This is awesome; in fact I was thinking about building something similar a few days ago. Judging by the screenshots, it looks like you did a good job on the MVP so I can comfortably set that idea aside.
Do you mind disclosing the fee structure? Is it word count based, editor count, or a combo of both?
Also, do the reviewers get to see the versioned accepted/rejected/proposed rev history) or just the original?
At the moment I'd like to keep it at just a single flat fee: $10 for a review. (It's only $5 right now for people beta testing)
No matter what the size. So if you have a short doc you'll get lots of edits, and a long doc will get a good look and some comments on how to improve but not a detailed proof read.
I like keeping it that way so you can hit the button and always know what to expect. You don't have to worry "how much is this one going to cost me now". You'll just know.
I see a lot of other folks charging per word. I might play with that if folks don't like the flat fee.
Reviewers currently only see the original. I don't have a feedback mechanism in place yet for the reviewers to see how their changes are getting accepted. It's on the todo list.
I guess for me the current pricing structure is a bit more vague. I get that knowing how much I'll be billed before I hit the button is a good thing but I don't really know what I'll get in terms of quality or quantity of reviews.
My recommendation is to setup brackets based on word count and then tiers within those. So, for instance, (using completely arbitrary numbers):
0-50 words: 5 reviews ($5), 10 reviews ($8), 25 ($12); 51-100 words, 3 reviews ($5), 10.....and so on. Rigging up the javascript to make that determination would be trivial.
The reason I prefer this approach is that the content that I would need reviewed are fragments. Writings such as product blurbs and headlines are often extremely small in length but are the content that is likely to be hot-swapped most frequently, thus needing the most reviews, for AB tests.
In more cases than not, getting those small content blocks right is far, far more crucial than having a blog reviewed. A small blurb may only need 3 passthroughs but I may want to start with 10 on a headline and continue to buy revisions until I'm satisfied or the AB tests are concluded.
Reviewers currently only see the original. I don't have a feedback mechanism in place yet for the reviewers to see how their changes are getting accepted. It's on the todo list.
The revision structure, imo, is your most powerful feature. Perhaps something as simple as the owner is the only one that can accept but anyone that knows the publicly facing url can submit changes would work at first. It would be akin to a lot of the pastebin-esk sites out there with a bit of a twist.
This way, I could submit my changes into you (and you send them over to whomever) for review but I could also send them over to my wife (whom is also subject to my persistent requests for reviews).
Most importantly though, the history gives the reviewer a sense of state and a better indication of intent and direction.
Anyway, good luck man. Keep HN informed and I look forward to kicking the tires.
Sometimes I want my writing picked apart for the slightest error, but at other times I want broader, more general feedback.
Nate said it perfectly with So if you have a short doc you'll get lots of edits, and a long doc will get a good look and some comments on how to improve but not a detailed proof read.
However, I don't think review depth should be strictly determined by length. Then again, this pricing structure would add more complexity, so go figure.
Good question. Mobileworks helps folks in the developing world participate in the web's labor economy. Much of our workforce comes from places where prevailing wages are much lower.
In this case, the editors are located outside the United States. They're nurses, retired professors, writers, and more.
In other words, people least familar with the idiosyncracies of U.S. grammar, spelling, and linguistic differences...
This site is probably still worth it if you are aiming for international English, but it's useless if your audience reads and expects U.S. English.
Note that if you are U.S.-based, and your audience will primarily be U.S.-based, you can probably get better quality proofing and editing for not much more by posting Help Wanted's in your local college's student newspaper.
Edit: Just so that we're clear, I think the dogfooded blog post demonstrates poor proofing in both U.S. and International (U.K.) English.
One constant I’ve recognized in my writing is how much feedback I like to have.
The constant is not in your writing, but in your writing process. Alternatively, choose a more appropriate preposition, such as "about." This is a subtle error, but one that a US college graduate would have caught.
I’ll write an email, and I’ll send a draft to a colleague to see if it’s right. I’ll write an application to something, and get feedback from friends to see if it makes sense. I’ll write a blog post, and send it to my wife.
While this is technically correct, it is poor writing. The second phrase in each sentence is logically connected to the first as a continuation of action, so the second phrases should not be set apart as independent clauses. Either eliminate the ", and I'll..." or make them separate sentences.
But being a solo entrepreneur and working alone at home, I often find myself stuck, not being able to get a friend to look at my work.
It is permissible but not proper to start a sentence with "But" when you are discussing the immediately preceding sentence. It is not okay to start a paragraph with "But." Use "However" or "In contrast" or some such similar word or phrase. Alternatively, move the sentence to the preceding paragraph.
My wife can only take so much.
A single sentence is not a paragraph.
Especially not when it is logically part of the previous paragraph.
Unless you are doing it for emphasis.
But you already had a single-sentence paragraph, so the emphasis is lost.
I got bored of proofing the blog post after that, but it definitely gets worse from that point on and if I were to continue I would have further edits for every single sentence remaining in the post. The level of proofing is perfectly acceptable for a personal blog where you aren't too worried about it being read professionally...but why would you bother pay to have a personal post proofed? If this is the level of quality that can be expected from Draft, it is simply not adequate for any professional purpose.
You're right, I assumed Kontny was dogfooding too.
Some thoughts on the actual MobileWorks blog:
Here’s an idea. What if the network of disruptive startups being created in Silicon Valley could band together to disrupt unemployment itself, right here in the US? Today, we’re announcing a new experiment to try and do exactly that.
After "idea" there should be a semicolon. Also, in the U.S., formal abbreviations such as U.S. and U.S.A. are always punctuated in professional writing (see, e.g., the NY Times). Bloggers and commenters get away with not punctuating because they are not expected to be professional, but that is not an excuse a proofreading service should make. Note that this is exactly what I was referring to originally, as the standard convention in most European countries is that formal abbreviations in English are not capitalized, i.e. UK rather than U.K.
pick up the last few slots" should be "fill up...", as slots cannot be picked up.
It's a chance* should be "This is a chance" because they are referring to WFA, not the project work, unless they truly are referring to the project work and not WFA.
The list has improper punctuation. Each item should end with a semi colon; the third item should not have a period; there should be a conjunctive or disjunctive joinder after the third item or the "and more" shold be made its own separate item.
participants will be able to take skills learned working on Silicon Valley’s projects with them as they're placed
As written, it means that participants' skills will only be useful in the initial stages of job-hunting rather than useful in the jobs in which they are placed; it should say something like "Participants will learn skills working on Silicon Valley projects. They can take these skills with them to full-time..."
There are more, but you get the idea. This service is decent but pointless for non-professional writing and not up-to-par for professional writing.
You had it right; I'm referring to the linked post.
But you seem to be looking for proofreaders who can apply the particular set of proofing standards expected of print writers, as opposed to suggested edits an informal writer can incorporate into blog posts.
I'm not sure that's what Draft claims to do -- or why it's so interesting!
If they're being paid a fair salary according to the reality of their location, it's not a sweatshop. Attitudes like that keep developing countries in poverty by preventing them from taking advantage of the few upper hands they have over developed countries.
A couple of notes, based on my prior experience with online proofreading services, some of which were pretty decent if a bit expensive. All of them lacked the following -
1. A way to communicate with the editor. To say "Thanks", for example.
2. A way to retain the same editor for future requests. Some editors are much better than others and an ability to go back to the same person is very useful.
23 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 51.6 ms ] threadDo you mind disclosing the fee structure? Is it word count based, editor count, or a combo of both?
Also, do the reviewers get to see the versioned accepted/rejected/proposed rev history) or just the original?
At the moment I'd like to keep it at just a single flat fee: $10 for a review. (It's only $5 right now for people beta testing)
No matter what the size. So if you have a short doc you'll get lots of edits, and a long doc will get a good look and some comments on how to improve but not a detailed proof read.
I like keeping it that way so you can hit the button and always know what to expect. You don't have to worry "how much is this one going to cost me now". You'll just know.
I see a lot of other folks charging per word. I might play with that if folks don't like the flat fee.
Reviewers currently only see the original. I don't have a feedback mechanism in place yet for the reviewers to see how their changes are getting accepted. It's on the todo list.
Re:price
I guess for me the current pricing structure is a bit more vague. I get that knowing how much I'll be billed before I hit the button is a good thing but I don't really know what I'll get in terms of quality or quantity of reviews.
My recommendation is to setup brackets based on word count and then tiers within those. So, for instance, (using completely arbitrary numbers):
0-50 words: 5 reviews ($5), 10 reviews ($8), 25 ($12); 51-100 words, 3 reviews ($5), 10.....and so on. Rigging up the javascript to make that determination would be trivial.
The reason I prefer this approach is that the content that I would need reviewed are fragments. Writings such as product blurbs and headlines are often extremely small in length but are the content that is likely to be hot-swapped most frequently, thus needing the most reviews, for AB tests.
In more cases than not, getting those small content blocks right is far, far more crucial than having a blog reviewed. A small blurb may only need 3 passthroughs but I may want to start with 10 on a headline and continue to buy revisions until I'm satisfied or the AB tests are concluded.
The revision structure, imo, is your most powerful feature. Perhaps something as simple as the owner is the only one that can accept but anyone that knows the publicly facing url can submit changes would work at first. It would be akin to a lot of the pastebin-esk sites out there with a bit of a twist.This way, I could submit my changes into you (and you send them over to whomever) for review but I could also send them over to my wife (whom is also subject to my persistent requests for reviews).
