cheap vs expensive freelance writers whos better with timestamps YoutubeScribe.com

[0:00] We paid 3 freelance writers to create content
on the exact same topic with the exact same
[0:05] content brief.
[0:06] The only difference was in their rates.
[0:08] And today, with the help of my friends at
Ahrefs, we're going to critique the quality
[0:12] of these articles and see if more expensive
writers create better content.
[0:16] Stay tuned.
[0:17] [music]
[0:22] What's up everyone, it's Sam Oh here
with Ahrefs and I am pumped to be here
[0:26] with my friends Josh, head of content at
Ahrefs and Patrick, our resident technical
[0:31] SEO and basically our in-house
Wiki for all things SEO.
[0:35] Let's call him Patrikipedia for the day.
[0:36] Now, before we get into the content reviews,
we need to talk about a) the writers and how
[0:41] we hired them, and b) how we
critiqued their work.
[0:44] So to find freelance writers, I put up a very
simple job post on Problogger Jobs saying
[0:49] that we were looking for freelance writers
to research and write a product review post
[0:54] for our affiliate site.
[0:56] For example, "best [product name]."
[0:59] And within a week, we had 435
applicants to choose from.
[1:03] Now, because we wanted to compare quality
with price, choosing writers was quite simple.
[1:08] Basically, I chose writers based
on their per word rate.
[1:11] The lowest rate was $0.02/word, the median
was $0.15 and the highest was $0.40.
[1:18] And the only thing I did to vet writers was check
that their sample articles had authorship.
[1:23] Now, each of these writers were tasked to write
a post on the "best purple laser pointers."
[1:28] And in the content brief, they were given some
basic guidelines, product recommendations,
[1:33] and headings.
[1:34] As for a word count quota, I gave them
a pretty wide word count range from 500
[1:39] to 1,300 words.
[1:40] And in my opinion this post didn't
need to be more than 1,000 words.
[1:45] So anything near that 1,300 range would
tell me that the writer was just padding
[1:49] the content with words for a higher payout.
[1:52] Now, onto our rating methodology.
[1:54] The articles were all blind tested.
[1:55] And we scored each article on a scale from 0
to 10 based on the attributes of quality content
[2:01] that I talk about in our video on how to make
content that's better than your competitors.
[2:06] And these attributes include:
[2:07] Content clarity which is basically readability
and flow, content depth, so were they just
[2:13] summarizing bullet points from Amazon or
did they do more research, content usefulness,
[2:17] meaning, would it help someone make an
informed buying decision for a purple laser
[2:22] pointer, and we skipped over other attributes
that they weren't responsible for like presentation.
[2:27] Instead, I had Josh and Patrick
guess who the 2 cent per word,
[2:31] 15 cent per word, and 40 cent per word
authors were based on content alone.
[2:36] Now, obviously, the way we evaluated content
is nothing scientific considering we only tested
[2:41] 3 freelance writers from one job board.
[2:44] Plus, content quality is completely subjective.
[2:48] So with that said, I think you'll be surprised
by our reflections because all of these things
[2:52] will surface in our discussions.
[2:54] Now, if you want to actually play along with
us, I published all 3 articles and left links in
[2:59] the description for you.
[3:00] So feel free to check them out and leave your
thoughts on the articles in the comments.
[3:05] Alright, so let's get started with
the 2 cent per word writer.
[3:08] This writer had written for some lower quality 
affiliate sites and the majority of their writing
[3:12] portfolio was actually for Income Store.
[3:15] You know… that alleged Ponzi scheme.
[3:17] Their final draft came in at 1,596 words for
a total payment of $31.92 – 296 words more
[3:26] than the maximum range.
[3:28] And in terms of turnaround, they submitted
their final draft within 1 day of getting
[3:32] the content brief.
[3:33] Now, as for clarity, depth, and usefulness,
here are the scores on a scale from 0 - 10
[3:38] as well as our personal rankings –
1 representing our favorite writer
[3:42] and 3 being our least favorite.
[3:44] Now, as you can see, Patrick and I agreed
that this was the worst article of the 3.
