As I stated in previous posts, I do not Skype, but "I do willingly call all my employers and have an international calling plan so I can do this. Being able to contact your employers verbally is important. Some employers have a difficult time writing - that is why they are hiring you after all - so offering another form of communication is important."
In fact, if an employer states Skype is required, I do not apply. Seeing who you are speaking with was totally cool on the Jetsons, but I don't think the inventors realized the implications. I have inadvertently flashed my daughter's friend stepping over her computer without realizing a Skype conversation was open (my daughter was away from the computer at the time- the only reason I know it happened was because the friend shouted, "Hi, Mrs. Reinoehl!" after I passed).
Yet again, a potential employer has asked me if I Skype and yet again I have refused.
Now, I did use Skype once-the employer was disabled and that was his preferred method of communication. (Read he was blind.) Now, that whole job experience was a disaster, so in my opinion bending the rules was definitely not worth it. Plus, once you get a Skype ID and someone is like, "Do you have a Skype ID?" I would not be able to say "No."
I am proud of the fact I will make myself available for employers at any time of day or night based on their own working hours, but I like to remain in my pajamas at 2 AM- call me quirky. And, yes, I have heard you can simply shut the video feature off, but why even use Skype when its whole purpose is to see who you are speaking with. If my employers didn't want to see me, they would not force me to use Skype. I can call them at no cost to them.
Monday, April 16, 2018
Monday, April 9, 2018
Why does writing from scratch cost more than rewriting?
To me, this seems like a no-brainer, and I don't know if the guy was just trying to get something for nothing or not, but this is how the story goes:
A job was posted to rewrite almost 2000 words of content and add another 2000 to it. There were very detailed SEO counts involved. I bid on about 2000 words of rewrite and about 2000 words of original content. Most people don't want to pay for good content, so they advertise for "native English speakers" and then choose people who don't even write in complete sentences on their profiles. The thing is that many of these employers fall into two categories: (1) They have no clue what good content is, and therefore, they are content with mediocre results or (2) They have no clue that good content is worth every penny, and although they know the content is cruddy they do not think good content will improve their bottom line.
In some cases, (2) is correct: If you have a poor product no amount of content and fake reviews are going to offset that. But in most cases, good content makes Google much happier than bad content (unless you are paying them for advertising, in which case they could care less). Let me tell you, if you pay your way to the top of a search engine with bad content, you would be better off paying a freelancer to write you good content. I have never accidentally clicked on a poorly written ad at the top of a search engine, but I must say that I have accidentally clicked on a well-written one and remained on the website a bit before I discovered the deception.
Anyway, this guy ended up telling me he was going to hire me. [I really wish I got paid $25 every time someone said he would hire me and didn't]. However, when he said this he said the original article was actually quite awful and he wanted me to write the entire almost 4000 word article from scratch. I promptly told him that would cost more. To this he balked. He wondered why it would cost more when he felt the job would be easier.
At this point I went into a detailed explanation, in part because I was incredulous that he would think writing an article from scratch is less expensive than rewriting it. As this article concurs, there is no research involved in rewriting an article. Something the article didn't mention (but I did) is that there is no risk either. If you are rewriting an article, you know exactly what the employer wants because it is right in front of you. Now, although I usually can figure out what employers want the first time when I am writing from scratch, there are a few times when I have had to rewrite something. In this case, I wasn't given an article title or direction, just a list of keywords (almost two pages long) and the number of times they were to be included. [This was another case of some SEO formula gone wrong. I sometimes think these people who have turned SEO into their own scientific formula really have no clue. Once I was told to use misspelled "keywords." That will actually lower your rank based on all my research.]
I find it ironic that employers who either can't write or don't have time to write (or both) think they can pay practically nothing to a writer (scribe) to do it for them. I don't know how to pump my septic system, and let me tell you, I am more than happy to pay someone nearly $200 per hour to do it! Why are words deemed to be of less value than that? (And I believe pumping septic tanks is a very valuable occupation- those guys deserve awards, too.)
