get paid £1.40 for every 150 word review you write! Amazing new site

Aurelia_2

I have just signed up as I love writing reviews! Thanks for the recommendation of the site

Camp_Freddy

bruffyboy wrote: »

I sat and did 12 hours straight yesterday and made £115 which is pretty amazing considering it's tax free.

It's not tax free though. You should be declaring your earnings to the IRD. FOr most people using Dooyoo or Ciao or whomever, this isn't an issue because the earnings will be small enough that the IRD will overlook (I believe the figure is about £50, but I might be wrong). However, for those who are using sites such as Dooyoo and other kinds of sites that give "free" money to pay off debts of thousands, then the amount of money, over a year, will accrue enough tax that Mr Tax Man will be interested in.

bruffyboy wrote: »

I have made £200 and am going to hold off now until I get paid as today's blog posts about delayed payments and no pay for rating have got me a little worried! I will post here if and when I get paid and then we will all know for sure!

bruffyboy wrote: »

I think you need to get into a rhythm. I have one web-page open on wikipedia where I check facts about a film, then one page on MS Word where I type it for spellchecker, then cut and paste over.

I'm on £200 now, in about 18 hours of writing, which is around three times as profitable as I find on Dooyoo and a hundred more times than ciao!

bruffyboy wrote: »

Thanks Sarah you are right - I check my facts on wikipedia - funny how some people are just desperate to read something negatively!

What do you expect? You've turned what should be an enjoyable hobby with benefits into a money making machine, leeching money from sites/communities, exploiting loopholes, possibly copying work (if not verbatim, then certainly paraphrasing) and appear to be encouraging others to do the same. That's exactly what your posts on this thread suggest.

mattygroves wrote: »

Why Wiki? Surely imdb would be a more reliable source of film information?

Why use any site, matty? That's the real issue. The fact that people are using sites as a matter of course in order to "check facts" suggests to me one of a myriad of things, including:

• the author doesn't know enough about the product or service to actually write the review and requires third party information to do so
• the author doesn't know enough about review writing to write a good review and focuses too much on facts rather than experience or opinion
• the author is more concerned about making money than he is concerned about writing a good review, and is padding out reviews with copied/paraphrased fact to be able to post more reviews.

sarahs999

Anyway, aside from all that, does anyone know why when I submit reviews they show up in my profile, but then when I go to the product it is still showing as having no reviews? Is there a time lag?

sarahs999

PS - don't rely on IMDB either. I'm a magazine editor and I often use it to check facts (yes, really I do Camp Freddy, and I'm also clever enough not to copy chunks from it!) and I find mistakes on there all the time. Especially spelling of people's names.

Camp_Freddy

sarahs999 wrote: »

PS - don't rely on IMDB either. I'm a magazine editor and I often use it to check facts (yes, really I do Camp Freddy, and I'm also clever enough not to copy chunks from it!) and I find mistakes on there all the time. Especially spelling of people's names.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be double checking their work, in fact I'd advise the complete opposite. However, I will question this method of using third party sites as a matter of course (this bit is in bold and italicised for a reason), to write reviews, especially when it is clear that the person using this method is interested in one thing and one thing only: money. To me, that suggests loophole exploitation and possibly a breach of the T&Cs. In addition it shows a lack of respect to other site members when you're posting hundreds of reviews within a short time period, no matter which site this is.

No-one is suggesting that people should give up their work for free, but there's a difference between being rewarded financially for a hobby that has numerous benefits and taking the urine by loophole exploitation/cheating.

always_comping

can someone please help. i am trying to join this site to write reviews but cant seem to find out how to.

sarahs999

What can't you do? Find the site or register? The site is https://www.comparedby.us. It should be pretty clear how to register once you get there.

bruffyboy

mattygroves wrote: »

Why Wiki? Surely imdb would be a more reliable source of film information?