[3:50] But it was actually Josh's favorite.
[3:52] And considering he's probably the pickiest of
us all when it comes to choosing and rating
[3:56] writers, I was pretty surprised.
[3:59] Listen to what he had to say about this article.
[4:01] This article was probably my favorite one of the three.
[4:04] Simply because I think it was the most skimmable.
[4:07] Like, you can just... under each of those
subheadings the writer's just literally written
[4:13] the best one for each of those purposes.
[4:15] You don't have to dig for that
information; it's just there, it's in bold.
[4:18] So, although there was quite a bit of fluff in
other parts of the article, I felt that at least
[4:24] if you could trust the website that it was
on, you get your answer pretty quickly.
[4:30] So I think it was quite well written, it was a bit
repetitive and fluffy in places, like the intro was
[4:35] just a ramble that's not necessary and same
with the conclusion,  it was just kind of fluff.
[4:40] But on the whole, like, I'd say it's the
best one, probably, out of all three.
[4:46] Now, Patrick on the other hand gave this person
a medium rating, meaning there was both good
[4:50] and bad.
[4:51] Here's what he had to say on the good.
[4:53] I think this one had probably the most
in-depth content of all the articles.
[4:58] They seem to take a little more time
to kind of understand the ask.
[5:02] One particular thing that I liked
was the section about cats.
[5:07] They actually warned people don't
use the purple laser pointer for cats.
[5:11] And the other 2 articles they like, they didn't mention that.
[5:14] They all use the same, I think 7-in-1 laser
pointer and the others are like "Just use it,"
[5:20] and this one specifically said "Don't
use the purple one with pets."
[5:24] And then there were also some not so great things.
[5:28] Again, this one was really useful but
there were tons and tons of errors.
[5:33] I think it's pretty obvious that this was not
a native English speaker which not to say
[5:40] that's bad but they're level of English
proficiency isn't what I would want to use
[5:45] in an article targeting English-language content.
[5:50] And they made some pretty egregious errors too, I think.
[5:55] One of the products is this purple, blue laser
pointer, they just completely left our "purple"
[6:01] which is the target of the article.
[6:04] So, like,  they completely misnamed the product.
[6:09] For me, it felt like the writer had created a bullet
list of points they wanted to cover, and they just
[6:14] converted them into sentences,
and then stitched them alltogether.
[6:17] So for me, it was a flow killer and I
actually had a very hard time reading it.
[6:22] Now, given this writer only cost 2 cents per word,
I asked Josh and Patrick if they would hire them
[6:27] again to write content for their site.
[6:29] Patrick was a bit torn.
[6:31] Here's what he had to say:
[6:32] This one's iffy.
[6:34] Again, because of all the errors I think I would
also have... if I did buy their content, I would also
[6:39] have to buy, like, an editor or someone
to clean up their content.
[6:42] And Josh gave us a classic Josh answer.
[6:45] Probably, yeah.
[6:47] And for me, it's a hard pass seeing as
I had an awful time reading this piece
[6:51] and we were actually the ones paying for it.
[6:54] Alright, let's move on to the next writer.
[6:56] This person charged $0.15/word and had written
for reputable hosting and technology companies.
[7:01] And all three sample articles that they submitted
were reviews and comparisons which is the same
[7:06] type of content we wanted.
[7:08] Their article came in at 952 words
for a total payment of $142.80.
[7:15] As for turnaround, this person submitted
their final article within 4 days of receiving
[7:20] the content brief.
[7:21] Now, as for clarity, depth, and usefulness,
here are our ratings and rankings.
[7:25] Again, quite mixed.
[7:28] I gave the writer top scores across all
categories and despite what the other
[7:32] guys thought, I stand by my ratings.
[7:35] Yes, the writer summarized some points
from product pages, but to be fair, there
[7:40] wasn't much information available online
beyond these product descriptions.
[7:44] And in my opinion, it was a super easy read
and useful enough to help someone make
[7:49] a purchasing decision.
[7:50] Plus, I'd say that they went above and
beyond in their safety guidelines research.
