New Examiner.com thread

razibahmed · May 17, 2009

Examiner.com Launches 10 New Markets, Surpasses 6,400 Examiners
http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20090430/LA0871730042009-1.html

Health_Geek · May 17, 2009

Cassiopeia said:
I've been given a second topic to write for the examiner. I'm now the Salt Lake City Wellness Examiner. I'm happy about it as it will give me a chance to be more positive where the workplace issues one requires a different POV. I get to be all touchy feely in this one.

Congratulations! And yes, writing about health is a little touchy feely, but definitely in a good way

veinglory · May 18, 2009

As the tally increases, including leaving totally innactive Examiners on the books, I feel my enthusiasm wane further. Also, on reason I started with Examiner was because Google included them in the Google news channel, it looks like this is now happening less and less often?

inkkognito · May 18, 2009

I'm more concerned about the quality of some of the Examiners' work rather than all the inactives and the growing ranks. I read some articles that are full of horrible grammar, incomplete sentences, and just cringe. It reflects badly on everyone to have writers with no discernable skill. I also noticed quite a few Examiner regurgitating press releases or pieces from other websites verbatum. I sometimes use press releases, but I rewrite them to give some insider information or some other useful slant. If you're just going to use press releases, Examiner might as well just have a direct feed and eliminate the writers.

Overall though I'm still pretty happy with my experience. I love my topic so that counts for a lot, and my numbers are still up so I make a fairly decent amount.

Health_Geek · May 18, 2009

veinglory said:
As the tally increases, including leaving totally innactive Examiners on the books, I feel my enthusiasm wane further.

There are a lot of them in my area who haven't posted in a month or two, yet their pictures and links are still being posted all over the place. I'm sure they're still getting a lot of PVs if they're so visible, which is a bummer for the rest of us who are putting out fresh content every day or two.

Even so, I am enjoying this so far and hopefully the inactive people will be replaced with people who can write well, and often.

Cassiopeia · May 18, 2009

My channel manager said that they are making an effort to clean up the inactives. About two to three weeks ago we spoke over the phone and he said, he gives them a chance if they don't respond then he deletes their accounts.

I'm rather chuffed today. On the top of my local examiner in the top scrolling menu both last Friday's Workplace article and this morning's Wellness article are being highlighted. That's nice of them.

herdon · May 18, 2009

inkkognito said:
I'm more concerned about the quality of some of the Examiners' work rather than all the inactives and the growing ranks. I read some articles that are full of horrible grammar, incomplete sentences, and just cringe. It reflects badly on everyone to have writers with no discernable skill. I also noticed quite a few Examiner regurgitating press releases or pieces from other websites verbatum. I sometimes use press releases, but I rewrite them to give some insider information or some other useful slant. If you're just going to use press releases, Examiner might as well just have a direct feed and eliminate the writers.

I think it is best for people to understand that Examiner.com is a content mill similar to Associated Content. They are following a 'long tail' strategy which means they are after quantity as much as quality.

That doesn't mean they are a bad place to write. I have fun with my topic. I just don't read much of what else goes on at Examiner. I realize it is a content mill and many Examiners will have poor writing and poor formatting -- that's the road Examiner.com chose to go down.

Shadow_Ferret · May 18, 2009

Cassiopeia said:
I'm rather chuffed today.

Is chuffed a good thing?

veinglory · May 18, 2009

Herdon, I am of a similar opinion, but I did think they had the potential to be a better sort of content mill or even some kind of hybrid. Afterall contributors are encouraged to consider themseleves journalist, they just are actually required to perform at that level--so inevitably many don't.

Cassiopeia · May 18, 2009

Shadow_Ferret said:
Is chuffed a good thing?

Sorry.

It's a South African saying. YES it is a good thing.

inkkognito · May 18, 2009

herdon said:
I think it is best for people to understand that Examiner.com is a content mill similar to Associated Content. They are following a 'long tail' strategy which means they are after quantity as much as quality.

I find that to be a shame, as Examiner has decent credibiity with many of the organizations I've approached to get information for articles. I've also been invited to many media events on the basis of my Examiner work. I'd hate to see that credibility evaporate if they just run willy-nilly after quantity and let the quality go to hell.

herdon · May 18, 2009

veinglory said:
Herdon, I am of a similar opinion, but I did think they had the potential to be a better sort of content mill or even some kind of hybrid. Afterall contributors are encouraged to consider themseleves journalist, they just are actually required to perform at that level--so inevitably many don't.

I think they had the potential to do a lot more as well. Definitely the right idea at the right time with the wrong implementation. For the longest, I thought their steps towards quantity over quality was just an ignorance by their staff -- they definitely have a lot to learn in how to put together a good web content portal so it isn't too far fetched they'd make similar missteps in how to grow their Examiners.

