, I spend some time checking out other writer's sites.  I like to "keep tabs" on the competition and also wonder if I might find some inspiration for my eventual site redesign. 

 

I do copywriting and write alot of content, so I understand how important a good sales pitch is.  However, I simply cannot motivate myself to write the kind of things I am seeing from other writers. 

 

They'll supply a list of clients.  As someone who does a lot of ghostwriting, I don't like that idea.  I am sure many of my clients wouldn't mind if I asked them, but I would prefer to let the world continue to think that they wrote all of that great stuff on their sites.

Some writers will provide something akin to a resume.  My current, to be honest, does a bit of that.  I don't care for that strategy, either. 

 

I was almost a professional student for a long time.  Multiple stints in grad school, etc.  One thing I learned during those years of study was to immediately be suspicious of anyone who tries to impress you with their degree collection.  Sure, an educational background will give some clue to a prospective client that one is capable of constructing complete sentences, but it doesn't really seem like the most relevant thing to me.

 

 

My work history is varied and maybe even interesting.  How many writers do you know who have been an industrial laundry dryer room operator, a radio announcer, a roofer, a teacher, a corporate division head, a paper pusher in government, the coach of a top-ranked collegiate debate program and more?  Sure, a prospective client might see that as proof that I am well-rounded and able to communicate with virtually every audience.  Again, I doubt that is the most important thing to them.

 

My problem is that I have been on the other side of the table as a content buyer and as a webmaster.  All of those things that seem like great marketing hooks really don't mean that much when you are looking for a writer.  In my estimation, there are three primary considerations for a buyer:  price, trust and quality.

 

Anyone can write a great resume.  Anyone can recite their virtues and create an appearance of competence.  Those in online business recognize this.  They are smart enough not to be taken in by a nice website and a great bio.  They might need someone to write a powerful sales letter to help them move product, but they are not the target audience for that kind of long copy with its hype. 

 

There are thousands of freelance writers with websites adorned with banner graphics featuring quills, fountain pens and inkpots.  They discuss a love of writing and assure customers the highest level of care and attention.  They spend a great deal of their space pitching prospects on the idea of hiring a writer in the first place.  They all promise appropriate rates and amazing quality. 

 

 

I don't use quills or fountain pens.  I use a black wireless keyboard with half of the letters worn out.  I think that most of the people who find me are pre-sold on the idea of hiring a writer and are out looking for a good fit for their project.  They are looking for price, trust and quality.  The trick is that they know better than to take someone's word on their ability to meet those three requirements.

 

So, today I might just rebuild my website (finally).  I think it's time to market my freelance writing from a slightly different angle. 

 

Powered By Qumana

Secret Google labs, quality raters, Orwell reports and more...

Wouldn't it be great for those in the content writing industry if there was a sudden surge in demand for writers?  Imagine how nice it would be for writers if webmasters felt compelled to invest more in written content.  If demand were to skyrocket, being an established content writer would be great, huh?  There would be more work and the value of content would escalate.

 

It might be happening.  This might be the perfect time to really brand yourself as a content writer.  There are multiple factors afoot that could lead to a huge increase in demand.

 

There is a freely circulating report in support of a new Jason Potash software program called "Orwell."  This program is designed to cull relevant articles from article repositories and directories in order to assist webmasters in building content-rich sites.  According to Potash, a variety of happenings at Google make his new product necessary.

Google, king of the search engines, seems to be interested in curbing the effectiveness of lousy sites filled with scraped content and nonsense.  Potash argues that ostensibly leaked internal Google documents demonstrate this and that Google's recent efforts to hire several human "quality raters" also prove the point. 

 

Whether these raters have a real personal impact on search results or are simply the equivalent of a human focus group whose opinions will be used for algorithmic tweaks is yet to be seen.  However, it does appear as if Google will be putting a face on its efforts to catch up (and pass) black hat SEO-types and spammy sites that have found a way to infiltrate top search engine result positions.

