Constant Content

I realize that there have been several posts about wait times here before, but I feel that I have to put in my own two cents.

I joined CC in May of 2009 and haven't really had a problem with waiting for my articles to be published and sent out of the review process. Things have generally taken a few days, maybe 5-6 at the most, and that's been totally cool with me. My two most recent articles, however, have taken much longer than that and I'm curious if anyone else is experiencing the same thing.

My first article has been in review since 2010-01-29 and my second has been in review since 2010-02-02. I have sent an email about these articles after waiting for about two weeks worth of business days and have yet to receive a reply to that email, so I'm posting here as a last resort.

Is there any conceivable reason for wait times to be this long? Today is February 24 and that means that my first article may be in pending for nearly one month and my second one just slightly shorter than that. From my minimal experience, wait times are usually around a week or so.

Is anyone else experiencing especially long wait times? I realize that some have said in other topics that we, as writers, would wait much longer for publication at traditional editing houses and that much certainly is true. But most of us aren't heading to traditional editing houses to sell articles of 500 or so words, so I don't really think that logic applies.

I like it here, but I can't really imagine there's much worth to waiting nearly a full month on publication of articles that are a mere 500 words in length. If there's any justification to this sort of wait time or if anyone else has similar stories, I'd love to hear about it.

Thanks!

That sounds very odd to me, but the person to answer would be Ed.

My longest wait time I think has been a week. I did have some slow wait times in the middle of this month, but I haven't submitted anything lately. Things were slammed this week for me as hubby is wrapping up his classes, so final papers and tests to study for = hell for me.

I would contact Support again if it has been a few days. Hopefully there wasn't something like they fell through the system.

I have to say that I've had those long wait times lately, even a month and longer. I read the posts and see that others feel that 4 or 5 days is a long wait and I'm finding it frustrating. I've even sent in articles for public requests that have take this long before being reviewed. I finally took the last two out of the queue because they had been there for more than a month and one was the one for a public request. I find it disheartending that some seem to get special treatment here. I know I haven't sold a lot, but I've sold 7 articles, so I would think that respect could be shown and articles could at least be reviewed, without the long wait time.

Yeah. I've sold about 10 articles and have generally found Constant Content to be a pretty good website for generating a bit of supplemental income on the side, but to wait almost a month or even longer to publish a single 500-word article is a bit much by any standards. It used to be a sort of "set it and forget it" opportunity, in a way, but if these wait times are to be the norm I may have to simply and sadly just "forget it."

I realize that the editor works hard and has a lot of work to edit due to public requests and priority articles and I sympathize with the fact that there's a large volume of work to go through, but it's hard to really imagine such long wait times for writers when we turn over 35% of our earnings on each article. In my opinion, we are giving a more than reasonable percentage of sales of our work to facilitate the operation of this website and, as such, the operation of this website should be up to a certain standard that enables the writers to pursue and generate "constant content" to put up for sale. How can I generate "constant content" of any kind when I'm waiting a month or more to be published?

Ed is certainly the right person to ask and hopefully answer, which is why I sent an email through the support system about a week ago now. I saw replies were coming quicker on the message board, so I decided that I would wait it out and eventually try my hand at this avenue if I hadn't heard anything back in a few days. So here I am.

In terms of articles falling through the proverbial cracks, I could understand that to be the case if I was talking about one article. There are two articles in review, however, and both are coming up on one month's review time.

Don't give up on CC. I haven't been here too long, but I've been here long enough to know that a month sounds like something is wrong. I don't think anyone is getting special treatment since I'm a newbie and my articles are getting reviewed fine. I'm sure Ed or Celeste will chime in here pretty soon with a good answer for you on that one, but don't give up on CC because of that. it really does sound like something of a glitch and couldn't possibly be the norm.

So I finally received an email from a David Kool telling me about some apparent "irregularities" with my account. Apparently there are "multiple people" submitting under my account or that I have "signed up for multiple accounts." The email was an effort to "understand my writing group."

