Application Process/Criteria For Writer's Pools

[philipanderson]

I'd like to see a lot more transparency on the process for writers joining writers' pools.

Project managers invite some writers after just a handful of articles (kudos to those writers - I am not suggesting they don't deserve it) and some writers don't ever seem to get that invite.

Opinion on the forum over eligibility varies wildly, and while CC must always decide who they want, it would be nice to know what CC are looking for. I don't think speculation over what you do/not need to do is helpful to the site, and it seems strange to me that CC wouldn't want a very transparent, professional process for this in place.

That doesn't mean that everyone will fit the profile, of course. In fact, many probably wouldn't apply, but I think everyone should always understand what roles that are available to them, and the standards they need to meet to try and get one of those roles - on CC, or anywhere else.

[LauraGinn]

I think someone said that you need to have over a 60% accept rate to be invited to the pools?

I was invited to participate towards the end of last year but since then my accept rate has dropped to 58% and I'm no longer invited. It's sad really as I work full time as a writer so definitely could help out with huge orders when they come in.

Oh well.

[Lysis]

Personally, I've been invited because the customer requested me (not for writer pools but for jobs where there are several writers invited)

[Isabelnewth]

From what I have gleaned over time, the 60% thing and even the application to join pools seems to have changed so that you are simply asked from time to time to be part of a pool, depending on what's needed. Anyway my application to officially join has stayed stuck for a very long time, whereas I am in a few pools, none of which is producing a significant amount of work at the moment.

I agree 100% that the process should be clarified.

Laura, are you sure the lack of work relates to your acceptance 'score'? There was a fantastic flood of 10-at-a-time article requests at the end of last year, which as far as I know have just dried up. It's all celebrities and diets for $20 a pop less commission, less Paypal currency exchange commission, just now! Ah well, maybe the good times will roll again soon!

[LauraGinn]

Hi Isabel,

I'm not sure if they are directly related. When I was being invited to the pools it was to write articles related to energy, credit cards, and mobile phones. I did dozens of these but then my acceptance rate dropped and I stopped being invited. I put 2 and 2 together and probably made 5? All I know is that I haven't been invited to any pools since my acceptance rate dropped. It's still just under the 60% margin but it's unfortunately just due to silly errors. I also had about 10 articles rejected when the CC site was having problems at the beginning of the year.

I've been submitting articles to the public requests and had a bit of luck with them, but being able to claim articles and have a good chance of them selling was preferable.

Oh well

Laura

[Isabelnewth]

Looking at my sales, the last one I did for that particular customer (UK energy etc) was 30/01/2014. I THINK that was when the halcyon days ended for everyone! Since then pickings have not been so good so I don't think it's you that's the problem. That's one reason why the process should be more transparent.

[evaku]

Personally, I've been invited because the customer requested me (not for writer pools but for jobs where there are several writers invited)

Exactly the same here! I was invited to the article pool because they needed writers and I was really upping my game at the time, but I have since then been invited to 2 more because of private writer's pool requests that I received.

[Isabelnewth]

Well I think this conversation exemplifies the lack of transparency generally: public writers pools, private writers pools, private requests etc......while I think that it's the case that there are no hard and fast rules about being in pools, but simply supply and demand, I also think there is a lot of contradictory and misleading info on the site which should be eliminated/clarified.

i do believe from other posts that the demand for the energy/credit articles has gone, but it may have just reduced and the pool shrunk I suppose.

[philipanderson]

Yes - that's exactly my original point. It's interesting to hear other writers' experiences (and I'm pleased for their successes) but these discussions show that there's no transparent, consistent process to writer's pools.

If that's intentional on CC's part (and it's their choice), then I think it would actually be a lot better to make the writers' pools completely secret, and insist that writers don't mention them publicly. When you read about other writers' experiences, it's hard not to wonder whether you are doing something wrong, and the lack of fact doesn't help anyone.