 

Potash's "Big Brother Report" is designed in support of his "Orwell" software, which focuses on the use of articles.  This makes sense, as Potash is behind some very popular article distribution software already in wide use. 

Writers should read this report.  Why?  The first two-thirds of the material provides the backbone of a very effective marketing pitch for content writers.  The report outlines all of the different ways Google plans to crush those generating "crappy" sites and reinforces the extreme importance of offering high-quality written content to surfers. 

 

Some of the report's evidence may be a little specious.  Some of it may read a bit like a Google conspiracy theory, but there are two nuggets of truth that cannot be disputed.  First, Google wants to cull the "crap" so they can provide surfers with good results.  That makes sense--they have to keep their surfing customers happy.  Second, high-quality content is smiled upon by the folks in G-land.

 

Henk Van Ess, a blogger and search engine expert, has also broken news of what he terms a "secret Google lab" staffed with university students who are evaluating search engine results and flagging sites laden with spammy content.  He even offered up a Flash presentation showing how those involved with the program (Google Rater Hub) function for Google.

 

It seems as though a lot of people in the search engine world assume the quality rating program has a direct impact on search engine results--as if these people are able to "trump" the algorithm.  Personally, I tend to believe it's more likely that their input is being used in-house in order to refine the formula.  Either way, it appears as if real human eyes are going to be seeing and reporting a lot of lousy sites and that should be a warning to those operating them that they might want to start providing users with quality content.

 

Those of us who write for a living have long been preaching the value of good content.  For better or for worse, however, those in the online business world have often searched for cheaper alternatives in order to "fool" Google into believing they are offering good material.  If Google is able to find ways to separate the wheat from the chaff--and it appears as though they are really trying to do just that--it is the best sales pitch in the world for unique content.

 

 

 

 

Powered By Qumana

Testing a new blogging tool...

I am using Qumana, an offline blogging tool, to produce this post.  I maintain a handful of blogs on different platforms, so I was interested in the idea of using a single program to work with all of them.  Based on some initial exploration, I am pretty impressed with the ease of use.

One thing about Qumana that might be of interest to some bloggers is the ease with which one can insert keyword-based advertising into their blog posts.  Unlike Adsense ads, which are context driven, you get to select the keywords with Adgenta.  Qumana makes it a breeze to insert the ads.

 

Qumana is free.  Based on what I can tell, the software is given away in hopes that bloggers will use the Adgenta ad option.  It's a great way, in theory, to build to popularity and usage of the ad network.  Based on the tiny bit of research I did, it looks like Adgenta pulls ads from the Miva network.  Thus, I am willing to guess that the blogger's per-click payout might be a bit higher if they were to just go with Miva directly instead of throught the Qumana "middle man."  However, that is purely conjecture on my part.  Also, if I am right, the pay differential may be made up for by the quality of the Qumana software for many users.

 

 

Okay, enough testing.  The next post will actually be about freelance writing and content production issues.  Promise!

 

 

Powered By Qumana

Even Crazy-Eyes Killah needs an editor...

I was watching a "Tivoed" episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" yesterday. Larry David and Crazy-Eyes were going over some of Crazy's rap lyrics. David, a writer, was asked for editorial recommendations.

He told Crazy to drop one of the "F***ers" in the last line, as the term has been used once before and to replace it with a "B***h." Sounded better and more accurately captured Crazy's sentiments.

Crazy agreed.

Just goes to show you that any writer can use a good editor, I suppose.

Instant Article Ghostwriter and fair use (cont'd)...

My last observations on this topic spurred an interesting comment from Jonathan, who doesn't share my view that Instant Article Generator (IAG, for short) probably stays within the Fair Use exemption for copyright infringement.

He used the same worksheet I referenced yesterday and felt that IAG's output was outside the bounds of Fair Use. I came up with the opposite conclusion. I think that really shows you the nature of the doctrine. Both of us seem to be fairly reasonable people who have given this issue some consideration. Still, we reached different conclusions. I won't go so far as to saying a determination is a coin flip, but it might be close.

