Message from Wizzley

1. 77

   LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years ago

   Well...moths ago I posted a couple of articles at Wizzley. After several rejections I re-wrote them and they remained published on Wizzley up to today (I think) I went there today and wrote another article. To my surprise I  received a message from a chief moderator/editor/founder.....etc
   
   "Hello Luis,
   
   you've made it pretty clear (on HP and elsewhere) that you don't think highly of Wizzley.
   
   In light of your recent submission containing copyrighted materials and low-quality writing,
   we'd like to return the sentiment and delete your account from our site.
   
   Best of luck for your future.
   
   Chef Keem
   Co-founder & community manager"
   
   Let me start by saying that I once griped  and it was several months ago on a forum post on HP. I have never posted anything about Wizzley anywhere else. The quality of my work can't be that bad or HP would have let me know a while ago. The material is mine (although I do use quotes).
   
   Well..........so much for that. Hope the glass ceiling doesn't break when the @**$%^^##& comes down.
   
   However, I wish them the best of luck.
   

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Taurus2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Very sad that it happened to you. I 100% sympathize with your situation. But you see, the world is full of skeptics, and some of them might even ask whether that incident even happened, in the first place. They know all that. The drama created to divert attention etc.
      
      I encounter these people in the religion forums from time to time. They deny to believe anything which they find without evidence. Sad people. Anyway, it's a pleasure that you have been vocal enough to complain about Wizzley, here on HubPages.
      
      We can all share your grief.
      
      Take care. Everything will be alright, soon.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well, Luiz, I have to confess to having completely different experiences than you. My first article on Wizzley won an Editor's choice award. In fact, out of my first 17 articles, I won three Editor's Choice award (something that never happened to me on hp despite my having won awards for my writing elsewhere). I also was awarded the 'excellent writer' award at Wizzley  Only 17 people on a writing site approaching 4500 writers having them.
      
      In addition, the owner has been very kind and helpful to me despite the fact that I can give anyone a hard time, and he was no exception. He has gone out of his way to assist me when I struggled. Far from being an unprofessional site, they have the same standards that any print magazine has.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Len Cannonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         It is just very odd and a little bit unprofessional for them to send that type of message. I like the look of Wizzley (mostly, nothing is perfect) but I've never really gotten a clear answer on how the top, uh, wizzers? there are dong. I might take a weekend and write new versions of some of my popular Hubs over there and see how it does.in comparison using similar keywords.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Len Cannon, I earn more Google Adsense but then Hp doesn't use Adsense that much anymore. Also, I get more traffic at Hubpages. However, I've been at HP a lot longer and have substantially more articles. Also, at this point, HP has a higher ranking. That said, I think Wizzley will get to have a good ranking. They have excellent standards for writers and they've got great tools.
            
            I write for both HP and for Wizzley because I get different things from them, and, of course, I have my frustrations for any site (or print magazine) just because we can't and don't always get things our own way.

            replyreport
      2. 85

         Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I know several people who are very happy with Wizzley, and it's one of the places I recommend to people who want to write on revenue-sharing sites.  However I think the important point here is not the quality of writing, but the opening sentence of the Wizzley letter.
         
         It reads as though Luis has been banned because he criticised the site, not because of the quality of his writing.  Remember, he already had several articles accepted and published on Wizzley, which were all deleted.  If they were good enough to pass human editor review in the first place, why did they suddenly become unacceptable?   It sounds too much like revenge, and that's certainly unprofessional.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Marisa, as I mentioned earlier, I didn't think that was right. Also, I didn't get that some had been initially accepted as it wasn't clear from the first post.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               SA: I had at least 6 articles that were accepted and published on Wizzley. They remained there until I received their email.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, Luis,
                  
                  Here's the thing. There's a notice on most businesses that say that it is the right of management to kick out people that they don't want. And while speech may be free, it's not without consequence.
                  
                  If one wants to speak against someone, be aware they have absolutely no moral or ethical obligation to deal with you.
                  
                  The meaning of the word ' professional' has got a bit lost. It  means to earn one's living as something. So one can be a professional writer, i.e. one earns one's living as a writer, or one is an amateur writer which means one isn't quite up to the standard of someone who has been publicly recognized, etc. All that the word 'professional' means is that that is how one earns a living. Or used to.
                  
                  There is some meaning to it that one would act in a way that is commensurate with running a successful business. And in our modern world that could just as well mean pandering to the client as it means to sell a solid product. However, it is completely and utterly up to the business owner how they wish to deal with suppliers or clients. And in this case, you would be a supplier. If the owner of a business feels that he doesn't like what you've said about his company, he is within his rights to say that he doesn't want to deal with you, and that does not mean he is unprofessional.
                  
                  In addition, I took the liberty of looking at your writing. It's acceptable for content sites. It is doubtful it would be accepted in any print magazine without a rewrite or editing, unless your topic was so hot and so unusual that they were paying for content, in which case they would pay you and get one of their staff writers do a rewrite. I state that professionally as I used to work as an editor for two British publishing houses. My skills are sufficiently well developed in that sphere to be able to tell.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I thank you for your honesty and earnest in being as discursive as possible. I do not always write as I do on HP and elsewhere, I choose a particular "writer's voice" for the topics upon which I engross and their intended audiences since they are and were meant for a large segment of the public with heterogeneous backgrounds and expertise.
                     
