Is short best ?
On the debate of long posts versus short posts,
I think that long posts don’t work for me. Let’s try short ones.
I heard Loic Le Meur, our (French) national blogging pride, on radio today, saying that the most important was to blog every day, even if for a short note, one idea.
The exact contrary of Steve Pavlina : “I usually aim for about 3-5 posts per week, but my posts are much longer (typically 1000-2000 words, sometimes longer than 5000 words, including the monster you’re reading right now)”.
The problem is that I never read Loic Le Meur, and I did read the whole above quoted monster…
But better short than never.
September 7th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Man, I think it is like a book, you can enjoy reading Tolstoi War and Peace and just be unable to read short stories if they suck.
More seriously, I do believe that the Web and blogs in particular are more addapted for short posts. Personnally I do no like to read long posts or documents on screen (that is why I keep buying newspaper even though 99% of the articles are free on their website).
The issue with the web is clearly now that there are too much info, even when selecting carefully your sources you can spend hours reading valuable stuff online. To me, it then makes more sense to have short posts so people can check them quickly. But true, you then have the risk of being very superficial which is another great issue about internet: how reliable the info are ? how much of a waste of time is it to spend reading fun but ultimately useless stuff ?
September 7th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
And why not a link to Loic’s blog ?
September 8th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
You have two great questions here… : how reliable the info are ? how much of a waste of time is it to spend reading fun but ultimately useless stuff ?
Reliability… yes it’s a concern. But who knows how to decifer what is the truth ? Each one of us is liable.
Fun : Fun is not a waste of time !
Cheers, Donald.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
And Barbara you have a good question too. The answer is I am lazy.