Even if the informations Joseph share are incredible, and even if he writes in a nice manner, that posts (like all others from Eric Fossum or John Sheehy) can't be considered "professional writing", they are just post. That means short writings about a topic, not articles that go deep into a subject.
Surely you do not mean to say that short writings full of merit are less worthy than "articles" of "professional writers" simply because they are not designated as "articles".
Sure! As I am sure that if asked to them to keep a topic on DPReview they would ask to get money in change. One thing is to answer to people questions, another is to write in a professional way articles on a specific topic, which means you have to think at what you should write, document, create images or graphics and write much more and deep than for a typical forum answer. That also means you spend much hours of your time, it's not a blog post they are searching for...
Oh, that's a common mistake... like here on DPReview, you readers always think that we writers have commercial interests. I don't deal with photography and surely I know that even in my field some write with commercial interest in mind, but you should be able to discern who behave like this and who write only based on his mind.
Sure, nobody deny. Still I think people should not work for free. One thing is to keep your blog or help people with your same hobby on a forum, another is to write for someone who earn money from your work just for free. It's my opinion, sorry if is different from yours.
Peter: thanks. A truly perfect rant on the topic of not being paid for one's efforts. I'm going to send it to all my writer and producer friends ... although I suspect many of them have seen it already. I wasn't aware it existed. Thanks again.Though I'm sure that most of you have seen Harlan Ellison's rant on "pay the writer" but as it may fit here ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE
--
cheers, Peter
Germany
We shall see. In the meantime, there's a thought-provoking if not intense article on all this in the latest issue of Harper's. I just read it. The writer is none-too-happy about the state of things for writers as far as the Internet goes.
He's not the only one. I had planned a retirement around turning out a book every couple of years, plus a couple of magazine articles a month.
You persist in using specifics to explain generalities. I don't care how much physics you know, nor where you work. You are not using a scientific method to determine your answer, so whether or not you know it is totally irrelevant.
Charlie: believe it or not, the going rate (average) for 300 — 400 word pieces on the Web is $15.00. Web editors apparently get $20 or so for each article they work on, which is good incentive for the editors to have their writers keep things short so they (the editors) can plow through tons of pieces each day.
Sorry. Your inability to either express yourself, or to accept a criticism is your problem, not mine.
I'm beginning to think that the writers I know who set up their sites, drew audiences and bailed out four or five years ago were the smart ones. I know one couple, who had always done well as do-it-yourself writers, sold out about that long ago, kicked back and now are on a long-term vacation with no financial worries. Not bad. I wish I'd followed them, but the Web holds little allure for me as a "content provider", and it's probably too late now. All the good seats are taken.
That's true in many things, but often Joseph's writing on technical aspects go a ways beyond what I can understand anyway. Some of his simpler posts have provided help for me, and, I'm sure, for others.
I do not think starving artists and writers are DPReview targets.