                     My clamor at the time dealt with their contiguous rejections as they were analogous to the "writer's voice" I had fancied for the pertaining articles.
                     
                     To paraphrase my own statement ,at the time, on one HP forum post " It seems strange that instead of being concrete about what faults they find in ....(the articles) they keep rejecting them with ambiguity laden terms."
                     
                     Although I respect their right to exclude or append authors as they see fit, I was taken abash with their recent email response.
                     Nothing more,nothing less.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        Lissieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        A writer's voice isn't the same as ignoring the basic rules of grammar and word usage. Writing, is about communication, first and foremost.

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Well gee whizz maam.....i gues I dunnot know it de inglish as i thud it....
                           (Just taking it in stride).............

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Actually, Luis, she's right. The issue I had with your writing was phraseology, structure, and the absence of writer's rhythm. It had nothing to do with voice. In your response to me, you used longer words. It's not longer words I was talking about. In fact, wherever possible, shorter words are preferable as too many long words in a sentence confuse the meaning.

                              replyreport
                              1. 77

                                 LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Sophia; you are correct. It's a style developed after many years of teaching middle school kids. I know I tend to be simplistic and over explain things. I will work on the style and structure more from now on.
                                 Thanks for your kind analysis.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       
                                    
                                    Like I said - more than okay on the web, but not okay for print.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 77

                                       LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Harsh but true. I really  will take your advice to heart and thanks again.....

                                       report
                           2. 60

                              Johnjfernandoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              lol..

                              replyreport
2. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   Wow.  At the risk of having my Wizzley account closed, that's some childish behavior.

   replyreport
3. 77

   LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years ago

   Well...what can I say. At the very least does not look like a very professional attitude to take, especially from someone at the top. Imagine if people at HP would take the same attitude when they are attacked, abused, called names etc...at least on HP we are allowed to gripe and they are not a thick skinned as the folks at Wizzley.....Glad I'm here!

   replyreport
4. 84

   rebekahELLEposted 11 years ago

   Very unappealing and unprofessional.  I'm glad I never bothered to join the site.  So they hover the HP forums??

   replyreport
5. 87

   Len Cannonposted 11 years ago

   Well, it looks like they've done a lot to encourage you to say positive things about their brand!

   replyreport
   1. 77

      LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Positive...I doubt it. I don't mean them bad, but was caught off guard by their response as it appeared to be personal.

      replyreport
6. 80

   sabrebIadeposted 11 years ago

   Wizzley sounds like a buncha punks.
   ( I dont have an account there so :p )

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Denise Handlonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
7. 75

   Lissieposted 11 years ago

   Wizzley has always had much higher editorial standards than hubpages i.e. they have some. New authors are quite heavily scrutinized there, while any old crap will get published (see recent hubs feed for confirmation of this).

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Novel Treasureposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounded like you were saying that Hubpages has no standards and that any old thing will be published.
      
      If that's true (meaning that's what you meant, not that I think it's a true statement) than what would be the purpose of the hub hopper, and the moderators banning people who are overly promotional?
      
      If you think so poorly of hubpages, than why are you here?
      
      And to add to that, you just insulted pretty much every hubpage hubber, including yourself by saying that they have no standards here and that we can write crap and still be published.

      replyreport
      1. 51

         duncomungoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You didn't misunderstand her.  She said Hubpages has no standards and she is spot on.  This place allows people of all writing abilities to contribute, good, bad, passable, great, average, whatever.
         
         Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong point.  She did not insult every hubber, in fact, she didn't insult anyone.  There are plenty of excellent writers on this site who publish hubs knowing full well that the site is full of tons and tons of crap.  Why they do it is their business.
         
         And yes, you can write crap and still be published.  Go ahead and try it and see for yourself before you start talking about HP's non-existent standards.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            dunco, Novel Treasure has already tried it herself....61 times.  Why don't you give it a shot?  Or, did you want to wait until you've been here a full 20 minutes before you make any serious effort?  Either way, keep the insults to yourself.

            replyreport
            1. 51

               duncomungoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I have....more than 346 times.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  With a legitimate account?  Please, do tell.  Are you afraid of losing your own account at Wizzley if you publish under your legit HP user id?

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     joanveronicaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Just a thought: I checked and Dunco has been banned from HP.

                     replyreport
            2. 89

               Novel Treasureposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               HAHAH...Thanks for the support!!
               
               It just sounds like another disgruntled person who writes spam articles that got banned, comes in under another name and then trolls the forums. I love it when people with no followers and no hubs try to put you down.
               
               Again, I say, if you don't like hubpages, then why are you here. LEAVE, no one is making you stay.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You're welcome, Novel Treasure.  I get so irritated by that behavior.  I think we should support each other when trolls like that show up.
                  