Most importantly though, the history gives the reviewer a sense of state and a better indication of intent and direction.
Anyway, good luck man. Keep HN informed and I look forward to kicking the tires.
Sometimes I want my writing picked apart for the slightest error, but at other times I want broader, more general feedback.
Nate said it perfectly with So if you have a short doc you'll get lots of edits, and a long doc will get a good look and some comments on how to improve but not a detailed proof read.
However, I don't think review depth should be strictly determined by length. Then again, this pricing structure would add more complexity, so go figure.
As far as I know, this is one of the first times a crowd has been embedded in a software application for the general public.
However, if you don't mind me asking - how a "college educated crew" reconciles with being "super cheap"? Who are the editors exactly?
In this case, the editors are located outside the United States. They're nurses, retired professors, writers, and more.
This site is probably still worth it if you are aiming for international English, but it's useless if your audience reads and expects U.S. English.
Note that if you are U.S.-based, and your audience will primarily be U.S.-based, you can probably get better quality proofing and editing for not much more by posting Help Wanted's in your local college's student newspaper.
Take a look at our blog (dogfooded), and let me know whether you think the editing quality reflects US or international English usage.
One constant I’ve recognized in my writing is how much feedback I like to have.
The constant is not in your writing, but in your writing process. Alternatively, choose a more appropriate preposition, such as "about." This is a subtle error, but one that a US college graduate would have caught.
I’ll write an email, and I’ll send a draft to a colleague to see if it’s right. I’ll write an application to something, and get feedback from friends to see if it makes sense. I’ll write a blog post, and send it to my wife.
While this is technically correct, it is poor writing. The second phrase in each sentence is logically connected to the first as a continuation of action, so the second phrases should not be set apart as independent clauses. Either eliminate the ", and I'll..." or make them separate sentences.
But being a solo entrepreneur and working alone at home, I often find myself stuck, not being able to get a friend to look at my work.
It is permissible but not proper to start a sentence with "But" when you are discussing the immediately preceding sentence. It is not okay to start a paragraph with "But." Use "However" or "In contrast" or some such similar word or phrase. Alternatively, move the sentence to the preceding paragraph.
My wife can only take so much.
A single sentence is not a paragraph.
Especially not when it is logically part of the previous paragraph.
Unless you are doing it for emphasis.
But you already had a single-sentence paragraph, so the emphasis is lost.
I got bored of proofing the blog post after that, but it definitely gets worse from that point on and if I were to continue I would have further edits for every single sentence remaining in the post. The level of proofing is perfectly acceptable for a personal blog where you aren't too worried about it being read professionally...but why would you bother pay to have a personal post proofed? If this is the level of quality that can be expected from Draft, it is simply not adequate for any professional purpose.
Some thoughts on the actual MobileWorks blog: Here’s an idea. What if the network of disruptive startups being created in Silicon Valley could band together to disrupt unemployment itself, right here in the US? Today, we’re announcing a new experiment to try and do exactly that.
After "idea" there should be a semicolon. Also, in the U.S., formal abbreviations such as U.S. and U.S.A. are always punctuated in professional writing (see, e.g., the NY Times). Bloggers and commenters get away with not punctuating because they are not expected to be professional, but that is not an excuse a proofreading service should make. Note that this is exactly what I was referring to originally, as the standard convention in most European countries is that formal abbreviations in English are not capitalized, i.e. UK rather than U.K.
pick up the last few slots" should be "fill up...", as slots cannot be picked up.
It's a chance* should be "This is a chance" because they are referring to WFA, not the project work, unless they truly are referring to the project work and not WFA.
The list has improper punctuation. Each item should end with a semi colon; the third item should not have a period; there should be a conjunctive or disjunctive joinder after the third item or the "and more" shold be made its own separate item.
participants will be able to take skills learned working on Silicon Valley’s projects with them as they're placed
As written, it means that participants' skills will only be useful in the initial stages of job-hunting rather than useful in the jobs in which they are placed; it should say something like "Participants will learn skills working on Silicon Valley projects. They can take these skills with them to full-time..."
There are more, but you get the idea. This service is decent but pointless for non-professional writing and not up-to-par for professional writing.
But you seem to be looking for proofreaders who can apply the particular set of proofing standards expected of print writers, as opposed to suggested edits an informal writer can incorporate into blog posts.
I'm not sure that's what Draft claims to do -- or why it's so interesting!
1. A way to communicate with the editor. To say "Thanks", for example.
2. A way to retain the same editor for future requests. Some editors are much better than others and an ability to go back to the same person is very useful.
We're about push out a new 'plan' and set of copy. We'd love some feedback and questions. Thanks everybody!