Jonathan noted that "If I were using the software, I wouldn't want to chance it. Judges aren't fond of people that try to squeak around the law using technicalities, which is what the software is trying to do, and would be very likely to view it and anyone using it in an unfavorable light, especially since no original content is created. I can practically hear a judge informing an attorney that setealing one dollar from a hundred people is no different than stealing one hundred from a single person. One is just trying harder not to get caught. Nonetheless, judges are funny things sometimes, especially on matters of fair use. But seriously, would you want to risk your reputation and your finances on a piece of software like this? I can't see why anyone would."

I think this argument really cuts to the practical core of the whole IAG issue. Fair Use is a very gray area and is approached with some level of subjectivity by judges. I agree that attempts to skirt a law are unlikely to be well-received, but by the same token one must wonder how appreciated litigation about a single sentence lifted from another piece and used in a different context (probably within an informational article) would really be.

Likewise, one must wonder about how reasonable it would be to pursue litigation. The real proveable damages would be virtually nonexistent in most cases, leading the owner of a stolen sentence to purse statutory damages (I believe that under existing copyright law, those start at $750). Thus, even if one were to win such a case, the costs of bringing suit and following through are probably going to trump the reward.

Additionally, most IAG users would probably argue that the advertising of the product gave them every reason to believe their activity was within the boundaries of Fair Use. True, ignorance of the law does not excuse one from criminal acts. However, it does create a more sypathetic respondent. That raises the question of IAG's advertising and responsibility, but that is probably a different issue.

Of course, pursuing any action is based on the presupposition that the original author is going to discover his or her sentence plugged into some 400 word non-masterpiece that's hiding out in a big pile of search engine bait on the back-end of an Adsense site. That, in and of itself, is an interesting problem.

Thus, I think anyone using IAG can probably do so without exposing themselves to any real risk. The likelihood of discovery is low. The likelihood of sufficient motivation to pursue litigation is low. If litigation is pursued, Fair Use law seems to be so devoid of bright line distinctions that one could probably escape trouble. The damages are minimal and the user's reliance upon manufacturer's statements could cut against a suit's effectiveness, too.

So, in the end, here's my take. The output produced by IAG may or may not be defendable under Fair Use, but even if it is not, users are probably operating in pretty safe territory with respect to liability.

Personally, I don't care for the software. I also think it probably won't really amount to much due to what I perceive to be a general inefficiency. IAG-generated articles are unlikely to be the subject of litigation.

So, why spend all of this time discussing it? Well, IAG is part of a first wave of automated content production tools. As these improve, those who write will need to be ready to defend against more efficient programs that enable/produce plagiarism and copyright infringments.

More on fair use...

I had an interesting exchange with Jonathan from Plagiarism Today (a great site that everyone with an interest in these matters should visit) yesterday about the Fair Use doctrine.

He told me he thought those who use software like Instant Article Generator may fall outside of the purview of the Fair Use exception due, at least in part, to their failure to provide appropriate attribution for the sentences the program culls from other source material.

I did a little bit of investigation and found that he had a point. Attribution is one aspect of the Fair Use equation that does receive some real attention from those deciding cases. Although a lack of attribution does not automatically mean one is running afoul of copyright regulation, it is a factor when determining the validity of a defense based on Fair Use.

While doing some digging on these issues, I found a few versions of a handy worksheet that attempts to determine whether one's work falls under the Fair Use doctrine or not. I cannot vouch for these forms' ability to successfully predict the outcome of a court claim, but I do think they shed real light on how these determinations can be made.

My favorite Fair Use worksheet can be found here. Take a look and see what you think.

When I ran through it using the Instant Article Generator "defensive driving" tutorial article, the worksheet indicates the article would probably pass muster under Fair Use.

Instant article ghost writer and the "fair use" doctrine...

I didn't originally plan on splitting this post off from the earlier one about the Instant Article Ghostwriter software, but I think the copyright issues raised by the program warrant some individual attention.

