eHow Scam- Using Google Image to Steal Traffic From its Own WCP Writers

eHow's Newest Scam- Stealing Traffic by Using eHow WCP's own Photos Against Them in Google Image Search

I have had some niggling thoughts lately about eHow's use of US WCP writer's profiles to artificially prop up their faux UK site, but even more so, I've been thinking about all the recent photo bugs writer's have been experiencing.  Not being able to publish articles with photos, photos disappearing from articles... while at the same time being told by Julie in management that one of the components of the secret eHow WCP algorithm pay is photos.  Think, think, think, I told myself.  Follow the money.

eHow management gave me a clue when they quoted part of their TOU when a writer asked about their profile image, avatar or photo.... and that part of the TOU states eHow can use any 'material' including photos, pretty much as they see fit.  But, I really couldn't find any examples of  eHow using my photos on anyone else's articles.  I asked point-blank in a forum if eHow felt they had the right to use my photos on other people's articles, but got no reply.

So, I looked at it from a different angle.

Google Image Search
I'm not sure how many people use Google Image search- I'd guess quite a lot.  I use it a lot.  When I am searching for a particular term, it's so much easier to sort through visuals than to have to read each article to see if it's what I was looking for.  For example, if you search the term 'SparkleJet' on regular Google, the first link to come up is a link to my fiance's band's discography.  Please don't click on that- they get no residuals if you buy from there!  However, 2 slots down is his band's Myspace page.  Click there if you'd like.  But, let's suppose you were not interested in my fiance's band.  Or in web designers.  Or most of what appears on front page Google.  Let's say you want to read about Sparklejet Gretch Guitars?  If you look up in the left-hand corner where it says 'web, image, video', etc.,  and click on 'images', it will take you to the Google Image pages where you can see pictures of guitars and find the page you were really looking for.

What does any of this have to do with eHow?  Glad you asked.  Using that same type of search, follow me here....
Let's say I wanted to find out how to lose weight by drinking vegetable juice.  If you type the term 'lose weight vegetable juice' into regular Google, in the 6th slot is an article called 'How to Lose Weight with Vegetable Juice'.  Yay- that's my article!  But, don't click on that, click on the little button at the top of the page that says 'images'.  See that 5th picture, the one with the veggie juice and the celery?  That was taken in my kitchen.  But, it's not titled correctly.  In my article it is titled '8oz of vegetable juice'.  If you click on it, it takes you to my article.  Good.  But wait.... there's my pix again, in slot 7.  This picture has been resized, and is bigger, though.  And, again, it's not titled correctly.  When you click it, it takes you to an article ON eHOW titled 'How to Understand If Vegetable Juice Can Help You Lose Weight'.  Whoa..... I didn't write that article!  How'd they get my picture?

Hmmm.  if you change the search terms to 'how lose weight vegetable juice' I'm now in the Google #3 front page slot, but when you click 'images', my picture is now in #6 slot.  But, it's the bigger resized pic, and it leads to the other writer's article.  Now I can't find my article at all!  WTF?

If you Google 'how clean pond filter', my eHow article is #1 on Google front page.  Dang, all that work promoting and backlinking has paid off!  Then I click 'images'.  Yay!  My picture is the very first one.  I click on it, and for some reason it leads to a different article I wrote for eHow.  That's ok, though, because it's about cleaning pond filters as well.  Wait... that second picture, the larger resized picture?  That's mine, too, even though it has the wrong title!  Why is it that when I click that picture, it takes me to a different article written by a DS flat-rate 'contributing writer' instead of my article? 

If I search Google for 'fat koi', my article is the number one listed!  When I click on 'images', I find my picture of my poor bloated fish as #9, and it's titled correctly.  But it's larger than the picture I remember.  Hmmm.  I click on it, and no surprise, it's a link to "How to Determine the Correct Depth of a Koi Pond",  written by a 'contributing writer'.  Why do all my pictures link to 'contributing writers?  Oh, yeah- they're the Demand Studios eHow writers who got paid a small (5-$15) one time writing payment for their articles.  My actual picture that links to MY article is on page 2, in the #28 spot.

