Brijit, best of the web

April 3, 2008 7:14 AM

Brijit is sort of like a MeFi for magazine articles, but each post is 100-words and you get $5-$8 for each post (if you can write a good summary of the article). It is part of a "new" wave in non-algorithmic human-powered filtering of the net.
posted by stbalbach (37 comments total)

Hm. I always like making $5-8 dollars for something I'm doing anyway. But I wonder how long this model will last? It seems like a .com boom, circa1998 sort of idea. Pre-filtering magazine articles doesn't seem like something that would be interesting to enough people to make this site pay. What does everyone else think?
posted by Miko at 7:25 AM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

This is promising--though it is obviously new and the article presentations are uneven. I like the categories, and the ability to subscribe to just the categories you want. No conversation there yet that I could see.
posted by LarryC at 7:25 AM on April 3, 2008

It is part of a "new" wave in non-algorithmic human-powered filtering of the net.

New wave, same as the old wave.

New wave, same as the old wave.
posted by mkultra at 7:51 AM on April 3, 2008 [2 favorites]

Kind of agree with Miko here--I'm not going around saying to myself, "You know, I would sit down and read all the feature articles in this month's Marie Clare but I'm just too gosh darned busy!" And if I were interested in reading whatever articles, I would probably just go ahead and read them--theoretically I might have a good one recommended to me by this website, but it's not as if I don't have enough places on the internet where I'm liable to hear about something interesting in a publication I might read on my own anyway.
posted by zeusianfog at 8:11 AM on April 3, 2008

$5 to $8 per 100-word abstract wouldn't be bad, but not great either.

But $5 to $8 for working on spec (you do the work first and then they'll decide if they want to pay you for it) is not good.
posted by winston at 8:39 AM on April 3, 2008

Wee bit OT: A narrow focus but an excellent article-collector-abstract site is Arts & Letters Daily.
posted by dontoine at 9:09 AM on April 3, 2008

I'm pretty much too much of a luddite to understand or care what non-algorithmic human-powered filtering of the net is or does. But the second link on that site, this one, is one goddamn sad story.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 9:25 AM on April 3, 2008 [5 favorites]

Hang on isn't that Miningco link just a front for About.com, one of the worst sites on the web?
posted by MrMerlot at 10:44 AM on April 3, 2008

"$5 to $8 per 100-word abstract wouldn't be bad, but not great either.

But $5 to $8 for working on spec (you do the work first and then they'll decide if they want to pay you for it) is not good."

About $12-an-hour, assuming that it takes 20 minutes to read an article and five minutes to summarize it. Since it's spec, count on tossing out, what, 10-20% of that (especially since they give the same article to three different summarizers, and assuming you're good), and you have between $8.50 and $10-an-hour that you can (sort of) rely upon.

I make $14-an-hour (rounding down) to do my regular job, and about $12.50 on my regular freelance gig (after the incredibly onerous and poorly-defined "special projects" tax).

So doing this would only be worthwhile if I was going to read that specific article already. If it had been around when I was a student and needing some quick quasi-reliable cash, it might have been worthwhile. Now? Well, I'll probably think about it and never get around to it.

Just the perspective of someone who gets paid (not incredibly well) to write (not incredibly well, but better than most competing for low-hanging fruit).
posted by klangklangston at 10:51 AM on April 3, 2008

But the second link on that site, this one, is one goddamn sad story

Thanks for the link. Good story. Though I can't readily identify the snaggletooth, scarred-up pornstar. I wonder if it's all true.
posted by dgaicun at 10:54 AM on April 3, 2008

Hang on isn't that Miningco link just a front for About.com, one of the worst sites on the web?

The Mining Company is the original name of that business, before the internet bubble came and forced them to rename themselves something snazzier.
posted by mkultra at 11:34 AM on April 3, 2008

Not bad for college kids who need essay-writing practice and maybe some extra money. (Although last I checked, essays were about throwing in extra BS, and certainly not about paring it down to the essential details, haha.)

And the pornstar sister article - yes, that is one goddamn sad story.
posted by Xere at 11:46 AM on April 3, 2008

What a complete tragedy of a lame Web 2.0 name. I mean really.
posted by loiseau at 12:20 PM on April 3, 2008

Oh, also, my point: there is no shortage of ultra-low-paying spec work for people willing to "summarize articles", review things, re-word other people's content, etc. Just look in the writing section of your local Craigslist or any gig-bidding Web site.. There are a million people out there looking to pay people pennies for as much watered-down Web content as they can get their hands on. Not passing judgement on this particular site, but rather saying there's a whole heap of stuff out there like this.
posted by loiseau at 12:24 PM on April 3, 2008

Full disclosure first: I'm the founder of Brijit. Couldn't be happier that we've been introduced to the Metafilter community. Thanks to everyone who's taken the time to visit the site -- hope you'll come back often and recommend us widely.

