Would you recommend this product?
No reviews yet
Looks like an awesome service that I'd love to use. Currently using Grammarly for proofreading, auto correct, etc. My only drawback is the price. $3.33 per word? Seems ridiculously expensive, no?
Upvote (25)Share
@_shahedk I'm going to defend the cost. It takes a lot of time to fix crappy writing. Worth it.
Upvote (10)Share
@_shahedk Yeah, that's way more than I would pay a writer. The highest writers are generally paid is twenty-five cents a word (it's normally lower). Seems like you would be better off just hiring a great writer, or pretty much any other editor.
Upvote (20)Share
@_shahedk I use Grammarly too. I might make the switch to Typewriter though. Looks awesome!
@_shahedk I didn't even see the price. I always assume if the price isn't right up front, it's too expensive for me.
Upvote (10)Share
@_shahedk That is 832$ for a 250 word blog post. Seems way too high.
Neat idea. After reading "Simple, transparent pricing" I was unable to find any clue about the pricing on the website. And that would be nice as I would love to have any idea what sum should I plan in my budget ;)
Upvote (15)Share
@adamlabedzki I found that to be pretty odd too. You have to upload a document to see a price. I uploaded the first pdf I could find (legal form from a dentist) and got "$160 for 536 words".
Hey, guys. John here. I agree that the pricing is high but I'm collecting some of the best editors in the business. There are plenty of fiverr folks who will make sure your and you're are right but we are working within the confines of your needs, brand, and organization to bring out your best. As for our tech we are currently building out a few cool features but as it stands you and your editor can talk via Slack and share documents as necessary. This is a very hands-on process. Again, if you don't want that there are plenty of options. Let me know what else you guys would like to know!
@johnbiggs John this is touching on a major personal and commercial need. Editors have so much quality and fit variance, I would like to see the editor profile before paying. I'm looking forward to different tiers of pricing and quality. When will you be quitting your day job to build this fulltime?
@johnbiggs there are also plenty of professional journalists/editors that are at a high level that got paid $40k a year at their last newspaper job. Professional freelance journalists don't get paid even a third of the rate listed above. You create velvet rope with your price tag, you lose most of your audience. (And if you're trying for an elite user base, you need to say that.) I hope you find a balance with your pricing.
@johnbiggs I'm confused who the pricing model appeals to. If I'm cool dropping $1600 on a 500 word blog post (the average) then I probably have an in-house editor or at least a regular freelance editor. I still love the idea though and I'll try it out - just maybe for something smaller
@johnbiggs seems 100% promising..
Careful, on your "Our work" page, there's a mistake in the first sentence of the "after edit" document :) Great product though, would love to submit a piece to your editors!
@antoineauffret there's more than one mistake, actually. First, the words "have been" are repeated. Secondly, the comma between "130 billion, times" isn't correct, either (it should probably be placed after "times"). There are a few errors scattered throughout the "After editing" document, for example on page 3 the penultimate paragraph just ends without its last sentence being complete. I'm all for charging good money for a good service, especially one that requires an extensive amount of training and experience, but their example doesn't seem to fit their claims.
@dertyp @antoineauffret I had a quick glance over the example, as it's something I could be interested in. However, not at that price, and not based on their example, which should have had several people going over it a hundred times to make sure it's correct. I picked up more than a handful of errors.
@antoineauffret It has quite a few minor issues still, but I think the idea they're getting across is that this is more of a structural edit than a proofread. What they did was take an article from complete shit to semi-decent rather than take it from complete shit to grammatically perfect shit. At that price you'd hope for both, but if they're working more with editors than copy editors it's not that surprising. A good structural edit is tougher to do and a lot harder to find than someone who will just correct spelling and grammar, but success depends more on rapport with your editor. I'm not sure I'd trust it to a service, particularly at that rate. This thing would probably benefit from some form of introductory pricing to get over that hump. The people who know enough to recognize the value of this service also probably care enough not to trust their writing to just anyone.
@jxav I agree with you, but if I send a complete shit but grammatically correct article, I'd expect the "after edit" piece to be at least as good in terms of grammar. IMO the grammar "regression" is not acceptable, especially for that price. Besides, the overall give the impression that the work has been done quick and dirty, regardless of the relevance of the structural improvements...
remarkable idea. created by someone who truly understands the problem and can solve it. i had that need myself numerous time. would not be surprised to see this take off