I do not have a "writing group." There are no "multiple people" submitting under my account, nor I have I signed up for "multiple accounts."

The reasoning behind attempting to "understand my writing group" is, according to Mr. Kool, to ensure that the editor can maintain a "sense of continuity" for each writer on this website.

Setting aside the aforementioned reality that I am the only user/writer/human being using my account and that all of my article submissions have been written by me, I struggle to see what is meant by "sense of continuity."

The reason I struggle with this is due to my experience with the editing process here before. I have had two of my 10 articles sent back during my time here. The first was sent back to me because I used the wrong font. Apparently my 35% contribution doesn't create a "sense of continuity" strong enough for the editor to simply adjust the font of my text; it was a better idea for the entire article to be sent back and for it to be put back in the back of the line for another few days of waiting because I neglected to ensure the font was Arial 12 (it was Arial 11). The second was sent back with a one phrase "edit" that informed me that my article was "too confusing."

The aforementioned situations took place a few months ago and I did not raise any complaint at the time because I was under the delusion that it just "worked" that way here. With this current situation of waiting and the accusations that I am somehow working with a "group," the real content of this website begins to emerge in unfortunate ways. I look around the message board and I see other problems similar to this, with more confusing stories of work being "edited" in similar fashion and more pat answers offering little actual help to perplexed writers.

What is this "sense of continuity" that requires Mr. Kool to "understand my writing group?" What continuity is required to uphold the basic "editing" standards of this website that has, thus far with my experience, merely sent work back unedited to be "fixed" by myself for admittedly silly font mistakes and "confusion" problems that were as unspecific as Mr. Kool's email? And what evidence does Mr. Kool provide in his email to me to support the idea that I have "multiple writers" supplying content for my account?

The answer to all of the above questions is, of course, "None."

This is a very frustrating process to go through to simply post an article or two every so often.

Very strange story. I believe you are dealing with an owner (according to Alexa) so just work it out with Kool. Either there is some confusion between your account and someone else's or we are not seeing the whole story here.

CC treats its writers VERY well - unlike the horror stories out there around some e... sites. We get quick service and clear answers to questions. Very businesslike and logical from everything I've seen.

Also Ed does not revise articles - we need to self edit. What you submit for a file is what sells so it needs to be correct.

We get quick service and clear answers to questions.

Well, in general you very well might. But I don't think you should speak for all of us when it's abundantly clear that the service I've received here is anything but quick and clear.

I submit work to several other sites and have been freelancing for quite a while now. I have never experienced such incredible wait times. Waiting a month for the publication of ONE article that is 500 words in length is not acceptable "service" in any writing business of any kind. If there was a suspected problem with my account regarding articles submitted and/or the potential for "other writers" or whatever the theory is, why did Constant Content's "quick and clear" service take one month to propose any communication to me about it?

I think there is a tendency here, as with anywhere else, for individuals to put loyalty before common sense. There are no circumstances under which this sort of thing is okay. Nobody, newbie or veteran, should be waiting this long for simple communication.

Very businesslike and logical from everything I've seen.

There is nothing professional or logical about this situation, in my opinion. This is very second-rate treatment.

Look, I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here and I'm not asking for something unreasonable. I have waited and waited for a reply to my initial contact through the support process and have heard nothing, so I attempted to use the message board because I saw replies appeared to be coming faster here. Whether or not my post here on the message board led to the email being sent earlier is anybody's guess, but the email from Mr. Kool was far from "clear" or "businesslike" in terms of service. I would post the whole thing here, but I'm not overly sure that's appropriate.

Also Ed does not revise articles - we need to self edit. What you submit for a file is what sells so it needs to be correct.

It was Mr. Kool's email that instructed me to clarify my "writing group" so that information could be sent to the editor to better serve the cause of "continuity." I am well aware that the Ed does not revise articles, as I have outlined in my post. I am aware that articles that do not meet submission standards are simply sent back, which is why I am perplexed that my alleged "writing group" is of anyone's concern - especially the editor's.

