![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 June 26. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see that what little was worthwhile in the article -- and I mean "little" as anything approaching anything substantive other than the advertisement for Associated Content that this is has been removed -- is no longer there (the riff on the Russian proleterian theme). WHAT POSSIBLY GOOD DOES IT DO TO PARSE THIS ARTICLE DOWN TO NOTHING BUT AN AD, OTHER THAN IT SERVING AS AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR ASSOCIATED CONENT?
This is one of the more shameful episodes on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Whoever has responsibility or this page should be removed. Potbelly & Ruth ( talk) 04:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The article reads as an advertisement for the firm and the writing reads very similarly to what I read upon the firm's Web site. However, with so many folks engaged with the firm and its site in various ways I believe the firm should remain upon Wikipedia. 68.13.191.153 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The article reads like an advertisement as useful information previously included in the article was wiped as "original research." Imagine that -- one wouldn't want original research in an encyclopedia, would one? Why "original research" was censored, go figure. Associated Content is geared towards creating spam as an advertising platform. Isn't that what wikipedia originally was about? Claude Alexander, The Esso Man ( talk) 04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
One wouldn't want original research in an encyclopedia? How do you think the Encyclopedia Britannica and other encyclopedias were created? Claude Alexander, The Esso Man ( talk) 18:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A perusal of Associated Content shows that the "Content Managers" are not concerned about quality control, as many "Content Producers" Complain about never hearing from the Managers, who ostensibly are in charge of quality control. They refuse to delete or amend articles with errors.
Errors seem to be widespread due to software issues, i.e. incompatibility with Word.
Most articles seem to be 2 "pages" long which indicates that the buzz that Associated Content is basically a producer of "Spam", i.e., a platform for Google Adsense ads, may be true.
Why this isn't in the body of the article, or has been taken out, surprises me. Won't You Come Home Bill Bailey? ( talk) 03:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the payment of 3$ for real? Is it really per article? What keeps a person from spending a Saturday earning 24$ by just writing articles? Gautam Discuss 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I write for Associated Content.com, and I can say that the $3 payment is indeed very real, although you can earn more per article depending on how well the article you submit will align with advertising, your keyword density, and your track record for bringing in pageviews. Also, not every article will be approved for payment. (I've submitted approximately 250 articles and had about 30 rejections. I said all of that to say this: While anyone over the age of 18 in the US is free to join AC and submit content, its not as simple as simply following the writing process we all learn in Elementary school. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
68.215.167.182 (
talk) 18:20, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
The truth seems to be that there are "Content Producers" that are "Content Managers," though thy do not bill themselves as such. Content Managers are anonymou, but there are Content Producers who comment on practical all complaints, rants, etc. They also are apologists for such Associated Content quirks as no quality control and no feedback (overt) from Conent Managers. As for pay, there seems to be lists of subjects available at up to $25 per article, but the articles are always gone. Most likely to these Content Managers that pose as Content Producers -- that would be my guess. There will be some Content Producers who will have five articles in a row featured. It seems to be a closed system of insiders, but one would be able to make anywwhere from $25-$100 per month if one is dedicated and is able to accept enough "calls." That's about what I made with no favoritism. It is what it is, no more. Claude Alexander, The Esso Man ( talk) 18:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have reverted a large portion of the recent changes made, due to information that very clearly needs to be attributed, is original research, or has some sort of general opinion overall. "CPs take it upon themselves to produce high quality work and behave ethically" is one such example, which is clearly not a neutral point of view. Information about the front page articles being short and complains about CMs also are in need of sourcing, etc. I didn't just use a tag because the information does not yet have a credible source - I've looked into it. Articles from the site can't be used as such. Kopf1988 ( talk) 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This website is currently blacklisted on the spam filter; I don't understand why. Chubbles ( talk) 13:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: The home page, http://www.associatedcontent.com/index.html, and the faq, http://www.associatedcontent.com/faq.html, (which allows any anchor on the FAQ to be used) have been whitelisted. All other sources from the site will need a separate whitelist request. -- SiobhanHansa 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Then it is still blacklisted. I added that to the article itself as it seems relevant: That the material on the site is being treated like dreck, dross, that is, essentially worthless. What an indictment of the whole project! Shemp Howard, Jr. ( talk) 07:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
AC recently revamped their whole website and have a new look. I believe a new screenshot is needed on this article. Zoodly ( talk) 16:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded a picture here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Associated_Content_home_page_screenshot.JPG
but I don't know how or whether I can add it to this page. I'm still new to Wiki.
