Are freelance essay writers a much better bet than essay companies?

Everyone feels his/her company is the best. My personal opinion is freelance writers are a much better bet.

Actually, you're almost always going to be using a "freelance" writer either way, simply because most essay companies rely 100% on freelance writers to actually do the work they sell and most company writers also do as much freelance work as they can get on their own. If the writer's good (or bad), it really makes no difference whether you go directly to that writer or through a company. The main advantage of using a specific freelance writer is that once you've found one whose work you like, you always know who's doing your work; when you go through any company, the quality of the work always depends on which writer (of hundreds) actually takes your order and there's obviously going to be a difference between the best writer at any company and the worst writer at that same company.

You can definitely request specific writers from most companies, but if your preferred writer opts not to take the order, it becomes available to all the writers just like any other order unless you expressly specify that you want only that writer or a refund. Respectable companies will honor that limitation (and most cc companies will probably rule in your favor if they don't), but then you're back to having no writer for your assignment. That's equally true anytime a freelancer can't take a project you offer, but you'll get a definitive answer before issuing a payment; with a company, you'll pay first and then get your refund after the cancellation gets processed. Also, because we only receive about 50% of what you pay for any company order, there are plenty of assignments we will gladly grab as freelancers that might just not be worth the same time and effort (or inconvenience, depending on our workload at any particular time) for half that price if we have to split our fee with a company.

As freelancers, we're also able to offer more direct "customer service" including a direct phone number and it allows a more personal relationship between customers and writers. Most essay companies do have some form of relay message system but they don't allow any direct contact or email between customers and writers because they have to protect themselves against writers who might use that info to try to steal customers from the company. I don't steal clients from any company that uses my work but the flip side of that is that I find it really irritating when I see a request for me on a company board from a customer who actually says he or she chose me from reading my posts on essaychat instead of just contacting me directly through the contact info we're allowed to post on there. Same goes for contacting me directly only after I've written for you through a company: once you've placed a company order, you're their customer and you're permanently off-limits to me as a client.

That may not always be the case. Most (60-80%?) of essay services started as a freelance writer site; once a freelancer has too many orders, he/she may ask their colleagues for help; if they are successful, they may start cooperating with even more writers and establish a company ;).


Some companies do allow direct contact because:

1. By definition, a contract writer is not an employee and contractors compete directly with companies.

2. If a client is not satisfied with a contractor's work, it is very likely he/she will email (CC or BCC) the company about that and then the company can easily find out the contractor may be trying to directly "steal" customers.


That's understandable you may be irritated by that..

btw. Here is an interesting article comparing Freelance Essay Writers with Essay Companies. Do you agree with the "negatives" of hiring a freelance writer?

You misunderstood my point. Regardless of how (or who) starts an essay company, once you find a specific writer at any company or once you find any specific freelancer, you're probably much safer than just trusting the luck of the draw, even at that same company. It makes no difference who started the company.


No offense intended, but I don't think you understand these two issues. Please consider the following before you just respond for the sake of arguing the points:

1. That's the reason companies can't complain that "their" writers also compete against them simultaneously by doing as much freelance work as they can. The fact that we're contractors is meaningless to them when it comes to their writers poaching their clients after making contact through the company. If the customer uses the company first, the company has a right to expect its writers not to steal them. It is totally irrelevant that we're contractors in that respect.

2. This doesn't really make sense. By definition, if the customer chooses to go to a writer after receiving work through the company, the customer must already like the writer's work. There's no basis for assuming that the writer will suddenly produce bad work or rip off the customer causng the customer to retaliate by informing the company.


I didn't read the whole thing carefully, but right off the bat, I noticed that this is absolutely incorrect and suggests to me that the article was actually written by an essay company:


In my experience, no essay company actually gets involved in matching any orders to any particular writers. The process is 100% automated by means of a virtual bulletin board where every order is posted and from where all the company writers can freely choose any order on the board. I've seen references (here) to companies that restrict access to certain orders to writers of a specific status at the company, but I've never encountered that personally. Just the fact that the article incorrectly states that company's matching up writers with assignments as a general "plus" for companies makes the article suspect to me, although I have no idea whether it's purposely misleading or simply uninformed.

My point was that some freelancers may appear to be one person, but in fact they may hire subcontractors too.

One can argue that a contract starts with each new job and ends once the job is completed. A contractor is not obligated to take more jobs from the company after an old job is completed.


