Rob O’Regan of EMedia Vitals recently posted a query on LinkedIn, drawing my attention to this New York Times story:

Web Traffic (or Lack of) May Be a Reason for a Columnist’s Dismissal

A drop in web hits on Dan Froomkin’s political column contributed to The Washington Post’s decision not to renew his contract, according to NYT. The story went on to note that some writers are uncomfortable being judged by their Web traffic.

Not this writer. I am judged that way already, like it or not. What I’m not comfortable with is not being compensated accordingly. If I’m doing a great job, my articles should get high traffic. Maybe not compared to everything else on the Web, but at least compared to the other stories on the Web site where my story appears. So if publications paid writers on a scale based on Web hits, it would reward the best writers and reporters while drumming the worst out of the business.

I’m not talking about great literature here, where sometimes genius is lost on the masses. I am talking about useful information and analysis, which is really what people come to the Web for. As a freelancer, I have to prove my worth with every story. I have one editor who tells me that my articles are routinely among the highest ranked stories on her site. That means that I’m picking the topics that her readers want to know more about and that my stories deliver useful information, insight or maybe just good entertainment. It’s a strong selling point for me and indicates the value I bring to a publication. I’m not getting paid for that value, yet. Maybe in the future, I will.