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     Novel Treasureposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I whole heartedly agree. I'm all for being able to voice your opinions whether you like hubpages or not, or whatever topic. But do it respectfully, don't just attack an individual.

                     replyreport
         2. 74

            cheaptrickposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I write crap and it gets published...That's why I love this Place!
            Oh,and all you beautiful people Too!

            replyreport
      2. 75

         Lissieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         No you didn't misunderstand me. I stand by what I said - hub hopping is an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff - plus it's getting users to do the work that HP staff should do. Moderator's may ban people from the forums, and there has always been rules about how many links you can have in a hub - but that's not quite the same as poor quality. Try these for size-  all found on the latest hubs feed :
         
         <link snipped>
         (almost certainly violates Adsenses TOS BTW) No words - I thought HP had at least put a minimum word count in - that's trivial to automate
         
         <link snipped>
         doesn't deliver on the title -keyword stuffed (as in the bold words) - appears to be a spun version of a squidoo article
         
         
         <link snipped>
         classic affilite marketing crap - the content is unique - just - but says nothing more than could be found on Amazon itself - adds no value to the Internet - this is what google has been on the warpath about.

         replyreport
         1. 68

            joanveronicaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I just checked Lissie's three links. The first two have been withdrawn and are no longer up. The third seems to be still surviving. I'm just providing some additional information.

            replyreport
   2. 85

      Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That is completely beside the point, IMO.   If the letter had just rejected the article based on poor quality, that would be fair enough.  No need to mention his criticism of their site - that makes it sound like revenge.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Norah Caseyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Lissie,
      
      Thanks for your feedback. 
      
      I assure you that we have standards. Our engineers have spent hours putting together, testing, throwing away and rebuilding filters, bots, and other tools that detect abuse of our rules. However, HubPages (like most other User Generated Content sites) rely on visitors and contributors who encounter rules violations to flag that content. We cannot catch everything.
      
      I'd like to give you some perspective. In the past week HubPages moderators, who work 7 days a week and on all major holidays, have reviewed over 2,500 flagged Hubs, hundreds of forum posts and questions, and moderated over 1,300 profiles. Most of this content never makes it to the recent feed. These moderators review severely disturbing pornographic and mature content. They wake up at 4 am to start moderating, or stay up till 2 am to get a queue clear. Not because I ask them to, but because they want to. And at the end of every single workday, they know that there is something important they missed.
      
      Of course I understand your frustration. Is site quality what I'd like it to be? No. But we are an open platform website with a large and diverse community. I would love to review every piece of content on the site to prevent people from abusing our system, but it would take over 43 moderators to accomplish that. To review every piece of content from a new account, it would still require tripling our team. HubPages only has 21 employees. Expanding the moderation team to that level is simply impossible.
      
      If you want to improve the quality on HubPages, you can flag rules violations. Our rules can be found here:
      http://hubpages.com/learningcenter/how- … p-hubpages
      
      If you have any questions, please feel free to send me a message or contact the moderation team.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         lobobrandonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         It's been a year since I'm here and the changes implemented are undoubtedly awesome. The work put in by the team is great and personally I keep track of hubs that I flag and not one of them hasn't been unpublished.
         
         The only one that survived was the one that had too many amazon capsules when compared to the word count, but that was modified by the hubber. I guess you'll messaged him

         replyreport
      2. 69

         lrohnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Really? You have standards? What you're really trying to say is that you get rid of porn/bad stuff. And yet stuff like this gets through (this from 30 seconds on the hub hopper):
         
         http://hubpages.com/hop/#/An-Idea-to-Re … amatically
         
         http://hubpages.com/hop/#/geotracking-services
         
         http://hubpages.com/hop/#/game-services
         
         http://hubpages.com/hop/#/financial-services

         replyreport
         1. 89

            Novel Treasureposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Just because it makes it to the hopper, doesn't mean it gets published. That's the point of the hopper. The hubs get reviewed and flagged for poor quality, over promotion, abuse, etc....

            replyreport
            1. 85

               Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I think you're misunderstanding the hopper. Hubs in the Hopper ARE already published, and some have been published for months, if not years.  There aren't enough moderators to manually check every new Hub, so there is a constant flow of poor quality Hubs being published.

               replyreport
      3. 75

         Lissieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         None of the 3 hubs I linked to above actual violate the guidelines. They are crap quality though, according to Google, and 2 of them (the spun one and the one with no text) should be easily found programatically - i.e. they should never have been published, and your human moderators shouldn't be wasting time on them, because the filters should catch them

         replyreport
         1. 87

            Camille Harrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hi Lissie,
            
            Two of the Hubs you posted were moderated; however, flagging Hubs is the most appropriate way to bring them to our attention.
            
            Contact us with any questions.
            
            Thanks.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               Taurus2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I have just seen a very brilliant example of moderation done on HubPages. Not sure how frequently that is practiced on this website. This guy, Chip6, said this on a recent thread where I happened to have commented. I hope you could explain...
               
               
               "I am a very fresh recruit on HubPages. I have plans to settle down here. But I am seeking to understand the process of making money with this program. If you have anything to hide, any facts that would expose secret gaps, then sorry to hear that. You can just say on the face that one must be a blind conformist here, no asking of disturbing questions.
               
               Well, I just asked a few such questions in this thread-
               
               Do you BELIEVE HubPages Success Stories are True?
               http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/104193
               
               A hubber, named Jimmy, who is featured in the 'success stories' page, came and asserted that he really gets $1200 per month from HubPages. I asked him some questions and waited for the answers. Meanwhile, the whole thread was heavily edited by HubPages moderators, and the disturbing part was mysteriously removed from the public eye. I have understood the process."
               
               http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/104170

               replyreport
      4. 0

         Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Norah Casey, I think what you're missing is the standard of writing. That is not something that is screened by hubpages. Many, many hubs have substantially below par grammar and spelling. In addition, they are just plain badly written. It has nothing to do with computer software testing things. It has to do with a professional editor/writer reading through everything.

         replyreport
      5. 89

         Novel Treasureposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Norah,
         
         Please know that there are many of us, who truly do appreciate the work that you and the Hubpages Staff put into the site. To know that the staff works 7 days a week, through holidays, and all hours of the night is very much appreciated.
         
