The WMF Archives: B.S. Vigilante: Investigating Quality Gal

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

B.S. Vigilante: Investigating Quality Gal

6:00 AM

Before we begin our guest post by B.S. Vigilante, The WM Freelance Connection would like to congratulate the winners of this month's writing contest, listed below The winning entries can be viewed in the WM Freelance Connection's Group. Check back on February 23rd for a guest post from this month's winner.

1st Place: Kelli Robinson
2nd Place: Janel Van Beek
3rd Place: David Suresh Marumudi

Lets take a minute to congratulate them and thank everyone who participated in this month's contest!

Investigating QualityGal.com
By B.S. Vigilante

I received the following letter from an anonymous source:

Dear B.S. Vigilante,

Have I got a site that is perfect for your skills. When I began my online writing career, I heard many writers rave about the online site qualitygal.com. I quickly set this site as a goal of mine to strive for. Once I thought I was ready, I applied. My first thoughts of the application process was that it's a bit odd. It was not the usual application process, but instead you had to send a series of emails stating certain comments. I hear they have since changed this procedure.

After my application was successfully approved I excitedly began writing for this company. I noticed their format was strangely complicated for the payment they were offering but I figured once I got used to it, it would be better. So I jumped right in, completing my first task.

After confidently submitting my assignment, I was horrified the next day when I received an email from QG stating I had plagiarized and I was under review!! I take pride in my work, as most writers do, and am appalled by plagiarism accusations. Upon reading their reasons for flagging me for plagiarism, I was astounded at the accusations!

While I can not state exactly what was written due to the contract I signed, they accused me of plagiarizing the words "severe skin irritation." I am by no means a genius...but isn't that a rather common phrase? This issue was resolved by them giving me a warning and telling me to make sure I copyscaped my work. I figured it was my mistake and continued working for them. The "plagiarized" work had been denied and they said they could no longer use it. I figured what any writer would, I didn't do all that work for nothing, so I did a basic rewrite and published it on another site. Might as well make some profit. right?

Everything was going well, and I had worked for them for a few months without any other problems. Then, one day I received yet another email telling me I was terminated for voiding my contract! Apparently, even when work is denied, you are not aloud to resubmit it elsewhere, even though I had rewritten it.

Now, while I don't have any conclusive evidence, I have heard rumors the reason why you are not allowed to do publish with someone else is because editors are actually turning the work in under their name! I have not been able to prove these rumours but I have heard a few people state their rejected work has been found published under someone else's name. My question to you B.S. is how is this legal? Is there any way we can prove these rumors?

I have bitten my tongue about this site until now due to the contract I had to sign in order to work for the company. You are not allowed to say anything negative about this company for a year prior to employment with them. I learned this the hard way because I had written a blog post about my experience in my personal blog and was promptly threatened with a law suit unless I immediately removed the post and shut my mouth.

You came along just in time B.S., this company needs to be unveiled as the untrustworthy site it is. If there is any truth behind these rumors, it needs to be brought into the light so no one else is affected by this scam.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

Dear Anonymous,

While I've never personally written for them, I have done some research on Quality Gal's practices, and have discovered some very interesting things. First, for those who don't know, Quality Gal is a ghostwriting website which hires writers to complete assignments they take from their own clients. As of January 27, 2010, my sources indicate that writers can claim up to five titles at once, and that the application process is fairly complicated.

Potential writers must first register with the Quality Gal website, and then complete and fax "several forms" which contain all of the "fine print" that gave Quality Gal the opportunity to effectively take advantage of you (and many other writers, according to my research.) These forms include signed copies of Quality Gal's Content Release form, Style Guide, SEO Writing for Dummies, Non-Compete agreement and W9 form.

And, according to Quality Gal's own representative, "An article might require 40 links, but only end up being 200 words. Finding authoritative links can be a challenge, thus our structure for payment based on number of links rather than per word…”

One anonymous Quality Gal writer had the following to say about Quality Gal's practices:

"If you're considering writing for Quality Gal, save your time; you're better off writing for Associated Content. I worked for them shortly (less than 2 months) and finally decided I was being overworked and underpaid; so I sent in a note saying I would no longer be writing for the company. After the note, somehow my latest payment got "lost" in accounting. Later, I was informed by a former employee that Quality Gal doesn't even have a formal accounting department; it's all handled by the same woman who "helps" writers (not Quality Gal).

I was given the runaround for almost an entire month until I finally received my payment. When my payment finally came, it was $24 short; as were several of my other payments. If they can get some free articles from you, they will. Don't be surprised if you have a payment of $300 and mysteriously find $12 missing. It's probably too small of a fee to go after, so you won't report it; that's exactly why they do it. If you think Demand Studios editors are bad, wait until you start writing for Quality Gal. Their editors must have a really uncomfortable stick up their a** because they will find something wrong with your work 99% of the time. This was my experience when I worked for them; they have a terrible business ethic. Their writers are slave writers, very underpaid. It's not like they can't afford to pay more. After all, they are charging $80 per article and writers are currently getting a $10 to $12 cut.

OH! I forgot to add that they have worked a non-disclosure into their current content release form. Now, writers aren't allowed to vent or warn others about their horrible experiences with the company. Isn't that just the icing on top?"

Another anonymous potential Quality Gal writer said that she got so frustrated with the complicated application process that she just gave up. And, she said, "Whomever I dealt with was unprofessional and rude and just completely turned me off to even wanting to deal with the company."

Other complaints which seem to ring out consistently from current and former Quality Gal writers include lack of communication, slow or no pay, too little pay for the amount of work required (even from people who write for other content mills) and rude and inaccessible editors. Many writers also complain about the non-compete agreement they're forced to sign when coming on board with Quality Gal.

"I have never heard of anyone barring a freelancer from writing for other companies!
No writing or blogging for any site Quality Gal considers any kind of competitor — there’s a concept. By its nature freelancing involves providing services to multiple clients," said one writer. "Is there something I am not understanding here, or do I just trust my gut that this requirement is so far beyond unreasonable that there is no point in applying to what otherwise seems a good quality site run by a reasonable person?"