?????????????

eHow/Demand Studios couldn't possibly be using my Google Image links to divert traffic away from my articles, could they?  If someone clicks on ads on MY article, eHow has to pay me a secret magical amount, but if someone follows a link from my picture to a 'contributing member's article, and that reader clicks on an ad, eHow keeps all the money.  That couldn't be it, could it?

For 'perfect hash browns', my article is #4 on front page Google.  In Google Images, my picture is in slot 4 and 5.  The first, resized, larger image is not titled correctly.  It leads to a video on eHow that I did not make.  What are the chances that if someone liked the picture, they'd click the first, larger picture?  The second picture is also using someone else's title, but it does lead to my article.

I have spent all day checking out my photos on Google Image, and other eHow writer friends as well.  What I've seen is that eHow has resized our photos and is using them to provide links to other people's articles, most often to articles written by flat-rate DS writers.  Often, that picture link appears before our picture linking to OUR article.  Sometimes I can't even find my picture being linked to my article at all.  I've also found my Google Image search bringing up unrelated photos, articles, titles of mine, as well as articles, videos and articles of unrelated writers and topics.  It appears eHow is using our pictures to create a massive spiderweb of backlinks that don't neccessarily help us at all, but rather help eHow to direct traffic to articles where they do not have to pay residual income.

When is Stealing Not Stealing?
Now, it does appear to be true at this time that eHow/Demand Media is not specifically taking OUR pictures and POSTING them on other people's articles.  But, is it really any better for them to be posting them on Google Images and using them to take traffic away from our own articles, essentially stealing our traffic and our revenue?  It appears to be purposeful, since all of the photos being used (and every one of my photos is being used) have been resized.

Please let me know what you think.

Demand Media Announces $80 Plan For eHow Writers

Demand Media Announces New $80 Per Article Plan For Writers

Demand Media, the parent company of Demand Studios and eHow, as well as other companies, has come out with a couple of announcements recently.  They announced they were actively seeking UK and Canadian writers, and have also announced they are planning to pay eHow writers $80 per article.

Now, What Could Be Wrong With That?

Well, part of the problem with that, the announcement, is that it's a bit misleading. 

• eHow has two writing divisions, Demand Studios writers who write for eHow as 'Contributing Members' at a low flat rate per article, and eHow Writer's Compensation Program writers, who write for residual-only earnings, and are called 'Users'. (Who else calls their writers 'users'?)  This plan was not offered to the WCP writers, even though they are called eHow writers.
• This plan also wasn't offered to the majority of the CMs, either.  Somehow, Demand Studios hand-picked 50 lucky writers to participate in this program.  How those people were picked is anyone's guess, kind of like the secret algorithm used by DM to pay the WCP writers.  They've hinted that maybe they'll pick a few more writers at a future date... maybe.
• This plan is supposedly for 'featured' content.  Which CMs already have published on front page of eHow, for a low flat rate.  It makes no sense to pay $80 for a featured content article that last month was being written for $15 or so.
• This plan supposedly will require more words and more research to create 'higher quality' articles, and need to have expertise in the topic (the eHow directory already claims that CM writers are experts, and that WCP are just 'regular people') - yet eHow spokespeople consistently give interviews claiming their CMs have high quality articles, and that they are sweeping or weeding out the low quality articles written by WCP writers.  Why should they offer to pay more when they already claim to be producing high-quality articles at $15? Essentially, it appears they are admitting their featured CM articles are low-quality, and they are now going to pay more to fix that perception?
• How much space is really available for 'featured content'?  Even with a pool of 50 writers, how much featured content can really be fit on eHow front page each day?  5 new features each day for a year is less than 2,000 articles a year. (Demand Media claims to produce 4,000 articles per day- none of that is high enough quality to be featured?).  Why in the world would they suddenly decide to pay a select group of 50 people to write 6-7 new articles a month at $80 a pop, when those writers were supposedly chosen for being 'the best' already, and from a business standpoint, should be expected to continue writing for the pay they were already getting.  Why not just give them a bonus?  Why announce that they're going to be paying 'eHow writers' $80 per article?
• How did these 50 people get picked?  Are their names going to be released so that people can see the quality of work they were chosen for?  Are any WCP writers on that list? Employees?  Moderators?
• Why was this announced at about the same time as the announcement that Demand Media is opening up eHow to writers from the UK and Canada, neither of which will be able to participate in the WCP, and supposedly will earn about $3-10 per article? (And is that pay in American dollars?  Who knows.) Could it be to counteract the bad press Demand Media received for using eHow WCP articles on a mirrored UK site without paying for use of their articles?

