Guest bloggers at StevePavlina.com?

[Savage]

How would you feel if I opened up my blog to additional content submitted by other bloggers/writers?

I've received many requests from interested writers over the years, but in the past I've always said no to it. I just don't have time to filter through a myriad of potential submissions, and it would be important to maintain very high standards since I don't want to water down the blog with drivel. Also, if I started doing guest posts, I'd likely receive tons more submissions.

As I'm taking on other projects and working on staffing, I have less time for blogging, so I'm giving this idea some consideration now. Most likely I'd recruit someone else to manage the content screening, someone who understands the importance of high quality posts. It would also be made clear when a post was made by a guest blogger.

Additionally, I'd be more in favor of having some repeat submissions from people who's work is received favorably as opposed to one-shot posts from all over the place.

The main requirement is that I'd want submitters to be willing to put their submitted work into the public domain (if it gets published here), just as I do, so that anyone could translate or syndicate the content freely w/o restriction.

What do you think about this? Do you think it would be a positive improvement if we add some high-quality guest posts? Or would you rather not see us go in that direction?

Just trying to get the pulse of how community members feel about this...

[Le Roi]

My first gut reaction was "no way!".

After reading your post, I'd be open to it if it's something you personally read and vetted before it was posted, and you posted the guest blog post because you think it brings a good and unique insight. Having reoccuring guest bloggers that we can get used to is a good idea.

[Andrew Brunelle]

I think that if the posts are high-quality, it would be a nice addition. It seems to have worked out really well at ZenHabits.net. The only problem I have with it is that not everyone has the background or writing skills that you have, Steve, so it could end up being a lower-quality version of your best work. But I think it is important to have different points of view all in one place, like on the forums.

I'm open to the idea, and I'm curious to see how it goes. While I prefer posts written by you, it will be a nice breath of fresh air to see others posting comprehensive blog entries on personal development. And it will be good for those writers' traffic as well. Win-win.

I just don't want your blog to become just everyone else either. I'm sure most of us still think you have plenty of ideas to spread via blogging. I've seen serious dropoffs on the original author's postings when guest authors are introduced. But you have plenty of other things to do, and you've already given so much away for free...so it's your call. I won't complain either way.

[supertom]

Nope, I did like the text interviews you did with sonia choquette and john assaraf something like that would be cool but perhaps just as time consuming. I believe most of the people whom would be for guest blogger would be hoping that they will be the guest blogger.

[GeorgeMagister]

Originally Posted by Savage

I just don't have time to filter through a myriad of potential submissions, and it would be important to maintain very high standards since I don't want to water down the blog with drivel. Also, if I started doing guest posts, I'd likely receive tons more submissions.

My knee-jerk reaction is "not necessarily." It's all a matter of institution.

If you make it clear that contributors will not be considered on a volunteer basis, you really avoid that headache. In addition, you'd be ensuring the content quality you want (I would think that you have an idea of what individuals in your life can maintain continuity). No one will be in a position to question that wisdom any more than your whims with topical focus.

The time for you to be the sole content creator may be over, in order to allow this site to grow further. It's always a possibility.

[ellie]

"nnnnooo don't do it!"

Yaro Starrak has just done this, and I no longer go to his site. Although I admit, that the blog still gets heaps of comments.

I like his voice, I come to "his" blog for his advice, I connect with his words, his style, his writers although I am sure are good... are just not him and it's not the same.

Mind you I don't think I would mind an occasional post from someone else, but Yaro has nearly every post being written by someone else and so his blog now seems like a "network" rather than his own personal blog.

[ssandra]

I'd like that. I think it is always nice to get to know new blogs and bloggers and if it is someone you vibe with, it will most likely be someone who has something to say that interests most of the people who read your blog.

I also think it is a great way to create some different content. It will take some of your readers and maybe you outside of their comfort zone, but that is a good thing in my opinion.

What I would suggest though is to have some guidelines.

- High quality
- Minimum word count, maximum word count
- Do you want them to write the piece and sent to you for consideration, or do you want them to sent you an idea and write it only after you ok it?
- Has to have gone through an editor (or minimal amounts of spelling and grammar mistakes)
- etc.

You could even have a list of topics you would be interested in and you would accept entries for, and a list you do not want entries for. I doubt for example that your readers are interested in an anonymous entry about their trial on raw food...

Oh, and another good one would be to accept only entries from people who are not anonymous online...

[GeorgeMagister]

Originally Posted by ellie

I like his voice, I come to "his" blog for his advice, I connect with his words, his style, his writers although I am sure are good... are just not him and it's not the same.

