84 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
84 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

eHow Removing All User Generated Articles

by Steven Wagenheim
69 replies
In case you haven't heard, eHow is removing all user generated articles from
its database because they don't meet their new stricter requirements.

And so the crackdown continues.
#articles #ehow #generated #removing #user
  • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
    ALL user generated? what does that leave?
    Signature

    nothing to see here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832600].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dustin_M
      I can't really say I blame them. With $79.5 million in quarterly revenue (financial statements released today) on the line, they really need to increase the quality of their content a bit.
      Signature

      Are You Ready? It's Coming!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832625].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

      ALL user generated? what does that leave?
      Andy if I'm understanding the email correctly, all content submitted by non
      professional, certified, authors. In other words, if Dr. John Doe writes an
      article on heart disease, it stays up. If Joe Internet marketer writes one on
      the same subject, it's coming down.

      They stopped accepting user submitted articles a while ago, but now, all
      those that were accepted are being taken down. Only those that pass their
      current editorial standards will remain.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832640].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Silvester
        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

        Andy if I'm understanding the email correctly, all content submitted by non
        professional, certified, authors. In other words, if Dr. John Doe writes an
        article on heart disease, it stays up. If Joe Internet marketer writes one on
        the same subject, it's coming down.

        They stopped accepting user submitted articles a while ago, but now, all
        those that were accepted are being taken down. Only those that pass their
        current editorial standards will remain.
        Joe Internet Marketer can turn one of his ebooks into a real book
        by using createspace.com

        His ebook will be on amazon and he will be a published author.

        Maybe that is a way around it?

        Take Care,

        Michael Silvester
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832676].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
          It's always the most financially intelligent move to generate income for yourself and not ride on proverbial coattails. When you rely on other places exclusively, like eHow, you're HANDING them a large chunk of your revenue.


          Originally Posted by Michael Silvester View Post

          Joe Internet Marketer can turn one of his ebooks into a real book
          by using createspace.com

          His ebook will be on amazon and he will be a published author.

          Maybe that is a way around it?

          Take Care,

          Michael Silvester
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832697].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Michael Silvester
            Originally Posted by bnwebm View Post

            It's always the most financially intelligent move to generate income for yourself and not ride on proverbial coattails. When you rely on other places exclusively, like eHow, you're HANDING them a large chunk of your revenue.
            I agree 100%...

            eHow and the other "How" sites are just a small part of
            content distribution and traffic generation. Infact on average
            my site visitors from that paticular site is actually less than
            3%...but they convert very very well.

            My analytics tell me its worth keeping...but at the end of the
            day its their site and they can do what they want.

            But...No harm in taking some small steps in protecting work
            that is already done.

            Its alot of people that "Spray and Pray" their content over the
            internet that always bugger it up for the rest of us.

            Anyway...whats for lunch?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832864].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
            It's not really fair to place all Web 2.0 properties into the same class as eHow. They REALLY are a class act.

            This is the site that created an eHow UK site in which they attempted to completely replicate and SEO the heck out of WCP user articles. Those eHow UK replicate articles (ones that original articles DIDN'T earn a revenue share on), began to compete for traffic, and in many cases, rank higher that those articles (and, earned more money).

            This REALLY happened, not some conspiracy theory:
            eHow UK, eHow UK scam

            http://www.conversationmarketing.com...l-bull****.htm

            Originally Posted by bnwebm View Post

            It's always the most financially intelligent move to generate income for yourself and not ride on proverbial coattails. When you rely on other places exclusively, like eHow, you're HANDING them a large chunk of your revenue.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833028].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
              Several writer of eHow as well as other Demand sites did express that they had found their articles elsewhere, yet had never been compensated. Arguably, once you have been paid, according to Demand, you no longer have the rights and they can syndicate the hell out of your work and garner the benefits. I had no problem with that, considering at the time, they were one of the top paying clients. I have a problem with backhanded crap, however. If they want to syndicate, be honest about it and go right ahead. You paid me, do what you want with it. I'm not married to the work I produced there however, YMMV.

              I certainly see your point in your posting regarding the UK debacle. That's pretty low, but beyond them? Nuh uh.I'm really not certain where their standards begin. I don't generally look underground.

              Web 2.0 are a class act? Are you being snarky? I can't tell.


              Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

              It's not really fair to place all Web 2.0 properties into the same class as eHow. They REALLY are a class act.

              This is the site that created an eHow UK site in which they attempted to completely replicate and SEO the heck out of WCP user articles. Those eHow UK replicate articles (ones that original articles DIDN'T earn a revenue share on), began to compete for traffic, and in many cases, rank higher that those articles (and, earned more money).

              This REALLY happened, not some conspiracy theory:
              eHow UK, eHow UK scam

              http://www.conversationmarketing.com...l-bull****.htm
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833098].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author doorkicker13
                Ever since eHow has refused to load on my DroidX (every time I've tried to go there) I haven't given a hoot about them.
                Signature
                Local Work Source | Resistance Band Reviews
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833120].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
                I had meant that eHow is 'different' than other Web 2.0 sites, and it's not really fair to place them in the same category as sites that work very hard to do right by their users. Their history is one of shadiness and corruption to the core.