Plus, according to many writers, Quality Gal has a grading system, in which each submission made is assigned a grade of A, B or C. Apparently, the higher the grade, the higher the pay--and if you get too many C grades, you'll be fired. One former writer said that although Quality Gal recently raised their rates, it didn't mean much since editors started giving lower grades than before for similar quality work--essentially maintaining the existing payment structure.

I wasn't able to confirm the rumors about Quality Gal's editors stealing the rejected work of its writers, but there are many former writers who share this belief, according to a number of forum posts I was able to access on the topic.

To be fair, there are also several positive reviews from writers who have worked with Quality Gal in the past.

For example, one Quality Gal writer had this to say about working with the company:

"I’ve done several assignments for Quality Gal and they are great to work with — reliable payment and excellent support. I’m picky, so sometimes it takes me too long to find the links, but if you’re quick with that and/or are very familiar with the topic, then you’re golden. They also have a very different mix of subjects than most writing sites, which is a welcome change of pace for writers."

Even so, as you're clearly already aware, Quality Gal is quite adept at squelching negative comments about their company. Though I don't recommend working with the company, I'd advise writers who are considering writing for Quality Gal to very carefully read the necessary legal paperwork and clearly understand everything before you commit yourself.

Sincerely,
B.S. Vigilante

Have you been scammed, screwed or mislead? Did a publisher take your work and refuse to pay? Maybe you got stuck in a bad contract because of some fine print? Want to get the word out to other writers but you're afraid of the consequences?

B.S Vigilante is your man. Email your story to B.S. at bsvigilante@gmail.com. He will keep your identity as private as he keeps his own, but he will tell your story and help protect your fellow writers from the scum of the industry.

Labels: B.S. Vigilante, content mills, Content Mills Week, Quality Gal, writing scams

52 comments:

Alyssa Ast said...: WOW! I use to work for QG but due to the contract I signed I am unable to say anything else. I am glad this was reported though. It's very important information some one must weigh before making a decision to write for QG.; February 16, 2010 6:30 AM
Rebecca said...: This was an insightful post. Thanks for the information. It comes down to "writer beware." Make sure you do your homework before writing for a content mill.; February 16, 2010 9:02 AM
Angela Atkinson said...: B.S.--great first post! Glad you're on the team. :); February 16, 2010 9:50 AM
Arlene Hauben said...: I love your site. It is so important for us as writers to band together and warn each other of dishonest users. Thank goodness there are places like BS Vigilante where we can report these injustices and make them public. That is the only way we can get back at them.; February 16, 2010 6:16 PM
Life And Death said...: B.S. is my new hero ;); February 18, 2010 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...: I write for Quality Gal.While my experience hasn't been perfect,it's been nowhere near as negative as described above.Re: "slow or no pay": the main reason I write for QG at all is the regular pay. Articles are edited and approved quickly. If you submit an invoice by 3PM on Thursday, you get paid on Friday.I've always been paid on time and in full.I've also never had problems with inaccessible or rude editors.Maybe I've been lucky.
QG is upfront about the fact that it's a ghostwriting site. But, if rejected articles are appearing elsewhere under editors' names, that's a big problem. That's outright theft. However, the idea of a conspiracy on the part of QG editors to reject articles and publish them under their own names seems far-fetched.
None of my articles have been rejected. I had one article returned for minor changes that I completed in less than 10 minutes. So perhaps I'm skeptical because I can't believe that,if QG editors were stealing articles, they wouldn't want to steal mine!LOL!
Anyway, that's a serious charge.Maybe B.S. Vigilante can investigate it further.He indicates he "couldn't confirm" the rumors. Maybe he could explain exactly what he did to try to confirm them. Or maybe he could just provide links to the discussion forums he mentions.
Re: the application being unduly complicated--It took me less than 1/2hour to complete the forms. The personal info form and W-9 are straightforward.The non-compete and content release form are all of 1 paragraph long. Then you have to sign a statement that you've read the "style guide" and "SEO for dummies," both very basic documents.It takes about 3 times as long to fill out an application for a mall job as it does to complete this paperwork.
However, it's true that many of the articles QG assigns require tons of work for little pay. Some require writers to include 30, 40 or more links, which can be time-consuming. When I began writing for QG, I would spend hours on a single $12 article. Finally, I wised up. Now, when I write for QG, which I do only occasionally, I limit myself to articles that require fewer than 10 links or no links at all.
Yes, they did raise the pay rate for articles requiring tons of links, but, even so, for me, it isn't worth it.However, I noticed no change in editorial standards after they raised the pay rate.I've received an A on every article I've submitted with the exception of one. A and B grades earn the same pay.The pay drops only if you get a C.
Re: the non-compete clause--it does NOT bar you from writing for other companies. QG admits as much on its site. You're barred from competing with QG by writing for their clients on your own without using QG as an intermediary. However, you're NOT barred from writing for other content mills, sites and companies.
As for the non-disparagement agreement: that's standard legalese often used in employment contracts (I speak with my lawyer's hat on here).It's a red flag because it suggests they've had past problems with people bashing them in online forums. Where there's online bashing, there's usually fire.
I think it's terrible that they'd threaten a writer with a lawsuit. However, I strongly doubt they'd ever file suit.They'd spend more money pursuing the suit than they'd ever get in court, and no one would want to write for them again.It would be a turnoff to clients as well.; February 20, 2010 7:49 AM
B.S. Vigilante said...: Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for your input. I appreciate your bringing another opinion to the table. Even so, the information I gathered was from real, live writers who had those experiences with Quality Gal.

It's good to know that they aren't treating each of their writers this way. Maybe there is some hope for Quality Gal, after all.

Still, the facts remain--many writers have had the negative experiences described here with this particular content mill.

Thanks for your input, and thanks for reading!

B.S. Vigilante; February 20, 2010 10:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Thanks for responding B.S. Vigilante. I still would like to see the links to the discussion forums that you referenced in your post regarding the stolen articles. Although I don't think QG is stealing any of my articles, if I am writing for an outfit that does engage in such a practice, then I want to know. And I would like to know the basis for such a claim, which your post did not provide to my satisfaction. I tried googling for these discussion forums myself with no luck.