Mind you I don't think I would mind an occasional post from someone else, but Yaro has nearly every post being written by someone else and so his blog now seems like a "network" rather than his own personal blog.

I did think of something that actually addressed this potential sentiment. It just seems a little presumptuous to suggest a model of operation to Steve in this thread, unsolicited.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is more than one way to go about incorporating other writers. That it happening in any form does not necessarily end in the experience discontinuity ellie had elsewhere.

I suppose, though, that all this is dependent on just how much time Steve has to devote to other projects and staffing.

[Mounds]

I'd be open to it. There comes a point in time when expansion requires getting some more people on board and I see this as a logical next step.

When it comes to sorting, I would ask for pitches to be 2-3 sentences. If something sounds interesting, I'd ask the author to go ahead and expand it. Saves both parties time.

-Tim

[strawzombie]

The idea sounds interesting and I think it's worth at least trying out on a trial basis. But I think you should screen the content first, to set a standard and establish some kind of baseline, and then maybe in 6-12 months later, hand off the job to someone else if you find you don't want to do it any more.

If someone else is screening the guest content right from the start, then I think there's just too many variables up in the air.

[Cado]

I'm for it. You wouldn't let sub-par entries get through and it would provide another voice on the site which only strengthens what you've provided, I think.

[cacheborn]

It depends on who the guest blogger is.

Are you going to give chance to people still trying to establish themselves or would you be going for people who are already celebrities? IMO, those two options are quite different.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

It depends on who the guest blogger is.

Are you going to give chance to people still trying to establish themselves or would you be going for people who are already celebrities? IMO, those two options are quite different.

I HOPE and think, based on how I perceive Steve, that he would judge entries on the entries, not on who wrote them....

[Savage]

Just to clarify... it probably won't be practical for me to personally read and select other people's articles to post. Someone else would have to take on that role. I could train someone regarding what sort of content is worth posting and what isn't, but it's unlikely that I'd be the one doing the screening. So someone else is bound to exercise their judgment differently than I would. Sometimes they may post something amazing that I wouldn't have selected, while other times they may disappoint you.

I don't see this as displacing my blog posts -- there would simply be more posts to share and discuss.

I've also received several offers from people who'd love to be trained to help deliver workshops based on my material, such as CGWs, so that's another thing to consider.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by ssandra

I HOPE and think, based on how I perceive Steve, that he would judge entries on the entries, not on who wrote them....

Point taken. Content should be the best judge. But there is another aspect and that is sometimes a name carries a different impact. For instance, when I see a guest post by ABC whom I do not know, I would read it and decide about the quality. If on the other hand, the guest post is say by Jack Canfield, it has a totally different impact.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Savage

Just to clarify... it probably won't be practical for me to personally read and select other people's articles to post. Someone else would have to take on that role. I could train someone regarding what sort of content is worth posting and what isn't, but it's unlikely that I'd be the one doing the screening. So someone else is bound to exercise their judgment differently than I would. Sometimes they may post something amazing that I wouldn't have selected, while other times they may disappoint you.

I would strongly suggest to keep the last word yourself. I understand about you not being able to make the selection, but reading the last one selected to give it a "YES" or "NO" shouldn't take up too much of your time?

And in the end... it is your business you are talking about. It is your brand. The main business, the main thing, is still your blogging. It is what you are famous for. You are a "blogger". So giving this completely out of your hands seems... not a very intelligent step to take.

You could even have 20 first selections at one time, read them (would take you... 2 hours? Tops?) say yes to them (or no, if it is needed) and you'll have enough for the next 2 or 3 months... with just 2 hours work....

[Savage]

I could solicit guest posts from some of my friends who are best-selling authors and speakers, but I'm not sure that would result in the best quality. While they have some great content overall, many of them still see blogging mainly as a marketing outlet, so they don't always write such good articles. It's not always easy for them to communicate authentically through that medium. I've actually been coaching some of them to open up and share more of their true selves when they blog.

One thing that would be cool to publish are some personal stories from people who are willing to share their results as they apply various growth principles and ideas.

Here's an example of a previous post like that from Daan:

Speedhugging: How to Go From Zero to Hugs in Under 60 Seconds

[Savage]

Originally Posted by ssandra

And in the end... it is your business you are talking about. It is your brand. The main business, the main thing, is still your blogging. It is what you are famous for. You are a "blogger". So giving this completely out of your hands seems... not a very intelligent step to take.

This is something I wish to move past, however. If the business is too rooted to what I must personally do, then it can never be more than I am. That's very limiting.