                Originally Posted by bnwebm View Post

                Several writer of eHow as well as other Demand sites did express that they had found their articles elsewhere, yet had never been compensated. Arguably, once you have been paid, according to Demand, you no longer have the rights and they can syndicate the hell out of your work and garner the benefits. I had no problem with that, considering at the time, they were one of the top paying clients. I have a problem with backhanded crap, however. If they want to syndicate, be honest about it and go right ahead. You paid me, do what you want with it. I'm not married to the work I produced there however, YMMV.

                I certainly see your point in your posting regarding the UK debacle. That's pretty low, but beyond them? Nuh uh.I'm really not certain where their standards begin. I don't generally look underground.

                Web 2.0 are a class act? Are you being snarky? I can't tell.
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833184].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
                  They aren't a Web 2.0 site, they're a content mill.

                  Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

                  I had meant that eHow is 'different' than other Web 2.0 sites, and it's not really fair to place them in the same category as sites that work very hard to do right by their users. Their history is one of shadiness and corruption to the core.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833198].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
                    Originally Posted by bnwebm View Post

                    They aren't a Web 2.0 site, they're a content mill.
                    Web 2.0 IS a broad title for what they are.
                    Web 2.0 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                    They have also been called a content mill.

                    To say that it is one, but not the other, isn't exactly accurate.
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836612].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kevin AKA Hubcap
                      Does this surprise anyone?

                      It actually looks like a sound business strategy to me.

                      Use user generated content and rev-share when the site is young to mitigate cash flow and other capital issues.

                      As the site grows move away from the share and go towards a flat fee for content. May cost a bit more upfront (but since you're making money on the early content producers you can swing it) but in the long run is much more profitable.

                      It seems to me that's the way many of these sites operate and most feign fairness and transparency but you see what happens when the screws tighten.

                      Take a look at Squidoo and Hub Pages.

                      Do you really believe they lost sleep over the quality of their content. As long as checks from Google rolled in they were fine but now the gravy train is backing out of the station and their tunes change.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836757].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
                        You don't see anything ethically wrong with this strategy?

                        Originally Posted by Kevin AKA Hubcap View Post

                        Does this surprise anyone?

                        It actually looks like a sound business strategy to me.

                        Use user generated content and rev-share when the site is young to mitigate cash flow and other capital issues.

                        As the site grows move away from the share and go towards a flat fee for content. May cost a bit more upfront (but since you're making money on the early content producers you can swing it) but in the long run is much more profitable.

                        It seems to me that's the way many of these sites operate and most feign fairness and transparency but you see what happens when the screws tighten.

                        Take a look at Squidoo and Hub Pages.

                        Do you really believe they lost sleep over the quality of their content. As long as checks from Google rolled in they were fine but now the gravy train is backing out of the station and their tunes change.
                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836767].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
                        Let me paint a picture, in a historical context, of why I believe this is an absolutely cruel, despicable, and ethically compromised strategy to have.

                        eHow grew and developed it's rank and authority by marketing itself specifically to people who needed help the most. Because of their marketing and advertising, hundreds or thousands of work-at-home moms, college students, etc, began writing there for what many just figured was a solid lifetime revenue share arrangement. They developed lofty case studies of those very people who were earning $1,000-$1,500/month.

                        Under the guise of a non-transparent revenue share, however, few ever questioned because they were making "alot". The non-clarity in TOS and revenue share was intentional, and few had the time, energy, or desire to fight a site that was/is earning millions a month. So, they built one of the leading platforms in the world off of the back of honest, hard working individuals.

                        Before officially cutting off the WCP, they made several attempts to expand their revenue--subtly undercutting the very writers who invested so much into essentially building their platform. At one point, for several months, a little clickable image of a UK flag was pictured on the upper right hand side of their site. When clicked on, this flag would take a user to their cloned eHow UK website....on this website, they attempted to completely replicate their database (produced by hard working writers) and SEO the heck out of them so that these (non-Revenue sharing articles, i might add), outranked their user generated (revenue sharing) counterparts. Various SEO techniques were applied that caused these articles...the same exact articles...to rank higher, earn more, and thus detract "clicks"/earnings from those who originally produced the content.

                        When a small handful of vocal users said something, and tons of bad press started circulating online, that clickable UK flag vanished.

                        While all this was occurring, writers were assured (lied to) that the WCP was, in fact, NOT going away. This was just one of many lies told by their community managers....it was clear that they were disattached from users, and that eHow/Demand Media ownership was even further disattached from users.

                        My gut tells me that this was their plan all along, but, of course, I'll never be able to prove it. For years, they worked within their TOS to subtly take advantage of honest, hard-working people on a global level.

                        Originally Posted by Kevin AKA Hubcap View Post

                        Does this surprise anyone?

                        It actually looks like a sound business strategy to me.

                        Use user generated content and rev-share when the site is young to mitigate cash flow and other capital issues.

                        As the site grows move away from the share and go towards a flat fee for content. May cost a bit more upfront (but since you're making money on the early content producers you can swing it) but in the long run is much more profitable.

                        It seems to me that's the way many of these sites operate and most feign fairness and transparency but you see what happens when the screws tighten.

                        Take a look at Squidoo and Hub Pages.

