Collaborative Article Coding

I really don't know how feasible this coding would be, particularly if we're keeping Wizzley's code as stream-lined as possible.  If it would take a lot, then kill it with fire.

I was thinking about working together with another author on an article.   That's been done before on Wizzley, but one of the authors gets sole custody of the article.  What I'm proposing splits it in two.

Say that me and Kathleen join together to write an article on Wiccan art.  We produce some pretty content, picture there, me waffling about the religious significance, and Kathleen telling us what the lines and colours all symbolize.  Nice and useful for our readers.

That article would sit simultaneously in both mine and Kathleen's personal profiles, but only once in the Wiccan sub-category (and popular, buzzing etc, if it reached those).   It would only be listed once in the SERPs. The accreditation, wherever its found, would say 'by Kathleen Duffy and Jo Harrington.'

Monetization:

30% of the time it would be my ads

30% it would be Kathleen's

30% it would be Wizzley's

10% it would alternate between my referee and Kathleen's (or Wizzley gets a bonus round, if there is no referral).

This could only be done with people who'd written 100+ article.  It would be another incentive for people to push on to 100; and when you get there, it's another reward for unlocking the level.

It would hopefully produce some unique content with real depth.  In the example given, I could write a Wiccan art one, but without any real knowledge of art.  Kathleen could write the same, but without knowledge of Wicca.  Collaborations allow two lots of expertise to come together to create fully informed articles, which enhances the value for readers. 

Things could be created which are not anywhere else on the internet.  Individual authors would need a great breadth of knowledge to come up with such topic combinations.  Most of us stick to what we know. 

(Another example, Steve and I collaborate on an article about the Munich Air Disaster in 1958.  I can tell the history - big tragedy; ice; dead footballers.  But that would be given greater meaning if Steve explains precisely what football lost that day.  To me, it's remove one bloke in shorts and replace with another one.  Steve would fill the blanks by describing the sheer genius at kicking balls that was Duncan Edwards, and why his loss was actually profound to more than his mother.)

For the authors, there is the potential for attracting a whole new group of readers. In our first example, Kathleen's writing would be showcased before the Pagan community.  If we decided to place our Wiccan Art collaboration in the Art sub-category instead, then I'd have the opportunity to find new readers amongst the art-lovers.  In our second, historians get to meet Steve; sport readers get to find out about me.

Any good?

Great idea, though I'm not in favor of the 100-article requirement.

My only thought is that Wizzley would retain its ordinary advertisement share (50%, or whatever), while authors would split it 25%/25%.  Wizzley's provision-of-service remains the same, after all.

That's fine for 50/50, which is the Wizzley starting rate.  But at fifty articles, it goes to 55/45 in the author's favor.  

Splitting 55 in two, for an advertising cycle, would be a bit messy.   That's why I by-passed it for 100 articles.  After that the commission cut never changes.

I think it's a great idea. I don't think I'd be very good at it, but I would love to read something like that by some of you out there. Two heads are better than one!

I think it would be better at 100, too. By 100, I'm sure you would really know what you were doing and your writing would have improved considerably. The quality of the collaborative article would be much better.

What if only one of the collaborators required the 100 articles? Then it could be used as sort of a method for lesser known users to gain more interest. Though I suppose it could be abused... The monetisation should be in favour of the author with 100 articles, but the other author gains publicity rather than money.

Sounds too complicated to me. And I think that by far the most authors would want to be the full owners of their articles.

If you really want to do a collaboration, you can figure out a system where you give each other credit on a page--let's say, for a piece of it written by a guest author--and then return the favor on one of the guest author's articles. Or something.

But hey, I've been wrong before. If Simon thinks it's a piece of pie to do that, I'm all fine with it, of course. Right now, though, our tech team is buried in update work. I'd be afraid to ask.   

I don't understand why you cannot already collaborate by writing two articles (one each) to achieve what you describe above Jo. Cross-reference them where appropriate and place each in it's appropriate category. Each person gets their fair share of any proceeds; anybody and everybody can pull together in a collaborative effort; you are not limited to two participants; no extra coding; no need to have a certain number of articles written; all available to you at a well-known site beginning with W.

The x-referencing is the key and where the collaboration comes into play - each participant allows the other(s) to determine where and how cross-links are inserted and referenced. It's just how the internet was intended - "get your extra resource here".

