Writing like an expert when your not?

Its too bad authority often comes before trustworthy relationship.

I disagree. I have seen people who understand their niche poorly and blog about it make money, sell info. People who suck and are below par can blog, sell, consult etc..

Just because some guy thinks everything should have a standard and wants to stop the ones who are not as talented or as good can take a hike.

I'm for doing whatever you want and if you are not as good do your best with time and effort you will get better. I know one of the niches I got into I sucked at it the first 6 months I had tons of people tell me how and why I sucked at it, but kept at it and ignored them and later got really good.

I'm getting in new niche now that I'm not as good what I'm suppose to not be able to write about it? How ridiculous is that.

The bottom line is if someone has a passion for a niche just ignore the perfectionist and what what you want the best you can life is short if you listen to all the nitpickers you will never get anywhere.

Yes that is my concern as well. In that case, I would write information and provide references at the bottom. On top of that, adding a disclaimer saying that the site reports only opinions and not medical advice is usually the most common and safest solution.

However, when building an authority site dealing with medical topics, always better to get professional legal advice.

It's their fault really. If people are researching something serious as medical advice they should check the sources are legit before trying any solutions suggested.

Exactly! It's come to a point where even common people know that most of the information on the internet is false (my mother, who hardly knows how to operate a computer, said that internet is not a good place to look for health related information!).

In my opinion, even if you don't know much about that subject, do enough research and check and cross-check if the information you have gathered is true or not. If you don't want to spend time doing that, then it's better if you hired a professional who actually knows what they are talking about, ESPECIALLY in the health niche. Writing false information or poorly researched information regarding health issues is completely unacceptable, in my opinion.

I don't want to be rude,but if you have a fatal illness you shouldn't put much stock in to the internet...you need a real life doctor at a real life hospital and do what you can to learn from them. I do get what you talking about though and it's true that there is way to much bs and crap out there.

I got nothing to add here. Perfectly said.

In most niches it's sufficient to have done the elementary research, but anything relating to health in general should be documented by someone with enough authenticity.

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."

- Mark Twain

Fixed that for you.

In some niches, ie medical, you really can be perceived as an "expert" by dismissing myths and granny tales through articles supported by authoritative references*.

* "Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint."
- Mark Twain

If this were Yahoo Answers I would vote the above as the BEST answer.

That's not so hard to figure out. Experts show plenty of evidence in a number of ways and they have been around doing what they profess to be experts in for years and can document it. That's what it takes to become an expert. Years, and not weeks or even months and I am pretty amused by the people who say that a few weeks is enough to turn a novice into an expert. That is a myth that marketers love to propagate to feel better about themselves. It takes real time and focus to become an expert for most people.

Another way to tell you are dealing with an expert and not just another marketer trying to pass as one is this: experts focus on one field and not many. I am not an expert on SEO, and I am not even an expert on marketing, but I consider myself an expert in what I have been doing for about a decade and marketing for about 7. I market mostly my own stuff, but also some Clickbank products in my day trading niche.

This has been said before (even on these forums), but I'll say it again

Anyone can be a genius, if they pick just one specific subject and study it diligently just 15 minutes each day." -- Albert Einstein

On the other hand, I've been studying the weather all my life and I still get wet

You can write about science all your life, but unless you are a practitioner in the field, that will never make you a scientist, but merely a science writer, perhaps even an expert on writing about science that even many a scientist may never become. But the real expert in a given scientific field is the scientist.

Writing about something does not necessarily make you an expert in this field, especially if it is a field that requires years of education and a good deal of practice such as medicine or pharmacy or science, etc.

Writing about something makes you a journalist or a writer, but that does not grant you the expert status in the field you are writing about. At least, that will never be true about many fields.

Gary Taubes is a good science writer, but I don't think he has ever pretended to be a science expert per se because he simply knows what it takes to be a science expert. Being a good, original non-fiction writer that can communicate the topic well is enough of an accomplishment already.

But I think in some fields such as nutrition that he writes about he is as good as many experts, and I pretty much consider him one. It took him years of active independent research to become an expert in this field and I think that you need to do more than writing to become recognized as a true expert just like him. Nutrition is not strictly science, though, or at least not very well established.

Well, just my 2 "longish" cents.

Great news for my NFL career.

This really is a complex issue... There is nothing wrong with self-promotion... but there is an ethics line somewhere that needs to be taken into consideration when you're giving advice as an expert to others who are depending on your answer.

I hate fake it until you make it.

What's wrong with "work really hard until you actually make it, and then teach others how to if you really feel the need to"?

(Not an attack on you Confined, you clearly said that you didn't think that it's politically correct!)

"Fake it until you make it" is responsible for more bullish!t on the internet than anything else IMO.

There is an astonishing amount of crap peddled on the net (and on the WF) by 'experts' who have purchased a couple of books or read a couple of ebooks, or just copied and pasted a couple of articles that they found on an e-zine somewhere...

And it's not just on the net... the amount of trainers in Australia who sell themselves as business trainers who have never actually worked in or on a business a day in their lives is incredible.

And don't get me started on politicians...