                        Do you really believe they lost sleep over the quality of their content. As long as checks from Google rolled in they were fine but now the gravy train is backing out of the station and their tunes change.
                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836896].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
                          lol - It's a re-run!!!!

                          Squidoo, hubpages, wordpress, and ezinearticles were all nice enough to let users submit enough content to get their businesses to where they are today before they were nice enough to bend them over...now ehow joins the party

                          Man, I'm glad I just pillaged them as much as I could.

                          It's looking more and more like my "short term" strategy was the smart way to go
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836964].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Oneal Degrassi
                            Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

                            lol - It's a re-run!!!!

                            Squidoo, hubpages, wordpress, and ezinearticles were all nice enough to let users submit enough content to get their businesses to where they are today before they were nice enough to bend them over...now ehow joins the party

                            Man, I'm glad I just pillaged them as much as I could.

                            It's looking more and more like my "short term" strategy was the smart way to go
                            Your post is a bit self-contradicting...hypocritical...I'm not sure what word to use. You say THEY bent over the users, but at the same time you say you bent THEM over ("pillaged" was your description).

                            Who's right?

                            Oneal
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836978].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Jeremy Kelsall
                              Originally Posted by Oneal Degrassi View Post

                              Your post is a bit self-contradicting...hypocritical...I'm not sure what word to use. You say THEY bent over the users, but at the same time you say you bent THEM over ("pillaged" was your description).

                              Who's right?

                              Oneal
                              Do unto others before they do unto you ? :confused: :rolleyes:

                              I guess it's just a matter of being able to see the writing on the wall.

                              Don't hate the player hate the game.
                              Signature
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3837114].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Oneal Degrassi
                                Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

                                Don't hate the player hate the game.
                                Exactly. It goes both ways.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3942761].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
                            Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall View Post

                            lol - It's a re-run!!!!

                            Squidoo, hubpages, wordpress, and ezinearticles were all nice enough to let users submit enough content to get their businesses to where they are today before they were nice enough to bend them over...now ehow joins the party

                            Man, I'm glad I just pillaged them as much as I could.

                            It's looking more and more like my "short term" strategy was the smart way to go
                            Squidoo, hubpages, and ezine articles aren't really doing anything near what eHow is doing, though. They are doing a complete (pre-planned? and, if so, for how long was it planned?) shift in their business model.
                            Signature
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836980].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
                      With all due respect intended, you're really going to use Wikipedia as a credible reference?

                      The terms content mill and web 2.0 are used interchangeably however they are not. Not in the literal sense that has been commonly used. To use the example put forth by O'Reilly himself:

                      Web 1.0 Web 2.0
                      DoubleClick --> Google AdSense
                      Ofoto --> Flickr
                      Akamai --> BitTorrent
                      mp3.com --> Napster
                      Britannica Online --> Wikipedia
                      personal websites --> blogging
                      evite --> upcoming.org and EVDB
                      domain name speculation --> search engine optimization
                      page views --> cost per click
                      screen scraping --> web services
                      publishing --> participation
                      content management systems --> wikis
                      directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy")
                      stickiness --> syndication

                      Source:What Is Web 2.0 - O'Reilly Media

                      ...content mills are neither web 2.0 nor are they the web 2.0 evolution of content management systems. Again, much speculation and disagreement exists around this topic, but "content mill" really doesn't encompass the web 2.0 construct. If anything, content mills are the hybrid between personal websites and a content management oversight that is a step below management. Content mills, unlike web 2.0 properties, are NOT based on voluntary or participatory initiation. Their intent is constructed, they have a destiny that is not at the hands of the writer. Just my take on it, but my god man, Wikipedia?

                      Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

                      Web 2.0 IS a broad title for what they are.
                      Web 2.0 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                      They have also been called a content mill.

                      To say that it is one, but not the other, isn't exactly accurate.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3837312].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
                        "Content mills, unlike web 2.0 properties, are NOT based on voluntary or participatory initiation. Their intent is constructed, they have a destiny that is not at the hands of the writer."

                        People could voluntarily submit user-generated content to eHow. While it was difficult, at times because of their system, they could also delete that content. If there were no writers, there would be no site.

                        The wikipedia definition is wrong? Maybe you should do the internet a favor and fix it. You are allowed to fix it, wherever you deem it inaccurate.

                        ...so...you CAN have sites that appear aesthetically similar to eHow, and function in a similar manner, but are Web 2.0 sites? Are we saying that a site like, say, HubPages ISN'T a Web 2.0 site? Or, are we just saying that eHow isn't?

                        THIS is what I think of when I think of a "content mill":
                        http://onlinemba.com.s3.amazonaws.com/demandmedia.jpg

                        As far as I know, not every site has THAT sort of "business model" and operation.
                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3837359].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
                          eHow, or Demand Media rather, was doing things of which people weren't necessarily aware and is the basis for my explanation.

                          As far as Wikipedia, I won't touch it. Makes me feel dirty, and not in a good way.


                          Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

                          "Content mills, unlike web 2.0 properties, are NOT based on voluntary or participatory initiation. Their intent is constructed, they have a destiny that is not at the hands of the writer."

                          People could voluntarily submit user-generated content to eHow. While it was difficult, at times because of their system, they could also delete that content. If there were no writers, there would be no site.