In general, I try to keep up with what people are saying in forums and on blogs about the sites that I write for, simply because "things" may be going on that I should be aware of but have not picked up on. But I have limited time in which to do that, and, as a relative newcomer to this type of writing, I am sure that I am not aware of all the sites where these things are discussed.

I have seen criticisms about QG in forums before. Someone posted somewhere that the grades went down when the pay rate went up, and others have complained about the laboriousness of putting in all the links (though others say they can do so easily and speedily--I can't and am with those who feel it's a lot of work for little pay). However, I've never seen complaints about people's pay being short on a regular basis (another serious charge because basically it's an accusation of theft), rude editors, stolen articles, or even the complicated application. I've read remarks about the comparatively extensive application process, but people have generally been either neutral about it or taken it as a sign that QG has actual "standards."

I have no doubt whatsoever that the information you gathered was from real, live writers who wrote for QG. I think providing information about the potential pitfalls of these sites is an invaluable service. And I'm not some kind of shill QG and certainly don't want to be perceived as being such. I wouldn't go on and on about how great it is to write for QG. Because it's not "great," though in my experience, there are places that are much worse.

Anyhow, I have never been moved to comment about one of these sites on a blog or discussion forum before, even when I have disagreed with the comments made. Not sure why I am doing so now. Something did bother me about your post. I guess this is what it is: it reads sort of like a writer or writers associated with this blog (or a writer or writers who were encouraged to send an "anonymous" letter to you) had some terrible experiences with QG but didn't want to comment directly because of the non-disclosure agreement. And so this post was generated. It's perfectly legitimate to have these complaints, and I want to hear about them, as, I'm sure, does everyone. And the experiences described were certainly terrible.

But this post is presented as a report on an "investigation" of QG, which I don't think it was. I think it was an opportunity for someone to air grievances about QG with a little coda about a positive response to the site thrown in at the end to make it look "balanced." As a reader with a sincere interest in getting info on these sites, I'd rather read a post that was presented as what it was--an opportunity for some writers who were angry at QG and who felt muzzled by them get the word out about their complaints. I just don't like it when something is presented as an "investigative piece," which implies a thorough and balanced look at the issues, and it's not clear that any real investigation has been done. I could be wrong about that, and, if so, I'm sorry. I'm just giving you my impressions as a real, live reader.; February 21, 2010 3:17 PM
B.S. Vigilante said...: Dear Anonymous,

First, allow me to quelch the misconception you've presented here. This post has nothing to do with any of the WM bloggers. The letter we printed was in fact from a reader who wished to remain anonymous--much like yourself.

And, though the author of the other major comment we printed authorized us to use her name, we chose not to do so, in the interest of protecting her legal rights. The other commenters wished to remain anonymous as well.

Regarding the forum posts about QG's editors--they were posted in private forums which aren't available to the public--and as the post states--this is a rumor which buzzes through (mostly) former QG writers. We have no proof of its validity and stated as much in the post.

This piece was an investigation, in that we contacted and interviewed the author of the letter as well as many other current and former QG writers, most of whom preferred to remain anonymous due to the dreaded confidentiality clause.

Don't get me wrong, Anonymous, I understand your hesitation to believe the some of allegations made here, and even our intentions--but please recognize that they are presented as just that--allegations. We simply presented the plights of several of our fellow writers in an attempt to provide information.

We sincerely appreciate that you took the time to provide your point of view on the topic! That's exactly what we were hoping for--an intelligent discussion about this content mill. Thank you for reading, and thank you for getting involved in the conversation!

B.S. Vigilante; February 21, 2010 3:57 PM
Anonymous said...: I currently write for QG, and it's a fairly lucrative gig for me. I've never had problems communicating with editors/administrators. In fact, my emails are usually answered within 2 hours.

I can see how some people may feel that the work is too much for the pay offered, but that's because there is a lot of linking involved. However, if you know how to use Google properly it shouldn't be that hard. I can write a QG article of 500 words with 40 links in 1 hour. I've heard of writers taking 3 or 4 hours to write them though, so I can see where people may be getting frustrated.

I've always been paid on time and never shorted any money. I've never had an article returned for any reason, and most of my articles are graded with a positive or helpful comment from the editor. When QG temporarily hired a handful of writers to edit a couple of years ago, I was one of them. I can tell you from that experience that there are many writers who just don't get the format/style guide and the writing just isn't up to par for what the site expects. I think this is one cause for unhappy writers who want to blame the site.

Also, you can write for any other client you'd like as long as the client is not a direct client of QG. Many content sites have this sort of non-compete clause. I currently work for three sites with this sort of clause, and I still gain new clients without any problems. Again, a lack of understanding seems to be the cause of the problem.

I don't usually get involved with these sorts of discussions, but QG has helped me pay quite a few bills in the couple of years I've been writing for them. I think it is a site with a learning curve, but if you're truly trying to make a living from content writing it's worth the extra bit of time to understand the company's expectations. I would write for QG over Demand Studios any day.

As far as the allegations of theft and failure to pay for articles, I hope it isn't true. I can't see the company doing that, but I can't say they didn't. For what it's worth, all of my work has been paid for every Friday, and I'm never shorted a penny of it. If it ever happens to me, I'll sing a different tune.; March 4, 2010 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: I write for Quality Gal. I have never once had any problem with payments being short or not getting paid. I am always paid on time. I have never had any trouble getting a hold of anyone if I have a problem. If I have a question, I never hesitate to ask and the most I have had to wait for a response is an hour. You can even contact someone after business hours if you are having a problem. Nobody has ever been rude to me. As far as editors, I believe they are fair. I have had only one problem with an article and although it was not what I wanted to hear, I chalked it up to a learning experience and moved on. Frankly, I love writing for Quality Gal. I have learned a lot from researching on different subjects and improved on my writing.; March 4, 2010 6:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Doing anything freelance is a challenge, especially if one is hoping for something similar to full time income. I have done a bunch of writing for QualityGal and have not found the documents required to be abnormal at all.

