5 ms·

Draft Preview: Uber for writing

63 points by nate 14y ago

chanced 14y ago
This is awesome; in fact I was thinking about building something similar a few days ago. Judging by the screenshots, it looks like you did a good job on the MVP so I can comfortably set that idea aside. Do you mind disclosing the fee structure? Is it word count based, editor count, or a combo of both? Also, do the reviewers get to see the versioned accepted/rejected/proposed rev history) or just the original?
- nate 14y ago
  Thank you very much! At the moment I'd like to keep it at just a single flat fee: $10 for a review. (It's only $5 right now for people beta testing) No matter what the size. So if you have a short doc you'll get lots of edits, and a long doc will get a good look and some comments on how to improve but not a detailed proof read. I like keeping it that way so you can hit the button and always know what to expect. You don't have to worry "how much is this one going to cost me now". You'll just know. I see a lot of other folks charging per word. I might play with that if folks don't like the flat fee. Reviewers currently only see the original. I don't have a feedback mechanism in place yet for the reviewers to see how their changes are getting accepted. It's on the todo list.
  - chanced 14y ago
    You're welcome! Re:price I guess for me the current pricing structure is a bit more vague. I get that knowing how much I'll be billed before I hit the button is a good thing but I don't really know what I'll get in terms of quality or quantity of reviews. My recommendation is to setup brackets based on word count and then tiers within those. So, for instance, (using completely arbitrary numbers): 0-50 words: 5 reviews ($5), 10 reviews ($8), 25 ($12); 51-100 words, 3 reviews ($5), 10.....and so on. Rigging up the javascript to make that determination would be trivial. The reason I prefer this approach is that the content that I would need reviewed are fragments. Writings such as product blurbs and headlines are often extremely small in length but are the content that is likely to be hot-swapped most frequently, thus needing the most reviews, for AB tests. In more cases than not, getting those small content blocks right is far, far more crucial than having a blog reviewed. A small blurb may only need 3 passthroughs but I may want to start with 10 on a headline and continue to buy revisions until I'm satisfied or the AB tests are concluded. Reviewers currently only see the original. I don't have a feedback mechanism in place yet for the reviewers to see how their changes are getting accepted. It's on the todo list. The revision structure, imo, is your most powerful feature. Perhaps something as simple as the owner is the only one that can accept but anyone that knows the publicly facing url can submit changes would work at first. It would be akin to a lot of the pastebin-esk sites out there with a bit of a twist. This way, I could submit my changes into you (and you send them over to whomever) for review but I could also send them over to my wife (whom is also subject to my persistent requests for reviews). Most importantly though, the history gives the reviewer a sense of state and a better indication of intent and direction. Anyway, good luck man. Keep HN informed and I look forward to kicking the tires.
    - nate 14y ago
      This is tremendous feedback. I'm insanely appreciative of that. Great insight I'll chew on. Want to email me for an invite? nate.kontny gmail.
    - RaphiePS 14y ago
      He could also offer different levels of review. Sometimes I want my writing picked apart for the slightest error, but at other times I want broader, more general feedback. Nate said it perfectly with So if you have a short doc you'll get lots of edits, and a long doc will get a good look and some comments on how to improve but not a detailed proof read. However, I don't think review depth should be strictly determined by length. Then again, this pricing structure would add more complexity, so go figure.
anandkulkarni 14y ago
We couldn't be more excited to support this here at Mobileworks. We use Premier ourselves to write a bunch of our content. As far as I know, this is one of the first times a crowd has been embedded in a software application for the general public.
- huhtenberg 14y ago
  This looks exceptionally useful. However, if you don't mind me asking - how a "college educated crew" reconciles with being "super cheap"? Who are the editors exactly?
  - anandkulkarni 14y ago
    Good question. Mobileworks helps folks in the developing world participate in the web's labor economy. Much of our workforce comes from places where prevailing wages are much lower. In this case, the editors are located outside the United States. They're nurses, retired professors, writers, and more.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - gamblor956 14y ago
      In other words, people least familar with the idiosyncracies of U.S. grammar, spelling, and linguistic differences... This site is probably still worth it if you are aiming for international English, but it's useless if your audience reads and expects U.S. English. Note that if you are U.S.-based, and your audience will primarily be U.S.-based, you can probably get better quality proofing and editing for not much more by posting Help Wanted's in your local college's student newspaper.
      - anandkulkarni 14y ago
        I gently disagree. Take a look at our blog (dogfooded), and let me know whether you think the editing quality reflects US or international English usage.
chrisfromto 14y ago
Awesome, awesome idea. I would definitely use such a service (assuming quality editing).
huhtenberg 14y ago
A couple of notes, based on my prior experience with online proofreading services, some of which were pretty decent if a bit expensive. All of them lacked the following - 1. A way to communicate with the editor. To say "Thanks", for example. 2. A way to retain the same editor for future requests. Some editors are much better than others and an ability to go back to the same person is very useful.
- anandkulkarni 14y ago
  That's very interesting. Premier supports this interaction and retention directly, so perhaps Draft will in the future, too!
  - nate 14y ago
    Yeah, it's great feedback. Noted. I'll start exploring this soon.
- MaysonL 14y ago
  Try http://sweatingcommas.com http://sweatingcommas.com
bperry87 14y ago
A friend and I have been working on a similar'ish product that's best described as Editing-as-a-service. http://www.edithero.com http://www.edithero.com We're about push out a new 'plan' and set of copy. We'd love some feedback and questions. Thanks everybody!

