Suite101

1. 70

   Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years ago

   It may not be of interest to you as it could be termed a bit of a "gamble" but Suite101 are now offering $200 for what they consider their best 20/30 stories published each month. Any writers with old content published to the site prior to November 2013 should also see residuals start to go up quite a bit - well based on what I'm seeing over the past couple of days anyway. Of course, this increase on the old stuff may not last long.
   
   The new Suite is all about sharing experiences. They're not looking for SEO, cookie cutter stuff or anything like that but more personal or inspiring stories or learning event type stuff that is likely to spark conversations or responses.
   
   Just a heads up. I've always liked the site and it's good to see it starting to pick up again after a fair few false starts over the past 18 months.
   Dawn

   replyreport
2. 92

   Carola Finchposted 9 years ago

   I was very shabbily treated by Suite 101 and would not recommend it to anyone.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I suppose it is "horses for courses", I retained all my old work on Suite and have been happy that I've received modest residual payments all the time they've been tinkering with the site and even when closed for business from March of this year til Aug/Sept. I am sure if I had gone into building my own websites at the time Panda struck, deleted my content from Suite, etc I might feel the same way. The only problem I ever experienced on the site was when the "peer" reviewers went stir crazy and deleted a couple of my good or best pieces of work.
      
      As far as I am aware everybody that wanted to delete or move their work from site was able to do so. And where former top writers may have been earning well in excess of $1000 per month which dwindled to $100+ after Panda it is highly likely they felt they had a bad experience. Unfortunately drops in earning were across the board for all content writers.
      
      I was unhappy they dropped the Channels experiment earlier this year as I had my best ever payment from the site in December 2012 but I am sure they made the right decision on that if their comments that writers were pursuing robotic clicks and fake readers are to be believed.
      
      The new model they're highlighting new is quick and clean and the new stats page is quite cute too.....
      
      Just my thoughts and I know a few other people who express the same opinions as you Carola...

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Barbara Kayposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I'd like to hear what others have to say.

         replyreport
3. 88

   DzyMsLizzyposted 9 years ago

   When I was searching about for places to write where I could get some payment, I found Suite 101, and signed up.
   
   However, at that time, I also had signed up for and was doing some writing at Demand Media Studios, (e-how articles), and also here.  I was also trying to keep up with 3 blogs.  I felt I was spreading myself too thin, and never got around to actually writing anything at 101.
   
   I might look back into it; I might not.  My writing energy is on a day-to-day 'see how I feel at the moment'  basis. I'll keep an eye on this discussion and see what others have to say.

   replyreport
4. 70

   Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years ago

   Oh the only other thing I'd add is that they did a management buyout in Sept. so no longer have Burda Publishing or some Canadian investor involved. There's five guys that own the site now Michael Kedda the previous CEO/Managing Editor and four others.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Oh and they're opening the Spanish, French and German sites again it seems!

      replyreport
      1. 92

         Carola Finchposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Suite 101 was good to me in the beginning and then unexpectedly unpublished all my articles.  They claimed that Google did not "like" my kind of articles.  I reformatted them and posted them here.  Well, Google sure "liked" them here on HubPages - one article alone has garnered over 13,000 views within a few months!  Go figure.

         replyreport
5. 88

   NateB11posted 9 years ago

   I've been curious about that site for awhile. This has piqued my interest, I might have to go check it out. I like the idea of people being able to express personal experiences, I think that's the secret to true success in an online community.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I think it's easy to sign up now with facebook or twitter or something.... I believe I also read in the last posting that it's fine to post duplicates elsewhere too but they may not be considered for the Above the Fold $200 entry but I suppose at the end of every month if your piece is not selected you could always post it to another site that accepts duplicate content.....

      replyreport
6. 0

   Beth37posted 9 years ago

   I thought this was gonna be a Sherlock Holmes clue or something. I was so excited.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Captain Peacock is in the library and Colonel Mustard in the kitchen but Sherlock Holmes can't find Miss Scarlet!

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Beth37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I Know! And no one seems even slightly worried.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Think she's been captured by the Mysterons....

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Beth37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I'll go for help. You all continue on here like we don't have a clue... so to speak.

               replyreport
7. 91

   WriterJanisposted 9 years ago

   I used to write a lot for them and have over 500 articles there. However, I haven't done anything on the site for over a year. I'll have to take a peak at what they're doing now.

   replyreport
8. 55

   janderson99posted 9 years ago

   I had a look. The site is remarkably similar to 'Medium' - a dead-ringer. No ads - on both. How to they make money?
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Osmosis?
      