         Many people do not understand, nor appreciate, the work it takes to keep a forum like this running smoothly.
         
         I'm sure it's probably not said often enough but....
         
         THANK YOU!!!

         replyreport
8. 60

   tinamariemillerposted 11 years ago

   Wow.  That does seem a bit extreme.  I had never heard from them until I read this.  Sorry that happened to you.  Sometimes higher editorial standards are just another way of hindering our free speech.    I look forward to reading more of your hubs!

   replyreport
9. 51

   duncomungoposted 11 years ago

   I'm sympathetic to your situation LuisE, but perhaps your criticism of Wizzley was the straw that broke the camel's back since you admit your first attempts to publish were met with rejection.  Just because Hubpages let's you stay here and publish hubs doesn't mean that you write well and your work will be accepted on other sites.  No one who posts hubs here should take it as an affirmation of their writing abilities. Wizzley simply has much higher standards, and if you consistently fall below the bar they are within their rights to terminate your account.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What surprised me is that after I re-wrote about 6 articles when I first joined them they were accepted and posted until today. I had not visited the site or . posted anything there for approximately 5 months. I just posted a new article today and their response just caught me off guard and seemed unwarranted that is all. After all, why now if I had articles there doing decently plus the new post  was error free and quality.

      replyreport
10. 83

    kathleenkatposted 11 years ago

    Look at it this way: You were so awesome, that you were literally sucking the traffic away form their site.
    
    

    replyreport
11. 89

    lobobrandonposted 11 years ago

    I only have accounts on HP and Wizzley and I've had no problems with any site. Both the sites have dealt with people I know professionally and I know people who were messaged as to what they were doing wrong - I had a similar message from them once as well. But, in your case I just guess you did something really bad.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       My only gripe ( and it was only once) was that they kept rejecting one of my submissions because  it was short, then the style of writing was not to their liking. But after making some changes that article plus 6 others were accepted and published until today. I have not since that one time about 6 months ago written anything anywhere about their site.

       replyreport
       1. 89

          lobobrandonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Hmm I never read anything so I can't comment

          replyreport
       2. 60

          tinamariemillerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          For someone to have 1,007 followers as yourself...you must be doing something right.  I enjoyed you site.

          replyreport
       3. 84

          psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Regardless of the quality issue, linking rejection to your posts on this forum was unprofessional of them.  If it is just a quality issue posts on this forum is irrelevant.  If posts on this forum are relevant, that suggest the rejection was partially a punishment for not being a cheerleader for their brand.

          replyreport
12. 89

    lobobrandonposted 11 years ago

    Ok the quality is becoming worse or the hopper is becoming better at picking hubs. I went through the hopper and flagged around 8 hubs I guess. I stopped as I'm busy atm.

    replyreport
13. 60

    tinamariemillerposted 11 years ago

    Hey, there is a great Venting Thread in the forum...http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/104177...
    
    ~not everyone can be a Shakespeare or world renowned journalist; but everyone's free written speech should be accepted.  Finding the outlet is what's important.  Maybe if you have the need to creatively criticize another hubber, at least show them the courtesy by offering a solution to what website you feel their work would be more accepted.  Just a thought.  I have found most hubs refreshing to read; but I tend to look at them more as art and creative free speech.

    replyreport
14. 78

    Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

    I'm sorry to hear of your experience on Wizzley, Luis.
    I hope you won't waste any time second guessing yourself on what you coulda shoulda woulda done differently.
    If it makes you feel any better, it took me 6 rounds of edits just to get my bio approved to be a Demand Studios writer. After that I had no energy (or interest) left to write for them.
    You are a valued and valuable contributor here.
    Please remember that when evaluating other sites to publish your work.
    Why work for anyone that treats you like dung?
    
    MM

    replyreport
    1. 77

       LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Thank you. Your message is refreshing and welcomed

       replyreport
15. 94

    Marketing Meritposted 11 years ago

    Luis...may I ask if you found it financially more beneficial to write for Wizzley?
    
    Did your articles fair better in Google? I'm just wondering what the attraction is/was. Falling HP traffic and revenue?
    
    As regards your opening post, I am shocked that your account was closed for criticising Wizzley and that they would be naive enough to confirm as much in writing.
    
    Perhaps someone should remind them that we live in a democracy that allows freedom of speech!

    replyreport
    1. 77

       LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       More or less the same as in HP, I just wanted to diversify a bit.

       replyreport
16. 81

    Mark Ewbieposted 11 years ago

    Ah well.  I rushed over to Wizzley thinking that maybe there was a place for me.  The usual categories - shit, crap, boring sales and farty how to's.
    
    But wait.  what's this I thought?  ART.
    
    It has an art section.
    
    Hmm, well maybe I could do something there.  So I eagerly opened the first page I came to and...
    
    ...the same old crap.
    
    T-shirt sales with the paragraph of boring garbage next to a picture of the product.
    