                          The wikipedia definition is wrong? Maybe you should do the internet a favor and fix it. You are allowed to fix it, wherever you deem it inaccurate.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3837371].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
                            Originally Posted by bnwebm View Post

                            eHow, or Demand Media rather, was doing things of which people weren't necessarily aware and is the basis for my explanation.

                            As far as Wikipedia, I won't touch it. Makes me feel dirty, and not in a good way.
                            fwiw, I had spent awhile on your site yesterday reading. Some very good content you've come up with over there. thanks
                            Signature
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3837426].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                              Tim - that's funny...

                              I recently read a Stephen King book with like 14 typos and some out right miss spellings, now with that kind of editing power
                              I just finished reading "The Dome" by Stephen King last night - and was amazed that in over 1000 pages I noted only two very small errors. Maybe he changed editors?

                              Kay
                              Signature
                              Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                              ***
                              One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
                              what it is instead of what you think it should be.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3837466].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author LilBlackDress
                  If you look at web2.0 sites in general, many including Squidoo, Hubpages and eHow have changed their terms.

                  Just today I also got an email from Hubpages telling me my Hubs would be deleted if I did not remove my Clickbank affiliate links.

                  And Squidoo has been known to lock many a lens.

                  The lesson here is to recognize that you have no control on these sites no matter how "nice" they may seem.

                  So best to build your own sites and use these properties as stepping stones to learn what works and possibly make a little cash.
                  Signature

                  Pen Name + 8 eBooks + social media sites 4 SALE - PM me (evergreen beauty niche)

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833214].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dustin_M
        I published around 100 articles a few years ago and only 'lost' 2 to the random article sweeps that seemed to plague other writers. If, however, it is true that they are deleting any articles that are not written by 'professional' writers, it will open the door for other sites to replace them in the rankings.

        The problem is that when eHow deletes your article, they simply redirect the URL to one of their other articles (or categories) so the original writer loses twice. This is the main reason why it is always a better idea to put content on your own sites.
        Signature

        Are You Ready? It's Coming!

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832696].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Kecia08 View Post

        This is a prime example of why it's so important to put your content on your own domain
        ^^^^ This - exactly!

        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

        if Dr. John Doe writes an article on heart disease, it stays up. If Joe Internet marketer writes one on the same subject, it's coming down.
        I'd do the same if I owned the site, too. That might save a few hundred lives, anyway: I've seen Joe Internet Marketer's typical views on the causes and prevention of heart disease and they suck. Big time. I'm just saying ...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832783].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
          Demand is U.S. based too, so even the slightest misinformation can be a legal nightmare. They are covering their tails in that respect.

          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          ^^^^ This - exactly!



          I'd do the same if I owned the site, too. That might save a few hundred lives, anyway: I've seen Joe Internet Marketer's typical views on the causes and prevention of heart disease and they suck. Big time. I'm just saying ...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832820].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TheCG
          You mean to tell me that the writers of $5 articles aren't the real experts on all topics?

          And all this time I thought they were...



          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          ^^^^ This - exactly!



          I'd do the same if I owned the site, too. That might save a few hundred lives, anyway: I've seen Joe Internet Marketer's typical views on the causes and prevention of heart disease and they suck. Big time. I'm just saying ...
          Signature

          Yes, by the way, I AM in the Witness Protection Program. I could tell you who I am but then I would have to kill you.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832964].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
            HERE are my comments:

            eHow WCP Program has officially ended - InfoBarrel Forum

            Not cool.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832996].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
            Actually, eHow paid $15 per article, truth be told.

            Originally Posted by TheCG View Post

            You mean to tell me that the writers of $5 articles aren't the real experts on all topics?

            And all this time I thought they were...
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833013].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author LilBlackDress
              Originally Posted by bnwebm View Post

              Actually, eHow paid $15 per article, truth be told.
              Demand Studios not eHow pays an average of $15 per article. Demand Studios also has a Rev Share program. eHow was always by Rev. Share.

              I have to admit I am disappointed that the program is closing. I have one article alone that has made over $1000 there and I collect a nice sum each month.

              But it was a good training ground for me. I found the topics that made a lot of money and made websites out of them. By the time the first "sweeps" came I was out of there and into my own websites.

              Another great reason to build your own properties!
              Signature

              Pen Name + 8 eBooks + social media sites 4 SALE - PM me (evergreen beauty niche)

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833110].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
                I am an eHow-approved writer, as well as a writer for Livestrong. Writers for Demand (not revenue share writers) were (and are) getting $15 for an eHow article. eHow was not always revenue share and in fact, revenue share and paid writing were being run simultaneously.

                Originally Posted by LilBlackDress View Post

                Demand Studios not eHow pays an average of $15 per article. Demand Studios also has a Rev Share program. eHow was always by Rev. Share.

                I have to admit I am disappointed that the program is closing. I have one article alone that has made over $1000 there and I collect a nice sum each month.

                But it was a good training ground for me. I found the topics that made a lot of money and made websites out of them. By the time the first "sweeps" came I was out of there and into my own websites.