I want to be clear: I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with the editing process here. It is unique, but I understand how it works and have not had any significant complaints. Please understand, too, that I wish to continue to supply content for this website. I do like it and I do appreciate the process - when it appears to be working effectively and efficiently. It is far from my intention to complain for the sake of it or simply raise one-sided gripes without explaining the "whole story."

I simply want to know why I have waited so long for a single ounce of communication regarding my submitted articles. And now, as per Mr. Kool's very general and very hazy email, I am hoping to discover why it has taken so long to inform me of any sort of "problem" with my account.

I think you are using emotion in your logic too. Those of us who were trying to help you really don't appreciate being called people using loyalty more than common sense.

I reread your original post, and it states YOU waited 2 weeks before even contacting support. And it took support one business week to get back to you. That *really* isn't unreasonable in any other business. Remember, C-C doesn't serve US, the writers, they serve the buyers. So their first priority are any issues to do with buyers, and we authors aren't really privy to those issues. Few buyers come to the forums for help THEN there is the concern about authors and what issues we're having. I will say I have easily waited 5 business days for article approval, during this month in fact. A few posts have mentioned longer than usual wait times. However, have you seen the public requests going up on a daily basis? I've seen 2-3 almost daily. Imagine 10 people write articles to submit, that's 20-30 articles for Ed to review, plus everything submitted on spec. Everyday.

As far as special treatment, I can stop that myth in it's tracks. I've been here for over 2 years, earning the site well over $1,000, and guess what, articles I have rushed or messed up the guidelines get rejected. I had two rejections at the end of January, and I 100% agreed with them.

I don't know what's going on with your account, but it sounds like either someone messed with your log in, or there is confusion. However what is clear is what we have all said, this situation is very unique and not ordinary. The overwhelming majority of us who fulfill the writing guidelines have very few problems with C-C, yet you make it sound we should all be ready to jump ship at something that happened to you. This is the Internet, we all have a healthy level of anonymity, especially on this website, if one so chooses. So can you blame C-C for erring on the side of caution when irregularities pop up when it's THEIR reputation on the line, not yours?

And for the record, I really love all of the people who come on here talking about all of their experience in freelancing, and complaining how C-C is unjust in some way. Every freelance gig is different. If someone has years of experience, but can't handle one rejection or some obstacles in getting the writing relationship going, well all I can think is their freelance experience has been awfully generous. I've been rejected.. wait, my writing, has been rejected in many places, accepted in others. It's completely normal.

Elizabeth,

Are you suggesting that waiting one month or more is acceptable? From what I've been told in this very thread, Ed's article review process is really quite rudimentary. There's no revising going on. It is a review process that ensures articles are up to specification. If they aren't, they are returned.

Now I have said that I've had no problem with wait times in the past. You mention waiting five business days and being happy with that. I would most certainly be happy with that type of wait time, as that was the wait time I had experienced prior to this pair of articles. Again, I have been waiting one month for one 500 word article to clear the process.

Please keep in mind that the crux of my concern here isn't with how long it took support to get back to me. Also please keep in mind that we aren't even sure it was support getting back to me, as it was David Kool, the owner of the website, asking me about an account issue and not actually addressing the questions I had asked in my email to support. I'm not suggesting that the email from Mr. Kool wasn't related to support, mind you, but there is no confirmation nor evidence to suggest that it was.

The email from Mr. Kool (god, I love saying that name!) was about an apparent issue with my account, so it stands to reason that said issue would have been raised anyway. Now had they perused the articles earlier, I would have doubtlessly received the email regarding the account "issue" sooner. It stands to reason that this would be the case and it stands to reason that Mr. Kool is contacting me about apparent "issues" with my account (that I have a "writing group?") only after receiving my latest pair of articles in the queue.