    That is NOT art.  It is.... t-shirt sales.  Cafepress with a bit of pointless text.  Misleading rubbish, a waste of time.
    
    OK, to be fair, I only looked at one page.  But why would I bother going any further?
    
    Please note - I'm not saying Wizzley is any different to the other writing sites.  Squidoo is the same.  And, er, well.  I don't Hub Hop any more - put it that way.
    
    Yeah. I know.  Sales of t-shirts and how to simples is what makes money.
    
    Sigh.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       .........

       replyreport
17. 83

    kathleenkatposted 11 years ago

    I'm thinking since you used the same name on that site as you do here, anything you said bad about Wizzley here may have been linked to your account there. Perhaps that's why they booted you.

    replyreport
18. 0

    EmpressFelicityposted 11 years ago

    To the OP: has Wizzley actually gone ahead and deleted your account? Because when I read the message you posted purporting to be from them, my first thought was "hoax".
    
    Could be that the message isn't from Wizzley at all, but is some joker who's yanking your chain.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The account is locked, yep...it was from them......

       replyreport
       1. 0

          EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Wow.
          
          So basically the timeline is this:
          
          1. A while ago, you submitted a batch of articles to them which they told you had to be edited but eventually, after tweaking on your part, Wizzley published them
          
          2. Not long afterwards, you criticised Wizzley's policies on the HP forums
          
          3. You recently submitted another article to Wizzley
          
          4. They took exception to this article (basically saying it was plagiarised and/or poor quality), and then told you that they'd deleted your account because of what you'd said about them on HP, and because of quality issues.
          
          
          What happens to the articles that are still published on Wizzley - are they going to keep them?

          replyreport
          1. 77

             LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             I do not really know, but will not break my head over it.................

             replyreport
             1. 0

                EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Fair enough, but you've got to admit that question is highly relevant for people who have a lot of articles on Wizzley.

                replyreport
19. 81

    Mark Ewbieposted 11 years ago

    I shouldn't really reveal this but I was flattered to receive a mail this morning from the head Chef 'Rocky' Keem at Wizzley.  Although he asked me to keep it private I am a bit of a git so I'm publishing everywhere I can.
    
    Dear Mark,
    
    We are very interested in you and your excellent writing.  It would be gotterdammfucher great if you write for us.
    
    To that end I am opening a new section without t-shirt sales called "Assholes".
    
    I hope you can come and fill it for us.
    
    Yours, etc.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I am tempted to post a suitable image here, but as this is a family site, I will desist

       replyreport
20. 74

    Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

    Just to add perspective:
    
    http://wizzley.com/forum/chatter-away-f … ntributor/
    
    
    
    Personally, I would not have created this thread, the internet never forgets.  Might have been better for the brand to keep this subject confidential, but that is just me.

    replyreport
    1. 91

       MarleneBposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I agree. Once it is out there, it is out there and there is no taking it back. Now, suddenly this is all the chatter in other writing platforms. All you have to do is Google it and there it is - for all to see. I would be careful starting a discussion of how a publisher thought my writing was sub par. If a client Google's me (and they frequently do) then, they would see all the chatter and things people say about me and my writing. I would want them to see positive things about me. Starting a forum showcasing a letter that states how a publisher banned me because of my low writing quality is grounds for clients not to hire me or not renew a contract.
       
       On another note, writing bad things about a company that you share revenue with is like biting the hand that feeds you. I usually take private concerns up in private - an email to the editor is sufficient and problems get solved with respect and integrity. I don't need to start a forum to air my dirty laundry. But, that's just me.
       
       Luis, you know my heart aches for you. I am so sorry Wizzley banned you. And, the same as I see your point of view, I also see Wizzley's point of view. If you are going to be in their house, then you should respect them. The email that they sent to you was an email that they sent in private - not to the general public. The way I see it, they respected you more than you respected them.

       replyreport
21. 0

    Arlene V. Pomaposted 11 years ago

    Your thread on HP reeks of sour grapes, and it even made it to Wizzley because some Hubber decided to leave a link on Wizzley's Forum.  A writer can be rejected anytime for any job, but instead of graciously taking the rejection and moving on, you decided to get your last, ugly word in.
    
    Which goes to show how "professional" you really are.

    replyreport
    1. 91

       MarleneBposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Oh, Arlene, you said it perfectly, "A writer can be rejected anytime for any job." Professional writers understand that we don't live in a "If you write it, they will like it" world. Contrarily, we live in a world where we write it, submit it, and then hope the editor doesn't come back with too many "re-writes". As for me, I live for re-writes. Re-writes mean that I'm on the right track. I want to deliver what the publisher wants and if that means I have to re-write, so be it. I don't question them or get bent out of shape. I write to deliver and if I don't deliver, then I don't get paid. It's such a simple game. As a writer, I'm just a means to an end - like a machine. None of it is personal.
       
       At the end of the day, no matter how good a piece is, like you said, it can get rejected anytime. A true, professional writer understands that concept and submits their work knowing that even if it is the best job they have ever done, someone else may think otherwise. It's not personal; it's business.
       
