I started writing for Triond last June 16, 2008. Since then I have written about 50 articles on various topics that were published by Triond through its affiliate online publishers. My last article with Triond was published last October 4, 2008. My latest submission was October 7, 2008. Triond declined my last submission with a note that the article is “too similar to other sources”. This was my third article declined for the same reason. Since then, I decided to temporarily stop submitting new content.
I must admit that I was a little bit “hurt” when Triond editors sent me a message saying that my last article was declined for publication. This was the third time that I got this kind of message. Of course; I accepted the editor's decision. After all, I am just a new writer trying to learn the trade and besides I have no control over the editorial policies of Triond. But I am sure that Triond editors will entertain some criticisms so long as they are constructive.
Declined Articles
The latest article that I wrote was about Antarctica, a continent that is considered by many as the coldest place on earth. It took me two days to research on this article and I cannot understand why it was declined for publication. I believe that no matter how you present the facts about Antarctica, your article will always be similar to the others who have written about the subject because you just cannot twist the facts, like its land area, temperature, geology, events, etc. The facts and figures are historically and scientifically derived.
Not satisfied about the reason why my article on Antarctica was declined for publication, I searched the internet for other articles about Antarctica, not only on Triond but in other online publishers. I found out that there are many articles written about Antarctica and I am of the opinion that they are almost similar to each other, simply because the facts are the same. What is important, I believe, is its originality and how it is presented by the writer.
The other article that was declined for publication was about funny-looking signs or billboards, with Chinese and misspelled English characters. Triond editors gave the same reason why it was declined. Again, I searched the net and found out that most of the images that were the subject of my article were also the same subject of the other writer's articles. Why were they allowed to publish these images? And why mine was declined? Certainly, the texts accompanying these images were not the same as the others because they are based on ones concept or idea of humor. What is funny to you may not be to others.
One of my other articles that were declined by Triond Editors was about Smoking. The reason why Triond editors declined its publication was that they found the images contained therein as offensive. I tend to agree with the editors because I really chose the most offensive images to convey the message that chain smokers will likely suffer the same fate. The reader will think many times over before burning the next stick.
I intend to do some revisions on these articles and resubmit them for reconsideration by the editors.
Hot Content List Front Page
Whenever I find time to browse, I always make it a point to read all ten articles found in the front page of the Hot Content List. I had a pre-conceived idea that these articles are indeed quality articles. I noticed though that there are some articles included in the front page of the Hot Content List that do not deserve to be in the list. First of all, there is not a single comment at the comments section of the article. Secondly there is a very low number of “I Like It” count. Lastly, there are other articles in the succeeding pages of the list that are far better than the one that is positioned in the front page of the Hot Content List. I had one article that recorded almost 30 comments and about the same number of “I Like It” count. But it never landed in the front page while some articles that do not contain any comment at all and with just about two “I Like It” count, landed in the front page.
I understand that “page views” is the measure of the article's popularity. But how can an article be popular when no one commented on it and nobody clicked on the “I Like It” button? Is it because the title of the article is “catchy” that the reader is enticed to click on the title? If this is the yardstick, writers may just as well come up with “catchy” titles to get more page views in order to land in the front page of the Hot Content List. This may not be a good basis for judging a quality article.