As noted, Instant Article Ghostwriter is a software package that pulls individual keyword-rich sentences from a variety of sources and then combines them (with user assistance) into a readable article or document.

Although the end user may perform an editing function, the software's expressed aim is to create content without too much effort--the conglomeration of scraped sentences are supposed to approximate a useable final product.

I have noted some of the limitations I believe to be present in the software itself, but another issue of concern to many is the matter of plagiarism and copyright violation.

Instant Article Ghostwriter's team argues that their product does not run afoul of existing copyright regulations due to the nature of the Fair Use Doctrine. They claim that taking single sentences from multiple sources to produce a final product that contains nothing of substance that is original is AOK.

It sounds almost outlandish. However, they may be right!

The Fair Use Doctrine, despite its formalistic name, is really more of a framework than a precise criteria. Judges evaluating copyright claims in which Fair Use arguments are invoked apply a four factor test to determine whether or not boundaries have been overstepped.

Instant Article Ghostwriter's (hereafter IAG) backers have decent arguments on all four fronts...

First, judges evaluate the "purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or if for nonprofit educational purposes."

You would think that could be a problem for IAG's users. Not necessarily. The software hopes to be widely used by those submitting free articles to repository sites. The motivation behind doing this is search engine marketing (the pursuit of backlinks), of course, but the article itself is not independentally generating profit of any sort under those circumstances. Additionally, the free distribution of informative materials may seem sufficiently educational in nature to make this less than a slam dunk for IAG detractors.

One would have to find a way to demonstrate that the traffic produced directly by the backlink and/or by enhanced search engine traffic as a result of said link made a freely available informative piece enough of a commercial commodity to warrant outright exclusion under Fair Use.

Obviously, other uses might be more clearly commercial, but you get the idea...

Second, judges look at the "nature of the copyrighted work."

I don't know about you, but I have a hard time believing anyone wearing a robe is going to ascribe signficant value to a brief factual article that appears online. That 500 word piece may be some writer's "baby," but to a judge it probably seems like nothing more than a few paragraphs of general information.

That problem is intensified when one recognizes that Fair Use cases have historically afforded more protection to fictional works than their factual counterparts.

Third, courts will evaluate "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole."

This is the real winning argument for IAG, I suppose. It's hard to maintain that the use of a single sentence from a source piece really rips out its heart and soul. This has been the usual judicial determination and there's no reason to think that would suddenly change. IAG even cites this on their FAQ:

"According to fair use regulations you can use a single sentence from a larger work and not be in violation of any copyright laws. This is exactly what Instant Article Ghostwriter does. And quite frankly, what many human ghostwriters do."

Personally, I don't think that is what many human ghostwriters do (at least not the better ones), but that point aside, IAG makes its stance clear. That stance seems to be pretty solid.

Finally, judges examine the "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

Anyone who is interested in IAG might want to take a look at the product. You can find it here.

See some problems there for those who dislike the IAG approach? I sure do! I doubt many could be persuaded to believe that a lifted sentence from a primary source that lands in some 500 word internet article somehow decimates the value of the original material? I think the answer to that query is probably "zero."

IAG has found a way to take single sentences from tons of people and combine them to create something new--without any real original work involved. Is it a plagiarism machine? That depends on what you mean by plagiarism. My instinct is to say "Sure. Absolutely. Nothing gets cited. The formality of the paraphrase is not even implemented. It robs sentences. Gobs of them."

However, being sort of creepy doesn't make a program illegal or inconsistent with standing doctrine. IAG may be doing somethine we feel to be plagiarism on some level, but it certainly seems to be doing okay for itself on the legal level.

I doubt anyone who worked on existing copyright legislation really considered the prospect of a program harvesting individual sentences and re-organizing them to produce articles that are valued not for their message so much as for their "back end" benefits (i.e. backlinks). As a result, the Fair Use Doctrine (as I see it, anyway) allows IAG to function unfettered.

Instant article ghost writer...More robotic competition?