      They say just enough ads to "keep on the lights" and pay residuals. At one time they were sticking ads everywhere the bellyfat thing was on every article plus other dubious ads which writers did not like. Seems they are taking it slow on ads. They must have some or would not be able to pay residuals to former writers and as I said above mine are looking very good there at present but it may be that my few Xmas articles are starting to garner adclicks. Not sure......

      replyreport
   2. 32

      Writer Foxposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That's a good question.  They say that their new goal is: "Suite101 is not primarily a place to write for money." They might have difficulty finding people to post new articles when there are already so many other places to post without payment.  Their new homepage doesn't have navigation so I don't know how anyone can even find articles on the site.

      replyreport
9. 82

   HollieTposted 9 years ago

   I'd be very wary about a site that once told writers they would no longer be paid for new articles, not me, but an online friend who wrote for them told me about it. The fact that they are saying it is not a site for writers who want to raise money should raise alarm bells, unless you do not care about being paid. Sounds like the same business model to me- offer the carrot- but with no guarantees!

   replyreport
   1. 32

      Writer Foxposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      There is no revenue sharing for new articles on that site.  I have no idea about older articles or if older articles have ads, because there is no navigation to find them. The owners say they will hand pick 20 - 30 articles each month which will receive a payment of $200 and the other articles get nothing. They accept articles which have been published elsewhere, but those are not eligible for the $200 'prize.' I don't think they have a good business model.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Hmmm. I don't consider not paying people (other than scattering a few prizes about) to be a viable model or a site even worth considering.

         replyreport
10. 96

    alexadryposted 9 years ago

    I used to write for them, lost motivation with the new site rolling in, don't like the display much. I prefer writing for Examiner.com lately.

    replyreport
11. 96

    alexadryposted 9 years ago

    What sites accept duplicate content? I can't find any as all lately seem to want original content.

    replyreport
    1. 87

       Marisa Wrightposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Bubblews.  They don't accept plagiarism but if you're republishing work you published elsewhere under the same name, that's OK.

       replyreport
12. 70

    Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years ago

    Well Suite will now accept duplicate content....
    
    The $200 is a "suitener" and it is motivational. The model they trialled in September was similar to the Channels format of last year and there's a post about why they dropped it on site. I would guess they will pay at some point or other down the line but until they get a model that cannot be gamed they won't bother....
    
    You navigate by way of going to the explore button which shows latest articles posted and latest Suites. And the help button gives the CEO's latest update to writers I think....

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       When the site first started in 1998 (?) all writers posted for zero payment but I guess there were less content sites back then. I think Suite was the first one....

       replyreport
    2. 82

       HollieTposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       If the fact that they will not guarantee any payment, however meager does not alarm you, then the fact that they will consider duplicate content should send you running for the hills.
       
       Unless you do not care about payment-that's a different story.

       replyreport
    3. 87

       Marisa Wrightposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I would never consider writing for a site which "might" pay me at some time in the future - why bother, when there are sites that will pay me now?

       replyreport
       1. 70

          Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Yes but having been bitten in 2010 - although I only had 160 or so on Suite and couple hundred elsewhere - I didn't see a lot of point in trying to start off on residuals again. It's taken me a year to start posting on here and in all honesty when Suite announced in Sept 2009 that a writer earned $5000 in one month it seemed to me the Google purge on content began. I have a feeling it may start again if writers on here are bringing same kind of money for Facebook megaviews. I know it may not be quite the same scenario here as there has been a concerted effort to raise quality - from what I gather. However I popped on Triond today and I see they have now linked their site to Facebook and are urging writers to connect their accounts. Why on earth any writer would want to do this when the earnings on that site amount to about 5 cents per 1000 views and advertised Adsense income is nonexistent I have absolutely no idea......
          
          So for me I write where I want and on sites that I like. In all honesty the earnings are not of relevance because if I build them up to decent levels I have no doubt more purges will suddenly slash them to zero.

          replyreport
13. 70

    Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years ago

    To be honest, I think residuals are so poor that it's like working for nothing when you're a content writer anyway. I used to like Suite it was a very active and knowledgeable community - it isn't now as there's only a couple of the old hands on there. But as I said above my residuals for old articles have improved over the past few days - immensely. And the good thing about the site is that residuals have always come in like clockwork whether it was operational or not

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I don't think Wikipedia makes payments but some of the academic articles posted on there are fantastic......

       replyreport
       1. 80

          psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Wikipedia is a donation supported charity trying to give people information by letting them share it online.
          