*breathing slowly and deeply*

I think things would be a lot better if people actually got good at stuff before teaching other people how to get good at stuff.

Okay, rant over.

As long as you don't claim to be an expert when you're not, you will do fine. Provide honest information to the best of your ability. There are far more non-experts than experts out there but most of them provide really good, helpful information regarding the subject matter. Also a lot of writers "borrrow" information from "Experts" posts and change it around a bit. It's called Plagiarism. As other members have mentioned, it's about perception. Some non-experts want to be seen as experts. Quote "The secret to successful results is sincerity, and when you can fake sincerity, you have got it made" Amen

Very productive thread - got to add a couple of names to my 'never buy from' list. Even if your output looks good, no one will know if it's part of the 'faked it' or the 'made it'...:rolleyes:

I've asked this so many times over the years that I'm starting to bore myself, but it needs to be asked again...

If you don't know anything about the subject on which you are writing, how can you posibly know that the research you are doing is "proper"? How do you know you aren't taking well-written bullshit from someone like the two above, trying to fake it until they make it?

Jim, let me ask you this...

If you don't know what you are talking about, and there are a lot of people online "faking it until they make it", how do you know that what you find in your Googling is truly expert content you can learn from and not something that only looks good to the uninformed?

This isn't meant personally, more of a general question...

If you don't know shit from shinola, how do you tell the difference?

What if the authorities just repeat information just because they have the same degree or are part of the same school of thought ?

What is a degree ? The ability to repeat information, some being proven, some being unproven.

Politicians, teachers, some scientists, repeat existing information some being proven by scientific tests and results and an objective interpretation of those results, but some parts of the information are just beliefs without any evidence to back it up. (See the HIV causes AIDS debate for example)



I don't think anyone need to present himself as an expert, this is unecessary and pretentious.
I think that to make a good infoproduct/book with interesting and useful concepts and solutions, one must first research the topic from the best known and trustworthy books, websites, but also from several scientific reports and from personal tests and results.
Then you can present your information as the results of your research and experience, and the people interested in this subject will probably buy the product if it seems interesting enough, useful, and backed up by an objective interpretation of the results.

Honestly when you understand how the politicians, the teachers, the journalists, the doctors, the pharmacists learn their "official" knowledge and skills you understand that there are marketing startegies and communication strategies and lobbying everywhere.

The truth is backed up by facts/proofs and by an objective interpretation of these facts/proofs. Information is only a tool to communicate, you can't just read the top serps (often written by writers who repeat information without knowing what they are talking about) and create an infoproduct/book with this. Well you can, but it will be full of BS.

What do you think happens when some scientists try to find proofs to confirm an hypothesis they have but their reasoning and their interpretation of the results is erroned ? A false belief is born !
When others scientists use as a source a a wrong/erroned scientific report, then it is again more false interpretation and false beliefs "proven by science" that are spread. (See the placebo controversy papers for example)
This is why the principles of objectivity and reproductibility are important.

So i think that to use reliable sources of information and scientific reports is good, but never forget that in these sources there are some parts of repeated/false/erroned information.
This is why being actually concerned by the problem and finding the usefull knowledge and using this knowledge to create/improve practical, efficient solutions is, i think, the best approach and will demonstrate your knowledge, skills, experience, techniques without having to use the word "expert".

That's what i do, and i don't care about the competition, most of them repeat information without thinking or testing it.

I think that part of the confusion comes from so many people using the words "expert" and "authority" interchangeably, when they are not the same thing.

You may not be an "expert" at playing women's lacrosse, but your knowledge and experience in producing desirable results (winning seasons) does make you an expert at coaching women's lacrosse and an authority on the the game.

I don't believe John Wooden ever played college basketball, yet he won more NCAA titles as a coach than anyone else in the history of the game.

Was he an expert on playing college basketball? No, he was not.

Was he an authority on college basketball? Obviously.

Was he an expert on coaching college basketball? Check the record book...

When it comes to affiliate bloggers and 'gurus-in-waiting' I don't expect much anymore, sad to say. Unless I have some other context to judge them on, I assume most of them are lying through their teeth about their level of expertise. Situational ethics has such a strong hold that I'm pleasantly shocked and amazed when I do come across someone playing it straight.

The topic at hand was ethics, and I gave my view on the ethics of teaching a methodology based on academic study as opposed to direct experience.

Oh, and purchasing content from 'expert writers' does not make the owner an expert. It makes him a content buyer.

Corey, under this post, your sig reads:

Can you tell me how anyone is supposed to know that you can really provide "high quality and unique content" or whether you are simply selling and telling people what you want them to think? Based on someone only reading this, how likely are they to believe you aren't just hanging out in the forum, 'faking it until you make it'?

I'm not making any accusations or aspersions, as I've never used your services. But you have to wonder - how many prospects did you lose with this post?

Good tip, but you have to exercise the same caution with books on Kindle that you need for any other source, including self-published physical books. It's unfortunate, but just because something is available on Kindle (or Amazon proper, for that matter) doesn't guarantee that it's authoritative - or even accurate. The barrier to entry is just too low...

Unless you're an aspiring actor.