Not long ago, I looked at article generating software, particularly Articlebot, and determined that the nature of the technology and its intended purposes probably prevented it from having a substantial impact on content writers.

Articlebot, you'll recall, takes an already-written article and "spins" it into as many "new" versions as one might need.

Yesterday, I learned about a new entry into the content production software field, Jon Leger's Instant Article Ghostwriter. For human authors, the name itself is ominous!

This software allows users to input keywords and will then scour the inernet for individual sentences utilizing those indicated keywords. It then assists in organizing those individual sentences. The user can then pore through the results and construct an article based on the gathered sentences.

The program's website offers a video tutorial that shows the software in action.

After watching the video, I determined that this software is not a real threat to human content writers. Here's why:

First, the end results don't seem overwhelmingly impressive. Even the article featured in the video tutorial fell far short of what most people would expect in an article--particularly for one they planned on using for article repository submissions.

The final product was not attrocious and actually did manage (after a fair amount of human user intervention) to be somewhat readable. However, it was certainly not what one would consider a "great article."

That's not surprising, really. Instant Article Ghostwriter is taking a series of individual sentences from a variety of works written by a slew of different authors and then combining them. You don't expect Booker Prize winning text to come out of that recipe, right?

Second, the software itself requires a fair amount of effort from the user. The site touts Instant Article Ghostwriter as being able to produce an article in less than a half hour. Based on the tutorial example, I would say the 400-500 word sample probably took the user (who is also the programmer's designer) around twenty minutes from top to bottom.

Let's assume a webmaster values his or her time to some extent. How much is a half-hour worth? My guess is that most webmasters would say that half hour is worth more than what it would have cost to pay you or me to write a 500 page article.

If they don't value their time that much, they probably aren't part of the content buying market anyway.

So, I have to wonder why anyone would pay for software that allowed them to produce less than stellar articles at a rate of one per half-hour. Alternatively, they could hire a pro, spend their time on something more lucrative, avoid the software cost altogether and end up with articles that aren't a concocted mish-mash of sentences.

There is a risk to human writers as these alternatives are developed. Eventually, the software will begin to catch up with writers enough that the quality distinction will be too minimal to justify an increased expense. Once the software packages can produce good enough material at a rate that beats outsourcing (and doesn't require significant user effort), we content writers might be in trouble.

Instant Article Ghostwriter might be a step in that direction. However, it does not currently pose a significant threat to human writers at all. In fact, I like the idea of being able to compare and contrast what a content writer can do vs. the automated alternative. The differences (both in terms of efficiency and quality) are so great that it makes "the real deal" even more attractive.

The new ebook is available...CDB blog reader discount...

The Blogger's Guide to Rush Hour Traffic is available. The final release price is $19.95. This is a little higher than I had hoped, but in order to make this a profitable experience and to recruit sufficient affiliate marketing attention, it seemed necessary. Though I missed my target price by about five bucks, I still believe the ebook is a value.

I am going to do something a little different, though. I am willing to offer readers of this blog a chance to buy their copy for $10. Instead of purchasing through the sales page, just pay via Paypal to cdbrack@gmail.com and put "BLOG EBOOK SPECIAL" in the notes. That special will be valid through February 23.

The sales page can be accessed at The Blogger's Guide to Rush Hour Traffic.

Paying to Write...Articles & Content controversy...

Articles & Content, a relatively new site that purchases content, recently made some adjustments to their policies. Claiming that they have been flooded with sub-standard work and that many projects "claimed" by authors were not completed in a timely fashion, they have opted to charge a membership fee for writers.

Those who operate Articles & Content were almost immediately (not surprisingly) contacted by at least a few writers who rejected their new scheme as a matter of principle and who expressed their indignation at being required to pay for the privilege of accessing the A&C projects.

In the few responses from A&C I have seen, they have been almost dismissive of writers' concerns and have tended to respond to complaints in something less than a wholly professional manner.