Yes, some articles require a ton of links some require none. Like anything there is a learning curve to get started.

As for the comments about editors; if you haven't ever run across an editor on a bad day you probably haven't done very much writing.

Honestly, knowing that recently there were some changes at QualityGal according to the blog, I wonder whether this negative press with alleged 'insider info' is a disgruntled employee and not a freelancer at all.

I haven't found a perfect place for freelance writing yet but it really seems pretty turn key at QualityGal to me; you write, get it done on time, it doesn't completely suck, you get paid.; March 4, 2010 8:39 PM
QualityGal said...: We wish if there was a disgruntled writer out there they would have contacted us at QualityGal so we could talk things over and address the issue. We want strong relationships with our writers and the writer community. Anyone out there who is unhappy with us or would like to talk anything over with QualityGal can send an email to qualitygal@webuildpages.com. We want to hear from you and we are happy to talk to you.

QualityGal has been working with writers since 2003. We have built a reputation of trust in the industry. QualityGal employs over 100 writers and the majority are happy with us. We'd love to have every writer be happy with us – and we strive for that. As with any expanding business, QualityGal has sometimes experienced growing pains. But even at those times, we have always looked for ways to improve the business and welcomed ideas and feedback from writers.

Please allow QualityGal to respond to comments made anonymously in the February 16, 2010 B.S. Vigilante post.

If an article is plagiarized, we will not use it. Any article QualityGal ever turned down for plagiarism has had a significant amount of plagiarized material, not a three-word phrase.

QualityGal editors are not using any writer's work as their own. That rumor is not true. If anyone out there knows of an example of this happening, QualityGal wants to know. That behavior will not be tolerated.

Our policy today is that if a writer's article is turned down, they are free to publish it anywhere they want to.

Let's talk about the writer application process. It's not complicated. See for yourselves – all the forms are in one area of the website to make it easy. We don't want to stop writers from working for us; we want to make the process as simple as we can. And we want good relationships with our writers right from the start – so QualityGal is one of the few places that pays writers for their test assignment. The only time we will not pay for a test assignment is if it's plagiarized or so poorly written it isn't worth fixing. At that time we would simply assign a different test assignment. We do not take advantage of our writers and anyone who is an active writer will confirm this.

Regarding our accounting practices, our accounting department pays writers every Friday via PayPal or check if the writer's invoices are in by 3:00 PM on Thursday. This is a very quick turnaround. We process hundreds of payments every month and if there is an error we take care of it as quickly as possible. We will even process an emergency payment for a writer who get into a difficult situation. And we're happy to do it – we want to keep our writers happy. We have occasionally had computer glitches that affect payments and when that happens, we make every effort to get the problems fixed as quickly as possible.

About the Non Compete/Confidentiality Agreement. Let me emphasize this: the Non Compete /Confidentiality Agreement does NOT bar a freelancer from working for another company; it simply prevents the freelancer from working for any of our clients directly. All our employees sign the same form.

Regarding our editors, we are always looking for process improvements. QualityGal is happy to now have one editor responsible for all of the editing. This will eliminate the problems many of our writers found so difficult – dealing with different editing styles – and we'll get a more uniform grading system. We're listening to the feedback from our writers and responding to make things better.

QualityGal prides herself on being one of the good guys in the writer community. We are not perfect but we strive to be one of the best companies for freelance writers and work-at-home moms to work for. We are always happy to listen to people's concerns, criticisms and ideas because our goal is to keep being one of the good guys in this community.

I'm feeling lucky,

QualityGal; March 5, 2010 5:02 AM
Anonymous said...: I happily write for QG and am very very picky about who I write for.. So, am surprised and saddened by these allegations.. I have always had polite and professional interactions and have never, never had any payment problems. Inm fact, on an occasion when an article crossed its due date, an email to QG, got me an extension almost instantly. Also, finding links is not that tough.. Neither is the application process.. It took me less than 30 minutes to finish everything.. In short, I love writing for QG and am happy that there is a ghostwriting firm that is professional, considerate and well-paying.; March 5, 2010 9:50 AM
Alyssa Ast said...: Wow, what a response. While I can speak from experience that I myself have never had any payment issues with QualityGal, I can't speak for everyone.

I have heard both positive and negative opinions about this company. I feel all opinions should be stated for prospective ghostwrites to evaluate before writing for this company. Many of the allegations stated in the letter as well as what B.S. Vigilante reported, I have read extremely similar remarks in writers forums and other groups.

For those that enjoy writing for Quality Gal, I'm glad you have found a gig you enjoy and thank you for sharing your opinion.

For those that don't have positive views about Quality Gal I invited you to share your experiences with us as well.

If you wish to remain anonymous when discussing this, please feel free to do so.; March 5, 2010 10:00 AM
B.S. Vigilante said...: Dear Quality Gal (and Sudden Influx of Satisfied Quality Gal Writers),

We appreciate that you've responded to our post. However, after speaking with our primary source, we learned that the writer in question did, in fact, bring these concerns to your staff first. The writer states that these concerns were essentially "blown off" by QG staffers, and again, when the writer attempted to make these concerns known to fellow writers, the writer was very harshly reminded of the contract restrictions.

Additionally, we find it very interesting that there are suddenly several anonymous comments from people who claim to be satisfied with your practices--almost as though they were being prompted or pressed to do so. That, or they're all one QG staffer trying to save face.

To the anonymous writer who claims that she is "very picky about who she writes for," we beg to differ. If we're being honest, we don't believe that she can be too selective, considering she works for $12 an article.

Even so, we acknowledge that everything we reported in this article is information passed on to us by Quality Gal writers.

As such, we'd like to give Quality Gal an opportunity to respond. Quality Gal: if you're interested in participating in an interview to respond to these allegations, please contact us at thewmfreelanceconnection@gmail.com, or contact me directly at bsvigilante@gmail.com.; March 5, 2010 11:05 AM
joannacrain said...: Hello All,

I LOVE Quality Gal. I have made a full-time job out of writing for them. There are plentiful assignments and tons of interesting topics.

