We've enjoyed steady growth at AnandTech over the past several years. Last year in particular we saw our traffic break record highs thanks to all of you. As anyone who follows the site knows very well, the list of things we have to review/cover usually exceeds our available time. To continue to grow, we need your help. We're looking for writers with a true passion for the technology we cover, a deep understanding of what's out there and a thirst for more knowledge.

We're looking for contributors to help out both with reviews as well as our short to medium form Pipeline coverage. The areas in particular we're looking for help with are listed below:

- Smartphones
- Tablets
- SoCs
- Notebooks
- Enterprise & Datacenter Coverage
- GPUs & PC Components
- Professional GPUs

If you find yourself at the intersection of knowledge and passion about any of those areas, and have some time to contribute, you're exactly what we're looking for. These are paid, part-time positions that we're looking to fill. What I need is a writing sample that demonstrates your ability to talk about any one of these topics. Your sample can be in the form of a review, a pipeline post or an analysis piece - it should be something that looks like it would fit in on AnandTech. Although not specifically listed here, we're also looking to expand video content on the site. If you've got a knack for video work, feel free to pass along a sample.

Once you've produced it, send it on over to callforwriters@anandtech.com. We'll read through all samples but can't guarantee a reply due to the sheer volume of submissions we tend to receive. If we like what you've sent and there's a potential fit on the team, we'll be in touch.

I'll conclude this post with a passage I wrote for our About page:

In the early days of technology reporting on the web the focus was almost exclusively on depth. We had a new medium for content that didn't come with the same restrictions as more traditional forms. We could present as much data as we felt was necessary and we could do it quicker.

As the web grew, so did the approach to gaining readership. In many cases, publishers learned from the tips and tricks of more traditional media to growing their audience. The focus shifted away from ultimate understanding of what was being reported, to producing content significantly motivated by increasing traffic, or revenue, or both. Thorough observations were out; sensationalism, link baiting, and the path to shallow 10-o'clock-news reporting were in.

While I believe it's definitely easier to produce content by going this route, I don't believe it's the only way to build a well read website.

If the above resonates with you and you'd like to help by being a part of something different, I'd encourage you to submit a writing sample.



View All Comments

  • hrrmph - Friday, January 24, 2014 - link

    Heavens no!!

    It's a ying-yang thing.

    They are obviously different, but they serve their purposes well enough. Neither site is perfect, but perfection isn't required to be the best - only the pursuit of perfection.

    AT can't crank out the breadth of work that DT can (nor the quirkiness). DT can't sustain the depth of work that AT can (nor channel the buttoned-down staidness).

    The moment that either site thinks they would be richer without the other is the moment that they endanger the whole collective enterprise. AT is stronger for sure, but its thrival and survival without DT aren't guaranteed - at least not with the present situation.


    As far as AT writers go (old and new), I recommend that they continue to do analyses and then use the results to take shots at predicting which direction a market might grow itself into (and most importantly why). Which trends are organic, which ones are primarily being driven by over-muscled marketing?

    True, it's risky because the Comments section can be brutal to all of us (opinionated readers and authors alike). But, there are important topics to be tackled, especially about macro trends of computing in general and how they are going to play out. AT's depth of knowledge would make for interesting articles on possible mid and far-future scenarios.

    For example, it is almost obvious that PCs are becoming tablets, but tablets can't yet do everything that PCs can (or can they?). Expert musings on that conundrum and how it will be resolved would be very interesting.

    Will we ever have a server in a tablet? A CAD workstation?

    Another obvious question is: How long before smaller devices can do everything that tablets do? And, what are the ways it could happen - what might they look like?

    Is there a mathematically identifiable tipping point at which consumers go for reduced form factor size even with an obvious loss of functionality? Could we predict the next wave of mass market computing devices based on this?

    What are we going to do for displays when you can have a super-computer on a postage stamp?

    Obviously such musings would need to be far enough out so as to not stomp on those pesky shorter term annoyances known as NDAs. But, I would hate to see AT avoid the topic of the future simply because it's difficult. After all, editorial is largely an educated guess about how the future should be.

