I’m curious: what does a non-dysfunctional family look like? My dad was an alcoholic. He died from this damned sickness. His parents did, too. Both of them. My mom has the same addiction, plus a whole bunch of other issues. Wait—we’ll get to me and my own quirks later. But I grew up in a broken home that felt like hell. My cousins’ dad drank, too. My classmates either didn’t have fathers, or their dads had the same “talent” as mine, or they were abusers. One boy’s mom left him with a grandmother for the sake of a new husband. Another friend of mine abandoned her daughter with the father to go find a new love. And now, I’m standing guard by the bathroom so my son doesn’t waste water. I heard somewhere that this kind of control is a sign of a dysfunctional family. So, I guess I follow the same pattern now. Not because I’m stingy with the water, though. I’m here because our power grid is being shelled, electricity is hit-or-miss, and we have one 50-liter water heater for everyone. There a...
Every task I’ve received here, at home, contains the same phrase. And often, when I listen to a training video on content writing or SEO, it also contains it. I’m not surprised by the words itself. I’m amazed why strong SEO teams, who definitely know how to bring sites to the top of organic search results, or instructors who record training (read - teach others, share experience), also use the same requirement.
What is this phrase? What is this requirement that drives me, a person who knows how to write, so crazy? I won’t beat around the bush and will get straight to the point because lengthy introductions also annoy.
Good people, are you paying the writer to copy? Who created the content for the competitor you’re trying to copy? And who brought it to the top?
I’m not an SEO guru, of course. But there are those who create trends, and there are those who copy them. Of course, the one who first needs to work harder, have more courage, and take more risks. But why do so many incredible, strong professionals resort to copy-pasting? After all, even if the writer paraphrases, takes it as a basis, and retells it in their own words, it’s still imitation, copying, and plagiarism to some extent. It’s plagiarism, even if the detectors don’t recognize it.
I strive to create something new, my own. Every text should carry something new and interesting. Because users, believe me, see that all those sites or social media accounts copy each other. Yes, it may be harder to promote. You may have to experiment and not see the expected results until you find your niche, your own voice. And then, maybe, they will be copying you.
During my writing career, I’ve noticed a pattern: the more requirements and restrictions the client places on the text, the more I “look at the competitors,” the more revisions I get. Conversely, the result will be better when the client gives me creative freedom. The best feedback always comes from assignments where I need to write just in relevance with a specific content platform. Tasks where I only have one link for backlinking or none are accepted almost or entirely without revisions. Interesting.
Clients don’t always want a carbon copy of the competition. They just want it to be good. And the writer, if they’re a writer by calling and not just stringing words together by force, will find an interesting topic for your post or article and tell a truly engaging story.
Why is that? Because requirements bind us. Tasks with numerous keyword variations and the demand to replicate competitors’ work while innovating are like chains. They restrict us. A large amount of restrictions create narrow frames. It takes a lot of energy for writers to stick to them.
I’m not saying it’s bad practice. I’m explaining that keeping creativity with these conditions is much more complex than without them. Yet the worst killer of creativity here is this: “Look what competitors did and use it as a basis.”
What is this phrase? What is this requirement that drives me, a person who knows how to write, so crazy? I won’t beat around the bush and will get straight to the point because lengthy introductions also annoy.
Look at What Your Competitors Are Writing and Use It as a Basis
Good people, are you paying the writer to copy? Who created the content for the competitor you’re trying to copy? And who brought it to the top?
I’m not an SEO guru, of course. But there are those who create trends, and there are those who copy them. Of course, the one who first needs to work harder, have more courage, and take more risks. But why do so many incredible, strong professionals resort to copy-pasting? After all, even if the writer paraphrases, takes it as a basis, and retells it in their own words, it’s still imitation, copying, and plagiarism to some extent. It’s plagiarism, even if the detectors don’t recognize it.
I strive to create something new, my own. Every text should carry something new and interesting. Because users, believe me, see that all those sites or social media accounts copy each other. Yes, it may be harder to promote. You may have to experiment and not see the expected results until you find your niche, your own voice. And then, maybe, they will be copying you.
The Paradox That Will Dot All the I’s
During my writing career, I’ve noticed a pattern: the more requirements and restrictions the client places on the text, the more I “look at the competitors,” the more revisions I get. Conversely, the result will be better when the client gives me creative freedom. The best feedback always comes from assignments where I need to write just in relevance with a specific content platform. Tasks where I only have one link for backlinking or none are accepted almost or entirely without revisions. Interesting.
Clients don’t always want a carbon copy of the competition. They just want it to be good. And the writer, if they’re a writer by calling and not just stringing words together by force, will find an interesting topic for your post or article and tell a truly engaging story.
Why is that? Because requirements bind us. Tasks with numerous keyword variations and the demand to replicate competitors’ work while innovating are like chains. They restrict us. A large amount of restrictions create narrow frames. It takes a lot of energy for writers to stick to them.
I’m not saying it’s bad practice. I’m explaining that keeping creativity with these conditions is much more complex than without them. Yet the worst killer of creativity here is this: “Look what competitors did and use it as a basis.”
Comments
Post a Comment