Editing Other People’s Writing

Editing Other People’s Writing

The grammar and spelling check is only a bonus if your spelling and grammar is not good. For the rest of us it presents a potential problem for the same reason that we frequently ignore suggested spelling and grammar prompts on Word and elsewhere – because they guess wrong! So for the good writers we may have a clean-up job on our hands.

That’s precisely why all edits should be with the consent of the author.
No spelling or grammar check elsewhere operates without the consent of the author, so why should Auto Editing Service different? For me if it’s a question of revising on my blog or removing my content and republishing elsewhere.

While I agree with a lot of your analysis  it is ONLY people with poor quality articles which are moving them to other sites.

On the contrary, my major problem is going to be the removal of content by good quality authors to other sites – precisely because the writing is on the wall (written by Google) about the future fate of all large article sites.

That’s precisely what happened at my squid and octopus farm and was one of the major reasons why traffic acquired a significant downward trend. (I was writing a book at the time or else I would have been joining them!).

The other thing that happened at the end of it was a constant battery of  minor changes – attempting to reverse the traffic trends – which kept messing up lenses. People started removing content from it just to get away from the changes. (There’s an awful lot of people commenting in other places about the strong sense of deja vu they’re experiencing right now)

This is essentially about two things:
1) strategic change within the marketplace and
2) the increasing scope for people to monetize their content on their own sites in different ways – which didn’t exist to the same extent when the big article sites got going.

The major problem there is assigning the decline in traffic to things like spelling and grammar when there are bigger and much more significant issues which are not being addressed at all (or so it appears). It reminds me of looking through a telescope the wrong way round.

IMO what it needs to do is to completely rethink its business strategy and then develop a revenue model which supports its new vision for the future.
* what does it propose to do in the face of the inevitable and continuing decline of article sites?
* how does it generate and keep good quality content AND their authors on the site? (i.e. there’s no point in improving the content – which belongs to the authors – if you irritate the authors and they remove the content from the site).

One of the reasons my old site was so successful for so long was that it had a differentiated income model and paid more to those people who brought more to the site. That provided a major incentive to stay for people who write well.  Creating constant change which was both irritating and created a lot of work for authors proved to be a considerable disincentive to stay for those with lots of content.

Just a thought.