HN Explorer

Ask HN: How much compensation would you like from "Hacker Monthly"?

19 points by sarkozy ↗ HN
Every magazine is required to compensate its writers. Hence we can assume that Hacker Monthly should be no different.

How would you like to see "Hacker Monthly" compensate YOU, as a HNer, for publishing your contributions here?

What would be a fair approach?

19 comments

[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 62.4 ms ] thread
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
bobz
Paying people per word is just silly. Can we please not carry over this hackish way of valuing a writer's contribution?

If we wanted a metric of the value of the post, I would think up-votes would be a better metric. But personally, I agree with the others here saying that monetary compensation is not a good idea. Or, if you feel the desire to give back to the community financially for financial success you are having,perhaps a donation to PG or YC for maintaining this site.

(Yes, I know he doesn't need it, and I know he gets value from the site. Saying thank you is still a good idea, both because he does good things with money, and because it [the gesture, more than the money] will keep him interested and involved, even as his success and demands for his time continue to grow.)

jonnathanson
I think you have a slight misunderstanding about what "pay per word" means in the writing business. Publications don't just tell writers they're getting $.05 per word and then let them run off and produce as many words as they want. Rather, they tend to have word limits and expectations per article: 500, 1000, etc. The reasons they pay "per word," and not necessarily a flate rate per piece, are several:

a) They want to reserve the right to edit the final piece and/or change word count expectations on the fly.

b) There might be additional work added to the work order, such as sidebars or supplementary appendices. Rather than draw up an entirely new contract or fee structure, they'll just add these to word count.

All in, pay-per-word usually ends up underpaying writers for their contributions to typical publications or advertisements. Pay-per-word doesn't take into account hours per article, which can be highly variable depending on the nature of the assignment. An in-depth research project yielding a 1,000 word essay is obviously harder to produce than a 1,000 word opinion piece about men's fashion.

motters
Paying per word would only encourage inconcise wordy waffling.
thesethings
I'd like a link to my HN username, or Twitter username. No money needed.

I think we all frequently write for "free" on websites that earn money from user-generated content/ presence. I don't feel cheated by this.

It's a good investment to write for free (I think of it more like interacting or participating) because I learn stuff from smart people, get relationships with nice people, attention for stuff I work on, and am able to pass on attention to stuff I am a fan of.

I'm not opposed to writers getting compensated with money, but in this case i'm not sure it's the currency that would help either party out the most.

brianbreslin
Nothing IMO. Or discounts on subscriptions.
awa
I would rather see the price drop to $0 if not, drop the price by the amount you would be paying the authors. Alternatively, you can look into swag like free subscriptions for contributors.

Though I wonder what kind of change in dynamics on the site would we see once the mturk people find out that you can get paid for posting articles and comments at HN.

pauledwards
Links to projects, websites, a writers profile. Promotion can be useful, it doesn't have to be money.
petercooper
As presently, nothing. Just full and proper credit. (Though I believe you recently said a year's subscription comes as part of it, which is great!) Why? Because we don't produce blog posts, etc, in order to merely get into Hacker Monthly - it's just republishing work that's already been produced.
bearwithclaws
As I mentioned here (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1856101):

We give our authors a print copy plus 1 year digital subscription. The comment contributors get the digital copy plus 1 year digital subscription.

Edit: And of course, full and proper credit (Thanks, Peter). The author also gets to link to his/her websites/twitter account in the his/her biography.

bl4k
I bought this up in comments two issues ago when one of the authors mentioned that they didn't know there was no free PDF issue any longer.

As I said at the time, you should pay contributors at least a token fee to remove any ambiguity about copyright ownership. There is just far too much that can go wrong with the current system, and you are exposing yourself to liability. Saying 'we do pay the writers for their copyright by giving them a free copy of their own content' is not an answer.

I remember when I used to write a monthly column in a computing magazine I would take a monthly salary of $1 simply to remove any ambiguity about ownership. It was company policy not to accept or publish any content that was free (because it never ended up being free).

You are only one pissed off author away from losing everything, or causing a fuss (they could decide to change their mind for the heck of it, a year later).

It would be very different if you were giving a free PDF edition away and charging for a print edition - that is how most open source works (ie. download for free, pay for a CD)

bgray
I would like to say nothing but I know some authors won't want to be included without the magazine being free in some form. I'm afraid this will jeopardize the quality of the articles and reduce overall readership. How about making the electronic (only) version free (again) and giving author credit/promotion.
zerohp
I dont think your first statement is true. Are magazines required to compensate their writers? I don't think that they are, it depends on the license applied to the original content. If there's no license they can only print it if Fair Use applies or copyright is reassigned.

We cannot examine the other issues when the assumptions in your first two sentences are in question.

dbz
Hmmmm

You have a new account, and I think you are either trying to stir up some trouble or trying to hide who you really are. If this were a reasonable thing to bring up (in the manner you chose), then you wouldn't have to hide who you are.

However, you used the second person and directly addressed the reader twice (vs addressing the community) and it appears that you are trying to get people to "hop on the wagon" and protest the lack of fees after 'deciding' upon a fair approach.

If my post comes across as accosting, it is because you could have easily have said:

.

"Hacker News, is it fair that Hacker Monthly doesn't compensate its writers like other magazines? Should it?"

wlievens
Or, he really is the French president. But that makes no sense.
rokhayakebe
I think it would be shameful to ask to be paid. These articles are mostly from people who just wanted to share their thoughts with the rest of the world. They are not writers.

Also most of these articles make it to HM because they stir up some interesting conversations. You can say the community makes the post popular. Should the community get paid too?

dotBen
I don't have a view on the articles that are republished - I think it comes down to the case-by-case situation between the blog post writer and Hacker Monthly (some bloggers are pro writers and thus kind need to be paid others are blogging for fun and would enjoy the extra distribution).

I'd be interested, however, in seeing the comments left on HN licensed as Creative Commons-With Attribution. I'd personally be happy for commercial use, but I can see an argument for Non-Commercial Use only license.

Everything you write here is being ingested into BackType and a load of others places and being used for all sorts of stuff so why not just assume that comments belong to the ether and be done with it?