I've been writing for over ten years and have found the QG editors to be the best I've ever worked with. A big plus is they stay in constant communication with the writers. I have written hundreds of articles for QG and have not had one rejected. I make consistent "A"s on their grading system with great feedback from the editors. If you are a seasoned writer, can follow the instructions for each assignment and provide quality links for every article, you should have no problem achieving this.

I have ALWAYS been paid on time and have never been "shortened" on my pay. Every Friday, I am paid directly into my Pay Pal account then I fill in the amount I want to transfer and it goes directly to my bank account. The process couldn't be easier.

I would HIGHLY recommend Quality Gal to any writer. The application process is simple--fill out a few forms and do a test assignment (for which you get paid). If accepted, then this is the best writing gig you'll ever have.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to email me at getgoinggirll@yahoo.com.

Joanna Crain Salinas
Austin, Texas
Quality Gal Writer; March 5, 2010 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm the letter writer, and I can tell you that the application process was weird to say the absolutely very least. It involved sending certain statements to an email address stating we had read certain pages and we had submitted our information. It was a series of the emails you had to send out to even apply, which should have been my first hint the company was not very professional. I'm glad to hear things changed.

Second, I WAS warned for plagiarizing 3 words. It was not extensive. And since when do you have to pay to work for a company? If you are going to require your employees to run everything through copyscape, you should pay for it or reimburse your writers for the cost.

Third, I can understand quoting sources and providing valuable information but some articles required 40 plus links! How does that make any content even remotely valuable when the majority of it is nothing but hyperlinks?

And B.S. I find it very unusual indeed that the sudden out bursts of anonymous comments all have a oddly similar tone and style...

Thank you B.S. for reporting this company because I know I'm not alone in my opinions. I am not a "disgruntled employee" merely a valued professional that refuses to be taken advantage of by a heinous company!; March 5, 2010 11:31 AM
B.S. Vigilante said...: Thank you Joanna, we appreciate that someone was willing to "show her face" after all.; March 5, 2010 11:32 AM
B.S. Vigilante said...: And to our anonymous source, thank you for defending yourself. We appreciate that you took the time to back up your claims.; March 5, 2010 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Joannacrain,

If you have been writing over 10 years and consider yourself to be a seasoned professional, than why are you satisfied working for $12? That raises suspicion....People willing to work for wages like that is why content mills can take advantage of people!; March 5, 2010 11:35 AM
Rebecca said...: I wouldn't be satisfied writing for $12, unless the articles were 250 words or less. But that's just me.; March 5, 2010 11:58 AM
Jennifer Fulks said...: I appreciate the heads up on this company. I think I would rather stay away from a company like this. As a newbie to freelance work it is important to know who to trust and who to stay away from. Thanks for posting this B.S.; March 5, 2010 12:00 PM
Gina said...: Wow. I actually cannot believe what I am reading. I posted above "I write for Quality Gal. I have never once had any problem with payments being short or not getting paid. I am always paid on time. I have never had any trouble getting a hold of anyone if I have a problem. If I have a question, I never hesitate to ask and the most I have had to wait for a response is an hour. You can even contact someone after business hours if you are having a problem. Nobody has ever been rude to me. As far as editors, I believe they are fair. I have had only one problem with an article and although it was not what I wanted to hear, I chalked it up to a learning experience and moved on. Frankly, I love writing for Quality Gal. I have learned a lot from researching on different subjects and improved on my writing." I found your comment rude about"Showing Your Face". I am not afraid to show my face on how I feel about Quality Gal. You are 100% wrong about this quote- "almost as though they were being prompted or pressed to do so. That, or they're all one QG staffer trying to save face."
These accusations are ridiculous.; March 5, 2010 1:09 PM
Joanna Crain Salinas said...: To Anonymous Above,

I am a seasoned professional and I turn out quality work in a short period of time, which makes it easy for me to make a decent wage with QG. By the way, not all assignments pay just $12. QG assignments range from $12 to $30.

While I average a good 8-10 hours a day with QG, I do have other clients I work for doing sales copy and blogging. Copywriting pays considerably more than content writing, but I don't enjoy the work as much as I do the QG assignments. With QG, it is like being paid to learn about interesting subjects. So while it may be worthwhile for me, it may not be so for the next writer.

If you have any further questions or comments please feel free to email me at getgoinggirll@yahoo.com.

Joanna Crain Salinas
Austin, Texas
Quality Gal Writer; March 5, 2010 1:33 PM
Carol Tice said...: This is an interesting thread. I'm always fascinated by people who want to spend energy debating the merits of one $12 an article site over another $15 one. Wake up! None of these sites are paying you even remotely appropriately.

Quality Gal says it has "over 100" writers? That's awful dinky. Just based on that volume I'd say it probably isn't the best of these type of site--others have several thousand writers working. Writers do vote with their feet, so it seems like QG's model hasn't caught on with the writing community.

All these sites have issues--writers get rejected, they feel plagiarized, underpaid, and so on. Because IT'S A FACTORY. You're a little cog in a big wheel. Sometimes the machine malfunctions.

You can improve your situation by leaving the factory and building your own writing career. My mentees are blown away at how little effort it takes in marketing to start finding better-paying clients.

Carol Tice
Make a Living Writing: 9 Time Management Tips for Busy Writers; March 5, 2010 1:40 PM
B.S. Vigilante said...: Dear Ms. Salinas,

We certainly appreciate your feedback, but be honest with yourself for a moment. "Seasoned professionals" don't generally waste their time for $12 an article. That's working harder, not smarter.

Do yourself a favor and branch out a little.

