3-star quality on Textbroker - is it worth spending money on?

Hi, folks
I wonder whether 3-star content quality is OK for native speakers or it is not?...Native speakers, that's your turn, rise to the fly please

 

I know a few writers who have had their work graded as level 3 on TB - not sure why as I would class it as 4/5. Like any rating system, it's up for interpretation. I wouldn't use a content mill though - much better to actually work directly through a writer rather than letting some 3rd party system take part of what the writer earns.

 

Em, sorry, what do you mean by 'content mill'?

 

Places that pretty much treat writers like crap. They're often left guessing what it is the client wants, so they go ahead, and if they guessed incorrectly they're knocked down a level. They're paid rubbish wages (partly because the site has to take a cut), and they are working at the whim of an editor. If an editor is having a bad day, a writer can lose their ranking, and with that comes lower money - Text Broker is renowned for it.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/work-blog/2013/feb/26/copywriting-websites-content-mills-publishing

 

Check the definition here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_farm.

Some articles you might wanna read before you decide to work for a content mill -
1) http://leavingworkbehind.com/content-mills/
2) http://www.makealivingwriting.com/write-content-mills-writers-true-stories/
Not saying content mills are not good or so, but you're much better off looking for clients directly. Some clients you stumble across through content-mills do pay well, but it happens rarely.

EDIT: I just recalled what someone said about Textbroker on another thread -

 

I think the thing to remember though, is that you can't 'stumble' across a client who will pay well. The clients of content mills are not 'your' clients, you are bound by the rules of the site and cannot work with them away from the system. And, if a content mill suddenly decides, perhaps through no fault of your own, that you haven't met their guidelines, they can decrease your pay or ban you from their site instantly.

So yeah, for clients who want to pay little money for SEO content, sure go ahead. But as a writer, I would never waste time or effort on them.

 

Oops! Most likely I used the wrong word but thanks anyway for pointing that out.

I guess that never or rarely happens with clients you find directly. There's a pattern and soundness in the way things work rather than someone in a bad mood rejecting you on a whim.

 

You know, the more I read about people buying low-quality content from sites like this or elsewhere, the more I continue to think that they are victims, too. Like spamming, it is the people, generally, who sell the lists and the spamming technology who make the real money, in my opinion. The would-be spammers usually spend money to make easy money only to make nothing from their efforts most of the time.

I am thinking that the cheap content buyers are also following false promises from some ebook or some other scheme in the hopeless belief that they will start raking in the dollars. The fact is, even if they get a temporary bump in traffic for a poorly written article or web page, the traffic will not convert into sales or anything else of value.

 

Even sites like Constant Content have their issues. I mean sure, the pay is higher for writers there than on sites like TextBroker, but they still take a whopping 35% cut from a writer. Wouldn't you, as an employer, rather give a writer 100% for their writing and hire someone worth the money? Why give 35% or more to a 3rd party company who purely edits a piece to send on? It's the writing that takes forever. Plus, when you work directly with a writer, you can convey feedback instantly. Through content mills you can be waiting days, and some don't even allow the writers to ask questions, meaning constant edits to get what you want.

 

Yes, these are all important factors because they impact the only thing that matters: having quality content that converts to sales.

 

Sorry if I missed or misunderstood anything, but does that mean that the 3rd party or content mill edits the content delivered by a writer even when an edit is not really needed and takes a massive 35% cut for it??

 

It depends on the site. Constant Content take 35% even if it's just for a quick proofread. They also refuse to edit articles, so could send a piece back to a writer for something as small as a comma missing, and then take another five (or more) days to get back around to proofreading it. Of course, they do advertise their site and find customers, but in the end that benefits them. Other content mills will be different, but yeah. They take a lot of money away from the writers. CC is okay if you know going in how much you are going to earn, but if I was a client I would rather know that the full price I paid was going to the writer. Not 65% of it or whatever.

 

I know CC is very stringent about grammar and punctuation, but if it just takes a misplaced or missing comma to get an article rejected - which otherwise is or might be very well-written, I fail to see how writers are able to work with them. OK, I can get by this 'comma-business' somehow, but taking away 35% of my wages just for a quick proofing is simply not acceptable.
Ultimately, I think it doesn't make any sense to work for someone who eats up my money so heavily and rejects my article just because they aren't in a good mood. I would highly prefer stretching myself more instead and finding a client directly who pays me every single buck I deserve.

 

Honestly, there's a reason why 3-star is 3-star. The problem is that the earnings potential (which is embarrassingly low) does not provide an adequate incentive to produce higher quality material. Not at Textbroker!

 

Well, that depends on where do you live

Ok, guys, thanks for your responds. I might give a shot for textbroker soon...

 

I absolutely despise Textbroker and they know it.

My big gripe with Textbroker is that there are plenty of high quality writers who get kicked down to Level 3 for a freaking comma. The editors there grade people based on academic punctuation and grammar rather than client satisfaction. Things like subjective commas that may or may not be okay in a sentence can get you demoted, depending on how the editor's feeling that day.

It doesn't matter if you write 20 articles for a client and the client loves all of your work (5/5 rating). If the editor later reviews them, finds a comma error in a couple of the articles, you can easily be kicked down to Level 3. It's absolutely ridiculous to expect writers making $1 per 100 words to write at an academic level without making any mistakes at all.

There are a huge majority of people at Level 3. The second Level 3 work shows up on that site, it's gobbled up by a bunch of hungry writers just trying to get a payment.
Level 4 however has projects that will sit for weeks because their editors keep demoting people.

I've heard they're going to be revamping how they rate people but I have little hope for that place. Trying to impress some grammar Nazis so I can earn a whopping $1.50 per 100 words. Level 5 does pay quite nicely but it takes forever to get there and you have to manually apply. I'm not that invested in Textbroker nor do I want to be.

I've been popping in and out of the Textbroker forums lately and some people have been reporting that they've been getting demoted because of things like the editor not liking part of the sentences, not following instructions when they clearly did, etc.

 

It takes time to create quality content, but not everyone seems to understand that. It is frustrating that writers don't get the respect and the pay they deserve. They are often in a situation wherein they are expected to deliver first-rate output but are not compensated for it. Many people think writing is easy and that writers are factories that can just churn out content. But if writing is so easy, then why don't they do it themselves?

 

….

On second though, I wouldn't really blame Textbroker ENTIRELY for their over-strict comma-related policies. A misplaced or missing comma makes the WHOLE difference in some cases – https://cybertext.wordpress.com/201...d-look-at-how-punctuation-can-change-meaning/. Just that Textbroker is making too much of it.

 

Content Maestro, Khovai may be referring to TextBroker's stance on the Oxford comma. In certain places, it causes more harm (confusion) than it should. At least, that has been my experience. I've adapted to their preference as one of their writers, but being obsessed with logic (programming), I find the usage contradicts common sense, so I rebel and try to avoid the Oxford comma everywhere else.

 

There's also the issue of commas with conjunctions. In British English they're not needed, but in US they're a must. After working with tons of American editors over the years, I now find myself writing British English with US punctuation. It's messed up!