But two things really make me think they are employing your classic long tail strategy: (1) they were very quick to move in and stop negative comments in the Google discussion groups when Examiners had their doubts about certain things such as design changes, often asking that Examiners voice their gripes through private channels. And (2) Their Examiner newsletters had a very marketing feel to it as if they were partially aimed at selling Examiner.com to Examiners -- you do that when you view Examiners as your 'customers' rather than your 'partners'.

Again, none of this is to say that Examiner.com is a bad place to write. Their pay rates are currently above average as far as pageview rates go and I think the staff has always been relatively nice. The long tail strategy works, so I think they'll stick around for years to come -- which is probably the most important thing when doing this kind of writing since it really takes years to pay off.

Shadow_Ferret · May 19, 2009

Wow, only 7 clicks today so far. Guess I should just pad my story with keywords like H1N1, beer, war, or just talk about the QWERTY keyboard all the time.

herdon · May 19, 2009

You don't need to pad a story with trending keywords to get page views, but even the best writing can get left out in the cold if you don't use some basic SEO.

Take your latest article for example. It's a good article, but very few people will find it because you don't use a good, relevant keyword phrase in your title or in your first paragraph.

A simple change to "Increase Allen Lapham: Wisconsin's first great scientist" and including the name in the first paragraph will give your article a shot at coming up when people search for Increase Allan Lapham. (Obviously, the opening paragraphs would need to be altered to go in line with this change.)

You have to remember that not very many people are going to find your article because they are browsing Examiner.com. People find articles by Googling for information.

Anyway, that would be my tip to keep in mind for future articles if you want to boost your page views.

Shadow_Ferret · May 19, 2009

Cassiopeia · May 19, 2009

Shadow_Ferret said:
Oh.

Go edit, Ed. You can change it still and then people will find it.

As for me, I'm just not stressing about what people think or how this is going to turn out. I'm focusing on topics and writing.

Some people will like my voice, some won't. It's just how it is.

RamJay · May 19, 2009

Unfortunately, I think being content mills is what the current online model for many established print publications and other media. It's not limited to the Examiners and Abouts of the world. My last two positions have used a content first, quality second platform. At one emplyer where I was an online editor I was actually instructed one time to start filling the site with content -- press releases, news submissions, whatever -- and to put them in a spot where no one could find them with ease. The idea was that we could build up the number of pages on the overall site, which would help with the home page's SEO. It was ridiculous. But I think it shows that even more than a decade of the Internet being a pretty common force in information distribution that most don't have a clue how to handle it. It's a trap that Examiner appears to have fallen into and you'd better believe bigger more established sites still use a quantity over quality model.

Some day I think we'll see this backfire on a lot of media, and maybe even soon. To some extent I would like to join up with Examiner, but I am also sick of writing for search engines and not the reader. Really the key is to write well, with a strong keyword phrase that is about the topic at hand. But I have to say, sometimes I wonder if the powers in charge would really care if you established "Britney Spears Naked" as solid SEO if it brought tons of people to the site/page, even if those were cheap PVs?

herdon · May 19, 2009

RamJay said:
Unfortunately, I think being content mills is what the current online model for many established print publications and other media. It's not limited to the Examiners and Abouts of the world.

About.com doesn't use a long tail strategy towards its writers nor is it a content mill in the sense that I am using the term. They have a limited number of spots and a high barrier to becoming a guide with them, both of which are there to increase the quality of content on the site.

It's important to note that a site like Examiner using a long tail strategy and a writer for a site like Examiner using a long tail strategy are two different things.

Cassiopeia · May 19, 2009

You can't blame the model, blame the reader. If readers stop going to the sites, they'd demand a higher quality of writing from all their authors. Today, I saw an article from someone who also writes for the health topic and all she did was find articles, briefly summarize them like a college paper and link to them. It was boring as hell. I wouldn't have gone there except it was in my google group for this new channel.

Start complaining to the readers if you can. Otherwise, moaning about it is futile and only feeds the discouragement and tends to give others the idea that the only way to get ahead is to cave in and write shit.

veinglory · May 19, 2009

There is always a market for $1 hamburger. But that doesn't mean you can't open a gourmet restaurant with a well-paid chef. You just go for a smaller number of richer customers who appreciate the difference between food and cuisine.

RamJay · May 19, 2009

On the surface it may be the reader but the people who run the sites are so deep in the belief that this is what works it is what they demand from their writers. That becomes the model. And I think the model will eventually fail. I don't know when, it could be 20 years, but at some point I think most readers are going to be fed up with being directed to crap that it will change. Or these empty page views will prove to be detrimental. Or both.