B.S. Vigilante; March 5, 2010 1:41 PM
B.S. Vigilante said...: Gina,
Thanks for your comment. We appreciate it--but wait, we still don't know who you are.; March 5, 2010 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: I found the comment section to this link interesting. Thought I would share.

http://www.trappedintheoffice.com/2009/03/quality-gal-3-month-update.html; March 5, 2010 1:46 PM
Joanna Crain Salinas said...: BS

If you had truly read my post you would have gotten the fact that QG pays more than $12 an article and I am well "branched out" as I do other types of writing (blogging, copywriting etc.) as well as content writing. I write for Quality Gal because I enjoy it, and yes, I do make money at it.

If you are freelancing full-time you are struggling. No matter how many assignments or jobs you had last week, you still have to fill your schedule this week. It is hard work regardless if you are writing content or ad copy. I do it because I love it. If everyone was so successful in their writing careers, then we wouldn't need sites like this one to help us along.

Best wishes to all--whatever you choose to do.
Joanna Crain Salinas; March 5, 2010 2:38 PM
Carol Tice said...: No, if YOU are freelancing full-time YOU are struggling, Joanna...that generalization wouldn't apply to me!

I make substantially more freelancing now than I did as a staff business writer. I made 10% more last year than my record year, 2008. I you don't buy into the negativity that's out there and you market your business, you can earn real well and find regular, ongoing clients.

Carol; March 5, 2010 2:54 PM
B.S. Vigilante said...: Joanna,

First, I'm with Carol--you don't have to struggle to be a freelancer. That's all in your head and in what you expect from your life.

Second, $30 an article isn't much better than $12. I did read your statement, and I stand by mine.

B.S.; March 5, 2010 2:56 PM
Life And Death said...: Personally, I'm not impressed with QG. I don't write for them. I can make more money with less hoops and actually be able to write an article that is more than a list of links with some filler content. I'm not even saying that type of writing is a bad thing because I don't really care. It's just not the type I want to do.

Taking into account all the people I talk to, I've heard nothing good before today about QG.

I love the comment above about B.S. Vigilante. Why would Vigilante present both sides? The goal here is to keep writers informed. It's not a debate. It's a post discussing a writer's disgust with a site. These are concerns that need to be made known.

We are women here. We don't need to disguise our complaints and in fact if you are fortunate enough to know a women that doesn't speak her mind then consider yourself blessed. I can assure there is not a woman on this panel who doesn't directly say what's on her mind :); March 5, 2010 2:56 PM
Bonnie said...: Sigh.I wrote one of the first "anonymous" comments above about QG. First,I don't understand why the anonymous writer of the original complaint thinks she has to pay to work for QG. QG does not require you to put your work through copyscape; they do that.

Second, if the anonymous letter writer is not alone, where are the comments from those who have had similar experiences? Are they only willing to air their grievances on these secret, private forums that B.S. Vigilante references but will not disclose because they are "not open to the public"? Yes, there is the non-disclosure agreement that QG requires new writers to sign. But you CAN comment anonymously here.

Oh, except that, if you do choose to remain anonymous, you will be treated to snide asides about your failure to "show your face" and accused of generating canned responses on behalf of QG. After B.S. Vigilante made that comment, one writer put her name and contact info out there. And what did she get? B.S. Vigilante telling her she is not a professional and that she is basically an idiot for writing articles for $12 a pop. Telling her to be honest with herself and to branch out? That's just mean and has nothing to do with the issue, which is the integrity of QG.

If you think she's misguided in her career direction, then do her a favor and offer her some advice-- in a private email. After all she did give you her contact info. Or put it firmly but politely, without being derogatory-- the way Carol Tice did. Her comment was strong, yes, but it was respectful. Yours, B.S., was not.

If you aren't going to credit the comments of those who choose to remain anonymous and if you are going to use anonymity as a basis for discrediting what people say, then why not disable anonymous comments on the site or at least discourage them by stating that you don't want anonymous comments? And if you are going to discredit anonymous comments, then why investigate anonymous complaints? And why call yourself B.S. Vigilante? You say we still don't know who "Gina" is; we don't know who you are either. And I don't see why anyone would want to reveal their identity in these comments after the treatment you afforded Joanna.

You opened up this debate about QG. Now, when you get comments that don't agree with your premise, you dismiss them as not credible-- because obviously the writers must have been urged to comment by QG or obviously it must be the work of one QG staffer trying to save face. And you dismiss QG's response as inconsistent with what the writer of the original anonymous complaint tells you. So her word cannot be impugned, but basically the word of anyone who chooses to remain anonymous or who doesn't fork over their last name is suspect.

If you don't like the direction of these comments, get some of these people with real beefs about QG to comment anonymously on this board. At this point, I remain very interested in what they have to say.; March 5, 2010 4:41 PM
Bonnie said...: Argh! I am perplexed at the degree to which I am exercised over this whole thing. Perhaps it is a mid-life crisis thing. This is a content mill for God's sake! If you don't like it, don't write for it. There are tons of other content mills out there willing to dish out low pay for quickly cranked-out articles.

B.S., you basically called writing for QG a waste of time. But you devoted an entire investigatory post to the merits of writing for this waste-of-time site.

One can definitely question the wisdom of writing for a content mill that pays such rates. But anyone who has written for QG, including the writer of the original anonymous complaint that you presented, has done so for that pay. Should we question that writer's complaints on the grounds that, because she was willing to accept $12 per article, she must not be a professional writer?

Is the issue that QG has engaged in unethical business practices? Or is it that it is a waste of time to write for a content mill such as QG? If it is the latter, then why even bother with the particularized expose? You could just warn readers about how bad content mills are.

If you think $30 an article is as bad as $12 an article, then you really must be of the mind that all content mills are a waste of time. Because I don't know of any content mills that consistently pay more than $30--- unless it's for a very involved article that actually deserves much higher pay. So if you are of that opinion about content mills and you are going to freely express that opinion in these comments, then why bother with a post that actually takes the prospect of writing for QG quite seriously?; March 5, 2010 4:56 PM
B.S. Vigilante said...: Here's the thing, Bonnie. Not all content mills are terrible. Some of WM's own writers choose to write for content mills, in addition to their other gigs and clients.

