The Best and Worst of Revenue Sharing Sites

1. 69

   Peter Hogganposted 13 years ago

   I am currently developing a revenue sharing site and would value the opinions of people who use these types of sites. Whether you contribute articles for fun or earn a substantial income, all comments and points of view are important to me.
   
   What I want to know is what differentiates a good revenue sharing site that’s worthy of your time and effort from one that isn’t? Do you feel that revenue sharing sites should promote your articles better? What are your big dislikes? How would you make things better?

   replyreport
   1. 79

      classicalgeekposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      1) a good platform. I don't want to have to waste my time dealing with clunky software.
      2) a good revenue-sharing policy, preferably with a lifetime referral bonus.
      3) responsive admins who will realize that if the site doesn't work for the writers, it won't work for them, either.
      4) if changes are made, enough time for writers to implement them. Changing 350 articles that were within the rules when they were written is a huge pain, and we all have busy lives.
      5) a willingness to be flexible. There are plenty of sites I won't write for, because they have minimum participation requirements, and I just don't have the time to do it. If the site requiring minimum participation had another option, I might write for them.
      6) quality control. I don't want my quality articles sharing space with junk and spam.
      7) a reasonable backlink and affiliate policy. I'm perfectly content with HubPages (although I kind of like Squidoo's 9 links per domain, too). At that I am always going to write articles on platforms where I feel they will best fit.
      8) reasonable interactivity--both for writers and visitors to the site. At a minimum, a forum and polls/quizzes/voting for visitors.
      9) Don't implement this because I know it will be abused to death but iframes would be nice. Too bad some people abused it so badly that nobody will let us do it any more.
      Just some thoughts to get you started.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Peter Hogganposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Some great points, the software is being developed from scratch, it won’t be based on any of the content management systems out there. There will be no minimum participation level and quality control is of the utmost importance to me.
         
         The planed site is a radical departure from existing shared revenue sites and if everything works to plan I hope to have a beta ready in about 3 months or so.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            lakeerieartistsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            One of things I like best about rev sharing sites is the community and learning from other people.  Nobody can know everything and it is great to learn from people that you respect.  The internet changes so fast, so it makes sense to share expertise with various specialists, and people from across the world who may experience things differently than you do.

            replyreport
         2. 79

            classicalgeekposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Great to hear it. Please, please, make sure that your HTML and CSS validates properly. There's nothing worse than having to load up three separate browsers to write, upload pictures, etc. (Importing pictures, such as from art.com, would be great, too.)

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Peter Hogganposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The problem is there is no guarantee that valid CSS will display the same across muliple browsers, sometimes it has to be hacked to work correctly.
               
               Providing a simple way to import images from an established resource has got me thinking. Great idea.

               replyreport
2. 69

   Peter Hogganposted 13 years ago

   I agree, the forums on HP are a great way to build community and exchange knowledge. The plan is to incorporate something similar that includes expert groups and is much more 'social' in nature.

   replyreport
3. 76

   frogdroppingposted 13 years ago

   Look at the good stuff about HP for a start. They have got an awful lot right, despite all the recent shifts, rifts and shenanigans. I'm supposing that you will also have the right SEO attitude. This is surely an important aspect for any site, irrespective of its aims.
   
   An open communication policy, and the TOS - stick to them. No nit picking and vagueness. If you say 'no spam', clearly define it and honour it.
   
   If there was a way of shadowing new sign-ups, use it. There's got to be some value in taken care of what comes through the door, so to speak. And something you can implement code wise?
   
   An active community - make community participation easy. And leave out religion and politics
   
   I dunno, I have no real idea about creating such a site, and can only imagine the work and effort it would take.
   
   An open, honest platform, a bit like the WYSIWYG box

   replyreport
4. 69

   Peter Hogganposted 13 years ago

   Yes, there is much that can be learned from HP, both good and bad, but mostly good. Religion and politics will be allowed, however intolerance and hate will not.
   
   Clear TOS and Open communication are important - I don't think I need open that can of worms again here.
   
   "An open, honest platform, a bit like the WYSIWYG box"
   
   I like that!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      canadawest99posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The days of revenue sharing sites are over.  We used to be able to piggy back on the traffic and PR, but the panada attack rendered all that useless.  Better to slap whatever you think is appropriate content on your own blog and market it yourself.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I know a few people who would beg to differ and continue to get results through revenue sharing sites. So, that would render your statement about revenue sharing sites incorrect. Aside from that, Google isn't about to break it's own bread and butter.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Peter Hogganposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Completely agree with that statement Cagsil, but I have never mentioned AdSense. I will not be monetizing using a system that has so many restrictions and could be removed at the whim of a third party.

            replyreport
5. 68

   Silver Roseposted 13 years ago

   All these types of sites eventually get attacked by the auto submission bots, and you need a strategy to deal with that from the word go.
   
   You could try what Infobarrel does and manually approve articles till an author has trust, or what Bukisa does, which is manually approve ALL articles. Or try what Squidoo does, which is to have a team of volunteers policing the site, in return for special perks.
   
   Or you could try an automated way to block the stuff.
   
   But you need to have a plan for this from the word go, because as soon as your site gets run over, it's downhill and very difficult to retrieve.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Peter Hogganposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      This is an area we will have to look at. Although it isn’t difficult to spot manually, putting it on autopilot is something different. In fact, if you blocked yahoo email addresses at signup you would almost eliminate the problem. But that’s not an option we will be taking.

      replyreport
6. 61

   CASE1WORKERposted 13 years ago

   peter- you are obviously putting a lot of thought into this matter. Again it is clear that google may not be the giant in the future and it will be interesting to see how your site develops.I wish you well for your site and  hope you are given the stamina required for the hard work to develop it. I am sure you will let us all know either through forum posts or e mail when you are up and running. Good luck

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Peter Hogganposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I seriosly believe that Yahoo/Bing are going to catch Google within the next year or two. Google has lost market share for the last 6 months running. Personally I think this is a good thing.

      replyreport