And About my have a difficult selection process, but in the end they still have nearly 800 sites and don't think for a second they don't want content, content, content from their guides. That hurts quality. The line they have between content mill and significant information source is very thin. Just like a majority of publications out there. Again, this all falls within this model, or whatever you want to call it, and I'd imagine it will break eventually.

Also, don't ever give in and write crappy content. Ever. Take pride in everything you do and hope PVs and credibility come with it. There has to be a middle ground for the writer, and that is writing strong content for your auidience with eye toward good SEO.

herdon · May 19, 2009

Cassiopeia said:
You can't blame the model, blame the reader. If readers stop going to the sites, they'd demand a higher quality of writing from all their authors. Today, I saw an article from someone who also writes for the health topic and all she did was find articles, briefly summarize them like a college paper and link to them. It was boring as hell. I wouldn't have gone there except it was in my google group for this new channel.

Start complaining to the readers if you can. Otherwise, moaning about it is futile and only feeds the discouragement and tends to give others the idea that the only way to get ahead is to cave in and write shit.

How can you blame the reader? For the most part, they are coming in from Google or a similar search engine. All they know before they click on the link is the title and the very small snippet of a description Google chose to go along with the title.

They don't know it is crap until they visit the site.

Of course, the reason we don't run into stuff from Associated Content as much as we run into stuff from the NYTimes is that it mostly *is* crap. And crap tends to sink in Google whereas quality writing tends to rise.

These type of sites exist because they pay a revenue share, so 1,000 articles that get 5 page views a month is just as good as 1 that gets 5,000 a month.

Weebil · May 19, 2009

As someone who spends too much time on the internet, and not as much time writing, I took an Examiner.com position hoping it would spur me to write on a more regular basis (just started, I'll keep you posted, so to speak)
But I think the main issue is like anything else on the internet, when I come across something that speaks to me as to quality writing, is interesting, and has just plain good writing/content-I bookmark it, save it, print it or share it. Everything else I just click on past. At a minimum, I hope it provides a showcase as to my ability to write, rather than blogging. Blogging has to be the most inane use of bandwidth next to Twitter. And I have a Blog! Half the time when I search a subject on Google, I read halfway through an 'article' before I think WTF is this person talking about, and realize it's just some Blog. This is not to say that no one has a good Blog, but there sure is a lot of garbage out there-The Examiner will ultimately decide whether their model is working for them or not-or their sponsors will.

herdon · May 19, 2009

RamJay said:
And About my have a difficult selection process, but in the end they still have nearly 800 sites and don't think for a second they don't want content, content, content from their guides. That hurts quality. The line they have between content mill and significant information source is very thin. Just like a majority of publications out there. Again, this all falls within this model, or whatever you want to call it, and I'd imagine it will break eventually.

There is a very large difference between a long tail model and About.com's model. Of course they want content. That's no different than any other content provider on the Internet (or off the Internet). That doesn't make everyone from the NYTimes to Yahoo to Wikipedia to The Onion a 'content mill'.

The best defining attribute of a content mill is employing a long tail strategy with their writers. I.E. quantity of writers and writing over quality of writers and writing.

About.com limits the number of writers and has a very measured process for weeding out underqualified writers for a particular subject. That may not be the best content portal on the web (though they did just win a Webby award), but they are very far from a content mill.

Cassiopeia · May 19, 2009

herdon said:
How can you blame the reader? For the most part, they are coming in from Google or a similar search engine. All they know before they click on the link is the title and the very small snippet of a description Google chose to go along with the title.

They don't know it is crap until they visit the site.

Of course, the reason we don't run into stuff from Associated Content as much as we run into stuff from the NYTimes is that it mostly *is* crap. And crap tends to sink in Google whereas quality writing tends to rise.

These type of sites exist because they pay a revenue share, so 1,000 articles that get 5 page views a month is just as good as 1 that gets 5,000 a month.

It's so easy to blame Google isn't it? Rather than focusing on the fact that readers have a responsibility in not frequenting sites that are known for bad authorial content. And it's the bot's fault if we write badly too, I suppose. Not everything depends on the search engines. Once someone gets to your page it's up to you to keep them there and it's up to them to not go to your column again if you (not you specifically but in general) do shoddy workmanship.

New Examiner.com thread

AW Addict

volitare nequeo

Onlyifyouwanttowillyoufin daway-Enya

Otherwise Occupied

What's up?

Court Jester

volitare nequeo

Otherwise Occupied

Onlyifyouwanttowillyoufin daway-Enya

What's up?

Court Jester

What's up?

Court Jester

Otherwise Occupied

What's up?

Otherwise Occupied

volitare nequeo

What's up?

What's up?

Otherwise Occupied