[Isabelnewth]

I really don't think a vow of secrecy would work! For myself, I just think that CC should describe the process they use clearly and consistently. As it is, it's confusing and that can be demoralising. For example, is there still an 'approved for writing articles' status as implied on the application page? Or is it just a lot of different writing pools now, to any of which which you can be invited? as per the explanation of the request system? If the latter, then the 'application' implying that there is one pool for articles to which you can apply should be removed..... If there is such a general pool to which I await acceptance after many months, then fine, it would just be nice to know!

[LauraGinn]

When I click on the 'writer pool' tab, I am met with the message:

"You currently do not qualify for any available requests."

I agree with everyone on here - it would be nice to know what the criteria is for writer pools. Writing work has been so slow for me over the last few months that I would jump at the opportunity to write anything other than gallery articles - even on a really mundane subject. Google have a lot to answer for with their latest update

[tayalltheway]

I obviously don't have the answers to all these questions since I'm sure no one here really does, but I do know a few things. There is definitely no such thing as a "general writer's pool." You get approved to be part of the pools at all based on some unknown criteria (you'll know if you have been because the Writer Pool Settings tab will start to show up on your profile). Next, either the individual clients or one of the CC account managers add you to individual public or private pools as the need for writers arises.

As for the UK customer who was doing big business at the end of last year, I asked Eric specifically whether it was worth it to keep writing UK-centric articles a few months ago, and he said there were currently no plans he knew of for that client to make another appearance. With all the different 10-article requests during the last two months of 2013, I wouldn't be surprised if that customer bought well over 1,000 articles, so I imagine he's just spreading out actually USING all of them throughout this year.

[Lysis]

I think you guys should consider that it's simple supply and demand. "Transparency" would mean giving each writer a reason why they aren't included, and they don't have time for that.

There can't be consistency, because it's just a matter of a customer wanting articles and some writer standing out at that particular point in time. Possibly even a customer buying certain writers' material and then they put 2 and 2 together and get those writers together. There are no numbers or percentages. The system isn't fair. The system is just whatever the customer wants.

This forum is slow, but I think they are busy with customers. Trying to explain to people why they aren't included in the cool crowd is probably not a priority.

Things have been slow here for me too, but I have no idea if it's just my area of expertise. Maybe I just suck. Who knows. I've noticed that some of their busy writers have gone back to the general pool, so maybe it's their slow season. It happens.

[Isabelnewth]

Supply and demand is clearly what it's about and I don't think that CC is obliged to, or could, explain to every writer why they are or aren't in whatever pool, or even publish criteria for the pools. But I do think that there should be clearer and more accessible explanations about the way the pools work. Laura was under the impression that her percentage of acceptances had dropped and that meant she was no longer eligible for a pool she had been in and had been earning a fair amount of money in. I am pretty sure that wasn't the case but I think that there are probably other people thinking that way. Writers are working on their own and are often in a financially precarious position and I think it's important that they are given as much information about the process as possible.

[philipanderson]

Even a statement that 'there are no hard and fast rules' would probably help. When some people believe that there are clear requirements (e.g. at least 10 articles, 65% acceptance rate or higher) then it would be useful to have an official statement from CC to say whether this is the case or not.

Of course, I'm not sure that any statement would change writer behaviour. For example, you could argue who cares what the acceptance rate is because you should aim for the highest possible acceptance rate anyway.

I think the only thing that worries me is that the CC platform is very 'buggy'. Some of us could have acceptance rates in the system that are incorrect, which means opportunities could be passing us by, when in fact there's a system error. This is made worse by the fact that the support team never responds to an email (current tally - seven issues raised, zero replies received), so you end up simply never knowing whether there's a fault or not. I had an article pushed back because it contained first person, when that's exactly what the client asked for. That will now have damaged my acceptance rate -not ideal.

Transparency - with an acceptance rate on your profile - would reassure that everything is working correctly and that the demand simply isn't interested in your supply. Until then, I think a lot of people are left wondering.

That aside, perhaps my suggestion should simply be 'I would like the support team to start responding to my emails rather than leaving me to wonder whether there is a fault or not'?