How much more likely is it that this $80 plan for eHow writers is just a publicity stunt to get lots of UK and Canadian writers to sign up and write for pennies on the dollar?

Here's an example of the high quality articles Demand Studios has been paying flat rate for, from an author they claim is an 'expert', rather than just the 'average person' CWP writers---

How To Remove the Wax Coating from an Orange
Step 1-
Warm running water can help remove surface dirt.Rinse the orange thoroughly under warm, running water to remove any surface dust or dirt.

Step 2-
Gently rub the the entire outer skin of the orange with a soft-bristle or vegetable brush, as you hold it under the warm, running water, to help remove the wax.

Step 3-
Rinse the orange again before turning off the water. Dry the orange with a clean towel.

Is this really the kind of expert that is in the pool of 50 CM writers chosen to get paid $80 for featured articles?
.

The New eHow Scam - Canada and the UK?

Is Canada and the UK Next on the List for eHow?

eHow is getting a lot of negative buzz on personal blogs and even on their own eHow forums lately.  Based on the discrepancies between how Demand Media (the parent company for Demand Studios and eHow) pays its flat-rate eHow writers and supposed revenue sharing eHow writers (WCP) are paid, and the drama that has ensued after Demand Media mirrored the US eHow site as a UK site without the benefit of paying its writers, many writers are understandably not that impressed with Demand Studios integrity.

What's surprising is that Demand Studios appears to be forging ahead with plans to hire flat-rate writers in the UK and Canada, when you'd think what happened with the UK fiasco in the last 6 months would have made them think twice.  If not, it certainly should give writers in the UK and Canada who are considering writing for Demand Media pause.

Here's just one recent comment left on the eHow WCP forum- I can't claim to have written it, but I think it sums up well what UK and Canadian writers may have to look forward to, and why they (and the general media, frankly) should take a serious look at what eHow has been doing the last year.

Forums » eHow General » eHow Feature Feedback & Suggestion... » Here's the Deal, eHow.
posted at 3/7/2010 1:21 AM PST

gottareeson

My suggestion is that you turn your corporate attitude around, and recognize and respect your members' rights as consumers to make informed decisions about our investments on eHow, and begin to act accordingly in good faith.

Your actions to date have demonstrated nothing but chronic bad faith by consistently stonewalling, ridiculing, and censoring your members' persistent, legitimate questions and concerns.
It doesn't matter if you plan to sell eHow tomorrow or go global in "UK, Washington." Because each and every eHow representative may ultimately be held liable for his or her actions in a court of law, and most certainly in the court of public opinion.

No one who represents Demand Media or eHow to the members of this site has given one sign in a year or more that they understand or care one bit that there are human beings who are being significantly harmed by the continued lack of good faith here. Everything about eHow is a complete waste of time for its members, and a joke to its reps.
Bernie Madoff laughed too, eHow, but there comes a time when the public says enough is enough. And I don't expect your humor will play well with your Brit and Canadian audiences when they wake up and smell the switch you plan to pull on them.

You know that your corporate actions are not legal. Your CEO went to law school. Unfair competiton, corporate conflicts of interest, fraudulent inducement, and bait-and-switch tactics have been illegal for decades. You just figure you're slick enough to get away with it. And you might be right, but then again, you might not.

So go right ahead and delete this post, as you have all of the other posts that hit too close to home. It's already been documented that it was posted, and therefore seen, by your staff.

This fight is going off your turf, since you clearly don't have the decency to fairly address it on your own.

eHow Earnings and Algorithyms

Earning Money Writing for eHow Just Keeps Getting Harder

Anyone familiar with writing for eHow knows that the pay is a secret. That all by itself is weird. It's based on some magical algorithym that only the Man Behind The Green Curtain knows. It is supposedly based on a recipe of views, adclicks and 'secret spices', while at the same time not based on those things at all. Sometimes it's claimed that it's based on 'popularity and quality' and 'usefulness'. Whatever.