[7:54] For example, they referenced a specific
section of the FDA's guidelines
[7:59] and summarized it into one sentence.
[8:01] Now, for Josh, he gave the categories
the same score - 5s across the board.
[8:06] But it was actually his least favorite article.
[8:09] Here's what he had to say:
[8:10] The intro just didn't make sense because
it just talked about laser pointers becoming
[8:17] popular, like, if you're hitting this page about
the best laser pointers you already know that
[8:21] popular because you want one.
[8:24] And then, under each section - this is
kind of repeated, this fluffy kind of vibe.
[8:31] Like, for example, under the best military laser
pointer point, you know, there's a whole paragraph
[8:35] there starting out and it's just talking about that
they're typically used in hostile environments and
[8:41] that they're rugged devices.
[8:43] You know, you know all this stuff
if that's what you're after.
[8:44] This is not useful, it's not telling you which
is the best one or any useful information.
[8:50] So there's a lot of fluff in this article.
[8:52] As for Patrick, he was kind of
neutral on this article too.
[8:55] Here's what he said about the good.
[8:57] In the best part of this one was they
put in some stuff from people's reviews.
[9:02] They actually took the time to read through
the reviews and put of your items on.
[9:07] As for the bad, he had similar
thoughts as Josh.
[9:10] They had a lot more errors and it was a lot more
wordy in that they kind of restated the same thing
[9:17] a few times or just kind of added additional
words that didn't really need to be included.
[9:24] So would we rehire this writer for more content?
[9:27] Well, for me, it's a definite yes.
[9:29] If I had an affiliate site to work on today,
I'd give them as many product reviews
[9:33] as they can write.
[9:34] Let's hear from Patrick.
[9:35] This writer was definitely worth it.
[9:38] It's not the best content but it's
also not super-expensive.
[9:43] And now Josh's thoughts:
[9:44] Ah, no.
[9:46] A man of few words.
[9:48] Alright on to the final writer.
[9:50] This person charged $0.40/word and had
written affiliate posts for some big media
[9:54] publications like Business Insider.
[9:56] The article came in at 837 words 
for a total payment of $334.80.
[10:04] As for turnaround, it took 6 days from
them receiving the content brief to get
[10:08] the final article back to us.
[10:10] And here are our ratings and rankings
for the different categories.
[10:14] This was actually Patrick's favorite article
of the 3 so I'll let him kick things off with
[10:18] strengths and weaknesses of the post.
[10:20] I thought that one was probably
the best written out of all of them.
[10:26] As far as it was very clean, they wasn't
kind of wordy or run on or anything,
[10:31] Just a few small mistakes, as far as like grammar, spacing.
[10:36] I think you've probably read a lot, like,
just product descriptions though.
[10:40] Now, again, Josh gave this article 5s across
the board but liked it less than the 2 cent article.
[10:46] And it was mostly because of this:
[10:48] So, yeah, although I think it goes into some
detail about the actual features of the laser
[10:52] pointer, it seems to disintegrate into kind
of burying a lot of information, and lacking
[10:58] depth as you go through the article.
[10:59] So specifically the points about
why choose a purple laser pointer...
[11:03] There's really only one decent point in there
which is that they have higher intensity and
[11:07] higher ignitability, whatever that means.
[11:09] But it's just buried in this point about, you know,
the fact that purple lasers emit purple light which
[11:15] is obvious, and the fact that purple
lasers are for sale online.
[11:18] So there's no depth there really
apart from one little point.
[11:21] It's the same thing on the safety regulations
section: it doesn't really go into depth and tell
[11:26] you specifics, so there's no useful information there.
[11:29] You're just kind of reading words and
never getting to the information that
[11:32] you actually came here for.
[11:35] As for me, it was pretty clear that the 40
cent writer was the best technical writer
[11:39] just as Patrick had said.
[11:41] They kept their thoughts concise but as
Josh mentioned, the article lacked depth
[11:45] and the few important points that should
have been highlighted, were actually buried
[11:49] with unhelpful information.
[11:51] So with that said, would we rehire
this writer for more content?
[11:55] For me, it's most likely a no.
