I don't accept gigs like that. That's a very basic rule. I'm providing a service, and you agree payment for that before I start work, to be paid on an agreed date no matter what. If you don't want me to write something because it won't draw in the hits, don't commission it in the first place. Simple as.

Pay-per-hit/comment/whatever is a really dirty game to play, as it often means neglecting professional conduct, quality copy etc. It also places the responsibility entirely on the writer, when the outcome is often out of his or her control. The editorial takes a backseat and makes money, while the freelancer churns out dull writing because it's "what sells", and has to sacrifice their own ideals because ultimately you need food on the table.

Oh - and the solution, of course, is that everyone stops agreeing to such a ridiculous practice, publications will stop offering it as a payment plan.

Like Lewis, I'm an idealist on this. I don't like the idea that a particular story's traffic can be the primary factor in what a writer is paid, even if the work is of poor quality.

I understand that eyeballs means potential money for the site and they want to give incentives for writers to attract traffic, but the inevitable consequence of that is emphasis on the things that Digg prioritizes -- a bunch of lists, fake controversies, stories about Jack Thompson and Japanese bikini models.

I think it's OK if there is some sort of bonus structure for good stories that draw traffic and conversation, but it's hard enough for good writers who do a lot of legwork and original research to get paid good money for there work. Having sites that reward writers based primarily on how many people read their material just makes it even harder for the solid and original voice to get heard.

Lists are your friend. =P
And if you can mention Halo, Pokemon, and Porn, you'll be in good stead...or so I heard*.

*=No first hand experience.

I've seen these jobs all over the joint. I think I might have applied for one and got it but never done anything. Yes, that is some fine work ethic I have.

First and foremost I'd not take one because I don't think I can be that provocative, get that many hits. I'm bad at lying so saying a game is shit to garner some views wouldn't work unless I really thought so. And I have a thing with lists and features and all that... that I wouldn't want to do anything that I'd already seen done - and it's hard not to believe that lists have been done to death and covered just about the top ten of everything already.

It's not exactly hard to get hits, get the most recently amazing game and say that it's substandard, needs to be changed, restarted and just scrapped. You'll get a trillion hits.

However, it's terrible journalism and certainly not something that you'd want to put on your portfolio/CV XD.

Someday I will write a Top 100 Top 100 Lists feature...

(Paid by the word, of course.)

Well, if it's the truth you can do that. For instance: GTA IV doesn't deserve all those high rates. While playing the game, all I could think of was: "Where the heck did they put the fun?" GTA was all about fun before, just shoot everybody down, get the army after you, steal a tank and shoot even more people. Saints Row 2 did a fine job, maybe it wasn't so good technical, but there was fun... loads of it!

But to be on-topic: Such jobs offers are just ridiculious, it even reminds me of being a whore or such. They force you do get many hits, even if you have to walk away from your very own opinion. That's just not fair!