          Suite101 is an ad-supported content site trying to make money for the owners without paying the worker.

          replyreport
          1. 32

             Writer Foxposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             But there are no ads on the content.

             replyreport
       2. 84

          Marcy Goodfleischposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Wikipedia is not considered an 'academic' site. I teach at a university, and students are not allowed to use that site as a source for papers and research.  This is pretty much the policy at all higher-ed institutions.
          
          I agree that many articles on Wikipedia are interesting, and many appear to have some good information. Unfortunately, anyone can publish there, and anyone can edit the material on the site.  Although the site posts notices on various articles that more citations are needed, etc. (and appears to try to maintain some type of quality standards), it doesn't really vet content for accuracy or writers' credentials, and it doesn't prevent people from changing content.
          
          I'm not suggesting that everyone stop going to the site; just pointing out it's not 'academic,' and none of the pieces on it should be considered 'academic.'  Many students try to use it for citations.  But then, I've also seen attempts to Yahoo Answers and other non-academic sources.

          replyreport
          1. 88

             DzyMsLizzyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             I find Wikipedia to be at least a good starting point.  Many searches have Wiki as the first one to first several hits, and if nothing else, I can look to the cited sources, as well as further down the search engine page.
             
             (It is blacklisted and forbidden as a reference on Demand Media Studios, though, along with a huge list of other sites.  They prefer you to use "reputable" sites, such as .edu and .gov sites.   Yeah.  Like the government always tells the truth...  .gov sites are probably ones I trust least.  LOL)

             replyreport
          2. 70

             Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

             I did use a Wikipedia reference on an academic essay a couple of years back and my Canadian lecturer was fairly happy. She commented that there's a need to be careful about referencing the site but I don't believe my mark was downgraded for using it as a source. I think academics are getting more positive about web links and many of the Wikipedia pieces seem to written by academics anyway..... Guess it depends on which University, which lecturer and whether a student finds an excellent Wiki source.

             replyreport
             1. 76

                WriteAngledposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                The problem is that what might have been an "excellent Wiki source" on one particular day may become totally bowdlerised by ignorant fools the next day, just because they happen to be in the majority among the anonymous self-appointed "editors" for a given topic.
                
                Wikipedia is knowledge by anonymous committee. Committees are an awful way in which to do things at the best of times. Anonymous committees are something akin to the Inquisition in my opinion.
                
                I am disgusted how Google insists on placing that web site at the top of all its search results, giving it a spurious authority it does not deserve. At best, an article from there can be used to gain information about trivial matters (celebrities and similar ephemera), or perhaps serve as a starting point to find other sources if the author has bothered to cite any. Those sources will, however, need to be compared and assessed on their own merits.
                
                Were I in academia now, any student of mine who cited a Wikipedia article in an essay would get an instant fail grade.

                replyreport
                1. 70

                   Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   I got a 2:1 mark for that essay. I think it was about 66% or 68%. Katelynne did point out that I would have been better advised to go to the sources cited, however...... I think it's a case of citing the date accessed on any work and that covers the writer if it is bastardized afterwards.

                   replyreport
                   1. 70

                      Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      Of course, I may have got a first class mark if I had not cited it. Who knows?

                      replyreport
                2. 88

                   DzyMsLizzyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   All I can think of is, Wiki must PAY Google for such placement.....

                   replyreport
                   1. 87

                      Marisa Wrightposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      Remember, Google's robots can't read sense, so they have no way to judge the quality of otherwise of a website's content, beyond grammar and spelling. Wikipedia is top of the tree because it's huge (Google likes size), it's long-established (Google respects age) and it has thousands of other sites linking to it (Google loves links).

                      replyreport
                      1. 88

                         DzyMsLizzyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                         There are however, at the top of each search page, highlighted in yellow, "sponsored links" which are indeed, paid placements....

                         replyreport
                         1. 87

                            Marisa Wrightposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                            I don't think I've ever seen Wikipedia in those sponsored results - have you?

                            replyreport
                            1. 88

                               DzyMsLizzyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                               perhaps not--I guess I"m guilty of not paying attention to that...I usually just skip over those links...I notice their presence, and move on.

                               replyreport
                               1. 87

                                  Marisa Wrightposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                  I thought perhaps you had, given your comment.  I do glance at the sponsored links and I've never seen Wikipedia there. As others have said, they do so well naturally (for the reasons I gave) they don't need to pay.

                                  replyreport
       3. 87

          Marisa Wrightposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          That's because there is a dedicated band of members on Wikipedia who feel they're performing a public service.

          replyreport
          1. 70

             Dawn Denmar1posted 9 years agoin reply to this

             They are, some of the content is fantastic and well linked to reputable sources.

             replyreport