Sorry you don't like the name, loiseau. We liked it because we’re connecting and bridging in all sorts of ways: readers and writers, long-form and short-form, new and traditional media, etc. We’re also abridging, with our abstracts. It sounds a little like ‘widget,’ too: small and functional. It's a girl’s name. And not for nothing, a good 6-letter URL is really hard to come by!

As for what we pay our writers, I guess our view is that everything's relative. It's a lot less than what you get freelancing for Conde Nast, sure. But it's infinitely more than the nothing that most user generated sites pay. Plus, beyond the money, our writers seem to get real satisfaction in the professional editing, and the byline.

I'll stop here -- this comment is nearly twice the length of a typical Brijit abstract. Glad everyone discovered the Marie Clare story, sad though it may be. Thanks again.
posted by jbrosowsky at 1:54 PM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

jbrosowsky, welcome to MeFi. I personally like your site and will be using it. I've never been paid to write before so the idea, even for $5, is seductive. I see some of your writers have over 1000 abstracts in the past 6 months or so. Probably a hard way to make a living, but still better than the $0 from every other user generated content site; and it makes good dinner conversation on what you've been doing lately (paid to write!). It's a lot easier to write an abstract than a Wikipedia article. All hobby/fun stuff. Finding a way to compensate user-generated content is hard but this may be a model that works. Anyway, in the end it's about reading the articles, and that's mainly what I'll be using it for.
posted by stbalbach at 3:36 PM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

"As for what we pay our writers, I guess our view is that everything's relative. It's a lot less than what you get freelancing for Conde Nast, sure. But it's infinitely more than the nothing that most user generated sites pay. Plus, beyond the money, our writers seem to get real satisfaction in the professional editing, and the byline."

That's because you're hiring amateurs.

Look, Metafilter isn't professional quality writing. I don't necessarily expect it to be. But once you start paying for something, I read it less as a lark and more as a business model. And I expect professionalism.

Instead, this looks like yet another craigslist "We paiz $4 per blogz!" It smacks of either exploiting young and naive folks, or insulting people who can do this at a high level, and there is a skill there—I know a guy who writes blurbs for the New Yorker, and he'd be fantastic at this, except that he'd want real money. Not ponying up for real quality makes the whole thing come off as half-assed.

And you're not just competing against Conde Nast—you pay significantly less than Hustler, for chrissakes.
posted by klangklangston at 4:32 PM on April 3, 2008

The way I see it, MetaFilter pays us, best case scenario, $-5 per post, so in that light, hey, great deal. I happen to think that if your goal is to build a high quality community that you could do a lot worse than try to emulate MetaFilter. However, the combined implication is that you are going to have a real uphill battle trying to create any kind of quality community if you're paying for contribution to it.

That said, it's not clear to me that there is any real community goal here, and if that's true, I wish you the best of luck.
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:52 PM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

I expect professionalism.. It smacks of either exploiting young and naive folks, or insulting people who can do this at a high level

Is this a troll? You can't be serious. Exploitation? Insulating processionals? Are you Andrew Keen in disguise? I sure hope jbrosowsky doesn't take your bait and respond.
posted by stbalbach at 5:16 PM on April 3, 2008

I usually get north of $50 an hour for doing this type of thing. So, probably not, then.
posted by Wolof at 5:25 PM on April 3, 2008

klangklangston: I know I'm new here to MeFi, so I'm loathe to get into an argument, but have you spent any time on Brijit? Please look around a little, check out the sources we're covering and the way we're covering them, and then pass judgment.

And of course we're not competing with Conde Nast, for writers or readers. We're a complement to them, and all the other publishers we cover, regardless of native format. We're just trying to make Conde Nast's content a little more accessible for the tens of millions of people who don't have time to tuck into every 10,000 word takeout piece in the New Yorker or Vanity Fair. That's what our 100-word abstracts are all about. Our readers understand that. And our writers are happy to contribute.

A testimonial from a satisfied professional writer here.
posted by jbrosowsky at 5:31 PM on April 3, 2008

stbalbach: Too late. Bait taken. But point made, too, I hope.
posted by jbrosowsky at 5:32 PM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

That's because you're hiring amateurs.

No one is "hired", it's all voluntary no commitment.

