Talk:Yahoo Voices

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 June 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

The article reads as an advertisement for the firm and the writing reads very similarly to what I read upon the firm's Web site. However, with so many folks engaged with the firm and its site in various ways I believe the firm should remain upon Wikipedia.68.13.191.153 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur, although I write for them, so my opinion is very biased. It does read a little like an advert, but probably nothing I won't be able to fix... after I finish the few articles I'm working on *deep sigh* Kopf1988 03:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this article extremely helpful, even in its current state. The few articles I just tripped over on that site were extremely shillatory. Having read about the payment model, I now understand why. It's the old saw that the guy owning the newspaper doesn't tell the editor what to write (media independence), but if the editor doesn't figure it out for him/her-self the editor is soon replaced by someone else less enthusiastic about spending more time with their family. MaxEnt 03:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Payment?

Is the payment of 3$ for real? Is it really per article? What keeps a person from spending a Saturday earning 24$ by just writing articles? Gautam ^Discuss 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I write for Associated Content.com, and I can say that the $3 payment is indeed very real, although you can earn more per article depending on how well the article you submit will align with advertising, your keyword density, and your track record for bringing in pageviews. Also, not every article will be approved for payment. (I've submitted approximately 250 articles and had about 30 rejections. I said all of that to say this: While anyone over the age of 18 in the US is free to join AC and submit content, its not as simple as simply following the writing process we all learn in Elementary school.