The Articles & Content mess does not come as a big surprise to me. I did join the site at one point (while still free), but never once claimed a project. The assignments available often did not interest me and I have been sufficiently inundated with work that I didn't "need" to use A&C.

The site itself and the correspondence I received from the administrators led me to believe that those at the top of A&C had probably bitten off a little more than they could chew. Site design was not really on par with what you would expect, editorial direction was minimal, and the emails I received from the admins failed to impress me.

I was amazed to see mass mailings from A&C lambasting poor writing from some producers go out to all users. I was even more amazed to learn that a payout problem was afoot because of problems with a Paypal account (if I remember correctly it had something to do with one of the admin's mother's and another site???).

I can remember thinking that if these people were too underfunded to immediately cut checks for members and to Fed Ex them as necessary, were unable to fix their Paypal issue right away, couldn't immediately establish and fund a new account that could then be used to obtain an additional Paypal account, wouldn't immediately seek out and implement a new online payment system, or do something else to get their authors paid without delay, trouble loomed ahead.

I am sure A&C received a lot of lousy material they couldn't use. I am sure they had countless authors blow deadlines. I can understand their desire to weed out the poor performers. However, implementation of a subscription fee was a horrific way to go about effectuating those goals.

The folks at A&C apparently did not understand the writing population all that well. Many writers will get incredibly upset that people are paying low rates to others in markets in which they have no personal interest! If you tell a room full of writers you produced anything original without charge (unless for charity, etc.) you may emerge from that room tarred and feathered. The idea of paying for the opportunity to write is so out of step with prevailing attitudes among writers that proposing such a thing should have been unthinkable.

I am sure some folks will pay A&C their dough. It may make things run smoother for them. However, what A&C is not fully appreciating is the number of potential high-quality writers they have completely turned off who will now never work with them. Even if their fee maneuver helps them to right a lilting ship in the short run, it will have long term consequences in terms of talent acquisition that will be devastating.

For those of you who have worked with A&C, imagine if the first time you encountered the site was today and they required you to pay them money to get access. Based on what you see from that site, would you even consider dropping a dime? I know I wouldn't.


If you are going to run an article brokerage, you need to be adequately staffed, funded and organized to handle the kind of problems A&C professes to have encountered. You need to recognize that a percentage of projects will turn out to be absolute crap. You must understand that many will fail to come close to meeting deadlines. You have to factor those considerations into operating the venture.

If Articles & Content was surprised at the number of horribly written pieces they received and the number of writers who couldn't produce on time, it merely illustrates a lack of preparedness to successfully enter the field.

If their solution is to ask for writers to pay a subscription fee to participate, it illustrates a lack of understanding of writers.

If you have been involved with A&C and have had a great experience, maybe that little charge is worthwhile. Personally, I have seen far too many warning signs to ever go down that road--especially with so much work available for writers without using the service.

Thank you...

I'd like to extend my appreciation to those of you who took a look at the "advance copy" of the forthcoming blog traffic ebook. I found your praise, comments and recommendations helpful! The final version of the ebook will probably be ready for "publication" late this week.

Thanks again to those who helped!

Content writing and plagiarism...The unattributed paraphrase...

I read this on a bid at GetAFreelancer.com. A prospective freelancer was bidding on a rewrite project and noted:

"Reasons why I should work on this project: - The project seems easy and interesting for me. - I am a casual writer having no reputation yet (this might be the big break!) - I am a good copy-cat (meaning I can copy/rewrite articles effectively without getting caught :-)) - I am simple enough for your needs but good enough to match your expectations. - I am still looking for the right team to work with...grab me before someone else gets this undiscovered genius!"

From all appearances, this person is advertising their ability to effectively plagiarize. One could argue she was merely indicating an ability to perform good re-writes for those who hold rights to a written piece, but the inclusion of "without getting caught" makes that seem fairly unlikely.

We often tend to think of plagiarism in only the most obvious of forms--when someone steals content from someone else and uses it "as is." That type of content misappropriation is certainly the most obvious, but it probably is not nearly as common as the "rewrite" plagiarism that goes on constantly and is not picked up by Copyscape, etc.

