Why I Won't Be Publishing on Helium.Com Any More

When I first tried this online writing business, it was because I'd come across a website called Helium.com. You could submit content on hundreds of different subjects, the article sizes were short and to the point, and they actually earned you money. Sounded a deal too good to be missed.

Since I signed up for Helium a couple of years back, I've written over a hundred articles for them. I've even gotten money from them (more on that later). You'll notice, however, that this article isn't being published on Helium. Nor, indeed, will anything I ever write again show up on there.

The reasons for this are many and varied, but they fundamentally come down to the way Helium treats its contributors. To be fair, I do like their system of categorising articles and showing you exactly what's available. The reason I spent so long writing for Helium is this categorisation; if you're writing for Associated Content, for all its charm, it's not nearly as forthcoming with suggestions or titles for inspiration. One is simply forced to be more creative by AC. That in itself is certainly a good thing, though it makes it slightly more difficult to bang out content for profit.

Helium also allow you to put competing articles in against existing ones; these are then reviewed by fellow contributors, and they compare two and vote as to which one is better. The more positive votes, the higher the article goes. And this, I'm afraid, is where the rot sets in.

The problem is twofold. Firstly, Helium requires you, repeat, requires you to vote on others articles. I forget the exact figures and feel disinclined to visit their site, but let's say for the sake of argument you need to review ninety pairs of articles over three months. If you do more, all the better. Not so bad, you might think, that's only one a day. Nevertheless, if you don't do this, you become ineligible for any kind of payment. Still, read an article or two a day, and you're set, right?

There's the other problem. Like any contributor written site, you choose what you actually write about (and hopefully, choose something you actually know about). When you start peer reviewing articles on Helium, you're indiscriminately thrown every article in need of votes right at that moment, regardless of the subjects you cover. Try deciding which of two articles is more informative when the subject is knitting, a review of a book you've never even heard of, an opinion on a religion you don't believe in, 16th century woodcarvings, or any one of a thousand topics you know nothing about. You could, in a lot of cases, not want to know anything about them (No offense to any knitters out there; but as Rowan Atkinson said, I'm quite happy to wear wool without knowing how it works).

I don't feel qualified to decide which of these articles is more informative, or interesting. The same applies to anyone voting on my article. Regardless of how wonderfully crafted and worded it is, chances are it's being voted on by someone who could care less about what's being said. There's a fair chance they might even be drooling on the keyboard as they vote; a coin toss would be a fairer and more even-handed system. I know whenever I had to rate anything, I would generally scan both articles, dock points for spelling errors or typing in ALL CAPS (yes, people actually submit whole articles like that), and all other things being even, decide the longer of the two must be the more informative. It's a terrible system, I know, and I feel slightly bad about it, but I suspect it's a better system than most Helium members have.

Did I mention writers who fall below a certain level of highly-rated articles are ineligible for payment nowadays?

Now go back to point one. Votes are being cast by uninformed people, who are required to vote on a frequent basis, if they want to be paid. If you don't vote, you don't get paid. If you vote, you vote without an understanding of the subject, people get unfairly marked down, and also don't get paid. All of this could be fixed very easily with some adjustments to how voting works, but I suspect it's not in Helium's best interests to fix it. If articles were voted on based on their quality, they might end up having to give out more money.

It's also worth mentioning that of late, for articles

There are quite a few other problems with Helium, besides this. The opacity of the earnings system, where it's nigh impossible to keep an eye on how many people are looking at your articles, if you're being paid anything approaching the right amount per view, and indeed, how much you should be getting paid in the first. The byzantine method of payment, which becomes increasingly more and more arcane and clause-ridden every year. I could also mention that having written approximately a third as many articles on Associated Content, I've earned about four times as much money. And AC, bless their hearts, seem to practically throw money at you compared to Helium; they can't wait for you to receive paypal payments.

I'm possibly being a little hard on Helium. It's entirely possible I just don't use the site correctly. But using it correctly seems to have little to do with quality submissions. I'm one of those people who still has a vague notion of pride in their work, so from now on, I shall certainly be publishing elsewhere.