You could start now without writing anything else - just find some articles that relate to yours (but look at the subject in a different light); get in touch with the author; collaborate to cross-reference where appropriate. Jobs a good 'un, or should I say "Proper job!"?

humagaia: 06/07/2013 - 04:12 AM

---

I don't understand why you cannot already collaborate by writing two articles (one each) to achieve what you describe above Jo. Cross-reference them where appropriate and place each in it's appropriate category. Each person gets their fair share of any proceeds; anybody and everybody can pull together in a collaborative effort; you are not limited to two participants; no extra coding; no need to have a certain number of articles written; all available to you at a well-known site beginning with W.

The x-referencing is the key and where the collaboration comes into play - each participant allows the other(s) to determine where and how cross-links are inserted and referenced. It's just how the internet was intended - "get your extra resource here".

You could start now without writing anything else - just find some articles that relate to yours (but look at the subject in a different light); get in touch with the author; collaborate to cross-reference where appropriate. Jobs a good 'un, or should I say "Proper job!"?

This presumes that people actually click and view the linked article, which surely means that one of the two will be losing out? If me and Jo collaborated as you're saying on a gaming article, it's likely that the hits would be split somewhere around 70/30, purely because I don't pull many viewers in and even less would click through to Jo's article. 

So are you saying that you want more than your fair share of the proceeds?

If they arrive at your article and you get an ad click - OK.

If they arrive at Jo's article and she gets an ad click - OK.

If they click through to the collaborators article and get an ad click - OK ('cos they didn't find an ad they wanted to click on elsewhere).

If the collaborative articles are linked properly then the visitor should be moving between the articles several times - so they get several shots at getting revenue.

Less would not click through to Jo's article - she would receive more hits than she would have (her attracted visitors + some from yours).

Incidentally, I am reading and enjoying the conversation.  I wasn't precious about my idea. It was just something which occurred to me, so I chucked it out into the mix. 

I am in the habit of linking articles which are relevant, regardless of whether I was the author.  That is a collaboration of sorts.  It's adequate, as far as it goes.  But I still think that we could go further. 

Linking to a cross-discipline article, on a similar topic, is asking our readers to do more work. It's saying, 'Yeah, I know you're here, but if you go over there, you might find something of interest too.'  Why not have it in the same place?  Ok, it's great for the bounce-rate and all, but we should be making things easy for those who take the time to read our work.

Plus people need convincing to step out of their comfort zone.  If I've written something in History, but linked to an article in Science, then a click may be disdained.  That reader is here to discover historical things, not scientific things.  But bring the Science to them, in a relevant way, within the history genre, suddenly it's interesting.  I know, because I'm guilty of that myself!

I still think that we could come up with some real firsts with a genuine collaboration.  it would be a kind of alchemy, mixing together unusual elements to create a truly new insight. 

But like I said, I'm enjoying the discussion and learning from it too.

@Jo, one idea would be to create a longer article one that would encompass the same concept but would link to the second authors article which is the second half. You would essentially decide ahead of time two related topics one would start it the other finishes it but each has self sufficient content (standalone in their own right without the other article).

You'd plan two topics i.e. Wiccan weddings and Wiccan wardrobe for those weddings, you'd both write and collaborate on it and essentially write two articles, one would start and pass over to the other one of them the other starts the second article and passes it to the other to read over, make changes, etc.. all done in contact i.e. chat/em... The end result would be two distinctive and collaborated on articles virtually simultaneously, that would help the other- the wedding one talks about weddings the wardrobe one talks about "attire" for those weddings (forgive me if this is a bad example)... You get two articles that complement and are different enough from one another that both of you get an article out of it.

Another idea is to create a single long say 3k words maybe, article with two distinct sections i.e. weddings and wardrobe for wedding ceremonies, write it as one article but design it so you can cut 1.5k words out and put it on the other authors account to finish.... either way or both would work to the same end without having to change anything about wizzley payout structures... 

I think an amazing collaboration without writing articles would be to go to each others articles and see if you can optimize the other persons monetization, you look at one of theirs they at one of yours and suggest- if the author likes the ideas they make changes- I think in the ad section we all have some interesting ways to pick our products but others you may have missed (opportunities for i.e. zazzle store item integration for someone who has no idea or doesn't care to learn or build a zazzle store, so a zazzle store or module expert would in effect offer the author insight while the other author offers theirs for the other persons article.

-Jerrico