Officially, if one uses the ideas of another and simply restates them that paraphrasing should be attributed to the original source. The failure to properly attribute source material and to allow readers to believe the thoguhts presented are your own is plagiarism.

By all traditional academic standards the failure to properly attribute source material and paraphrasing the thoughts of others while presenting them as your own is considered plagiarism. Do those academic standards apply to content writing for the web? If a strict enforcement of these standards is not warranted, at what point does one draw the line?

New ebook...All review copies taken...

Yesterday I mentioned a forthcoming ebook and my willingness to send out a few advance copies for free to folks who would be interested in reading it and providing feedback. The response was great, and I will not be offering any more free copies for review.

Thanks to those of you who volunteered. I am looking forward to your comments.

Another Associated Content post...

After mentioning my little test drive of Associated Content, I received a few comments (one from Lorie, the other anonymous) that concurred with my assessment that freelance content producers can effectively use Associated Content as a means of generating a few extra dollars from excess inventory.

The second article I submitted to Associated Content received an offer last night. I wrote it about five months ago for a project that ended up going nowhere because of some funding problems on the other end (a long story). It involves a more lucrative and popular subject matter than the first article I sent, and I was pleasantly surprised at AC's offer.

It was considerably more than they offered for my first submission, even though they article was considerably shorter.

All in all, I think I like having Associated Content around as a nifty little place to shuttle orphaned articles.

New ebook nearing completion...Want it for FREE?

Writing for others is great, but I also like doing some "self-publishing," too. Lately, I have been working on a new ebook that I hope to have ready for release next week.

The working title is "The Blogger's Guide to Traffic Creation." That is a lousy title. I am not yet sure what I will name the book when I release it.

I was inspired to author this how-to guide on building traffic to blogs after noticing how many people are signing up for blog networks that only offer them a percentage of their Adsense earnings. Apparently, there are a lot of newer bloggers out there who are willing to trade half of their revenue in order to have someone else help with traffic development.

Personally, I think that is often a horrible deal. One can run their own blog (even a freely hosted one like this), manage their own blog marketing and keep all of their earnings. It may not be as simple as joining a network, but it is a pretty easy proposition if you have a guide and framework from which to work.

I'm mentioning the ebook here for a few reasons.

First, I know there are a lot of freelance writers out there who love the idea of blogging (and blogging for bucks) and thought I would let you all know that I have this ebook on the way in case they felt it was something they could use.

Second, all of you content buyers out there now know that I am in the ebook business as well as the article business. You can let me know if you need an ebook.

Third, I want to give away a few FREE copies of this ebook for review. So, if you would like a copy, you can contact me via the form on the right side of this blog or via email at cdbrack@gmail.com. In the next day or two I will send you a draft copy (you'll get all the text without the pretty graphics, etc.) for your review. FREE.

All I am asking for in return will be a brief review of the ebook. I may use positive remarks as testimonial material for the ebook's marketing. I won't require a lot from you, just some suggestions and an assessment of the ebook's value and quality. If I use anything you write in ad copy, I will provide you with a link to your site(s) and all of the wonderful publicity that will come from being quoted in the ads! Of course, if you find the ebook attrocious, I would also like to hear your opinion and recommendations. I don't want to give away too many copies, so I will probably cap that offer after 4 or 5 requests.

Making friends with content robots...Articlebot and writers...

Not too long ago, I wrote a post about Articlebot. It is a tool that will rewrite a single piece of conent over and over again, creating distinct versions of the same message. The primary value of the software is that it allows webmasters to quickly create gobs of content for their sites quickly.

I argued earlier that Articlebot isn't really competition for a freelance content writer. My point was that those who need a gazillion articles in a hurry for the sake of bumping SERPs probably wouldn't hire a content writer under any circumstances. It just wouldn't be economically feasible.