Again, let me reiterate: the email from support does not address my article wait times, nor does it suggest that any account issues would be a reason for waiting. It asks me to provide additional information about my "writing group" to ensure that the editor knows how to "edit" my articles. And again, as others have graciously outlined to me here in this topic, the editing process is really more of a review process to ensure articles are up to standard and not up to editorial standard.

You make the suggestion that this website is here for the customers and that Constant Content does not serve "us" as writers. I don't think I've heard a more insulting statement with respect to a site of this kind before in my life. The inference is that we are merely working stiffs of little concern to the "higher-ups" and, frankly, that's quite offensive to someone who gives over 35% of the earnings to support the site and those who work hard to make it tick as well as it does. I understand the importance of customers and I am no stranger to how this website works. I have been quietly observing and writing here for long enough and have been working and writing on other websites for longer. I know how the industry operates and I know what the industry standards are. I know about customers and I know about writers.

It is with that perspective that I approach my comments here, I guess. Now it appears to me that you've picked up on what could be construed as the most "controversial" of points that I've made. It was not my intention to suggest that others are not using common sense, but I must admit to have been rather taken aback by the inference above that my account was somehow not accurate or complete and that Constant Content couldn't possibly be in error here. I've seen similar responses from the faithful here and it does indeed strike me as the first response is generally to defend CC initially as being somehow incapable of error. To me, that's a dishonest approach.

I do not blame Constant Content, nor have I ever been anything less than gracious and appreciative of them, with respect to checking my account. But Mr. Kool did NOT ask me for any security specifics. He did not say that someone had been logging in to my account. The articles posted in to review are mine and mine alone. This is a fact easily confirmed. If there were specific security concerns with any aspect of my account, I would assume I would have been notified immediately and not a month after the fact.

And if you did indeed re-read my post, as I'm sure you did, you would see that I made no gestures to try to convince anyone else to make any sort of decision either on my behalf or at my coaxing. That inference is, again, rather insulting. I am merely asking if anyone else has had this problem and, as you can see from a response above and from others in this very forum, there have been other similar cases. I have not once suggested that Constant Content is "unjust," either, and I'd strongly invite you to point out where I did should you elect to accuse me of that again.

This isn't about someone not being able to "handle rejection," nor is it about someone mindlessly complaining or running down this website. This is about what are, in my view, absurdly long wait times in this particular case. I am responding to posts and to emails as they come to me. I can only deal with the information and comments that I have. If I receive an email telling me to submit more information about my "writing group" to help the "editing process," I do so. If I am then met with a comment on this message board telling me that the editing process isn't really traditional editing, I respond in kind. I have no intention of leaving or encouraging anyone to leave or encouraging people to vent for no reason.

This is a reasonable, honest discussion about a pretty strange issue, but others have waited a month or more as well. It does happen. But I see no reason to have to bow down and praise this website as though it provides an unbelievably benevolent service, nor do I feel the desire to mimic your worshipful attitude towards the site and present myself as some sort of kneeling servant just happy to have a job. My reputation is on the line, as is Constant Content's. And without my writing, without YOUR writing, this website wouldn't have customers.

So let's be fair, honest and reasonable.

I just want to add that I don't think it's a good idea for me to continue posting in this thread. I've probably said too much and done more than ruffle a few feathers, so I think it's best to wait to hear from support and/or Mr. Kool regarding these issues.

All I want to say is that there's nothing wrong with fair criticism and honest discussion. We needn't put a website before our own interests as writers and we needn't truckle to some sort of authority figure that "blesses" us with the ability to make a few bucks. We should have pride in our work and Constant Content allows us to do that. It should be accountable to both writers and customers, fully knowing that both components are essential in this line of work and that the neglect of one or the other is perilous.

It's a damn good site and I hope it stays as a damn good site because I'd like to continue publishing here. I hope this matter is resolved and I hope that I never have to bother you good people with my ranting and raving again.

Thank you for your patience and happy writing.