       And, please, don't tell your "boss" that you don't like their company. For goodness sakes, it's the perfect way to get fired. What? You had a six-figure job at Trump, Inc. and you told Donald Trump that you don't like his hair? "You're fired!" While Wizzley may not be paying out huge salaries, it is paying out. Now, why would Wizzley want to pay out to someone who is bashing them all over the internet? Figure it out, folks. Be respectful to the people who are paying your salary or they might just cut you off.

       replyreport
    2. 85

       Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Arlene, as I posted on the Wizzley forum - I can understand if Luis had an article rejected, because Wizzley has high standards.  If that was all it was, I would have no sympathy for his complaint.  However, he says he already had 6 articles on the site which had already been accepted and published.
       
       If they were good enough to accept and publish, why did they suddenly become unacceptable?  The way the email reads, they became unacceptable because the site owner wanted to take revenge for some negative comments.  That is the fundamental issue here.

       replyreport
       1. 91

          MarleneBposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          If I might jump in, Marisa, I totally get what you are saying. I get how you are feeling. But, I don't see it as revenge. Anytime someone says something positive or negative about a company, it is all over the internet and can't be taken back. Companies thrive on goodwill and they are taken down with bad publicity.
          
          If I go online and say something negative about you, Marisa (whether it is true or not) it is now on the internet for the world to read. There is nothing you can do about it. You can try to defend yourself, but it's out there. People will read it and they may or may not follow the story long enough to read your defense. A company like Wizzley or any company for that matter, can't survive with people constantly making negative comments about them. People here seem proud of the fact that they can say anything they want about HubPages and HubPages allows it. That's all fine and dandy, but if it continues, that sort of negative bantering is going to be the downfall of this company. People are shooting themselves in the foot every time they make public comments that are negative about a company. This negative stuff is the kind of thing that causes companys to drown in negative publicity. Who wants to be associated with a company with a lot of negative comments about how they are not good at this or that?
          
          If I were a newcomer, looking for a company to be affiliated with, I most certainly would not want to be affiliated with a company where the writers have nothing but bad things to say about it.
          
          If I owned a company and was paying a person money to write for me, and that person kept saying bad things about my company, I would have to let them go or else suffer the consequences of losing revenue from advertisers who no longer want to be affiliated with my company because of the negative publicity. That's what the termination is all about. You just can't have your own people bad-mouthing you. It's such a bad relationship.
          
          Let me ask you this... If you had a guest in your house and they kept saying how ugly your furniture was, would you let them stay? Or, would you ask them to leave? Do you need to sit there in your own house, entertaining them, serving them appetizers, feeding them, making sure their glass was always full, all the while they are making negative comments about you and how you manage your household? Do you need to sit there and take that? Or, would you ask them to leave? In the same light, I ask you, why should Wizzley share revenue with a writer that has nothing but negative things to say about them? It's not revenge. It's human nature to excuse that person from the premices. And, to me it makes perfect business sense.

          replyreport
          1. 85

             Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             If Luis had been going round forums all over the internet, bad-mouthing Wizzley, I can see why Wizzley would want to take this stand.  But as far as I can make out, all he did was criticise Wizzley's policies in one forum thread here on HP, and it wasn't even a thread he started. 
             
             Surely you're not saying that if you work for an employer, you're not allowed to voice even the smallest criticism, even if you're concerned they're doing something unjust or wrong?  That's called brown-nosing in Australia.

             replyreport
             1. 91

                MarleneBposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I do believe an employer should let people go if they are bad-mouthing the company on the internet. Even though what Luis said was not all that bad or critical, the fact is that he did make negative comments in a forum. It's the internet and that makes it worldwide. If you type in your own name and a comment that you wrote in a forum - any forum, I'll bet you would find your comment on the internet, so whether it is one forum or many, once something is written on any internet platform, it is now something that is blasted to the world.
                
                Turn the tables around a little. What if Wizzley had made a negative comment about Luis in a forum. Luis and everyone else in the forum would be outraged and want to sue for defamation of character. Wouldn't we?
                
                I believe that if a person has something negative to say about a company's policies and procedures (which we are well aware of prior to doing business with them), then we should take that up with them in a private manner. It's just more respectful and curteous that way.
                
                If I was an employer and an employee was bad-mouthing me on the internet, you bet your sweet puppy I'd drop that employee in a New York minute. As employers we are not allowed to chastise employees in public, why is it OK for employees to chastise employers in public? I think we should have some honor and integrity in our business dealings. Call people on the phone and get things worked out in private instead of blasting it all over the internet. That's all I'm saying.

                replyreport
                1. 87

                   Len Cannonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   You are making a mistake that I have seen people make numerous times about HubPages as well. Wizzley and HP are not our employers. They do have employees, but those aren't us. HubPages and Wizzley are services we use.
                   
                   I don't want to get into an analogy game because it takes things to a weird place. People can, and will, give frank reviews about services or products they don't enjoy. I'm not a huge fan of my microwave but I still use it. If I hurt the little bugger's feelings and it refused to heat up my frozen peas, that'd be pretty ridiculous. Also par for the course. Because my microwave sucks.

                   replyreport
                   1. 91

                      MarleneBposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      I know we are not employees. I used that as an example because I use to be an employer, CEO of my own corporation. I know the difference between an employee and an independent contractor. I was referencing my own experience. I know we do not have an employer/employee relationship with revenue sharing sites. My reference was to be used as an example only.

                      replyreport
                      1. 84

                         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                         As an analogy, I don't think it holds. But apparently you were a different kind of employer than the one I have anyway.