One thing that IS clear is that somehow it is based on adclicks. I know this, because I don't have so many articles there that I can't watch how many views each article gets, and how much at any one time an article gets paid. Therefore, I know that either eHow or an advertiser is paying me more for one article than another, and since the ads that run for the higher paid article feature more expensive products, it's clear that the advertiser plays some role in how much is paid. I should note at this point that because the algorithym (who gets paid by 'algorithym', anyway?) is secret, in truth, it could in possibility be changed every day, or be different for each person. Meaning that if Campbells Soup pays $1 per click, you could get .25 one day, and .17 the next. Or maybe .35 if you are deemed 'popular' (whatever that means!). That gets me back to the ads.

How Can You Make Money on eHow if There Are No Ads to Click On?

I am going to dissect my article "How to Make Vegan Gnocchi" first.

When I look at the article, front and center is my title. Good! However, just to the left of that is a listing of other eHow articles that are essentially competing already. This is good for eHow, especially if they are articles written by Demand Studios, because they are paid a one-time flat rate instead of having to pay residual earnings to an eHow CWP (Writer's Compensation Program) like me. If they moved that down the page a bit, maybe someone would be tempted to actually read my article!

Next, I see on the right hand side that there are listed 6 'related ads'. The problem is, they're just listed. No tempting pictures- but at least they are on topic with my article. Moving further down, I see a large picture ad for losing 'inches off your stomach' on the left side, which is not related to my article. On the right side of my text is an ad for losing weight with 'LiveStrong.Com' (owned by eHow's parent company, Demand Media). It's large, and also off topic. Under that is another large ad for LiveStrong.Com Tools. It looks like it's daring you to stop smoking (it's also daring you to click on it instead of reading my article!).

Under that, is the same list of 'related articles' from other people, albeit formatted differently- larger and with video options. On the fip side, under the display ad for 'losing inches' is another picture ad (but smaller)urging me to 'dare to lose weight'... with LiveStrong.Com!

Finally, AFTER my article, right underneath, there are 4 Google ads, 1 of which is relevant to my article. Off to the side of this is a random listing of other articles I've written, which may or may not be relevant.

So, What Is My Point With All of This?

Well, I didn't begin writing with eHow just because I like to see my name in print. I've been writing for over 20 years, in full-time paying jobs, so I don't need that. I started writing with eHow because I was promised pay for that. When I first started, I was very pleased, and could see how if things continued, I could do quite well. The problem is that it didn't stay that way. There have been many things that have played into that, not the least of which is the mess eHow made by mirroring the US eHow site into the UK, and allowing their own articles to compete against themselves- with no pay. But, I am going to guess something else might be a part of it lately, especially after eHow began their Garden Blog and started developing their own 'departments' that use flat-rate articles.

What I do know is that ad-clicking plays SOME part of eHow WCP earnings, so it stands to reason that I would be wanting some good ads on my articles. It isn't good to have large display ads that are off topic taking up the best real estate on my articles. Now, normally, this would occur if you had a poor title or didn't keep a focus on your keywords... but this is occurring because eHow is placing their own ads in those positions. It also appears that having two large ads about losing weight has affected the other Google ad topic as well, considering that most of the smaller Google text ads are on topic. I'm not sure what to think about that, but I have heard Google and eHow are quite cozy, so who knows.

What this tells me is that eHow has determined that it is better financially to fill up most of the compelling ad space with redirection to their other sites/projects than it would be to share any earnings made if there were other ads there that I could earn from. I am pretty sure that clicking on any of their ads does not figure into our pay algorithym. The ads for 'eHow's Home and Garden Blog', 'LiveStrong.Com', 'LiveStrong.Com Tools', 'LiveStrong "Dare to" series', 'eHow Get Your Degree' and the rest of the lot are recent additions--- what was there before? Is it possible that the re-working of the layout and the amount of redirection eHow is adding back to itself in the articles is adding to the loss of earnings so many writers are reporting?

I am going to go through all my articles (I note that some of them have not had all the eHow ads stuffed into them- maybe they haven't created their own eHow network for those genres yet?) and get an idea of which articles are performing best for me, and what the ratio of eHow-driven advertisement is on those pages. Please do the same, and let me know what you come up with!