There are other people who desire to contribute to this effort (I've been reading their letters), and many have a lot of value to share. I may have a good voice in this field, but I'm not the only voice.

It will be more rewarding and impactful to expand this work into a team effort. If we create a team of good people, then I don't need to handle everything personally. As you know, I can't moderate the forums personally -- it's a team effort. Each moderator won't necessarily make the same calls I would, but collectively we work together to make this community possible. If I had to do it all myself, the alternative would most likely be no forum at all... or one that looks pretty much like any other high-traffic forum out there.

I suspect there are many forum members here, for instance, who might do a pretty good job of selecting good articles to post. And of course the forum community would provide ongoing feedback just as it does with my articles. One thing we're never short on is feedback. It would be hard for anyone to last long if they didn't do a good job of picking articles.

By bringing on more people to work together, we can do things that I simply can't do solo. It's true that other people won't always make the same calls I would, but if we find good people, it can still work. I think this community works incredibly well, and it all comes down to the awesome moderators we have here.

I think they main thing is bringing on people who care about the community and want to help make it better.

[Mounds]

I just came up with a wacky enough idea that it might actually work! I'm flying by the seat of my pants a bit (as in, rushing on my lunch break). Check this out...

1. Create a sub-forum for articles. If it's possible to set up, make it so only certain people can see it (for instance, only members with over 100 posts).

2. Authors (people over a certain post count) can have a post once every seven days (avoids spamming a bit). A poll gets included with the options Yes/No.

3. The community can vote on the best articles and those can get featured as guest blogs.

There's definitely some bugs to work out but it's a thought that I just had. Gives the community as a whole a chance. The garbage will fall away naturally and the best stuff will rise to the top.

-Tim

[BillyTheAdult]

Originally Posted by Mounds

I just came up with a wacky enough idea that it might actually work! I'm flying by the seat of my pants a bit (as in, rushing on my lunch break). Check this out...

1. Create a sub-forum for articles. If it's possible to set up, make it so only certain people can see it (for instance, only members with over 100 posts).

2. Authors (people over a certain post count) can have a post once every seven days (avoids spamming a bit). A poll gets included with the options Yes/No.

3. The community can vote on the best articles and those can get featured as guest blogs.

There's definitely some bugs to work out but it's a thought that I just had. Gives the community as a whole a chance. The garbage will fall away naturally and the best stuff will rise to the top.

-Tim

I think names on the submissions would have to randomized or people would vote for articles based on people they like personally, rather than necessarily good content, if they were submitted by regular forum posters.

[Mounds]

Good point!

[AlmostGodess]

This blog and forum are the only ones I spend time with. It was love at the first read and I was so faithful to the ideas presented here, that I surprised even myself with my loyalty. I would feel disappointed to know that someone else is writing for your blog. Unless Angela writes them, of course

However, what kept me here was not only your ideas, but the general management, the way in which things are done. So, as long as things will be dealt with as they used to, I guess I will survive the change.

[ninavision]

I think it's a great idea... I know some good personal development blogs but I only read yours daily (with all the material out there it's easy to read on and on without actually doing anything with the stuff you're reading). So it would be nice to see some guest posts. I'm sure they will be selected well by your crew... (and the selecting job does sound like fun)

[trevorturtle]

Originally Posted by Mounds

I just came up with a wacky enough idea that it might actually work! I'm flying by the seat of my pants a bit (as in, rushing on my lunch break). Check this out...

1. Create a sub-forum for articles. If it's possible to set up, make it so only certain people can see it (for instance, only members with over 100 posts).

2. Authors (people over a certain post count) can have a post once every seven days (avoids spamming a bit). A poll gets included with the options Yes/No.

3. The community can vote on the best articles and those can get featured as guest blogs.

There's definitely some bugs to work out but it's a thought that I just had. Gives the community as a whole a chance. The garbage will fall away naturally and the best stuff will rise to the top.

-Tim

I like this idea, it adds a stronger community element. But why limit who can see the sub-forum, maybe just limit who can start a new thread?

[Mounds]

When I winged off the idea at lunch, my thoughts were to keep out spammers. You never know if someone will create a bunch of accounts just to screw up the poll count.
Thinking about it now though, it does seem a bit heavy-handed towards people who would rather not post. I'd still keep the voting rights for people with a certain post count though.

[GeorgeMagister]

Originally Posted by Mounds

I'd still keep the voting rights for people with a certain post count though.