The reason I chose to report on this particular content mill was simply that I received a letter from one of our readers, as stated in the post. The purpose I serve here at WM is to find and expose dishonest or fraudulent companies in order to protect our fellow writers from falling into their traps.

The allegations made by our anonymous primary source (as well as many, many other current and former QG writers) represent their experiences with this content mill.

We reported it because we wanted to let our fellow writers know what other writers experienced. And, we specifically stated that in the post.

While I personally don't love the idea of content mills, I believe that they have a place in our industry. I'm not bashing every content mill, and I'm not even bashing Quality Gal--I am simply telling the world what other writers have said because THEY are not legally allowed to do so, thanks to a contract each of them signed with QG.

Once again, let me say it: I reported on this content mill in order to share information with our fellow writers. No more, no less.

And once again, I will extend the invitation to Quality Gal: contact me for an interview, and I will print your side of the story too.

I said in the post and I will say it again, I have never written for QG. I have only reported what other current and former QG writers have said.

Quality Gal: email us at thewmfreelanceconnection@gmail.com or email me directly at bsvigilante@gmail.com if you're interested in telling your side of the story.; March 5, 2010 5:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Bonnie: "Sigh.I wrote one of the first "anonymous" comments above about QG. First,I don't understand why the anonymous writer of the original complaint thinks she has to pay to work for QG. QG does not require you to put your work through copyscape; they do that"

When I worked there over a year ago I had to pay for copyscape. Just sayin....; March 5, 2010 6:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi, I'm one of the writers who got screwed over by Quality gal. I worked for them for a couple of months and everything was fine--and then one day I got a notice saying one of my articles was suspected for plagiarism. I wrote the article myself and did not plagiarize a single word of it. Then I published the article on my personal blog instead (why waste my time, right?) and the next thing I know, I got fired. I tried to email the editor at the time and was told there was nothing I could do because I broke my contract.

Yeah, I signed that contract, but I guess I didn't read all of the fine print. SO my advice to any writer would be to always always read every single word of any contract you sign-and if you dont understand anything, ask about it. My grandpa always said the only dumb questions are the ones you dont ask, so I guess I"m the dumb one here. :(; March 5, 2010 6:11 PM
Alyssa Ast said...: Ditto, everything had to pass copyscape and I too had to pay.; March 5, 2010 6:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Well I would love to provide you all with my contact info but you know, I too signed that contract and I can't afford to get sued.

I gotta say that all of my experiences with QG weren't negative. I did get paid on time and most of my articles were accepted. But there was one editor there (who I am pretty sure no longer works there) who rejected my work and then suddenly had very similar articles on her own site. Coincidence? I guess maybe. But I don't think so. I don't think she got paid for them because they were on her own site, but like, some of the sentences were almost word for word what I wrote. When I emailed her about it she didn't even respond to me.

I left QG because of it. Nobody would help me and I was basically told to keep quiet or else.

I don't think everyone there is bad, and i think BS is wrong for implying that. I think they juust had a few bad apples there, and now it seems like it might be better. But I don't think I'll be applying again any time soon.

One writer up there in the comments somewhere said she would work for Quality Gal over Demand Studios any day. I applied to work for Demand Studios after I left Quality Gal and got rejected. But I've heard that their writers are pretty happy, so I don't know what to think. I wish I got the job so I would know personally! LOLOL.; March 5, 2010 6:36 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm sure there probably is decent staff that works for QG and I'm sure many people had great experiences with the company. But I'm yet another who didn't.

When I wrote for QG every single email I ever received had a rude tone. Now, I like to believe I've a rather thick skin when it comes to editors but for the simplest things they were rude with any communications I had with them. I just got tired of it and left.

I'm also not giving my name because of the contract.; March 5, 2010 6:51 PM
Kerrie McLoughlin said...: sorry, but i always have to jump in with the regional parenting magazine (RPM) perspective, whether relevant or not :-) ... someone said $30 isn't much better than $12 per article. i make about $25 per article generally (mostly on reprints), but sell to several different magazines and own my stuff. so i think $30 per article is great, but owning it is different for sure.; March 5, 2010 7:15 PM
Bonnie said...: B.S.--

You wrote: "While I personally don't love the idea of content mills, I believe that they have a place in our industry."

Fine. I agree. Or, at least, while I don't love them, I write for them, though not exclusively and not anything like full-time.

But you also wrote the following in response to a writer who had a different opinion than the original complainant and who happened to identify herself fully to you in response to your snarks about anonymous comments:

"Dear Ms. Salinas,
We certainly appreciate your feedback, but be honest with yourself for a moment. "Seasoned professionals" don't generally waste their time for $12 an article. That's working harder, not smarter."

Basically, whether you intended it to do so or not, your response implied that the writer couldn't possibly contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the merits of QG because she is an idiot who wastes her time writing articles for which she gets paid $12. This same commenter stated that she spends 8 hours a day writing for QG. It's not something I would do, and you may question the wisdom of doing so. But, if she really spends all day writing for QG and making the bulk of her income doing so, then she has a lot more experience with QG than you or I do, and her comments should at least be respected. If anyone knows how QG editors treat writers and the reliability of their payment, it's someone who sits down in her chair and actually writes for them full-time and makes the bulk of her income that way.

I'm not saying that you should necessarily *agree* with her comments. Still, it seemed inappropriate and disturbing to me that the response she received was basically an ad hominem attack. A simple statement that her views were respected but were inconsistent with others' experiences would have been appropriate. A questioning of the actual substance of her comments would have been appropriate. A dismissal of what she has to say because you perceive her, or at least you seem to perceive her, as being a $12/article hack was a bit intemperate.

And, despite your statement that "not all content mills are terrible," I suspect your response to Joanna, or "Ms. Salinas" ( a form of address that reminds me of being chewed out by my sixth-grade teacher) would raise the hackles of many who write full-time or part-time for content mills.; March 5, 2010 7:58 PM
Bonnie said...: "Ditto, everything had to pass copyscape and I too had to pay."

Gack. Well, they don't do that anymore, or I never would have even applied to write for them. And if I found out after the fact that I had to pay for copyscape or whatever, I would have stopped writing for them. It's a big red flag when you're expected to shell out before your even get paid.