That becomes even more clear when one realizes that the primary motivation for generating Articlebot-style articles is to seduce Google into providing better ratings (though it is used to populate some Adsense sites, too) and not to impress readers with your fascinating and informative content.

So, on that level, I don't compete with the Articlebot. It does one thing, I do another. Yes, we both make articles. The differences, though, are so pronounced as to render me and apple and Articlebot a mechanized orange.

You may not be able to compare apples to oranges, but you can combine the two in a fruit salad.

If Articlebot and other "automatic" content generators are not competitors but do exist within my overall field and seemingly have a growing loyal base of support, I suppose I should find a way to cooperate with the robots instead of either incorrectly railing against them or simply ignoring them.

Can freelance writers make use of Articlebot's apparently increasing popularity? Can we make the robot who churns out articles in seconds into an ally?

If one can learn to write for Google, can they learn to write for Articlebot in a way that helps the robot write for Google and human end users?

Whether a webmaster uses Articlebot or some other non-human device to generate content, the software has to be fed up front. Articlebot can manipulate, rearrange and substitute. It cannot, however, compose. The writing--the original work--has to come from somewhere.

Maybe an articlebot user won't be interested in ordering 500 articles on payday loans. Instead, she might just need two or three to run through the software. What can I offer her in terms of writing those few articles that will make the end results more valuable after the bot is done with them? That is an important question.

The trend toward automation is going to continue until or unless the entire search engine industry is turned on its head and adopts different means of site assessment. It only makes since that writers should find a way to co-exist and even profit from this trend.

The Articlebot people left a comment on the last post about their product. The comment indicated that there was some agreement with my position and some disagreement. I thank them for their response and am curious as to how they feel writers can best compliment what Articlebot does.

More on the Associated Content experiment...

The other day, I mentioned that I was toying with Associated Content as a means of turning some excess written inventory into cash. I started by submitting a single article on a finance-related theme. The article weighed in at around 650 words.

Last night, I received an offer on the piece, approximately ten days after submitting it for review. They were willing to pay $8 for the article. I took it.

Now, alot of people might be turned off by that (just look at the raging "cheeseball bottom feeder" debate that took place hear a few weeks ago).

I was willing to accept the payment. Here's why:

This was a single straggler article. I completed an order some time ago and accidentally ended up with an additional article that didn't really fit just right.

It is also on a topic that I don't really foresee writing about again. If I had a series of articles on the topic, I would probably bundle them up and pitch them at a client or two who may have a stake in that niche. Or, I could sell them with private label rights dirt cheap to a series of internet marketers. I might have even used them myself for some sort of Adsense site, who knows? As a solo act, however, that article was unlikely to do a lot for me. Thus, I peddled it for about 1/4 the price I received for the other articles I originally supplied to my client.

I don't think I would generally sell articles of that length and complexity at the price Associated Content offered. However, I must note that this was my first submission there and the article deals with a pretty precise subject matter that doesn't have fat mass market appeal. They might pay more for other things.

The process itself was painless and simple. I know some people complain about the wait, but I didn't really feel it was unreasonable. The interface there is simple and the correspondence is clear.

Would I try to make a living with AC? No. Even if the pay was a bit higher, I don't like the idea of writing content on spec. I would prefer to have my buyer, price, etc. set up front. However, as a means of dumping spare parts, it is a neat little resource.

I also noticed that Associated Content tells its members what kinds of things they need. I would guess those articles could probably earn a bit more.

One idea I do like about having Associated Content at my disposal is that it gives me a little outlet for opinions. They are searching for local restaurant reviews, etc. The next time the beef enchiladas turn out to be unseasoned ground beef with a drizzle of Old Ortega sauce and the waiter cannot discern flan from cheesecake (this was last Saturday's dinner out), I can let people know and make a few bucks in the process, perhaps. I can tell the world about my good consumer experiences, too.

After accepting their offer, I dug around the hard drive and found a few other things to send their way. For some reason, despite an initially favorable impression, I am not yet dumping tons of stuff in Associated Content's lap. Maybe down the road. I will keep you all posted.