The article doesn't suggest that (and proves your statement about the article having been written by a company wrong ;). It rather implies that a company has much better chances of finding /offering an expert writer in a field requested by a client than a freelance writer who usually specializes in one or two fields only.


You cannot really know how many projects you may not be able to view ;).

You're still missing the point that it doesn't matter because the person who actually does the writing is almost certain to be a freelance writer, regardless of who owns or started the company he's writing it for. Nobody here's even discussing any "continuing obligation" to any writing project, so I don't know why you'd throw that in to muddy the waters. In any case, neither a freelancer working on his own nor any company has any continued obligation to any project or to any customer after a project is complete unless there's some specific agreement to the contrary.

I have no desire to have a prolonged argument with you about this, but you've made it extremely clear that you don't even understand when (or why) the status of "independent contractor" is (and isn't) relevant to the discussion because, I'm sorry, but you said something that was really very stupid: that companies don't care if their writers steal their customers because writers are "independent contractors." With the benefit of more than a decade of doing this for a living (quite successfuly) and a law degree, I've tried to explain politely why independent contractor status has absolutely nothing to do with company's attitudes about their writers stealing company customers. Instead of considering the response and maybe learning from it, you're clearly just looking to argue (or to "win" an argument) more than you're interested in discussing the topic.


Read the article you linked more carefully before telling me what it does and doesn't say: it absolutely states "a company has a good chance of matching a writer to your requirements." No company I know "matches" writers to projects; they post all their projects on a board and writers take them on a first-come/first-served basis. I don't know (or care) who wrote the article, but any article saying that companies "match" writers to projects suggests, strictly in my opinion, either that it was written by a company that wants customers to believe that or by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. (And if it only "meant" to say that companies have more writers available of whom some might be experts in a field, that's not what it actually says and even that "advantage" would be balanced out by the fact that customers are still trusting a group of hundreds of freelance writers with access to a company board not to take projects they're not really qualified to write about or good "matches" for those projects.)


Give me a break. I know for a fact that the main company I write for considers me one of its top 3 or 4 writers (out of hundreds) because they've said so and because they sometimes offer the other 2 or 3 and me bonuses to consider especially difficult assignments and because they've asked me to write a few papers for family members of the owners. They don't have some secret system that hides orders from some writers without even letting them know they have such a system. In fact, they have a pay scale that pays the top writers more than other writers. The only company I ever wrote for that does maintain different classifications for writers gave me the highest possible status and even after I made it very public (here) that the owner of that company stiffed me on a substantial debt, she referred to my work as "always excellent." That company lets all its writers know what their status is with the company by referring to them as "silver" or "gold" or "platinum" writers. To suggest that the companies that use me would secretly maintain a hierarchy and hide that from their writers is as silly as your other comments.

FreelanceREwriter braging about law degree but dont say what specialization he is. My bet is he is traffic violation 'expert' at the best.

You are clueless about any other legal specialization. Dont fool readers you can write any legal paper coz you cant.

I wasn't bragging; just suggesting that I might be qualified to explain that the issue of being an "independent contractor" is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether or not (and why) essay companies have a right to consider it stealing when one of their "independent contractors" decides to do private work for an existing company client. "Major" suggested that some companies have no problem allowing their writers to contact customers after completing a company paper because their writers are "independent contractors."

Actually, I do handle many areas of (US) law and very recently completed a 300-page dissertation on religious freedom and the inherent conflict between the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

You (have previously admitted that you have never seen anything I've ever written beyond my forum posts and) know absolutely nothing about my expertise or how good my writing is or isn't and I'm perfectly comfortable letting readers of this forum continue to judge for themselves which one of us is probably a qualified, successful, and totally legitimate professional freelance writer and which one of us is just an obnoxious and resentful idiot.

You are charlatain so you 'handle' everything that has $ sign. Like veterinary can call himself 'doctor' and if stupido pay enough he 'handle' surgery of human brains.

There is the big difference between 'I handle' and 'I am qualified to handle it'. Charlatains sees no difference.

stu4

Why do you speak like Tarzan?

So that the vet can 'handle it'.

Sure thing. Just a tip. If you want people to take you seriously then I would advise you speak correctly. Otherwise you sound like an ESL dropout. I have met many ESL graduates that speak and write so well that you would swear you are speaking and reading from a native English speaker. You sound like you attended 2 classes of ESL and decided it wasn't your bag. Can you handle that?