That's not very effective. That punishes people those that are very development-minded who happen to be reticent in the forums. Talk about heavy-handed, there are other ways to screen abusers.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by GeorgeMagnus

That's not very effective. That punishes people those that are very development-minded who happen to be reticent in the forums. Talk about heavy-handed, there are other ways to screen abusers.

I don't see why you'd want people who aren't active in the community to vote. Surely the longtime posters would be better suited to make this a team effort than newer ones would.

And regarding other methods of screening-how? No method is going to be perfect, of course, but spammers are very clever and the only hard-wall is time. That is, the best way to keep them away from something is to require a significant investment in order to take part.

It's not like this is something everyone would have a right to be involved with. In fact limiting feedback might improve the quality, even if it isn't -that- limited. There are a lot of Senior Members and that seems like a reasonable point to open up that privilege.

[Mounds]

If you've got a better idea, put it out there!

I'm imagining it from the perspective of a person who is trying to keep it from turning into a disorganized mess. Putting some sort of requirement on there is going to screen out a lot of riff-raff.
I think it might also deter shameless self-promotion. If this is a community project, then maybe the people posting articles should be active in the community. If the only requirement is a username, I think you might find that the a lot of people register just to take a crack at getting featured. It could also be that they get inspired to join because of the opportunity to be part of the project, which is great!
It's definitely possible that I have the internet all wrong and that subsection wouldn't become spam central. I'm just thinking out loud.

[inverse Paranoid]

Steve, how about articulating the criteria you might want the selector to select by? Right now the idea is very open-ended and you can't get any detailed feedback as to whether or not people will like the content because we don't know what sort of content will surface. But if you outlined a detailed criteria for what will or will not fit the bill (and obviously this criteria will evolve over time) then we're more likely to either get excited or turned off by it.

For instance, you're really great at putting forth truly unique content. You've spoken often on not wanting to write another "me too" book or article. You experiment with different writing styles to try and have the greatest impact on your writers, without worry of how people might perceive you based on that single article. If your guest bloggers see this primarily as an opportunity to reach a new audience they're more likely to try and put their best foot forward and offer material that will garner plenty of "weak value" positive feedback, rather than something that will truly challenge us to grow. But I don't want to read your blog to get introduced to other people's writings. I want to read something that moves me just from being exposed to it, and stays with me until I make actual changes to my life.

What if you developed a criteria that challenged guest bloggers to write something they didn't think they were capable of writing? Or something they're actually a little scared of submitting? Or something that's way more personal than they're used to?

Experts talking about what they're experts about isn't going to help me grow. Experts stepping out of their comfort zone and challenging me to step out of mine? Now that's something that's inspiring in and of itself.

The same principle applies to non-experts too. There are probably a lot of little known bloggers who could stretch themselves and produce amazing content. Why not create an opportunity for those people to step up their game?

So a sample criteria might be:

If you are already a popular blogger: Write something that's unique from your everyday writing and stretches you in a way that will inspire others to stretch themselves. You should be a little nervous by what you've written, unsure of how people might react.

If you have a smaller audience: Accept that the reason you still have a smaller audience may be because you're holding something back. Something within you is resisting the consequences that come with reaching more people and having a brighter spotlight shined upon your writings and yourself.

Challenge yourself to step up your game and write something that speaks with the same clarity, novelty and practicality that we've come to expect from Steve's article, only from your unique perspective. This may take several attempts (the same way Steve went through countless ideas before finally settling on the one that became his book), but you have it in you. And even if your submissions never get published, the growth you develop will benefit you for the rest of your life.

Now my sample criteria is still pretty vague, but the one you create could be specific enough to weed out people who don't have the right heart-set and still be open enough to invite all range of pertinent personal growth material.

While getting a general feel from forum members may help nudge your decision one way or another, actually articulating a criteria will garner higher quality feedback and sway things in one direction or the other much quicker.

Care to take a stab?

PS: I've really found the "simplify the idea to make it easier to take action" portion of Action Bias to be extremely helpful. Midway through writing this I got bogged down with other ideas that could be helpful but were too hard to fully articulate in this moment. In the past I would have wrote to the point of exhaustion and then saved it as a draft hoping to finish it once I've recharged my batteries. That approach squandered my initial enthusiasm and usually led me to never post anything because my initial attempt at articulating left a bad taste in my mouth. This approach let's me spit things out when I've bitten off more than I can chew and keep my momentum going until the point of completion.

[BillyTheAdult]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

I don't see why you'd want people who aren't active in the community to vote. Surely the longtime posters would be better suited to make this a team effort than newer ones would.

I think many come and read the blog without ever participating in the forums. If they want it, shouldn't they have a say too?