A job was posted to rewrite almost 2000 words of content and add another 2000 to it. There were very detailed SEO counts involved. I bid on about 2000 words of rewrite and about 2000 words of original content. Most people don't want to pay for good content, so they advertise for "native English speakers" and then choose people who don't even write in complete sentences on their profiles. The thing is that many of these employers fall into two categories: (1) They have no clue what good content is, and therefore, they are content with mediocre results or (2) They have no clue that good content is worth every penny, and although they know the content is cruddy they do not think good content will improve their bottom line.
In some cases, (2) is correct: If you have a poor product no amount of content and fake reviews are going to offset that. But in most cases, good content makes Google much happier than bad content (unless you are paying them for advertising, in which case they could care less). Let me tell you, if you pay your way to the top of a search engine with bad content, you would be better off paying a freelancer to write you good content. I have never accidentally clicked on a poorly written ad at the top of a search engine, but I must say that I have accidentally clicked on a well-written one and remained on the website a bit before I discovered the deception.
Anyway, this guy ended up telling me he was going to hire me. [I really wish I got paid $25 every time someone said he would hire me and didn't]. However, when he said this he said the original article was actually quite awful and he wanted me to write the entire almost 4000 word article from scratch. I promptly told him that would cost more. To this he balked. He wondered why it would cost more when he felt the job would be easier.
At this point I went into a detailed explanation, in part because I was incredulous that he would think writing an article from scratch is less expensive than rewriting it. As this article concurs, there is no research involved in rewriting an article. Something the article didn't mention (but I did) is that there is no risk either. If you are rewriting an article, you know exactly what the employer wants because it is right in front of you. Now, although I usually can figure out what employers want the first time when I am writing from scratch, there are a few times when I have had to rewrite something. In this case, I wasn't given an article title or direction, just a list of keywords (almost two pages long) and the number of times they were to be included. [This was another case of some SEO formula gone wrong. I sometimes think these people who have turned SEO into their own scientific formula really have no clue. Once I was told to use misspelled "keywords." That will actually lower your rank based on all my research.]
I find it ironic that employers who either can't write or don't have time to write (or both) think they can pay practically nothing to a writer (scribe) to do it for them. I don't know how to pump my septic system, and let me tell you, I am more than happy to pay someone nearly $200 per hour to do it! Why are words deemed to be of less value than that? (And I believe pumping septic tanks is a very valuable occupation- those guys deserve awards, too.)
Monday, April 2, 2018
The Freelance Farmer
So, you ignored my last post because you know you can hire someone to do it all. You have cooked up the perfect get-rich-quick scheme where you will hire one freelancer to write books for you, edit them, format them for Kindle and Nook, develop a website, post weekly to a blog on it, and reply to any comments. The freelancer will also design a monthly e-mail newsletter keeping everyone posted on how things are coming. Plus, you have figured out that you will simply keep the freelancer working on an hourly basis- with time tracked- so you will only pay for what the freelancer is doing. You will pay a meager $10 per hour and only allow the freelancer 20 hours a week to work.
Yeah, nice pipe dream. I can think of any good freelancer who would accept this awful position. At 20 hours a week, you couldn't even get a book written for several weeks. Add that to all your other work and you would have nothing to market because it could take years to finish.
So, you will either get a new enthusiastic freelancer who has no clue what they are doing and quickly "disappears" or you will end up with a freelance farmer.
No, a freelance farmer will not show up on your doorstep to turn your beautiful lawn into an agricultural production plant. The freelance farmer is basically another middle man. They know how much it costs to live in India and plan to hire out the endless list of jobs to someone there. They will pay a mere $1-2 per hour and the work will be subpar. If they are a good freelance farmer, they will edit it themselves to prevent you from discovering the treachery or at least to ensure it is acceptable. Sometimes they will let you know they are doing this, but other times they won't. Your work will take longer to get because they have to get it first. Also, if there is a serious problem, they probably won't fix it. They might know a little bit more about what you need, and they might have a pool of decent freelancers to choose from, but if it comes down to it, they are looking at a bottom line, just like you.
There are a few businesses where the freelancers actually work together in an office (digital or not). But, if they have American employees, they need to charge more to meet certain tax requirements without taking a loss. Also, you have no idea if you rehire them what there turnover is and whether or not the same person will be working on your project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)