Two occupations have the same name. The first job confirms it is permitting what’s irreversible. The second job states it has finished the task. The first job fails when it fails to name what will be lost, while the second job fails when it fails to name what changed.
“Are you sure?” is one of the first examples of failure. Here, the author asks a question to which the reader cannot say anything because no information is provided to them.
A user should be able to confirm a request with three pieces of information: what the user is about to do, what will be impacted, and if there is a way to reverse the action. The user interface should provide the first piece of information. The query in the example, “Confirm deletion?”, partially fulfills this step. This step is completed with the user interface by supplying the answer. “Delete the March invoice? This cannot be undone” is a complete request.
Generated confirmations are templates which swap the verb and add `are you sure you want to delete this item`. They never explain the impact of the delete because the model isn’t aware if your delete is a reversible soft delete kept for 30 days or a hard delete. The fact you are missing is the whole point to the dialog.
The writer must understand what actions are irreversible, which actions are reversible within a time window, and which actions are just annoying. This list does not come from the interface; it comes from the engineering. We then remove dialogs for reversible actions because we train users to click anything to confirm it, therefore eliminating the purpose of confirmation for the one action that is critical.
This consistency mainly concerns the actions that are interrupting. If deleting a file requires two confirmations and deleting a whole project requires only one, then the pattern is teaching in the wrong way. For example, we make a rule to accompany each confirmation with the copy so that the next feature does not come up with a new style of dialog.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical confirmation message | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single screen | 60 | $6 | $0.06 | $6.06 |
| Small set | 150 | $15 | $0.15 | $15.15 |
| Whole flow | 350 | $35 | $0.35 | $35.35 |
A confirmation message is shorter than our 100-word minimum order, so a single one is charged as 100 words ($10.10). Most clients commission these in batches, which uses the minimum properly — ask for however many options you want and we will quote the set.
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Ask on the contact page and a person will answer, usually the same working day. For a live order, reply to your confirmation email and it reaches whoever is handling it.
Ask on the contact page and a person will answer, usually the same working day. For a live order, reply to your confirmation email and it reaches whoever is handling it.
Determine if the user could place the item back on their own in under a minute. If so, an undo would trump a dialog. If not, then the dialog must state so. We apply that test to your action list and send you the result prior to the writing of any copy.
Yes, and they do belong in the same order. An undo message will save you a ton of time and effort half of the time when working on dialogs, so answering development requests separately will make you answer them twice. When a recovery window does exist, we state the time within the text.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Our API documentation was written over an uneven four-year span. The author went through every single one and flagged six cases where our error responses were inconsistent with the description and raised them instead of just fixing them on the fly. That was worth the order.
They requested access to our staging endpoint with read access and used it too. The auth section of your docs shows us the 409 error we return for duplicate idempotency keys. That error is not documented anywhere in our old docs. Contract documentation has never come back and educated me about my API before.
Mostly excellent. Your improvements to the auth section are better than what our engineers wrote. Your pagination endpoints, however, were explained in the spec according to how they behave rather than how they are, which required two revisions. Our spec is incorrect in that area as well.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees