Good point! The more time and effort I put into an article, the less I get. Watch, I wrote an article today that took about 4 hrs. I'll probably make 13 cents (about average) I posted a silly meme and made $24 So, you've got a really good point!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I describe it like fishing. It isn't even completely time. Some of my personal favorite blogs over the past months I've been here made nothing or close to nothing. I've had things I wrote for the hell of it that I didn't expect to do well that did well. I've stopped trying to predict. I just write what I like and let the chips fall where they may. I can't predict what will do well. I've had more of my longer posts do better than any of my short posts. I've had a few short posts do okay.
Maybe doing what you like is the best strategy of all @dwinblood. I do it exactly in the same way :)
If you write a long article, you're competing for my time with professional journalists and novelists. It better be worth it!
I agree. But that won´t stop me from trying :)
Or what...you gonna beat me up??? Please, I haven't shot an asshole in almost 2 weeks!!!
Even worse: I would not upvote the post! :)
I don´t think that long articles don´t get nice rewards in general @richq11. In my experience the most important thing is: structure! In the end every single article is like a small marketing campaign. You have to sell it! You have to sell your idea and yourself to somebody who doesn´t have much time. The best thing about it is that you have infinite chances to try.
Supposedly the meme you mentioned made a lot of people laugh - that´s one of the strongest emotions of all! So obviously they paid you well for that. 'Effort' doesn´t have to be measured necessarily just by time. 'Effort' here is creatitivy - and the capability to understand what may 'work' and what may be downvoted.
It´s an amzing ride in any case! :)
Thank you very much for your comment @richq11.
Well there are two different perspectives: the author´s point of view and the reader´s point of view. Both can receive rewards for their contribution - sometimes even in relation to the same piece of content. One publishs and one votes. I hereby wanted to focus on the rewards given to the audience.
But keeping with your example: humor is a very strong emotion. If you can make a person laugh, you provide him or her with a considerable value. So the reward should be accordingly - independently from the author´s invest. Quality is a personal issue - and that´s what makes a rewarding system actually that complex.
Yea it'd be fun if we could record how much time we used on each post and the system would reward it accordingly. Similarly the system could record how long each post is been read and rewards the curators accordingly.
I don´t know if the time of elaboration is really representative here. I sometimes struggle writing only one good sentence and then on another day I could right a book in only one day. But I am totally with you that the 'efforts' paid by the author should be rewarded fairly. That means that these efforts have to be appreciable - e.g. by an innovative idea, creative structur of the post, outstanding presentation of pictures,.... the list could be endless.
Time is not only measurable in time. That sounds weird :-) But time here is measured with the currency attention. That means that time has only a value in combination with an action towards something or somebody. I could open an article, close my eyes and don´t do anything at all. But that´s neither quality time nor real attention. I don´t think I should get paid for that.