                Another great reason to build your own properties!
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833126].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author LilBlackDress
                  Originally Posted by bnwebm View Post

                  I am an eHow-approved writer, as well as a writer for Livestrong. Writers for Demand (not revenue share writers) were (and are) getting $15 for an eHow article. eHow was not always revenue share and in fact, revenue share and paid writing were being run simultaneously.
                  Yes but they are writing the articles for eHow not through the eHow writers program but through the Demand Studios program.

                  Rev share and flat rate fees are paid to writers with Demand Studios. These articles go on multiple sites including eHow.

                  eHow for as long as I was a member (which was several years) never had flat rate fees. Though they did have special compensation for certain experts.

                  If you wrote a flat rate article for eHow, then it was funneled through Demand Studios unless they had flat rate fees before I joined.
                  Signature

                  Pen Name + 8 eBooks + social media sites 4 SALE - PM me (evergreen beauty niche)

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833182].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
    eHow is a subsidiary of Demand Media Studios. They pay people to write their content.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832606].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
    They are on a fast track (in my opinion, as one of their writers) to crash and burn in terms of paying for content and paying a reasonable wage. Not that it will have any effect, their content is up and running and they will realize a revenue stream even when they no longer solicit paid content.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832634].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kecia
    The email I received said that they have closed their Writer's Compensation Program (which I thought they already did last year) and will remove a number of user-generated articles from the site beginning May 5, 2011. Doesn't say ALL necessarily, but expect a lot of them to go.
    Signature
    KeciaHambrick.com - Blogger. Content Creator. Social Media Enthusiast.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832657].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
    BTW, it's not related to Panda, although they can easily use that behind their reasoning to stop user-submitted content. This has been happening for a year or so, with a slow decline in available work and pay.


    Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

    In case you haven't heard, eHow is removing all user generated articles from
    its database because they don't meet their new stricter requirements.

    And so the crackdown continues.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832658].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author markowe
    Wow, do we know how many articles that will affect? That would mean a lot of slots opening up on page one...
    Signature

    Who says you can't earn money as an eBay affiliate any more? My stats say otherwise

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832665].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
      It likely won't, since they have been paying writers to write to those topics and those articles will remain on eHow. This isn't sudden, nor should it be unexpected.


      Originally Posted by markowe View Post

      Wow, do we know how many articles that will affect? That would mean a lot of slots opening up on page one...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832681].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author -Jericho-
    I just got this email and all I can say is they suck for doing this. My earnings have gone up since the Panda update from there and now they're going to remove them?!?!

    It says to check your WCP panel for buyout prices which either hasn't been implemented or doesn't work. Now I'm probably going to get screwed out of $1,200-1,500 a month because of this crap.

    FU eHow. You better pay me well for my articles that you're gonna steal and republish.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832686].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
      This appears to be their M.O.. They allow users and writers to populate their sites Livestrong, golflink, eHow, USAToday, etc., and then cut off the unpaid writers once the paid writers have written the SAME titles. Once paid, writer have no rights to the content. They will ultimately (I believe, from their previous behavior) cut off all paid work, except for special projects.


      Originally Posted by -Jericho- View Post

      I just got this email and all I can say is they suck for doing this. My earnings have gone up since the Panda update from there and now they're going to remove them?!?!

      It says to check your WCP panel for buyout prices which either hasn't been implemented or doesn't work. Now I'm probably going to get screwed out of $1,200-1,500 a month because of this crap.

      FU eHow. You better pay me well for my articles that you're gonna steal and republish.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832725].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author -Jericho-
        Originally Posted by bnwebm View Post

        This appears to be their M.O.. They allow users and writers to populate their sites Livestrong, golflink, eHow, USAToday, etc., and then cut off the unpaid writers
        That was where I truly got started online making money. I spent a lot of time building up links to those articles and learning to drive traffic to them. I made eHow a good chunk of change and this is how I get repaid.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832773].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kecia
      Originally Posted by -Jericho- View Post

      It says to check your WCP panel for buyout prices which either hasn't been implemented or doesn't work. Now I'm probably going to get screwed out of $1,200-1,500 a month because of this crap.

      FU eHow. You better pay me well for my articles that you're gonna steal and republish.

      My offer just showed up in my WCP panel. $14 for my 11 articles, which were earning me over the minimum $10 for payout each month. I don't think so. I'll let copies of them sit on my hard drive and collect dust before I'll sell them for that tiny price.

      For those with offers, be sure to read the WCP Purchase Offer Agreement, as the offer is hidden within the document. If you just sign and click "I Agree" then you've just sold all your rights to the content to eHow.
      Signature
      KeciaHambrick.com - Blogger. Content Creator. Social Media Enthusiast.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833247].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Charlotte Jay
    And that is why I quit writing for Organized Wisdom. The amount of hoops I had to jump through to get my articles published was quite frankly, annoying.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832711].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tim Franklin
    Interesting observation when I saw all this scrambling among some of these content sites to "create a brave new world" where every I is dotted and every T is crossed, my first thought was (where in the real world is this kind of content available.)

    I recently read a Stephen King book with like 14 typos and some out right miss spellings, now with that kind of editing power, (not to mention the ego involved)
    how can you logically expect to demand perfect writing on a website like ehow or perhaps eza it is interesting to note that in the "real" world people do not have perfect conversations, even in books.