Zoodly ( talk) 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I have caught a little bit of criticism of the site in odd places, but didn't pay too much attention to it. And after publishing four articles with upfront payment, the first for $5.41 and each later one for less than the previous ones, I'm curious to know if there's info that I should know about this site (e.g., do they pay over $5 to hook you and then pay less and less until you're accepting $2 per article?). So I came here. But I find no criticism, no links to any criticism... and three of the six sources cited are AC FAQ pages, and a fourth is an interview with their founder.
So I have to question... is this article simply not developed enough to include a rounded view of the site? Or has the negative stuff been deleted? Are there any reputable sources out there that are critical of AC, and if so, why aren't they cited here? Wikipedia is known for citing criticisms where they exist, and I would certainly like to know if it's out there... or must I go elsewhere to find this out? Kilyle ( talk) 13:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that this product is no longer named Associated Content should this wiki article be moved? Ottawahitech ( talk) 21:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 17:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Associated Content → Yahoo! Voices – In 2010, Yahoo! purchased Associated Content and the division was renamed to Yahoo! Voices. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 18:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 82.170.113.123 ( talk) 21:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Since voices.yahoo.com is longer around, tons of Wikipedia articles which used it as a reference have dead links. Is there any way to automate marking the dead links? Gmporr ( talk) 18:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 June 26. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I see that what little was worthwhile in the article -- and I mean "little" as anything approaching anything substantive other than the advertisement for Associated Content that this is has been removed -- is no longer there (the riff on the Russian proleterian theme). WHAT POSSIBLY GOOD DOES IT DO TO PARSE THIS ARTICLE DOWN TO NOTHING BUT AN AD, OTHER THAN IT SERVING AS AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR ASSOCIATED CONENT?
This is one of the more shameful episodes on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Whoever has responsibility or this page should be removed. Potbelly & Ruth ( talk) 04:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The article reads as an advertisement for the firm and the writing reads very similarly to what I read upon the firm's Web site. However, with so many folks engaged with the firm and its site in various ways I believe the firm should remain upon Wikipedia. 68.13.191.153 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The article reads like an advertisement as useful information previously included in the article was wiped as "original research." Imagine that -- one wouldn't want original research in an encyclopedia, would one? Why "original research" was censored, go figure. Associated Content is geared towards creating spam as an advertising platform. Isn't that what wikipedia originally was about? Claude Alexander, The Esso Man ( talk) 04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
One wouldn't want original research in an encyclopedia? How do you think the Encyclopedia Britannica and other encyclopedias were created? Claude Alexander, The Esso Man ( talk) 18:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A perusal of Associated Content shows that the "Content Managers" are not concerned about quality control, as many "Content Producers" Complain about never hearing from the Managers, who ostensibly are in charge of quality control. They refuse to delete or amend articles with errors.
Errors seem to be widespread due to software issues, i.e. incompatibility with Word.
Most articles seem to be 2 "pages" long which indicates that the buzz that Associated Content is basically a producer of "Spam", i.e., a platform for Google Adsense ads, may be true.