The other problem I find with Wiki is that it can be too easy to inadvertently copy or paraphrase from it. Because the style of Wiki is often similar to that of a review writer (i.e. me, for example), it can be difficult to use information found there without subconciously simply paraphrasing it. Also, you can't guarantee the accuracy.

I don't know the site this thread talks about. However, at least on Dooyoo, I think the site looks more for opinion rather than just pure fact. A full list of cast and crew is not required (though pointing out who was good or noteworthy or otherwise is good), whilst feelings, thoughts and impressions is.

I use Word too, as it's much easier to proofread in Word than it is straight on the site (also, if your internet crashes, if you've done it in Word you don't lose everything), however, I do find that it is better if you go through and remove Word's funky formatting (en dashes, curly quotes and the like), as Word's formatting is very html unfriendly.

But anyway, my worry is the formula. I've not found an absolute formula for writing reviews - and I certainly could not manage the output some folk are talking about. I have real reservations about how helpful a 150 word review on a film (especially a foreign film) can be, especially if at least some of those words are used to impart facts from Wiki.

I'm sorry if I sounded sarcastic - that was unfair. But I do find the 'formula' a little restrictive, at least when writing longer, personal-based-opinion reviews.

Cheers

Wow, your reply is so full of assumption it is mind boggling (are you having a bad day or something?)

Firstly, it's not a problem to copy or paraphrase Wikipedia if you are only looking at something like how to spell an actor's name or the year it came out; I don't have to read their summary of the plot as I have seen ithe movie myself!

Secondly, I have never, in 350 reviews, given a cast and crew (I'm not stupid, I know what a review site is about as I have read the rules and guidance).

Thirdly, I have never, ever written a 150 word review! Mine range from around 300 - 9000 (yes nine thousand).

Fourthly, my 'formula' was a basic bit of advice for those who are struggling to write efficiently, which I thought I would share as I am the original poster of this thread.

I know you are a guide on Dooyoo and have (clearly) strong feelings about review quality, length etc, but this thread isn't about Dooyoo, so don't get carried away about your suggestions on a site that doesn't have the same rules. Having had a large amount of back and forth email discussions with the owner of Comparedby, I am very happy that what I am doing there is satisfactory for their needs (in fact, my reviews are some of the best on there, as the site is struggling under the burden of poorly written, non standard English lists of product details). They are looking for concise, helpful and informative, all of which can very easily be achieved in 300 words following my magic formula!

bruffyboy

Camp_Freddy wrote: »

It's not tax free though. You should be declaring your earnings to the IRD. FOr most people using Dooyoo or Ciao or whomever, this isn't an issue because the earnings will be small enough that the IRD will overlook (I believe the figure is about £50, but I might be wrong). However, for those who are using sites such as Dooyoo and other kinds of sites that give "free" money to pay off debts of thousands, then the amount of money, over a year, will accrue enough tax that Mr Tax Man will be interested in.





What do you expect? You've turned what should be an enjoyable hobby with benefits into a money making machine, leeching money from sites/communities, exploiting loopholes, possibly copying work (if not verbatim, then certainly paraphrasing) and appear to be encouraging others to do the same. That's exactly what your posts on this thread suggest.

Wow, another thread of fascinating assumption! Why should this site be an enjoyable hobby? the owner made it as a business, which he will pay reviewers to write for, and which businesses will pay to be a part of - there's money the whole way through, so 'leeching' is a ridiculous suggestion!

Again, it is very rude to suggest I am stealing/paraphrasing, as I am just checking sites for dates, names etc - every product I write about I know and have seen/read/used!

PLEASE STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS! I posted this thread in up your income as it is a way of doing that, and I am trying to suggest to people how to do it!

bruffyboy

Camp_Freddy wrote: »

Do you reckon the editor will be pleased when he sees that MSE members are plotting to bleed his site dry with content stolen from Wikipedia? Would Dooyoo or Ciao be happy to know this too?

BTW: Hi, Mr. Editor! *waves*

See previous comment!