    Now if someone writes an article on heart disease, and that person makes statements that could be interpreted as advice, and that person is not a doctor, then I can see the need to take some action, same thing goes for any kind of advice, legal to ethical, and beyond, but if they are trying to improve the performance of their website by insisting on the strictest of guidelines, "I see trouble ahead," et el Stephen King, drawing of the three.
    Signature
    Bitcoin | Crypto | Blockchain Secrets |
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832738].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kecia
    This is a prime example of why it's so important to put your content on your own domain rather than submit them to sites like eHow, Info Barrel, the Yahoo Content Network (or whatever they are calling Associated Content now). Putting your content here gives the site owner the right to remove it at any time. Since it's eHow is owned by Demand Studios, it's no surprise that they did something like this. Demand is so difficult to work with these days.
    Signature
    KeciaHambrick.com - Blogger. Content Creator. Social Media Enthusiast.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832740].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mahmoud Selman
    Hi Steven,
    Sorry for the off-topic, but I want to tell you that I am big fan of you and your articles. You are really the best writer. I have been reading The secret articles and they are just amazing. Please contact me : mahmoud (at) selman (dot) us .
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3832834].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LilBlackDress
    Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

    In case you haven't heard, eHow is removing all user generated articles from
    its database because they don't meet their new stricter requirements.

    And so the crackdown continues.
    This is not true.

    eHow is ending their writer's Rev Share program and paying writers for their content which will then become eHow's property to use, edit, delete or whatever.

    Their email....

    "We want to personally thank you for the time spent writing articles for eHow.com and helping contribute to the growth of our site. As a valued writer who's written articles for eHow, you know we're a site that is focused on excellence and delivering the best possible experience to our readers.

    As you might remember, we stopped accepting user-generated articles under eHow's Writer Compensation Program (WCP) in April of 2010. However, we kept articles published by members like you so all contributors could continue earning money for their work.

    As eHow.com continues to evolve and become a leading destination for trusted information, we are working hard to ensure all content is professionally created and editorially vetted. After much consideration, eHow has decided to close the WCP and remove a number of user-generated articles from the site beginning May 5, 2011.

    Now, what's exciting for YOU is that we are extending attractive offers to a select group of great writers to purchase the articles they've written for eHow so that those articles can be vetted through our current editorial process, which includes professional fact checking and copy editing. Needless to say, your great work has put you in this special category!

    Beginning today, your WCP console will have the details of your offer. The offer includes the purchase price of your articles, which is based on historical earnings. You will have until May 31, 2011 to accept our offer.

    By accepting our offer you are agreeing to sell all the rights of your articles to us. We would own the articles from that point on, and will have the ability to review and revise them to ensure they meet our editorial standards. Following the acceptance of the offer, you will receive three payments: one for regular earnings paid in June for money earned from May 1-5, and two equal installments for your buyout offer, which will be paid by June 15 and July 15, 2011 via PayPal. However, if you choose to decline the offer you will receive your last WCP payment for money earned from May 1-5 by June 15, 2011.

    If you agree to sell your articles, we ask that you immediately remove the articles from any other sites that have published them. If you decline the offer, articles will begin to be removed from eHow.com. However, you will retain complete control of all the content you have written and will continue to have rights to publish them anywhere. Additionally, if you choose not to accept our offer, you'll have an opportunity to retrieve your articles from us between May 17th and May 31st, if you wish to retain them for your records. Further details for article retrieval will be shared through your WCP console.

    We truly value your contributions to eHow and know that the site would not be what it is today without people like you. Thank you again and please feel free to contact support@ehow.zendesk.com with any questions you may have.

    Best,
    eHow Team    "
    Signature

    Pen Name + 8 eBooks + social media sites 4 SALE - PM me (evergreen beauty niche)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833052].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      Originally Posted by LilBlackDress View Post

      This is not true.

      eHow is ending their writer's Rev Share program and paying writers for their content which will then become eHow's property to use, edit, delete or whatever.

      Their email....

      "We want to personally thank you for the time spent writing articles for eHow.com and helping contribute to the growth of our site. As a valued writer who's written articles for eHow, you know we're a site that is focused on excellence and delivering the best possible experience to our readers.

      As you might remember, we stopped accepting user-generated articles under eHow's Writer Compensation Program (WCP) in April of 2010. However, we kept articles published by members like you so all contributors could continue earning money for their work.

      As eHow.com continues to evolve and become a leading destination for trusted information, we are working hard to ensure all content is professionally created and editorially vetted. After much consideration, eHow has decided to close the WCP and remove a number of user-generated articles from the site beginning May 5, 2011.

      Now, what's exciting for YOU is that we are extending attractive offers to a select group of great writers to purchase the articles they've written for eHow so that those articles can be vetted through our current editorial process, which includes professional fact checking and copy editing. Needless to say, your great work has put you in this special category!

      Beginning today, your WCP console will have the details of your offer. The offer includes the purchase price of your articles, which is based on historical earnings. You will have until May 31, 2011 to accept our offer.

      By accepting our offer you are agreeing to sell all the rights of your articles to us. We would own the articles from that point on, and will have the ability to review and revise them to ensure they meet our editorial standards. Following the acceptance of the offer, you will receive three payments: one for regular earnings paid in June for money earned from May 1-5, and two equal installments for your buyout offer, which will be paid by June 15 and July 15, 2011 via PayPal. However, if you choose to decline the offer you will receive your last WCP payment for money earned from May 1-5 by June 15, 2011.

