By in Writing

Lesson Learned about Clarity of Writing Sites Intentions

In case you're tuning in later , the original post was titled : Should Content Sites Be Clearer In Their Intentions Right Up Front?

However, this is now an edit and latest update as of August 3, 2014:

Today, I searched online and found that back in July 2014 there was a discussion on PP that covered the issue of dividing this site into two sections.(blogs and informational type posts) That post generated a lengthy discussion on the topic. It was addressed how this would be implemented.

I wrote a post expressing my confusion about an issue that already been covered. In retrospect, I should have gone back into the archives and read the old posts before I even wrote my feelings. I didn't do that because I didn't know that the topic had been covered. (No excuse, though) It had not occurred to me that there was history. Maybe those that commented on my original post didn't know the history or didn't feel that it was necessary to rehash it again.

Being new to PP, when I wrote my original post, I was confused and feeling like the site was going in so many directions. How would those new to the site know what the site is about if they saw both conversations and information. In writing about the confusion, many of my biases came out in a ramble, to put in succinctly.

One of the other issues I brought up, in the original post, was the "quality" review process. In my rambling I merged so many issues. One of which is the idea that if one is going to write informational articles than perhaps they should be assessed before they joined the site. I was feeling, though did not express succinctly that these sites seemed more like casual blogs, rants rather than informational writing.

Words can hurt. I regret I wrote thoughtlessly about the topic without doing prior research. I learned a lesson. And to be truthful, I wish I hadn't expressed my feelings on the issue. I think I should have asked questions first or continued to do research on my own.

So as far as I'm concerned, I have no more comments on this issue. The only reason I didn't take this post down is because those who took the time to comment and earn coins deserve respect for their time writing the comments and adding to the conversation.

If you're new to this post, you can read the exchange of the comments below and learn more about the issues.


Image Credit » Morgue file http://mrg.bz/URVlYn

You will need an account to comment - feel free to register or login.

Comments

Scorpie wrote on August 2, 2014, 2:41 PM

Wikipedia is a content site. Everything else is an ad farm.

sandyresearch wrote on August 2, 2014, 2:49 PM

A recent article in a tech magazine tried to assert that content sites are all doing the same things as facebook: gaining eyeballs for advertisers. It asserted that content sites need the eyeballs of content writers to click on the ads just as facebook needs the eyeballs of non paid participants to click on ads. In the case of facebook they argued that value is that you get to share stuff with your friends and family. That is suppose to be the equivalent of "money" in the facebook world.

I had a friend with a website tell me that there is no new information under the sun. We borrow from everyone. Now we are just putting our personal stories to the information, but she believes no one cares about your personal story unless they want to know you as a person and that's where social medial comes in. People meet each other offline. What does this say for who will be consuming informational content with your story attached to it? I really don't know.

Scorpie wrote on August 2, 2014, 2:55 PM

Convenience has more weight than value. This fact seems to escape well educated people who have never been involved in marketing.

The gas station closer to the highway will always sell more gallons than the one farther down the road with a lower price.

Apply this principle to information and go have an epiphany.

Jobeli wrote on August 2, 2014, 3:02 PM

Wow, I am short of words, I was expecting even more but then the article ended. You are right in my opinion but maybe that's how things evolve online. But point noted there needs to be enough clarity.

sandyresearch wrote on August 2, 2014, 3:03 PM

That's the truth. There are two gas stations on opposite corners, near us, one is super high and the other cheaper. But it's easier to make a left at the corner near of the more expensive station. And folks keep buying.

Although I have issues with what I see on facebook and their marketing( not enough time) they narrowed it down: Show your yearbook page to friends and family. Period. End of story. It took off despite people being sucked out of their time.

sandyresearch wrote on August 2, 2014, 3:06 PM

I had more but I couldn't in good faith to the site and space go on. I know I needed to do more editing. One can always be shorter in words. But I also recognized I'd be editing for days and also if I edited again right on the site platform the post would keep showing up and it looks like spamming. I just had to get it out on the table because of some things I read on this site and also on a competitor sites, about this site. But, thanks for reading, anyway. The main point is there.

sandyresearch wrote on August 2, 2014, 4:08 PM

I agree that both sides have issues and ultimately it comes down to making decisions with risk. It can never hurt for anyone or any business to get input from satisfied and dissatisfied people so they can make adjustments to minimize risk. I've seen sites go down because of just pure conjecture and innuendo( reverse idea virus spread) I think when other sites are discussing what they believe to be your brand and you've not weighed in it is time to consider what is going on. It's difficult for everyone. I'm betting that most business people want not just "yes" folks on their team. It helps them to make better decisions. I want this site others to succeed and they have more than a chance if they listen to all points of views. No one is asking for any guarantees but just to be heard. I find nothing wrong with that. Clarity is vital to business success in my world. I respect your opinion. I see things based on my own experiences. Thanks for commenting, though.

BarbRad wrote on August 2, 2014, 6:40 PM

My experience has shown me that no site lasts forever. Maybe even the Big River will be dammed eventually and flow no more. You can pour your heart and writing into a site only to have it completely change and demolish your work or delete it when their own plans are demolished by changes in Google and other sites that influence their success. I fond it interesting that Google has always said to write for real people, not search engines, and I've always done that, but writing site really do want you to write for the search engines, it seems, because they changed their rules whenever Google burps. The truth is that the competition for content writers is stiff. The trick is knowing what people want to read and giving it to them when they want it. I haven't got that down yet.

sandyresearch wrote on August 2, 2014, 10:21 PM

"You" haven't got that down, yet. Well, to me you write well. I'm confused by writing sites in this new era of social media. I find it can be difficult to balance writing for the search engine and also, supposedly, writing for the community too. A person may show up to read one of your articles and then venture to other articles, within the same topic, with a different style all together. Thanks for sharing.

Ruby3881 wrote on August 3, 2014, 1:49 AM

I'm sorry to say that after reading this post I'm not really sure what your point is. I think perhaps this post covered a little too much territory to have a clear mission.

sandyresearch wrote on August 3, 2014, 3:19 PM

Don't be sorry. You're right. I have re-edited this post and wish I never shared my feelings with anyone. However, I learned more since it was written. It wasn't my best writing-no apologies needed. Thank you.