
Originally Posted by
Stevie D
If all you're doing is taking other people's work and re-shaping it then you need to question what value you're adding. Yes, it might legitimately be "research" using a range of source materials, synthesising them all into one article that draws on a dozen others, bringing together the key points from each and writing it yourself ... that's perfectly valid way of generating an article, but you have to ask yourself what the point of it is, when there’s nothing new there.
Now there might be very good reasons for doing that. You might find source material that is badly written or extremely technical and so difficult for a lot of people to read an understand ... if you can re-write it in a more readable and accessible format, that’s great. You might be looking at source materials that take completely opposing viewpoints and trying to find some common middle ground or a compromise between them ... and that’s great too. But if you’re just re-hashing the same ideas that hundreds of other people have already without any kind of USP, why would someone want to read the article on your site rather than the original source?
So, what else can you do? How about some original research ... if you’re writing about, for example, a piece of software, then give us your own experiences. Try it out yourself, tell us what you think about it. Try to make it specific and relevant, rather than generic. Inject some of your personality into it.
Above all, think about what you would want to read in someone else’s article. If you read two articles from different websites on the same topic, what would encourage you to go back to one website rather than the other? What else would you have liked the author to include? Critically analysing your own writing is hard work, but it’s a valuable skill if you are going to create worthwhile articles.
Bookmarks