I expect professionalism

Read the Wikipedia article about Professional Amateurs (ProAms) - it's the type of person who takes a hobby to the professional quality level, but is not trying to make a living at it.

Pro-Ams - people pursuing amateur activities to professional standards - are an increasingly important part of our society and economy. For Pro-Ams, leisure is not passive consumerism but active and participatory, it involves the deployment of publicly accredited knowledge and skills, often built up over a long career, which has involved sacrifices and frustrations. The 20th century witnessed the rise of professionals in medicine, science, education, and politics. In one field after another, amateurs and their ramshackle organizations were driven out by people who knew what they were doing and had certificates to prove it. The Pro-Am Revolution argues this historic shift is reversing. We're witnessing the flowering of Pro-Am, bottom-up self-organisation and the crude, all or nothing, categories of professional or amateur will need to be rethought. Based on in-depth interviews with a diverse range of Pro-Ams and containing new data about the extent of Pro-Am activity in the UK, this report proposes new policies to support and encourage valuable Pro-Am activity.

The UK actually has public policies to foster ProAm activities because it recognizes how huge and valuable it is now become a part of the economy. People are living longer, healthier, have more education than ever - tapping into the ProAm cultural shift is where things are headed. Brijit is just one example. Wikipedia another.
posted by stbalbach at 6:17 PM on April 3, 2008

I'm interested, and have signed up. I have ample free time, and I'm all about the readin' and the writin' and the opinin'. Thanks to jbrosowsky for signing up here at MeFi to talk about the site.

Since you're here, I have a question and a comment: I live in Korea, and don't have access to the print editions of any of the assignments offered. Is there any way currently (or planned) to be able to filter available assignments based on whether they are available online? Also, the address form on profile customization does not allow for addresses outside the US -- is this deliberate, or an oversight? Since payment can be done via Paypal, I'd assume that physical location doesn't matter, but I'm hoping there's not some legal US-resident-only limitation here. If so, I was only joking about living in Korea, honest!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:44 PM on April 3, 2008

Stavros: Happy to be part of the MeFi conversation. Glad to know you're interested in Brijit, and thanks for taking the time to sign up. The good news is that vast majority of our assignments are available online, but as you point out, right now you can't search assignments based on online / offline status. We're working on the next iteration of our content management system, and this change is on our list of potential improvements. Separately, as noted on the site, we don't send physical checks outside the US, hence the PayPal-only limitation for international writers. We have contributors all over the world, and look forward to having you be one of them.
posted by jbrosowsky at 8:33 PM on April 3, 2008

Excellent, and thanks for the quick response.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:59 PM on April 3, 2008

I guess the way I would have liked to see this done is that a roster of regular freelancers or even (gasp!) staffers was put together to build content. This just seems like yet another Web-content-machine business model but with less credibility (in my eyes) since it's just a bunch of stay-at-home-moms and such churning out summaries for five bucks a pop.

I don't know. Maybe it's just my bias as a grumpy wannabe freelance writer (it probably is) but it feels like things like this are clogging the pipes. There are many sites listing low-paying, low-committment and low-expectations "writing" gigs for bored people looking to fill up their piggy bank. I'm thinking of things paid SEO blogging, where you write a post a day of 500 words and get three bucks for it, or any of the instructional sites where you act as a guide for a topic and get a penny a word for the content you build up, or any of the sites where you re-write other sites' content in your own words. The more original writing you absorb and low-quality summaries or blog posts or abstracts you crap out, the faster you build up a semblance of a side income. Whatever, it's a way to earn a buck -- but in my personal opinion this kind of stuff just obfuscates the quality stuff on the Web rather than highlighting it.

Anyway, like I said this is just my opinion, everyone's happy and more power to those folks who are into the site and all that. To each his own.
posted by loiseau at 9:40 PM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]

PS. Stbalbach, your tags on this post might be slightly lacking!
posted by loiseau at 9:42 PM on April 3, 2008

loiseau, happy to add any tag suggestions.

I think the "just stay at home moms" thing is right, except the "just" part. It's as if, unless your a highly-paid trained professional with a degree and a resume that includes known print publications, you obviously can't write or have talent. What if that stay at home mom has a Literature degree from Harvard? Or actuallly has writing talent but has no interest in being a "professional", except to write at professional-quality levels. Being a competent writer is not magic it is mostly a learned skill that improves with practice (of course the really Great writers have something more). In my experience, the people complaining about amateur writers are the professionals - they feel threatened because they known that just about anyone can write a professional quality levels with a little time and practice. Reading the summaries on Brijit I would not be able to tell you which was written by a pro or an amateur. And that scares some people.
posted by stbalbach at 7:10 AM on April 4, 2008

Thanks, stbalbach. We're seeing all sorts of people writing for us: lawyers, research assistants, undergrads, stay-at-home parents, graduate students, full-time freelancers, enthusiasts of all sorts. And from all over. One of the coolest things about Brijit, to my mind, is the virtuous cycle we've created by accepting multiple submissions on a single assignment. As a writer, you're most likely to have your abstract published if (a) you're familiar with the source, i.e., a regular reader / watcher / listener, and (b) you're familiar with the subject matter. In effect, we're incentivizing people to write what they know, which is best for readers and writers alike.