Actually, there have been numerous members of this forum who have previously confirmed that I turned down their assignment proposals because they were outside my areas or too complex for my abilities in those areas. Like everything else you say about me here, you have absolutely no evidence of it but simply spew out your hatred in your broken, infantile-abbrevation-laden nonsense.

FreelanceRe-Writer talk eloquent bulls-i*. Smart students dont buy it. Thats enough to get the message.


You the next after peddler and wildboar to get banned.


Just tell what law you specialize. For now my best guess is traffic violation law in Montana. If not post your specialization or get over.

That statement makes you seem as though you are on the Serengeti typing on your WiFi. I cannot take you seriously. This is an American forum and the posters on this forum are involved in a quest to attract native English speaking customers. That is the business model, and you do not attract anybody with your language or imagery. But...go ahead...knock yourself out.

If they are involved and violate Terms like FreelanceRe-Writer they get banned. Ask peddler and wildboar.

I do not "specialize" in law, much less in any specific area of law and most people here understand that the entire premise of your argument, or of your rhetorical question, is patently ridiculous. As a professional freelance writer, I routinely handle hundreds of sub-topics in dozens of academic areas, and well enough to be acknowledged as one of the top writers by every company that has ever used my work; and well enough that 90+ percent of my freelance clients end up using me many times after they use me just once.

This just isn't a viable profession for anybody who can only write in one or two areas of "specialization." Before undertaking that constitutional law dissertation, I was not an "authority" on religious freedom, although I'd suggest that anybody with a law degree is capable of doing enough reading on the topic to write about it intelligently. By your ridiculous implication, only Alan Dershowitz could have written that piece. As I said before, anybody interested can find numerous posts from students on this forum who have previously confirmed that I don't take any projects outside of the many areas that I can write about well enough to earn repeat business from almost everybody for whom I ever write one paper.


To be perfectly honest, I received the same email from this site's admin that (I believe) they did informing me that my account was going to be terminated and, in my case, they said the reason was that I seemed to be here just to defend a few particular companies. I responded to that email politely asking for reconsideration and explaining that I really have no need to defend any company but that my previous comments were nothing more than my honest reaction to the lies that people like you continually spew out because it's the only way you can hope to compete against any of the industry leaders. I promised the admin of this forum that if they allowed me to remain active, they'd never again read any post from me defending or even discussing any specifc essay company.

That also means that I have no reason to argue with you about anything here, although you don't leave me much of a choice when you respond to every single post of mine on any topic with your continual attacks and baseless lies about me. In fact, if it continues, it's more likely that you will be the one banned for ruining this forum with unprovoked personal attacks on and libel of a fellow forum member who is attempting to do nothing here except contribute positively to forum discussions.

Hey freelancer...

Did you shepardize or was the paper written with law review articles? I wrote a paper in law school entitled "How to Sue a Terrorist" and I found the best way to attack topics like that is to use law review articles (because they also include specific cases). Actually, the fact that many papers are already written regarding many of the law topics available makes writing a legal topic paper somewhat easy if you know what you are doing.

I will be the first to admit that I don't do formal legal research on any topic of the type required for law journal submissions and I would immediately decline any project that required it and have done so dozens of times for law review articles, although I don't mind editing them for the quality of writing. This dissertation was for a religious studies program and in a standard referencing style used in that program. I used a wide variety of sources for it, most of which were provided by the client.

Ah...ok. So you probably wouldn't be able to complete an article asking for a case analysis and your findings of specific facts based on those cases? I am not sure if I would anymore as well seeing as how I do not have access to lexis. Which law school did you attend?

I have no idea how you draw the ridiculous conclusion that I "wouldn't be able to complete an article asking for a case analysis" from my saying that I don't work with law journal-style referencing systems and I don't appreciate it, because it's intentionally insulting. But I'm really not interested in the argument you're apparently trying to start with me. Obviously, I can analyze cases. Also, as a graduate of NYLS (or of any other law school, for that matter), I know that there's no such thing as "an article asking for a case analysis and your findings of specific facts based on those cases" because a case analysis doesn't involve "findings of specific facts" in any way, shape, or form. Only judges and juries "find facts" and one very important clue in that regard that you seem to have missed would be that they're both sometimes referred to as "fact finders."

