Skip to main content

Approval Time for NewsBreak Monetization


Explaining how long it took for me and all the details involved.

I’m happy to report I’ve been approved for monetization at NewsBreak! I wanted to share the details with anyone waiting or thinking about becoming a contributor.

Here are some details:I wrote my first article on NewsBreak on December 24, 2022.
  • 23 total articles
  • 370 followers
  • 734k impressions
  • 46k views
  • 853 likes
  • 565 comments
  • 742 shares
As you may know, contributors have to have 100 registered followers and 10 articles before they can apply for monetization.

I reached these markers after 15 articles on January 6, 2023.

After applying, NewsBreak told me it could take up to one month until they got back to me. I also heard from some Medium writers that it has sometimes taken up to 45 days.

I heard back from them yesterday January 1. That means it took roughly 25 days for them to get back to me, thankfully, to tell me I’m approved.

I really wasn’t sure if I would be approved, especially considering I slowed down writing there to about 2 per week. I wrote 7 articles in 25 days while I awaited the decision.

Now, I’ve been allowed into the contributor community and my dashboard has a few extra areas:
  • earnings
  • contributor referral
  • user referral
So far the earnings all say $0, yet the page tells me it can take up to 48 hours to see my estimated earnings.

I didn’t realize we can get paid for referring people to download the app too. Nice.

If you share your story from the contributor dashboard area, it has a special URL that works to credit you for every user referral.

I thought this information might help those who are waiting on their application to be approved.

If you are interested in writing at NewsBreak then become a contributor through my referral link and get started today.

Join NewsBreak's Contributor Network!

You can also follow me if you are already there.

Originally published at Medium

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

When was the last time Oregon had a Republican governor?

              Will we ever see one again? Conservative-minded Oregonians might be curious to know the last time Oregon had a Republican governor. For those 37 years and younger, they might wonder if Oregon ever had a Republican governor considering the last year a Republican served in the office was the first 12 days of 1987. The last Republican governor for Oregon was Gov. Victor G. Atiyeh who served two terms from January 8, 1979 — January 12, 1987. Victor was born on February 20, 1923, which means he was 55 when he first became governor and 63 when he left. Victor passed away at the age of 91 years old on July 20, 2014. In all the years since he left as Oregon’s governor until he passed, he never saw another Republican governor serve his home state again. Even until now in 2024, we have yet to see any other political party besides the Democratic Party as the governor of Oregon — that means we’ve had a Democrat as governor for 37 years consecutively. Overall, since 1859, Oregon has h

Oregon mother jailed for treating daughter’s cancer with homeopathic remedies

In a highly controversial case, an Oregon mother was sentenced to 90 days of jail and 3 years of probation for essentially making health decisions for her now 17-year-old daughter that the state didn’t like. The details are found in an Oregon Live article by Noelle Crombie on Feb. 27. The article explains that the mother, Christina Gale Dixon, 39, decided to treat her daughter with CBD and other homeopathic remedies instead of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery (conventional treatments for cancer). This wasn’t always the case, as her daughter, Kylee Dixon, was first diagnosed with liver cancer in 2018 and underwent three rounds of chemotherapy. The article explains that the Oregon Department of Human Services got involved in late 2018 when the mother wasn’t allowing her daughter to be treated according to the allelopathic physicians. The state then took custody of her daughter, yet allowed her to live with her mother until Christina fled with her daughter to Las Vegas to avoid a sch

Where is Humanity Going?

Conversations Part 1 In the near future, a middle-aged man (Seth), from America, found himself talking with his mentor in a dystopian land full of deception. His mentor was a gray-headed and bearded man just past middle-aged called Pastor Nick. Seth had many questions for his mentor and the ongoing conversations are what ensued. What is the purpose and direction of humanity? Seth asked. Well, Seth, the obvious answer involves technology, as it is the main purpose of modern man. See, the so-called progress of humanity is culminating with a technological tyranny, giving the elite total control over everyone within the system, which is built and controlled by technology. Everyone involved in the system, as it is transitioning into this hive mind, is helping to build and support the reality of this technological future. They perceive it as progress, yet it is being built for only one reason — to control every human within the system. Is everyone going to be within the system? Seth asked. N

Are Trump and Biden acting in a political soap opera?

The days of our lives are getting interesting. Realizing politics has tangible results for regular citizens, questioning the authenticity of politics is relevant considering the holistic factors involved. For instance, wondering if the political frontrunners for key positions in the U.S. government are playing a part, acting a character that has been scripted in correlation with their sincere personality underneath. The implications are far-reaching if this is the case, yet isn’t the question relevant in our deep fake technological world? Considering that the divide between fantasy and reality has been clouded with deception and virtual reality, doesn’t it seem plausible in some measure to think that the U.S. presidential race is scripted to control the population according to a certain agenda? Is it naive to think the powers to be would allow the citizens to direct the government when they could get away with not doing so? Is it cynical to think otherwise or practical common sense? Es