Why this isn't in the body of the article, or has been taken out, surprises me. Won't You Come Home Bill Bailey? ( talk) 03:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the payment of 3$ for real? Is it really per article? What keeps a person from spending a Saturday earning 24$ by just writing articles? Gautam Discuss 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I write for Associated Content.com, and I can say that the $3 payment is indeed very real, although you can earn more per article depending on how well the article you submit will align with advertising, your keyword density, and your track record for bringing in pageviews. Also, not every article will be approved for payment. (I've submitted approximately 250 articles and had about 30 rejections. I said all of that to say this: While anyone over the age of 18 in the US is free to join AC and submit content, its not as simple as simply following the writing process we all learn in Elementary school. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
68.215.167.182 (
talk) 18:20, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
The truth seems to be that there are "Content Producers" that are "Content Managers," though thy do not bill themselves as such. Content Managers are anonymou, but there are Content Producers who comment on practical all complaints, rants, etc. They also are apologists for such Associated Content quirks as no quality control and no feedback (overt) from Conent Managers. As for pay, there seems to be lists of subjects available at up to $25 per article, but the articles are always gone. Most likely to these Content Managers that pose as Content Producers -- that would be my guess. There will be some Content Producers who will have five articles in a row featured. It seems to be a closed system of insiders, but one would be able to make anywwhere from $25-$100 per month if one is dedicated and is able to accept enough "calls." That's about what I made with no favoritism. It is what it is, no more. Claude Alexander, The Esso Man ( talk) 18:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have reverted a large portion of the recent changes made, due to information that very clearly needs to be attributed, is original research, or has some sort of general opinion overall. "CPs take it upon themselves to produce high quality work and behave ethically" is one such example, which is clearly not a neutral point of view. Information about the front page articles being short and complains about CMs also are in need of sourcing, etc. I didn't just use a tag because the information does not yet have a credible source - I've looked into it. Articles from the site can't be used as such. Kopf1988 ( talk) 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This website is currently blacklisted on the spam filter; I don't understand why. Chubbles ( talk) 13:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: The home page, http://www.associatedcontent.com/index.html, and the faq, http://www.associatedcontent.com/faq.html, (which allows any anchor on the FAQ to be used) have been whitelisted. All other sources from the site will need a separate whitelist request. -- SiobhanHansa 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Then it is still blacklisted. I added that to the article itself as it seems relevant: That the material on the site is being treated like dreck, dross, that is, essentially worthless. What an indictment of the whole project! Shemp Howard, Jr. ( talk) 07:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
AC recently revamped their whole website and have a new look. I believe a new screenshot is needed on this article. Zoodly ( talk) 16:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded a picture here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Associated_Content_home_page_screenshot.JPG
but I don't know how or whether I can add it to this page. I'm still new to Wiki.
Zoodly ( talk) 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I have caught a little bit of criticism of the site in odd places, but didn't pay too much attention to it. And after publishing four articles with upfront payment, the first for $5.41 and each later one for less than the previous ones, I'm curious to know if there's info that I should know about this site (e.g., do they pay over $5 to hook you and then pay less and less until you're accepting $2 per article?). So I came here. But I find no criticism, no links to any criticism... and three of the six sources cited are AC FAQ pages, and a fourth is an interview with their founder.
So I have to question... is this article simply not developed enough to include a rounded view of the site? Or has the negative stuff been deleted? Are there any reputable sources out there that are critical of AC, and if so, why aren't they cited here? Wikipedia is known for citing criticisms where they exist, and I would certainly like to know if it's out there... or must I go elsewhere to find this out? Kilyle ( talk) 13:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that this product is no longer named Associated Content should this wiki article be moved? Ottawahitech ( talk) 21:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 17:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Associated Content → Yahoo! Voices – In 2010, Yahoo! purchased Associated Content and the division was renamed to Yahoo! Voices. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 18:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 82.170.113.123 ( talk) 21:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Since voices.yahoo.com is longer around, tons of Wikipedia articles which used it as a reference have dead links. Is there any way to automate marking the dead links? Gmporr ( talk) 18:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)