I am not starting an argument, and I was just asking a question. You have never been presented with a list of facts and then your job was to review cases and present your findings on those facts according to the cases? That was the basis of every law school exam for me. Statute of Frauds does not apply in this situation unless this occurs according to this specific case law...and in these facts I believe that this is the situation. You never did that in law school? Maybe it is different in New York. It was meant as more of a "you cannot do the case analysis type paper because you do not have access to lexis." I meant no offense...perhaps I worded it incorrectly (if you notice I even said I probably wouldn't be able to do it either)...I apologize. Don't get offended from something you read on the internet. You will find that you will always be offended, because that is the nature of the internet.

Listen. This:


is also meaningless gibberish. I'm sorry, but nobody who attended law school speaks like that. A law school exam question usually presents a set of facts called a fact pattern and it asks for an analysis of that hypothetical case based on the applicable law and case law and a predicted case outcome based on that analysis. That's not the same thing as this either:


and, frankly, I don't believe that anybody who typed either of those descriptions of law school exams ever attended a day of law school, unless you're ESL and studied law in some other country. You're starting to remind me of a guy I once met at my (then) girlfriend's college: He found out I played hockey and he said that he did also. Then he began talking about how he'd played in high school and started demonstrating his "hockey stops" to me in his socks and I realized immediately that he probably couldn't even skate, much less play hockey.

It's not that I'm "offended" personally by your questions; I'm just saying it's pretty obvious that your intention is to insult me or challenge my academic background while pretending that you're just "asking innocent questions" as part a conversation. Exhibit A:


In my law school, as in most U.S. law schools in every state, we got fact patterns on exams that required us to apply the relevant legal principles and, ideally, also draw comparisons or contrasts between those fact patterns and some of the cases from the course. Anybody who ever actually did that would be able to describe it a little more accurately than you did (in two tries). And conversations can be genuine or obnoxiously patronizing and intentionally insulting while simultaneously trying to pretend otherwise "on the Internet" the exact same way as that happens in person. You've already proven that.

Whatever you say chief.

Mre proven my own observation that what you say is suspecting to say at least. If you get hard direct question you get angry coz you can have things to hide.

Anyway - buyer be the judge. Better for you not to go in deeper conversation with people here.

Thats my point. Let the customer judge who is better....

There is a little class in law school called Legal Research and Writing 1 and 2. In this class you are given a set of facts and you are told to take one side or another. You are then required to search for case law that pertains to your facts and you are required to demonstrate why a given case does or does not help your side. I would not imagine a writer without law school experience would know that this is one of the major courses in law school...but that is neither here nor there. I believe his posts speak for themselves, and everybody can judge which poster did graduate law school and which poster merely watched the movie "The Paper Chase."

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the other 30+ classes in 3 years of a law school program that involve zero "legal research" or with the writing that I mentioned doing that started this conversation in the first place.

You seem to have forgotten that you "meant nothing insulting" in any of your comments after I told you they were insulting and offensive. Make up your mind. It was clear to me from the start that this was your belief and your implication all along. In any case, all of my clients already know my name and can just call 212-431-2100 and ask for the alumni affairs office to confirm my degree if this nonsense has raised any concern about that.

Actually, the only real writing that you will do in law school is legal research and writing. I was not insulting until you came after me...so I had to put you in your place. So you graduated from Cheez Whiz Law School...so what? I still have severe doubts of your qualifications at this point in time. If you would have kept your mouth shut then I would not have my reservations. I imagine you attended 1 semester and flunked out. You are extremely defensive, which just proves my point.

Any and all papers you will write while in law school will be from RW 1 and 2...or from your Advanced legal writing topics course. Both require the same type of writing that I commented on...and that you said does not exist in law school. You are wrong, you cannot argue yourself out of a paper bag, and you have no qualifications that are endearing enough for any customer to trust you. No offense of course...

Now go scam other customers and try and convince them of your qualifications because you have just been outed on this forum.

Finally wise voice (written in flawless English). No offence.

Let me first say that I don't think it particularly matters whether or not someone has a law degree to do what I do for a living; it really doesn't, especially for someone who doesn't claim to do any legal research. I'm not a qualified writer because of a law degree; it was being a good writer in the first place (and being very smart in just the right way for law school) that made it a pretty easy experience for me from day one.

I wasn't "bragging" about it, either. I just told another poster that he should trust someone with a law degree who's also been writing fulltime for major essay companies and freelance (obviously) for about a decade that it's totally irrelevant that we may be "independent contractors" as far as how essay companies feel about "their" independent contractors poaching company customers for freelance work and cutting out the company. Trust me: they care a whole lot and they have every right to.