                         replyreport
                         1. 91

                            MarleneBposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                            Um... OK! I'm not sure what you mean by that, but OK.

                            replyreport
                   2. 85

                      Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      True.

                      replyreport
                2. 84

                   psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   Honestly, no.
                   
                   We are contractors not employees.  I often criticize, accurately and specifically, my publishers.  None of them has ever pulled my book, site or blog.
                   
                   I am also open about not personally supporting some of the policies of my main employer. They are fine with that. 
                   
                   They are professionals.  Taking it personally is a *huge* red flag.

                   replyreport
    3. 77

       LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I did not  post this as a "sour grapes" attempt towards Wizzley, just thought it was an odd response. As far as being professional, I consider myself to be and my responses should indicate that.
       
       However, some posts at Wizzley have taken another direction and appear to have missed the point of this particular thread.
       That's my humble opinion.

       replyreport
22. 60

    Hollie Thomasposted 11 years ago

    In reading all these comments, especially Luis's, I'm trying to put myself in Wizzley's shoes (so please do not take offence, Luis ). When articles get rejected by the content site, they are a) trying to ensure that they only publish quality content b) attempting to help the writer to produce quality content by pointing out factual, grammatical or other errors. Either way, both the writer and publisher can benefit in the long run, if the writer does not take those criticisms personally. 
    
    If the writer then goes on to publicly critisise the content site for pointing out any errors which he may have made, and after only producing a few articles which had to revised in each case, the content site may well reconsider if the writer has what it takes to be successful as a writer. If you want to succeed as a writer, just as in any other profession, you have to accept objective criticism. It hurts, but it's part of the learning curve.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Hollie, there's also something else here. Wizzley checks the first 15 articles the writers do personally. I can't remember the exact details but each article is personally checked. It says so on Wizzley and I had two articles come back to me for slight rewrites.
       
       As mentioned earlier, rewrites are common in the writing world. I recently did a print article for an art magazine and the editor came back to me to change small things four times. Doesn't mean because editors ask for slight changes that they don't like it.
       
       Here's what it does mean.
       
       Every magazine/site has a particular fit   Sometimes the writer can be very, very good but their writing isn't a fit for the magazine/site. The publishing house in London that owns just about every magazine in the city had a piece of mine for six months then wrote to me to tell me that they loved it and they submitted it to every one of their magazines, but it just wasn't the right fit.
       
       It happens.

       replyreport
23. 78

    Greekgeekposted 11 years ago

    The letter Luis quoted mentioned that his articles were taken down because they included what Wizzley believes is copyrighted material he doesn't own the rights to.
    
    Moderation is not perfect, and they may not have discovered the copyright violations until someone flagged and alerted them to the problem. This happens on every website: copyrighted content gets past the filters, then someone flags it, it gets investigated, and the questionable content is removed.
    
    Knowing some of the people who created Wizzley, and their high standards for publication, it's not surprising that they have a one-strike policy regarding copyright violation.

    replyreport
    1. 85

       Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       No, the letter mentioned the article he had just submitted.  It says nothing about his previous six articles.
       
       If the letter had said something like, "this is the seventh time you have submitted an article that does not meet our publication standards.  You have been given ample opportunity to learn what our standards are and have been unable to do so.  In light of this, we are unable to accept you as a Wizzley author and must regretfully close your account."
       
       Hard to swallow, maybe - but if that's the honest truth, no one can argue with it.  Wizzley has a right to set its standards as it sees fit.  It's the "tit for tat' bit I object to, especially as (as far as I can see) Luis hasn't made a habit of criticizing Wizzley.

       replyreport
       1. 79

          Aficionadaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
          
          Even his words of criticism that I saw in the other thread seem (to me) fairly mild compared to many other criticisms both here and elsewhere. If anyone goes back and reads only Luis' posts, they might have a different impression of what he has said.  Because of the fact that some posts surrounding his are a bit harsh or extreme, a reader might assume that his are too. But if a person reads his posts only, it's clear that he is expressing concern and some mild criticism, but nothing that I believe a level-headed employer should even blink at.
          
          If anything, because his posts seem so even-keeled (to me), I would think a good employer would pay attention to them to see if anything helpful could be learned from them. I agree that the site owner/manager has the right to terminate an account for whatever reason. I just believe that the way this was done says a lot more that is negative about Wizzley than it does about Luis.
          
          The whole issue here is not actually about standards and writing styles. It is about how someone responds to criticism, and that is true of Wizzley as well as of Luis.

          replyreport
          1. 85

             Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             Exactly my point.

             replyreport
             1. 79

                Aficionadaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Right. I believe you and I are on the same page.
                
                My last sentence was intended as clarification for others reading here and was not directed towards you at all.

                replyreport
                1. 85

                   Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   ...and that's exactly how I took it!

                   replyreport
24. 84

    rebekahELLEposted 11 years ago

      If I had a site following my online communications on other sites, I wouldn't worry too much about what they did with my account.  Move on, Luis.

    replyreport
25. 77

    LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years ago

    To clarify; I really do not know where the copyright issue arose from. I used 3 or 4 images taken from Google/advanced search/permission to use and share. The wording is entirely mine. I recognize that I do make mistakes.
    