My understanding is that currently everything is put through copyscape, but that QG does it themselves. I have never been asked to pay for such a thing, but I have only written for them since fall 2009.; March 5, 2010 8:03 PM
Bonnie said...: B.S.
You wrote:

"The reason I chose to report on this particular content mill was simply that I received a letter from one of our readers, as stated in the post. The purpose I serve here at WM is to find and expose dishonest or fraudulent companies in order to protect our fellow writers from falling into their traps."

Great. That's admirable, and I look forward to reading more. However, I think you should be clear about your purpose. If your purpose is to give a forum to writers who have had problems with companies, publishers, content mills, and allow them to air grievances and get them out to other writers, that's one thing. And you did that.

However, if your purpose is not simply to get these grievances out there but rather to "find and expose dishonest or fraudulent companies," that's something a little different, and the bar is higher. If you're providing a forum for grievances and getting the word out, then it's appropriate to run with whatever bias you have and to be an advocate for your anonymous source. If you have the more grandiose intent of uncovering the truth about fraud and such, however, you lose credibility when you answer people who step forward with contrary opinions not with incisive criticism but instead with peeved and nasty remarks about their need to be honest and branch out. Now, I'm sure you honestly believe that Joanna is not a "professional" and that she needs to "branch out." You are entitled to your opinion. But that isn't the point--QG's practices with respect to their writers is the point.

I've noted whenever I comment here that you tend to respond to the least important thing I have to say. I get your stated purpose for publishing the comment. I get that you don't think all content mills are terrible.

What about your treatment of 1) the anonymous positive commenters on this thread (who obviously were put up to it by QG or are actually QG staffers) and 2) the non-anonymous positive commenters who gave their name and contact info but obviously should shut up because they are non-professional hacks?

Your dismissal of pro-QG comments that were both anonymous and non-anonymous--more specifically, your methods of dismissing them--was what bothered me and impelled me to comment. As I said before, I found it inappropriate and disturbing. Yet you said nothing about that.; March 5, 2010 8:20 PM
B.S. Vigilante said...: Bonnie,
You're clearly an intelligent woman, and you make a good point. Maybe I was too harsh in my response to Joanna. You're right, her thoughts are completely relevant to our debate, especially considering the amount of time she spends writing for QG.

What I should have said was that someone who is as capable as she may be selling herself short by working for such a company.

To Joanna, I apologize if I implied that your thoughts don't count here--they do. As a person who spends so much time writing for this company, you obviously understand their practices better than I--someone who has never written for the company.

The information I reported in this post came from former and current QG writers who had negative experiences. I shared it here in order to give other writers the opportunity to make an informed decision before signing on with QG.

Thanks for reading,
B.S.; March 5, 2010 8:30 PM
Bonnie said...: "Someone said $30 isn't much better than $12 per article"

B.S. said that. After s/he said that Joanna Crain Salinas could hardly be a seasoned professional because she got worked for $12 an article, Joanna responded that QG paid more than $12 for some articles (up to $30), and B.S. said "$30 an article isn't much better than $12." The implication, of course, is that Joanna isn't any more a professional getting paid $30 an article than she is getting paid $12.; March 5, 2010 8:32 PM
Anonymous said...: I said the thing about preferring QG over DS, but that's because QG has titles that are actually in my area of expertise. I just picked up a few today that deal with a subject I have a degree in. DS has the oddest titles for only $3 more than QG, but for the life of me I will never be able to write about how to build a robotic turtle or dog.

The Copyscape issue is true. When I first started writing there (2008) we were instructed to get Copyscape. I use it anyway, so it wasn't a big deal for me. I think QG has definitely had some bad growing pains. I can remember the original Quality Gal who advertised for writers on certain boards, and she seemed alright. But then she was supposedly fired or something and went public about it (the reason they now have their don't bad mouth us clause???) and a bunch of writers jumped ship over her being fired.

The firing of an editor isn't my concern, so I stuck it out with the company but quit writing there for about 7 months because the new staff did seem more abrupt and just not as friendly. Over the last year they have seemed to make positive changes, and the newer staff is very helpful.

I think every content mill has its good and bad. My advice to any new writer is to give them all a shot. If you don't like it, leave. Don't let the experiences of others keep you from trying something yourself. I think that should be a general rule of life, not just online writing.; March 5, 2010 9:41 PM
Anonymous said...: I wrote for Quality Gal last year and they were anything but 'quality'. Not only did I have to pay for copyscape, but after I submitted several articles, I decided the work was too involved for the pay I was getting. Told Quality Gal I was quitting and guess what? Took them three months to pay me. These people who had better experiences, were they last year?; March 7, 2010 12:17 AM
Christiane said...: Just found your site. I just signed up at QG and found their website very bare. They asked how many articles I wanted to write before giving me any information at all. It was a red flag for me so I did a search and found your site. I bookmarked you. I can't write for a company with a non-compete. It doesn't make any sense. Thank you. Christiane; March 18, 2010 9:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Quality Gal is run by Jim Boykin, the pot headed hero of crappy decade old SEO. All the 'editors' have at best completed high school and when not drinking with him in his SUV out back spend the rest of their day gossiping. If you feel your only writing skills deserve criticism by a girl (as that's all Jim hires) who is busier toking it up with him than actually providing serious analysis of your articles sign up. -Zak; July 17, 2011 6:27 AM
Anonymous said...: I found this web-blog because someone I know, who is an excellent writer, has had the VERY SAME experience as the "anonymous" whose letter about her experience started this thread. I, too, find it very unusual that there are so many postings by supposed QualityGal writers with nothing but glowing reports in response to the complaint. I hesitate to quote the other complaints I've found online, because they - too - have been inundated with "glowing reports" to counteract the complaint, and I assume the QualityGal hit squad will go out in full force to drown the complaints at other sites out (as they are trying to do here). Sounds to me like QualityGal is on the constant look out for any negative press, which only heightens my suspicions.; February 20, 2012 8:14 PM