I have to once again say that I have had wait times for over a month and it's been on more than one occasion. It's becoming the norm with my submissions. I haven't changed anything in my submissions, I don't have multiple accounts and it is looking like my articles are just not being reviewed anymore without any explanation. When I began with this site, the wait times were more than reasonable. Now my articles don't even seem to be read. Something is not right here. Maybe other authors have experienced this and are afraid to speak up. I think the fact that I've sold seven articles should speak for itself. Seven is not a lot, but it is something. They are not the $100 + articles, nor are they the $1 articles. I think Ed or support or someone should get in touch with writers, if they are no longer going to even read the articles.

Jordan et al-
I want to deal with the separate issues at stake here. First off, I want to unequivocally apologize for your articles having taken so long to review. It is unprofessional and shouldn't have happened. Second, the email I sent to Mr Richardson was not in response to his initial email inquiry about the length of time his articles took to review. I was simply acting on some issues that had arisen between his name and another account that had been set up for an organization that he is involved with. We were simply trying to clarify that if more than one person was submitting under his account (which he says there isn't and we have no reason to believe otherwise) it would be better if they were to set up their own accounts. The "editorial continuity" I was referring to is just a fancy way of describing our process of getting to know the writers we deal with on a day to day basis and the efficiencies that this creates. When we know a writers peccadilloes and stylistic idiosyncrasies it makes expediting the processing time much faster.

Once again Mr. Richardson our apologies. If you have problems in the future, please contact support.

Cheers,

David Kool

Glad to hear there is resolution soon. Jordan, if you read some earlier posts, believe me, veterans can attest to C-C being at fault. LOL. Oh I chuckle at some of the things that happened before David Kool took ownership. When I first joined, there was once late payment, ?s all turned into / so you had to manually go into your long summary and fix it, articles occasionally fell through some crack in the queue including private requests. Until just this month, emails from C-C would come in 1-3 days after the request or article notification (sold, accepted, rejected).

I hope you and westernangel stay. Definitely speak up when things don't seem right (no need to wait 2 weeks). And this community withstands ruffled feathers, Lord knows I've ruffled far more than my fair share over the years. Did you know at one point authors were requested to stop responding to questions in the Rejection forum and to let Ed to be the first responder? Not that we couldn't ever respond, but only respond in ways that would help and not "well it might be this, but only Ed can confirm." Right after this, rejection notices included cause. Peruse that forum and you'll see some feathers flying.

C-C evolves. However, I think it is still important to remember the site is primarily focused on serving buyers the content they need. It took me a long time to accept this, but since I have, it makes life much easier. For example, once my article passes muster, I know it has an 8 out of 10 chance of selling. So I don't worry about it anymore. That 35% isn't just making the site run, it's also the advertising, the legal muscle when your content is stolen, a protected purchasing system where a buyer isn't going to come back on you for a refund (C-C covers any refund requests, I have had one that I know of in 79 licenses sold, and it was a buyer who purchased a use license for $10 wanting to remove a byline), and if a private requester "stiffs" you meaning they don't pay for the work (rare in my experience) a ready pool of other buyers have access. I am confident about C-C because I found C-C literally 1 month after I began writing professionally, and then spent the better part of 18 months trying to find something better.

I didn't. I either had to accept peanuts, have no control over my topics or article direction, pay an upfront fee every quarter (+$100), submit a proposal and compete with non-native English speaking writers, or deal with individual clients who have an excuse why they can't pay this month's invoice for 3 weeks because they are having a cash flow problem. C-C thankfully let's me be the writer I am, one who writes what she loves and gets a real joy at seeing some of the quirky angles she takes sell at the end of the month.

It may have sounded like we all thought C-C was sacrosanct and can't make a mistake, but I know at the beginning, I was trying to communicate there is something terribly wrong to have a wait time of one month. However, the only way C-C knows there is a problem is when it's reported. And that is exactly how all of those above problems I mentioned were fixed.

I feel totally blessed to have found CC at this time after reading your post

For the most part things seem to flow pretty smoothly. It's interesting to hear stories of the early days.