Leave a comment

‘Good’ #content isn’t good enough anymore and only the #excellent stuff breaks through the noise.  So we #bought, #tested & #compared 5 different content #writingservices. Here are the Results!   


  • BS

    Brad Smith

    over 1 year ago #

    1. We are using a derogatory term on purpose. Because that's essentially what they are. Which is what this entire piece is about.
    2. Comparing yourself against the competition is a good idea because you can use it highlight exactly how you're different.
    3. We took painstaking efforts to remove all bias in this piece. We paid for each service with our own money. We compare their pieces against what's actually ranking in the SERPs now for the same phrase (i.e. the best of the best). We used quantifiable, verifiable metrics like plagiarism scores from third-party software (Grammarly). And just to be safe, we asked 12 additional experts to let us know if they'd publish these pieces -- all of them resoundingly said no.
    4. Don't be a troll when you didn't actually read the post and apparently don't know what you're talking about.

    • TC

      Tad Chef

      over 1 year ago #

      There is no need to call me names like "troll" just because you disagree with me.

      Apparently you can't deal with constructive criticism.

      Because of your condescending approach I won't "discuss" with you.

      Just this: dumping your competition bashing piece and calling it a "case study" is ridiculous.

      When facing peer review you just offend me as well. You lack style.

      P.S.: As you haven't commented here a lot yet: you need to hit reply on the comment you respond to.

  • TC

    Tad Chef

    over 1 year ago #

    You are obviously oblivious to the actual meaning of "content farm" or you use a derogatory term on purpose.

    Also IMHO it's a strange kind of case study when you test and rate your competition. I'd call that biased.

    In case I would want to rate your service I'd have to give you zero stars as you didn't even respond to my inquiry.

    • JB

      Josh Brown

      over 1 year ago #

      Technically, I suppose the title should have been 'Content Mill' but I don't see how it's derogatory for Brad's team to call it the 'Content Farm Olympics'? These sites don't have a minimum standard for quality or if they do, it's extremely low. They're more than willing to cater to content farms and I would think that at least half their orders are from individuals/sites looking to just have something to publish without a care as to quality.

      Additionally, Brad does a fairly good job of reducing bias, specifically by getting outsiders to rate the content though I do feel that some of the critiques brought up may not be fair (for example internal linking - I didn't see whether instructions were left discussing that internal links should be used or the mark against Crowd Content for using two benefits mentioned in CMI - the CMI article only mentions these benefits whereas the Crowd Content piece makes an attempt to discuss how content actually ties into these benefits).

      • TC

        Tad Chef

        over 1 year ago #

        Technically it should be "content writing service".

        The owner of a content writing service is reviewing other content writing services - by itself a strangely unethical setup - and uses an already offending term in the headline.

        How is that unbiased? Are you friends? You sound illogical to say the least.

  • JQ

    Jason Quey

    over 1 year ago #

    Great study.

    In the Amazon affiliate niche, many use content mills and make 4-6 figures per month. But are these sites getting any return visitors?

    So I'd be curious to see what the return rate is for sites that use content mills vs. original content.

Join over 70,000 growth pros from companies like Uber, Pinterest & Twitter

Get Weekly Top Posts
High five! You’re in.