As soon as this clown started asking me questions about "Shepardizing" the recent 300-pg dissertation I mentioned writing about the historical analysis of a First Amendment topic, I knew he had no real interest in the answer but was just looking for some basis to "challenge" my educational background. That's why he irritated me, but I still tried to just answer politely when he asked where I went to school and what citation style I used. Then he announces some nonsensical conclusion about what kind of writing I must be incapable of doing. How is someone supposed to respond to that intentionally insulting idiocy? (The transparent phony polite & innocent act only makes it that much more obnoxious.)

Anyway, it wouldn't be good for me if anybody here actually believed these three barely-English-speaking clowns and their totally baseless accusations about my education. So, I dug up an old paper from law school, along with the page-long letter the professor wrote me spontaneously after he read it. He was the dean of the law school before he was my professor but still a pretty busy guy when he took the time to write a letter of this length to one of the thousands of students he'd taught in his long career. I scanned his letter and the first page of the paper. The other crap superimposed over the bottom of p.2 of the letter is an old NYLS Alumni card that I never bothered to renew, a NYLS Alumni Association credit card, and the back of an old NYLS Alumni magazine from 2010. Obviously, I redacted my name and address on everything except for the city and state.

If I were going to lie about a degree in this business, I think a fake MBA would be a lot more valuable than a fake JD, and NYU or Columbia would be better NYC law schools to lie about having earned it from than NYLS. Again, I don't think it matters all that much that I have a law degree because I don't do any legal research or writing. On the other hand, it's probably not a bad thing to have a writer who's smart enough to have had a pretty easy time in law school. Admittedly, it's super valuable anytime I get those typical college business law and criminal justice assignments and law-school-style issue-spotting or case-analysis-type assignments, and I've probably written 200+ Criminal Justice papers on 4th Amendment law alone.) It's also somewhat helpful when writing about a lot of general legal topics, but anybody equally smart who writes as well as I do and just likes reading or learning about law could probably do it just as well. I'll be the first to admit that. Sorry for the lengthy post, but the point is that I don't lie about my qualifications, my experience, my business practices, my educational background, or about anything else on this forum.

https://essayscam.org/forum/shared_files/storage/main/eshapiro1.pdf

https://essayscam.org/forum/shared_files/storage/main/eshapiro2.pdf

https://essayscam.org/forum/shared_files/storage/main/biblawpg.pdf

Freelancw writer: If you think your work is good then you dont have to prove it to anyone. Let the clients decide who is good and who is bad.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with the quality of my work and this wouldn't have been my choice for a writing sample to demonstrate it; this essay is thousands of essays in my past

and from my student years, long before I started writing professionally. But an allegation was made that I've misrepresented my academic background so I just dug up a few things that I

could post to refute that baseless accusation without disclosing my identity to any psychopaths. The point is simply that I've never lied about my degree, not how good my work is or isn't.

If I didn't respond, someone not familiar with who's a legitimate writer here and who's just an obnoxious, sniping clown might actually believe these two tag-teaming nutjobs and the 3rd

one whose post got deleted by the moderator. Anybody who's already a client knows my work and could call NYLS to confirm the truth; but all anybody else reading this stuff knows is

what's written in these posts. In any case, now "the clients" have a little more information to "decide" who's telling the truth here and who is just making up totally untrue malicious

nonsense to try to create doubt about the legitimacy of another writer because that's the only way they can "compete."

They are ashamed and say they dont educate students to cheat academic system... :( If they know what you use degree then they would suspend you as student.

In a way you are correct that freelance writers are a much better bet than companies anytime. But both have positives and negatives in their side.

In my opinion they are much better.At least with freelancers you can communicate with the writer and provide requirements to your specifications.

Yes, this is one of our many niches that we capitalize on and provide quality work to our clients - as per their micro needs.

Really interesting thread...thank you freelancewriter wouldn't mind you writing for me sometime.

Freelance writer, why do you even waste your time replying to people like: stu4? He can't even write a proper sentence.

Only because new members and others surfing here for the first time may not necessarily realize that right away. It's also an opportunity to demonstrate the tremendous difference between grammatically correct English and logical thought to contrast whatever language that is that he rants in here and because those exchanges typically result in a flurry of new customer inquiries.