      If you agree to sell your articles, we ask that you immediately remove the articles from any other sites that have published them. If you decline the offer, articles will begin to be removed from eHow.com. However, you will retain complete control of all the content you have written and will continue to have rights to publish them anywhere. Additionally, if you choose not to accept our offer, you'll have an opportunity to retrieve your articles from us between May 17th and May 31st, if you wish to retain them for your records. Further details for article retrieval will be shared through your WCP console.

      We truly value your contributions to eHow and know that the site would not be what it is today without people like you. Thank you again and please feel free to contact support@ehow.zendesk.com with any questions you may have.

      Best,
      eHow Team      "
      I got a totally different email after the first couple of paragraphs.

      Very strange.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833362].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author -Jericho-
    What if create space and Amazon decided that anyone who published through them onto Amazon was having their books removed or they could sell Amazon the rights?

    They're hijacking people's work. If you don't sell them the article they redirect the link to another similar article and benefit or they buy the article and keep future profits. It's F'ed up what they're doing.

    Why not just throw all the articles into the demand studio program and give everyone a set amount of time to fix their articles to the new standards...because it's more profitable to rip people off.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833088].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author truly_gifted
    I hope that everyone has a copy of their articles stashed. It would really bite for all that hard work to go down the drain.

    THIS is why you always publish your content on your own site before allowing it to be used by larger content networks.
    Signature
    Is your offline business picking up, but the work of building websites got you down?
    For just $100, I will build and customize a full 5 page Wordpress website for your clients.

    SPECIAL OFFER FIRST 5 WARRIORS - BUY 1 GET 1 FREE!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833216].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author celente
    Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

    In case you haven't heard, eHow is removing all user generated articles from
    its database because they don't meet their new stricter requirements.

    And so the crackdown continues.
    This is like a pendulum swinging no?

    Oh well. I left ehow long ago. But I still see some warriors getting some good results with it.
    Signature
    Create a $5000 USD a month Business. 1-on-1 Coaching. By 6 figure marketer! - CLICK HERE
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833406].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author -Jericho-
    Finally was able to see what they're offering me. But here's what's total BS.

    Effective May 31, 2011 (the "Offer Expiration Date") all user-submitted articles that have not been sold to Demand Media, eHow's parent company, will be removed from the Site. Additionally, earnings for all WCP articles will cease as of May 5, 2011.
    So if I say no, you will keep my articles for 3+ weeks to make money from them and not pay me. Someone should start a class action lawsuit for not paying royalties while they still profit from it.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3833834].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Amanda Lacasse
      I've recently signed on with InfoBarrel and HubPages to try my hand at revenue share again, after writing for content sites who pay upfront. I just wrote about my experiences at eHow several days ago, then, yesterday, I received the email from them. Weird.

      I joined the WCP right before it was phased out, so I have very few articles up. I know many have made a good monthly income from eHow residuals, though. Ouch! At least they're offering buyouts...I'll bet there will be a lot of grinding and gnashing of teeth very soon. DS is not known for its generosity in the pay department.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3836587].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Gary King
    No skin off my nose...

    I'm not one to take food out of people's mouths, so if this is hurting someone's business, sorry, BUT...

    Their search results, especially for technical things are usually very high in google and have like ZERO value. The articles are too superficial to actually solve a problem (i.e., how to do x in Microsoft Word).

    Yes, this is a generalization, but I had the same recurring thought just again the other day after clicking through and finding a high level piece of junk posing as a "real" answer - "Man! I wish their results would stop showing up."
    Signature

    ===========================
    OFFLINERS! Warning: Unless You Know These Pricing Secrets, You are Leaving THOUSANDS on the Table. Get Your Free Report Now.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3837113].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
      This is the great paradox that is the internet right now. Google says that it wants high quality content, however, it 'seems' that the higher the quality, the more unlikely that it is to earn. Because of the commercial nature of the online world, eHow earns millions a month just by hosting those adverts on their content. The actual true value they provide is to be debated.

      I've learned that, in my writing, the MORE I write, the less likely my articles seem to earn....if I give readers ALL the answers, they suddenly have no need for anything else, whether it be products or adsense ads/etc. I spent months writing tons of 1,000+ word articles, that earn little to nothing. Lesson learned...so, the more value someone tries to provide, the more they seem less likely to earn. I'm sure there's a delicate balance in their somewhere.

      Google did hit eHow fairly hard though, so, I think that at least teaches us that what they were doing wasn't exactly the correct or best way of doing things as perceived by Google.


      Originally Posted by Gary King View Post

      No skin off my nose...

      I'm not one to take food out of people's mouths, so if this is hurting someone's business, sorry, BUT...

      Their search results, especially for technical things are usually very high in google and have like ZERO value. The articles are too superficial to actually solve a problem (i.e., how to do x in Microsoft Word).

