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.
I was very shabbily treated by Suite 101 and would not recommend it to anyone.
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...
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.
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.
Oh and they're opening the Spanish, French and German sites again it seems!
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.
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.
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.....
I thought this was gonna be a Sherlock Holmes clue or something. I was so excited.
Captain Peacock is in the library and Colonel Mustard in the kitchen but Sherlock Holmes can't find Miss Scarlet!
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.
I had a look. The site is remarkably similar to 'Medium' - a dead-ringer. No ads - on both. How to they make money?
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......
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.
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!
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.
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.
What sites accept duplicate content? I can't find any as all lately seem to want original content.
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....
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....
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.
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?
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.
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
I don't think Wikipedia makes payments but some of the academic articles posted on there are fantastic......
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
All I can think of is, Wiki must PAY Google for such placement.....
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).
There are however, at the top of each search page, highlighted in yellow, "sponsored links" which are indeed, paid placements....
I don't think I've ever seen Wikipedia in those sponsored results - have you?
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.
That's because there is a dedicated band of members on Wikipedia who feel they're performing a public service.
by Fiction Teller 7 years ago
Anyone here used to write for Suite101? They've gone through a number of permutations and seem now to have disappeared altogether.It's not just casual interest; I'm trying to track down why the income has stopped (that'll always make a writer pay attention!) I'm a former writer for...
by SuperheroSales 9 years ago
I just read a Hub that said that the author was going to go to the freelance website and pay people to write articles for him that he would put on HubPages to make himself money from. That can't be okay with the HubPages site, is it? A couple of people commented, including an author that I have...
by Jeff 7 years ago
I have to admit that I did not do a lot of research on Hubpages before joining, but since that time I had read countless articles on it along with the Google Panda updates. Of particular interest to me was the demise of Squidoo and the parallels to Hubpages. Seems to me that the...
by Angela Michelle Schultz 10 years ago
I feel concerned that the reason google may prefer ehow as opposed to hubpages, is because there is an abundance of poetry and short stories. I am not by any means saying that those who publish the short stories and poetry are not good, but they are not usually searchable or high market. I...
by Theo 7 years ago
Helium is now Helium Network, with 360 micro-sites to distribute your content. Content managers are there to ensure quality of the content and they claim that this arrangement is to have SEO in mind. To me, just kinda reminds me of what Triond is doing. Will it work and does it encourage you to go...
by HubPages 4 months ago
Hi all! We launched PetHelpful's Pet News category several months ago, and it's performed so well that we've begun adding news categories to other Network Sites. Each category is used by a site-specific news team here at HubPages to drive more traffic and engagement on social media, in turn...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|