Is share counting done on a word to word basis or in batches of 1k? For example, say I have one article of 1,200 words and another for 200. Would my total be 1,400 or 1.4 share or just 1 share for the 1k article?
Another question, is there a limit to the size of the individual articles?
It is done in blocks of 1k. There are no decimal shares. Though 1.8k words will give you 2 shares. It is a total word count of all articles that round, so if you have 1 for 1.2k and another for .6k then you have 1.8k which rounds to 2 shares.
Chad
Actually I think it is a total wordcount since forever, minus the shares already paid since forever, so for example if you later edit an article down in size by 1000 words after having already been paid for it, then next round post a new 1000 words or edit an existing article upwards in size by 1000 words, the grand total since forever will still not have increased.
So it is not simply how much you posted in a given round it is how much your grand total of words that are still there has increased.
Then too there is now a quality factor. So if someone had been paid for a lot of words whose poor quality had not yet been reflected in their quality factor, then some reviewers looked at it and rated it as poor quality, the new total shares it would evaluate them as having earned would be lower so there would be a shortfall to make up - more words wanted - before their total actually paid out was exceeded again by the total earned.
They get paid any shares outstanding in excess of what they have in total been paid already, using the latest rules and quality-ratings to determine how much such work of theirs as is still present that round is nowadays calculated to be worth.
(Which unfortunately would complicate any change of how many shares people ought to be paid, since right now it is based on words still present now not on during which rate of pay's era the words were written. If we did decide authors should get 1/5 of a share per 1000 words for example oops that would be retro-active. Trying to track which words were present during which payscale era could get very hard... People would suddenly have a huge backlog to make up just to appear as having earned what they already got. I guess maybe though that could be kludged by simply reducing by 1/5 their purported grand total already paid. Hmm yeah maybe its not so hard afterall... just would need a kludge like that which then accountants and so on might go hmm at until the kludge is explained to them.)
-MarkM-