      Yes, this is a generalization, but I had the same recurring thought just again the other day after clicking through and finding a high level piece of junk posing as a "real" answer - "Man! I wish their results would stop showing up."
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3837197].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Gary King
        Originally Posted by x3xsolxdierx3x View Post

        This is the great paradox that is the internet right now. Google says that it wants high quality content, however, it 'seems' that the higher the quality, the more unlikely that it is to earn. Because of the commercial nature of the online world, eHow earns millions a month just by hosting those adverts on their content. The actual true value they provide is to be debated.

        I've learned that, in my writing, the MORE I write, the less likely my articles seem to earn....if I give readers ALL the answers, they suddenly have no need for anything else, whether it be products or adsense ads/etc. I spent months writing tons of 1,000+ word articles, that earn little to nothing. Lesson learned...so, the more value someone tries to provide, the more they seem less likely to earn. I'm sure there's a delicate balance in their somewhere.

        Google did hit eHow fairly hard though, so, I think that at least teaches us that what they were doing wasn't exactly the correct or best way of doing things as perceived by Google.
        I understand... really. If you're leading to a link, you CAN'T give all the answers.

        It's just frustrating from a visitor perspective to get that content from a place that positions itself as HAVING the answers but only gives you PART of the answer.

        Agreed totally, it's an absolute paradox.

        Gary
        Signature

        ===========================
        OFFLINERS! Warning: Unless You Know These Pricing Secrets, You are Leaving THOUSANDS on the Table. Get Your Free Report Now.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3837347].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
    It is really nice to hear that bigger players are taking serious steps upon
    improving the quality of the internet. This is good for everyone. How
    many times did you find an answer to your search easily on Google? How many
    of the sites on the first page exactly offered what you were actually looking for?
    Why in the world would someone write about weight loss if he has never lost
    weight and has no real idea how to do so?

    Such moves from bigger players certainly will affect us, smaller players, resulting
    in a much more quality in our content creation and promotional work.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3837396].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author oregongal
    I think they are trying to regain credibility. My kids teacher won't let her use anything on ehow since they consider it unreliable.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3837456].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bnwebm
    FYI, the latest on the Demand demise:
    Demand Media's Crisis: Bad News for SEO, Freelancers?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3939537].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author supreme
    Content is King! -- "If you treat king as king", such changes whether in publishing platforms or in search engines shouldn't worry you..

    Quality content rocks!
    Signature

    To Get the Best Forex Traffic Buy Forex Solo Ads for the highest return on investment

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3942811].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ckatheman
    One thing I noticed - I sold my articles to eHow (I didn't have that many) at the end of the WCP. However, all of my affiliate links (which were grandfathered after their initial sweep) are still active, and still generating me some minimal revenue.
    Signature
    Looking for high quality ORIGINAL PLR Articles?
    New Content Added Weekly!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4425516].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WebPen
    I can't blame eHow- I've stumbled across some pretty cruddy articles on there.

    Considering its seen as an authority site, it is a good thing for them to clean it up a bit.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4425614].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
      FWIW...look at Demand Media's stock price...interesting, indeed...looks like this was posted just a few days ago, and has quite a few comments, as well...

      DMS Forum – “Let the mass firings begin” | Demand Studios Sucks
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4425632].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
        Joe Internet Marketer can turn one of his ebooks into a real book
        by using createspace.com

        His ebook will be on amazon and he will be a published author.

        Maybe that is a way around it?
        My comment isn't directed at anyone personally, but the quoted comment illustates what's right with those of us in IM and what's wrong with us.

        Throw a problem in our way and the we will find a way around it,, through it, over it or under it. The intelligence, problem solving ability, resilience, and can-do attitude of resourceful marketers is often nothing short of amazing. We can be slowed down at times, but somehow, some way, we'll will overcome any obtacle thrown in our path.

        On the other hand, sometimes our strengths are also our shortcomings. We have been known to wield our talents without judiciousness so that what we do ends up screwing up a good thing, or worse, causing harm.

        It's our industry's fault for teaching expediency above all else. Speed, ease, and a selfish goal without regard to quality and usefulness is seldom good for anyone in the end.

        Lesson for the future: We can only throw so much crap at something before someone starts cleaning it up and shutting down the cause.
        Signature

        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4425862].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author x3xsolxdierx3x
      Originally Posted by Justin Stowe View Post

      I can't blame eHow- I've stumbled across some pretty cruddy articles on there.

      Considering its seen as an authority site, it is a good thing for them to clean it up a bit.
      From a purely business standpoint, I couldn't blame them for THIS move...however, I do blame them for alot of other things, which, actually, lead up to this.

      They had no other choice but to do this simply because they neglected the quality of the site for years before they ever really did anything about it. For future ventures, to any writers out there, RISK can be significantly lessened by writing for sites (in conjunction with your own site, of course) that DO have at least some semblance of a quality control process.

      Combined with the non-transparent shadiness behind their revenue sharing arrangement, I did a MASS sweep of my own content....painfully deleting each article, because I had had the forsight to anticipate this sort of thing occurring.

      I know there is a resounding gray line when it comes to what is ethical and what is not ethical in IM, however, many of the things eHow did went beyond a website/business just simply try to be Capitalists and maximize profits...

      A previous link I had posted to this thread, several months ago, doesn't work because there is an expletive that shows up in the clickable URL here...

      Anyone can do a google search for "eHow Bull$hit" and see the post I was referring to.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4426151].message }}

Trending Topics