    Best of luck to the candidates. I look forward to reading your thoughts.
  • BlakKW - Saturday, January 25, 2014 - link

    +1 Reply
  • StealthGhost - Friday, January 24, 2014 - link

    How about someone to get the numbers for the writers? I love running benchmarks and testing hardware. While I consider myself to be a good writer, I always seem to learn something every time I read an anandtech review even if I thought I knew everything there was to know about the item being reviewed so I don't really feel adequate enough..although I'm guessing press documentation and research is likely a large part of every review so perhaps I am just psyching myself out. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Friday, January 24, 2014 - link

    I know some other websites have this methodology, test elsewhere then have another writer, though I am completely against it. Part of the passion of writing and for/against the product comes in the testing. If the product is not up to scratch and requires debugging, that comes through in the writing as well. If I were merely supplied a list of numbers, the review would be wholly dull and not worth anyone's time.

    Writing is an ongoing and learning process - I am also learning every week despite being a writer here for three years. I go back to my first list of reviews and shudder a little, compared to the effort I now put in to understanding the technology and the nuances between product lines. But I did not let that stand in my way to begin with. Everyone has to start from somewhere, and I had no previous writing experience in the tech field.

    Being able to debug and find the cause of XYZ, or at least the mentality to, helps in reviewing. A desire to learn about a field and become an expert in it are always long term pluses. Not everything you review will be spectacular, and there are always more market segments than just the ultra high-end. Sometimes that is forgotten and everyone focuses on the super. Reviewing a mid-low range product can be a humbling yet super fun experience.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, January 24, 2014 - link

    I think there's definitely a middle ground between running numbers and posting a huge in-depth review. There are situations where we need someone to run a few numbers and do a short Pipeline piece with an update on things. It sounds like you might be a good fit for a position like that! Drop us an email :)

    Also keep in mind that, as Jarred pointed out earlier, when I started AnandTech I was 14 and knew absolutely nothing. I had a willingness and a desire to learn, and that's what's most important. Out of all of my experiences over the past 17 years, the most invaluable has been the knowledge I've gained from working in this industry. If you show up humble, willing to accept what you don't know and willing to ask questions to learn and better yourself - this will be an amazing gig. You have to be willing to put in the time, and it does take a considerable amount of time, but the education you receive is unparalleled. I know I'm still learning things today at a very rapid pace.

    Agreeing with Ian on his statement below - I believe the person reviewing the hardware and the person testing it must be one and the same. It's not the most efficient approach but I believe it is the most honest/thorough.

    Take care,
  • BMNify - Friday, January 24, 2014 - link

    Anand, why not just get rid of Dailytech section, as it is their blogging is worse than tabloids and lowers the standard of Anandtech, DT makes engadget and verge look unbiased and professional lol. Try and get some other decent startup blog or just delete the section to maintain the standard set by Anandtech. Reply
  • StealthGhost - Saturday, January 25, 2014 - link

    Thank you for your reply, it has given me much to think about and some soul searching to do. I love technology, have degrees in and am perusing higher technology related degrees but I'm still unsure of what I want to do and where I would fit best. I benchmark and tweek as a hobby so it seemed like something that might work but I never gave it more than a passing thought.

    I did, however, have some ideas about Bench. I use Anandtech Bench a great deal but there are times where it is out of date (Pre-2014 GPU for example) or doesn't have a game or phone or whatnot. Have you ever thought about expanding/putting more into Bench? It may just be me but I see it as an amazing tool that isn't really found elsewhere, it just could use some attention. The only places that seem to do something similar (example: http://gpuboss.com/) actually use Anandtech benchmarks in a lot of their data so why not make the source the one stop shop so to say?
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Sunday, January 26, 2014 - link

    Your thoughts are definitely in the right place - drop us an email :) Reply
  • amrs - Saturday, January 25, 2014 - link

    I remember the old Byte magazine did that, when they briefly tried to be a Wintel magazine before folding. They took it so far that they didn't even publish the tests, only results and if wanted to see the tests you had to buy it separate.

    That didn't work out for Byte and seems like a somewhat dangerous road to take. What if the outside tester starts accepting money to skew the results to favor some vendor over another? Faith in test results is a delicate thing in any case. The depth and (perceived) integrity is what brings me here after all.
  • Homeles - Friday, January 24, 2014 - link

    Is there a rough deadline for these submissions? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now