Mysteries of Associated Content

After 6.5 months, 24,533 page views and 58 articles (59 counting this one), I remain mystified about so many basic facts and assumptions about Associated Content that I can no longer restrain myself from putting some of these forward. Perhaps some of these questions have answers somewhere on the site, perhaps deep in the forum archives, but I have not found them yet. Some of these questions have been raised before, but not answered. Others may fall into the category "rhetorical questions," or unanswerable questions.

If you happen to have answers or potential answers to any of my questions, I would be pleased to hear from you via comment or PM. And if I learn important new things, I will write an article sharing what I learn.

Why aren't we allowed to communicate with the editors who review our articles and tell us that they are unworthy of upfront payment?

Even though my Interview with a Study Abroad Student in Rome garnered an upfront payment, my interview with a grad student in Edinburgh was deemed "not unique enough to be searchable" or some such standardized thing. But I have no clue what human being drew this conclusion and no opportunity to make my case. So far the article rejected for upfront payment has been gathering more page views than the article that was paid for upfront.

Why have the "featured articles" (you know, the ones with photos that cycle through) on the History page and Local page (and some other pages) been left unchanged, unrenewed, and utterly static for as many months as I can remember?

These title pages for the content sections seem like great ways to highlight fresh new work and draw readers. Why do we need to see that same picture of the girl getting a tattoo every time we visit the History section or those same two toddlers on the beach in the Local section? When my article about scenic outdoor ice rinks was featured on the Travel page, my page views went up sharply. So why not refresh all the title pages every week or two?

Similarly, why is the overall homepage of Associated Content so bland, blah, and old-fashioned looking, as well as not very informative?

This is how we draw readers to our articles? Couldn't that crew of graphic designers who came up with the snazzy Thanksgiving template do something for the site's main page? Shouldn't the homepage of AC be highlighting fabulous timely content just one click away? Isn't that a higher priority mission than tinkering with our contributor "Content" page to make the typeface so miniscule that I may have to hold a magnifying glass up to the computer screen?

Why does AC leave us to stew about systems glitches rather than informing us about them?

Why would it be so difficult for AC to send a PM to all contributors along the lines of "Page view updates are delayed until Monday, February 1 due to systems maintenance. Thank you for your patience." If your bank or airline, Ticketmaster, or any other transaction-heavy site has a problem, they tell you about it. They do not just let you twist in the wind, losing page views, worried, and in the dark. Why does AC let the forums buzz with speculation about the problems and disgruntlement about the lack of information? Eventually, AC Darnell will come along and post a cheerful but vague statement (because the tech people are in Denver and probably being vague with him), but why do we have to troll the forums to find out what is happening? The forums have too many personalities sniping and clashing for me to spend much time there every day.

Why can't we use bullet points like the rest of the publishing world?

This whole site revolves around lists -- bullet points or numerals followed by a period are the usual punctuation practice for items in a list. I had an article rejected early on because it used bullet points and yet sometimes in the "call" blurb for an assignment I have seen that bullet points or numbered lists are encouraged! And yet I have never actually seen bullet points used in an article on AC. What is the story here? What is the big technical obstacle to using bullet points?

Why doesn't Associated Content tell contributors what it wants us to write about?

If I knew what AC was still paying upfront payments for, what they view as the gaping holes in their content library, what kind of incoming articles they view with glee, I just might write some of those. Do they want profiles of local colleges? Do they want first person accounts about overcoming adversity? Do they want reviews of local businesses? The instructions about upfront payments tell you what they will not pay for; it's all negative. At this point I do not even try for upfront payment because I truly have no idea what unsolicited piece they might pay for, if any.

The assignments on the assignment page generally do not offer upfront payment, and when they do, the topics are so narrow and strange or trivial (e.g., green beer images) that I rarely have interest in writing about them. (See Sylvie Mac's wonderful parody of these assignments: Should Illegal Aliens Pay a Tax on Sugary Drinks During Halloween?) When I have grabbed one of the assignments that offered an upfront payment, the resulting article has often gotten paltry pageviews (e.g., How to Wear Plaid- 68 pvs, A Guide to Writing Effective Press Releases for Your Business or Organization-38 pvs, Take Your Dog to Work? I Don't Think So -57 pvs). Why would AC direct us toward a topic that no one actually wants to read about?

What is the strategic plan with regard to retiring obsolete articles?

It looks fairly silly when an article I write with breaking news about the 2009 U.S. Open tennis tournament has next to it "Related Articles" that describe the U.S. Open from 2006 or 2007, especially when I know there are articles from 2009's tournament available to be displayed (some of which I wrote!). In sports and many other areas, last year's tournament is history! Some of those players are now dead (or at least retired). People are searching for information about this year's tournament, coming up now.

Even more "evergreen" topics, such as product reviews, become obsolete when the product reviewed is not even sold any longer and has been replaced by better, cheaper alternatives.

Does anyone know if AC has a game plan for archiving or deleting obsolete material?

AND one more bonus question for good measure:

Why do I pour my heart out into writing articles on all sorts of topics using good (if not perfect) SEO writing, really top-notch spelling and grammar, solid research and source-citing, careful formatting, a dash of cleverness along with the facts, and yet settle for a grand total of only $118.48 (total earnings to date) in compensation?

This is not a question AC can answer, but it is one of the deepest mysteries of AC.

It is easy to say "I'm not in it for the money," because obviously I could come up with $118.48 in a lot of other ways with much less work, but actually I am in it for the money. I still have hope, perhaps false hope, that I can figure out how to earn a modest amount every month from this source while reaping the psychic benefits of writing and being part of a writing community on AC.

AC: if you are listening, have you figured out that many of us out here are watching pvs mainly because they indicate that someone out there is actually reading and perhaps enjoying our stuff and not because we actually benefit all that much from earning tiny sums of money?

Gentle readers, thank you for listening.

Source:

Personal experience as an AC Contributor

.