WRITE FOR US - LIFESTYLE AND WELLNESS

Original Means The Idea, Not The Word Order

I am going to repeat original by original, and it does not mean I run your draft through a plagiarism checker and call it a day. Plenty of completely plagiarism free articles get rejected here.

The idea has to be unique.

Take a topic like "foods that boost your immune system". Search it and you will find thousands of versions. Citrus, garlic, ginger, yoghurt, spinach, turmeric, in some order, with a stock photo of a lemon at the top. Every single one of them passes a plagiarism check, because the sentences are all rewritten. None of them are original in any way that matters.

Now narrow it and give it an angle nobody has taken.

What happens to immune support advice when somebody works nights and eats at three in the morning? Which of those foods is actually useless on an empty stomach, and where does that claim come from? What did a dietitian tell you when you asked her which one of the six she would drop first?

Same broad topic. Completely different article, and one that has never been written, because it needed somebody to go and find out.

That narrowing is what I mean by original.

AI As Assistance Is Fine, Mass Generation Is Not

Use AI to help you write. I am not going to pretend that is unusual and I am not going to police your process. Use it to tidy a paragraph, to restructure something that is not flowing, to check whether you have explained a term properly.

What we do not accept is the entire article generated, lightly edited, and sent over.

And there is something happening in this industry I want to name directly, because it comes up constantly in my own work as well. People run a draft through ZeroGPT or Originality, see a high score, then feed it back into another AI tool to rewrite it until the score drops, and then send it over as AI free content.

Think about what that actually is. You used AI to write it, then used AI to hide that you used AI, then used AI to check whether the AI hid it well enough.

I would ask you honestly, isn't this a mockery of the whole thing? The reader still gets a piece nobody actually wrote. Please avoid it. I would much rather receive a rougher draft with a real idea in it than a polished one that has been through three tools and still says nothing.

Do Not Make The Reader Juggle Information

Nobody should have to fight through a wall of paragraphs to reach the thing they came for.

Look at how Healthline lay out a piece. You land on it and within a few seconds you already have the answer, sitting there in a short summary or a clear opening line. Then if you want the depth, it is all underneath, properly organised, and you can spend the next fifteen minutes in it. That choice belongs to the reader, not to the writer.

That is what I want here. Give the value at the top in a glimpse. Then earn the fifteen minutes for anybody who wants them.

Break the text up. Headings that tell somebody what is inside the section rather than labelling a topic. Short paragraphs. A list where a list genuinely helps and prose everywhere else. A reader who is frustrated at paragraph three never reaches your good part in paragraph eleven.

Use Illustrations Where The Text Cannot Do The Job

Images are not decoration and I do not want a stock photo at the top of every section because the template says so.

Use one where the words are struggling.

Say you are writing a piece with a section headed something like "How to check your desk setup in sixty seconds". That section needs a picture. You are describing screen height relative to eye level, elbow angle, where the feet sit, and no amount of careful writing beats one simple diagram with three arrows on it. The reader looks at it once and understands the whole thing.

Same goes for anything with a before and after, anything with a sequence of steps, anything comparing two things side by side, and anything involving a number that lands harder as a chart than as a sentence.

But a section explaining why sleep matters does not need a photo of somebody sleeping. That image adds nothing and it just pushes the useful part further down the page.

Links, And What We Do Not Accept

We do not add forced links and we do not add city name links into general articles.

Here is the version I keep receiving. Somebody writes a general piece about morning routines or stress management, perfectly reasonable topic, and then somewhere in the middle the word London or New York appears out of nowhere with a link on it. Nothing in the article was about London. Nothing led there. It arrived because somebody needed it to arrive.

That is spam and we are going to say no to it.

A link earns its place when the article has already walked the reader toward it. If your piece is genuinely about something local, and the location is doing real work in the article, then the link makes sense. If it is not, take it out.

On internal links, and this one is specific to us. We have received articles from you guys where our own posts have been forcefully internal linked all over the body, apparently to make the piece look SEO friendly. Please do not do that. If a link to one of our articles genuinely helps the reader at that point, add it. If it does not fit, ignore it completely. We are not going to reject a piece for having no internal links and we do not need them forced in.

Write The Part The LLMs Still Cannot

This is worth saying plainly because it is the whole reason this page exists.

There is an enormous amount of first hand ground that ChatGPT cannot reach no matter how advanced it gets, because the information has never been written down. What a physiotherapist tells you in the room that never appears in any article. What happened when you actually tried the thing for six weeks. What a nutritionist says off the record about a supplement that everybody sells. What the failed version looked like before the version that worked.

Nobody has published any of that, so nothing has been trained on it.

That gap is where your value sits, and it is the only part of an article that a reader cannot get faster somewhere else.

Evidence Based Writing Standards

Any factual, medical, statistical or research based claim in your article has to be supported by a credible source that I can go and check.

That means the source is named, it is linked, and the link works. If a claim cannot be sourced, either cut it or say plainly in the piece that the evidence is thin, which is often more useful to a reader anyway.

Keyword Integration

We do not need the old school approach here, so please do not repeat a keyword fifteen times through the article.

You know how that reads. Somebody writes about sleep hygiene and then every third sentence carries the phrase sleep hygiene, so you get sentences like "improving your sleep hygiene requires a consistent sleep hygiene routine, and sleep hygiene experts recommend". Nobody talks like that. It reads as written for a machine, and these days it does not even help.

Use the phrase where it naturally belongs, in the title, once or twice in the body where it fits the sentence, and then write normally. Here is the test I apply. If somebody who knows nothing about SEO read your article out loud, would they notice a phrase repeating for no reason? If yes, take some out.

Title And Heading Structure

One clear title that reflects what the article actually covers.

And whatever your title claims, the body has to deliver it. If the headline says you are going to explain why something happens, then explain why it happens, properly, and reasonably early. Do not leave the reader still waiting for it at the bottom of the page.

This is the most common reason a well written piece still gets sent back. The title promised something specific, the article circled around it, and somebody arriving from search would have hit back within seconds. Headings work the same way. A heading is a promise about what sits underneath it.