As for not being able to tell the Pro from the Am on Brijit, I'll be sure to give our editors an "attaboy!" They vet every single abstract that hits the site, another point of differentiation that we think adds real value and significantly improves quality over time.
posted by jbrosowsky at 7:32 AM on April 4, 2008

stbalbach: What if that stay at home mom has a Literature degree from Harvard?

Then I doubt she's writing summaries of other people's articles for five bucks a shot.

Maybe you have to be familiar with the world of online freelance writing and the fact that a million low-pay low-skill spec gigs are out there. I dunno. I think of it as waste, just words words words words but no information. I think its ilk make the Web a worse place. But like I said: to each his own.

Tags: magazine articles brijit humanpoweredfiltering would be a good start.

Well, jbrosowsky, this has been a great opportunity for you, since you've been "incentivized" to reply with lots of delicious Web 2.0 marketing-speak.
posted by loiseau at 8:01 AM on April 4, 2008

Loiseau nailed it.
posted by klangklangston at 2:26 PM on April 4, 2008

Loiseau nailed it.

I'm not even quite sure what loiseau is talking about. Noble to want to increase the quality of writing on the web: quixotic as all hell, but noble.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:35 PM on April 4, 2008

More that while Brijit seems to be a better designed/modeled system than most, there are already lots and lots of crummy AdSense/SEO sort of shitblogs and sites that pay roughly the same for roughly the same work. Low-pay, low-skill spec work.

It's kinda like seeing another "I will pay you $20 to design my website!" ad. Or people trying to lowball for headshots.

Really, Stav, I can direct you to whole months and months worth of craigslist ads if you want to find more of this.
posted by klangklangston at 6:07 PM on April 4, 2008 [1 favorite]

klangklangston, you seem to be confusing the nature of this site. It would be like complaining that Wikipedia doesn't pay anything. The fact they pay anything at all is amazing. This is for amateurs (who write at a pro level) people who do it because they want to write, get their name in print, read lots of great articles, show off their skills, home their skills, take part in a community, etc... The money is a small and inconsequential part, to complain about it is missing the point.

I doubt she's writing summaries of other people's articles for five bucks a shot.

Again, your missing the point. Do you think shes writing Wikipedia articles for $0 a shot? Forget the money, inconsequential.
posted by stbalbach at 7:29 PM on April 9, 2008

Wikipedia=non-profit.

I understand that you have a hard-on for Brijit (and Wikipedia). But again, this is functionally the same as getting $5 for writing some bullshit for 101 or any random SEO blog.
posted by klangklangston at 10:55 PM on April 9, 2008

the fact they pay anything at all is amazing.

klangklangston and loiseau are right: there are hundreds of websites out there paying small dollars for fast short content. Brigit seems a little bit classier than others in terms of subject matter, perhaps, but I don't think it's going to make it in the long term because there's basically not a lot of use for it that I can see, other than perhaps as a handy clip service for marketing companies. I don't see it developing a significant readership.

I freelance, too, and when this was posted I did some quick math. The only way it pays is if I'm already going to read the articles and have 20 minutes to spend on the summary. Otherwise, it's not worth it - the time it would take to read something on assignment that I wouldn't otherwise read and then summarize it is now real time - an hour or two, say. Using that hour or two, I can write a quick review for the local A&C rag, and make $20, or get 1/4 of the way through a longer piece for the local lifestyle mag, which will make $200 finished. And those are small markets. So it's hard to see why I would use the same amount of time it takes to create a full feature piece (maybe 8 hours) to earn $20-32 instead.

I can see some lifestyles which writing for Brijit would lend itself to (gradstudent with weird hours, stay-at-home parent). And I can see new writers using it as a foot-in-the-door strategy to get some linkable clips from an edited site that can then help with getting a step up to more lucrative assignments. But it's by no means the only way to do that if you're so inclined. And as soon as you can make money writing for another outlet, the pay becomes a whole lot better.
posted by Miko at 6:49 AM on April 10, 2008