63 points by nate 14y ago

This is awesome; in fact I was thinking about building something similar a few days ago. Judging by the screenshots, it looks like you did a good job on the MVP so I can comfortably set that idea aside. Do you mind disclosing the fee structure? Is it word count based, editor count, or a combo of both? Also, do the reviewers get to see the versioned accepted/rejected/proposed rev history) or just the original?

nate 14y ago
Thank you very much! At the moment I'd like to keep it at just a single flat fee: $10 for a review. (It's only $5 right now for people beta testing) No matter what the size. So if you have a short doc you'll get lots of edits, and a long doc will get a good look and some comments on how to improve but not a detailed proof read. I like keeping it that way so you can hit the button and always know what to expect. You don't have to worry "how much is this one going to cost me now". You'll just know. I see a lot of other folks charging per word. I might play with that if folks don't like the flat fee. Reviewers currently only see the original. I don't have a feedback mechanism in place yet for the reviewers to see how their changes are getting accepted. It's on the todo list.
- chanced 14y ago
  You're welcome! Re:price I guess for me the current pricing structure is a bit more vague. I get that knowing how much I'll be billed before I hit the button is a good thing but I don't really know what I'll get in terms of quality or quantity of reviews. My recommendation is to setup brackets based on word count and then tiers within those. So, for instance, (using completely arbitrary numbers): 0-50 words: 5 reviews ($5), 10 reviews ($8), 25 ($12); 51-100 words, 3 reviews ($5), 10.....and so on. Rigging up the javascript to make that determination would be trivial. The reason I prefer this approach is that the content that I would need reviewed are fragments. Writings such as product blurbs and headlines are often extremely small in length but are the content that is likely to be hot-swapped most frequently, thus needing the most reviews, for AB tests. In more cases than not, getting those small content blocks right is far, far more crucial than having a blog reviewed. A small blurb may only need 3 passthroughs but I may want to start with 10 on a headline and continue to buy revisions until I'm satisfied or the AB tests are concluded. Reviewers currently only see the original. I don't have a feedback mechanism in place yet for the reviewers to see how their changes are getting accepted. It's on the todo list. The revision structure, imo, is your most powerful feature. Perhaps something as simple as the owner is the only one that can accept but anyone that knows the publicly facing url can submit changes would work at first. It would be akin to a lot of the pastebin-esk sites out there with a bit of a twist. This way, I could submit my changes into you (and you send them over to whomever) for review but I could also send them over to my wife (whom is also subject to my persistent requests for reviews). Most importantly though, the history gives the reviewer a sense of state and a better indication of intent and direction. Anyway, good luck man. Keep HN informed and I look forward to kicking the tires.
  - nate 14y ago
    This is tremendous feedback. I'm insanely appreciative of that. Great insight I'll chew on. Want to email me for an invite? nate.kontny gmail.
  - RaphiePS 14y ago
    He could also offer different levels of review. Sometimes I want my writing picked apart for the slightest error, but at other times I want broader, more general feedback. Nate said it perfectly with So if you have a short doc you'll get lots of edits, and a long doc will get a good look and some comments on how to improve but not a detailed proof read. However, I don't think review depth should be strictly determined by length. Then again, this pricing structure would add more complexity, so go figure.

anandkulkarni 14y ago

We couldn't be more excited to support this here at Mobileworks. We use Premier ourselves to write a bunch of our content. As far as I know, this is one of the first times a crowd has been embedded in a software application for the general public.

huhtenberg 14y ago
This looks exceptionally useful. However, if you don't mind me asking - how a "college educated crew" reconciles with being "super cheap"? Who are the editors exactly?
- anandkulkarni 14y ago
  Good question. Mobileworks helps folks in the developing world participate in the web's labor economy. Much of our workforce comes from places where prevailing wages are much lower. In this case, the editors are located outside the United States. They're nurses, retired professors, writers, and more.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - gamblor956 14y ago
    In other words, people least familar with the idiosyncracies of U.S. grammar, spelling, and linguistic differences... This site is probably still worth it if you are aiming for international English, but it's useless if your audience reads and expects U.S. English. Note that if you are U.S.-based, and your audience will primarily be U.S.-based, you can probably get better quality proofing and editing for not much more by posting Help Wanted's in your local college's student newspaper.
    - anandkulkarni 14y ago
      I gently disagree. Take a look at our blog (dogfooded), and let me know whether you think the editing quality reflects US or international English usage.

chrisfromto 14y ago

Awesome, awesome idea. I would definitely use such a service (assuming quality editing).

huhtenberg 14y ago

A couple of notes, based on my prior experience with online proofreading services, some of which were pretty decent if a bit expensive. All of them lacked the following - 1. A way to communicate with the editor. To say "Thanks", for example. 2. A way to retain the same editor for future requests. Some editors are much better than others and an ability to go back to the same person is very useful.

anandkulkarni 14y ago
That's very interesting. Premier supports this interaction and retention directly, so perhaps Draft will in the future, too!
- nate 14y ago
  Yeah, it's great feedback. Noted. I'll start exploring this soon.
MaysonL 14y ago
Try http://sweatingcommas.com http://sweatingcommas.com

bperry87 14y ago

A friend and I have been working on a similar'ish product that's best described as Editing-as-a-service. http://www.edithero.com http://www.edithero.com We're about push out a new 'plan' and set of copy. We'd love some feedback and questions. Thanks everybody!