    The point of this post was just to share what I thought was a rather odd response based on a one time critical view of their practices. I responded to the editor in a civilized manner and even wished them luck in their future endeavors.
    
    I am not taking sides or trying to criticize Wizzley or the way they do things. After all it is their right to run their business as they see fit and if I or anyone writes for them then I and everyone else must abide by their standards.
    
    This humble post was just to share what I thought was a rather unusual stance on their part. Please do not take anything I have said personally as I have a lot of respect for HP contributors and the same goes for the entire HP staff as it also applies to Wizzley's contributing authors and their management team.
    
    As far as the criticism in regards to my style, my grammar, my writing etc. I honestly tell all of you that I take it as constructive and will do my earnest to improve upon it.

    replyreport
    1. 91

       MarleneBposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It's too bad you can't get a "do over" with Wizzley. I know the copyright thing is an honest mistake. You are certainly not alone when it comes to such things. A lot of times you can find photos that allow you to use the photos "as you like". But, the teeny, tiny small print that most people miss is that you can use the photos so long as you do not use the photos on a commercial site. Commercial meaning, if you make money in any way, shape, or form then it is a commercial site. A revenue sharing site, such as HubPages and Wizzley, is a commercial site. It's such a bummer that the reaction from Wizzley was so swift. Nevertheless, they have the right to do what they want to do.
       
       Perhaps, you could call them and work something out. That is... if you still want to write for them.

       replyreport
26. 74

    WriteAngledposted 11 years ago

    Les got in before me.
    
    There are no employers involved, only content sites. My guess is that a content site is more dependent on its content providers than they are on the site.
    
    In my own business, I sometimes get agencies think they can treat me as an employee. I drop them very fast. It was highly gratifying, on a good number of occasions when this happened, that I was subsequently approached by another agency to do work for the very same end client for whom I had been doing assignments via the agency with a bad attitude.  Obviously, the latter agency lost the client when they lost me.

    replyreport
27. 60

    againsttheoddsposted 11 years ago

    Seriously, especially since you are paying HP almost as much as you get in return.  If anything, you are employing HP.

    replyreport
28. 66

    2uesdayposted 11 years ago

    I am finding the copyright part confusing as Luis appears to have photos from blogs on his Hubpages articles.
    
    Are images on blogs not copyright, is the copyright law that different in the USA?

    replyreport
    1. 75

       Lissieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah photographers don't mind about sharing their work for free - after all they aren't writers or anything! Images are copyright unless otherwise stated - just like writing.

       replyreport
       1. 85

          Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I do find it odd that so many online writers think any photograph is free to use - whereas if someone stole one of their articles, they'd be furious. 
          
          As you say, ALL photographs are copyright unless otherwise stated - let's respect our fellow artists and not flout that copyright.

          replyreport
29. 79

    Aficionadaposted 11 years ago

    I'm getting confused and a little concerned about the subject of photographs and duplicate content.
    
    If I have checked through Yahoo! (Flickr), Google, or Creative Commons, and have found a photograph that is marked with a Creative Commons 2.0 license - attributable, okay to use commercially, and sometimes even to alter - and then subsequently use it with attribution on a Hub, do I need to check all over the Internet periodically to see if someone else has used it on their blog in the same way I did?  What if the person did not link back to Flickr, but instead just gave attribution?  Will this count as a duplicate?
    
    EDIT:  But also, Luis is a photographer. Do we know for a fact that the blogs are not his? or that it is not someone else who "borrowed" the photograph from him?

    replyreport
    1. 85

       Marisa Wrightposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       No, that's not your responsibility.  Provided you've done the attribution correctly, you're fine.  A photo that is CC licensed can be used multiple times so it's not duplicate content.

       replyreport
       1. 79

          Aficionadaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks, that's a relief!

          replyreport
30. 0

    summerberrieposted 11 years ago

    LuisEGonzaez, 2uesday has a good point. Do you have permission for all the pictures you have on your hubs from all the different websites and blogs you pulled them from?

    replyreport
31. 77

    LuisEGonzalezposted 11 years ago

    I just want to clarify some things: First; I could have been selective in the posting of the letter that I received from Wizzley. In fairness I posted the message in its entirety, not just the portion of it that I found to be odd.
    Second ; some on this forum appear to have chosen only parts of the email and argued from that point while others have clearly grasped the issue that I had with the email.
    Third; the images that I use are either mine or taken from Google images/advanced search/permission to use and share.
    Fourth; the writing is mine.
    Fifth: I realize that my style of writing does not appeal to some,but it works for me and who I perceive as my audience.
    Sixth: I understand Wizzley's right to do as they see fit and do not have an issue with that.
    Seventh; I find it disturbing when some argue "how bad HP is and how good Wizzley is" etc.
    Eight; I am very careful when I criticize someone or anything as I did in my original post in regards to Wizzley's rejections a while back. I hope that others do the same.
    Ninth: I could argue my point until I am blue in the face, but I grow tired of doing so. However I still maintain my point that I found the email to be rather odd. Nothing else was meant to be taken from it.
    Tenth and final; I try to be respectful when dealing with comments and in my relationships with everyone. I urge everyone else to follow suit. Never lose your composure in the face of any critical comment. Take it as a learning experience. Lets take this thread as food for thought and move on......

    replyreport
32. 0

    summerberrieposted 11 years ago

    Well said.

    replyreport