[11:57] The 15 cent writer in my opinion was much better
value and I've worked with people at much lower
[12:02] rates who I think are just as good at writing
but are better with structure and flow.
[12:07] Let's hear from Patrick:
[12:08] Maybe, again, I think would I pay for that
depends on the market that I'm targeting,
[12:15] and certain things absolutely this writer would fit.
[12:18] I don't think I would make enough out of
purple laser pointers of an article like this
[12:23] to justify the cost.
[12:25] And finally, Josh:
[12:28] Now, an interesting observation which I'm
pretty sure you caught is that the higher
[12:32] the rate, the shorter the article.
[12:34] And I think it goes to show that higher paid
writers with the experience to back their
[12:38] rates are less likely to stuff words
to maximize their payout.
[12:42] So overall, are more expensive freelance
writers better than cheaper ones?
[12:47] The obvious answer is no.
[12:49] Content quality is way too subjective to one's style.
[12:53] In fact, we all chose different articles as our favorites.
[12:57] And I think a large part of that is because
we went into our evaluations with different
[13:01] experiences and mindsets.
[13:04] For example, Josh handles the blog at Ahrefs
which has a very intense review process.
[13:09] And because we actually spend more
time shortening articles, he has zero
[13:13] tolerance for fluff.
[13:15] So he couldn't get behind any of these
articles, which is why he gave them all
[13:19] just fives across the board.
[13:20] Because in his words:
[13:22] These are just your basic articles, like,
just some words about laser pointers
[13:27] there's no actually, like, output anyway.
[13:30] Whereas I came in with a mindset
of "we're hiring freelance writers for
[13:33] a typical affiliate site" – basically,
a much lower standard than Ahrefs blog.
[13:38] As for Patrick, he kind of came
in with a bit of a hybrid mindset.
[13:42] He knew the content wasn't great,
but it was good enough to rank.
[13:45] Here's what he said:
[13:46] Any of the content from any of these
writers would be okay for an affiliate site,
[13:50] a typical affiliate site.
[13:53] It all was pretty useful. They all had...
[13:56] I don't know if you chose the products or they did.
[13:58] But, you know, maybe not the best written
things ever but I see no reason why these
[14:04] pages wouldn't make money for many of them.
[14:06] It all seem to be okay and useful for the people.
[14:09] So I'll leave you with 2 takeaways
and 1 actionable use case.
[14:13] Takeaway #1. Set specific criteria to judge
freelance writers like we did on clarity, depth,
[14:19] and usefulness, which again, I talk about more 
about one of our videos on content creation.
[14:24] This way, you can grade each person's work fairly.
[14:27] And if a writer checks off all the boxes
consistently, chances are, you're going
[14:32] to be happy with their work when they write for you.
[14:35] And takeaway #2. Don't let a freelancer's
rate subconsciously affect your expectations
[14:40] on quality.
[14:41] Instead, find writers whose content you
genuinely like and would love to have on
[14:45] your site.
[14:46] And you don't need to limit
yourself to job postings.
[14:49] Instead, you can actively go after writers from
blogs you enjoy reading and try to hire them.
[14:55] A quick tip to do this is to use
Ahrefs' Content Explorer.
[14:58] Just search for site: and a website
that you enjoy reading.
[15:02] Then head on over to the authors tab.
[15:05] From here, you can click on the page numbers
to see their articles and cherry pick the best
[15:09] authors based on your set criteria.
[15:12] Plus, you'll be able to see how much traffic
their articles generate and the average number
[15:16] of referring domains they attract.
[15:19] Then it's just a matter of sending them an
email to ask if they do freelance writing
[15:23] and many will.
[15:25] Bottomline: if your goal is to create
great content, don't let a few pennies
[15:29] be the determining factor in hiring freelance writers.
[15:32] Let their work speak for itself.

本文档为站内渲染。原始文件本地路径：saas/source/seo-llm/raw-seo知识库-TXT整理-seo方法论-youtube-seo-scripts-ahrefs-scripts-c-96a064.txt（仅本地保留，不入库不部署）