Slashdot Mirror
Are In-Depth Articles Better Than Blog Postings?
athloi writes to tell us usability expert Jakob Nielsen is stressing the importance of well-thought-out articles as opposed to off-the-cuff blog postings. "Blog postings will always be commodity content: there's a limit to the value you can provide with a short comment on somebody else's comments. Such postings are good for generating controversy and short-term traffic, and they're definitely easy to write. But they don't build sustainable value. Think of how disappointing it feels when you're searching for something and get directed to short postings in the middle of a debate that occurred years before, and is thus irrelevant."
I think there's an argument to be made about supporting a balanced blog ecosystem.
Obviously if everybody posts short blurbs, it just doesn't work, for obvious reasons. On the other hand, if *everybody* posts long, well-thought-out articles, it'd be hard to find 1. What you're interested in, since often the shortposters serve the function of aggregating cool things, and 2. Where the 'blogosphere' action is. There'd be fewer conversations, and indeed, short posts are part of a conversation.
Luckily, there appears little danger of everybody posting well-thought-out articles.
Personally, I'm starting to reap the benefits of longer articles on my science/tech blog. Lots of repeat readers. But it's so hard to get exposure when you have fewer chances for 'hits'.
Yes.
We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
I complain to colleagues about this urban web-sprawl quite a bit, especially in relation to Microsoft. I used to have three sources of information: TechNet, MSDN, and the Knowledge Base. Now you have to look at product blogs, official product blogs, product feature blogs, and so on. It has become almost impossible to find information. While searching for information on Server 2003 SP2 versus Small Business Server 2003, I finally came across a newsgroup post which linked to a KBA which referenced a blog. Absolute crap!
This reminds me of a comment someone made on the introduction of the iPod Shuffle (bear with me, it's relevant). The idea was that, at the time, the iPod brand was perceived as signifying the high-end digital music player. By expanding into the low-end, Apple was trading a loss in the value of their brand (since it no longer meant "high-end" by default) in order to gain another segment of the market.
Similarly, Nielsen's article suggests that by tossing off random blog articles, even if you also post highly insightful material, you lower the average value of what you post. You effectively cede some of your reputation.
That's even more of an issue with topic-based blogs. If your focus is, say, US politics, or astronomy, etc. you have to stick close to your topic, or people will start complaining, "Why are you spending all this time talking about your cats!"
Blog posts are pretty much editorials or opinions.
In depth articles contain more research than a few links to wikipedia or other similar minded blogs.
That's the difference.
No
Comment removed based on user account deletion
both.
If you are trying to glean some new information from the info you have then brainstorming, trains of thought, gut reactions, etc (the kinds of info you find on blogs) work great. If you are trying to learn something that is well established, then nothing beats well thought out in-depth research.
Just because something is old does not make it irrelevant.
And certainly, the case can be made that recent writings
are irrelevant from the moment they are written. See Fox.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
A lifetime of TV has made it impossible for me to concentrate on any one thing for too long, so blog posts are definitel
Honestly, this is like asking what is more useful - the Breaking News headline that you get from CNN, versus their CNN Presents or a similar feature length report. They each have their use, but obviously the more useful source is the one that is researched, well written and has some production value. What is going to appear next, Which is more useful to you - A Stub in Wikipedia or something that has some content on it?!? And what the hell is this doing on Slashdot!
My in depth analysis would be: possibily but not necessarily.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I think the best comparison would be informative versus insightful posts as a generality to the best of the article and blog world respectfully. While this of course isn't completely true in the Slashdot world, the informative posts are generally from someone who has done the research and knows some good links to read through while the insightful posts hint at a general truth that was said in fewer words but still gets a powerful point across. I know I don't have time to read through all of the informative posts as some can go on forever, however they tend to make very good and solid points. The insightful posts on the other hand make a powerful point to people who already know the standpoint you are taking but hold very little water to those who disagree. /. community though I could make a very quick quip about some detail and make a powerful point. Both have their place and are generally mutually exclusive.
To demonstrate, think about debating evolution to a creationist. The only way you would ever even have a chance is with very carefully constructed and researched arguments such as the article example. If I were to make a comment about evolution to the majority of the
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
There are huge advantages to popular blogs and social news sites. For instance Slashdot can:
- Provide commentary by famous people like Wil Wheaton and... well, just Wheaton, really.
- Melt unsuspecting servers into slag
- Ruin the ending to the next Harry Potter book (bastards.)
- Display your news in borders of your favorite color or pink
- Make you laugh at cooking/AIDS jokes
- Determine whether something could, in fact, run Linux
Because, as we are all painfully aware of, if the online in-depth article is split into 60 pages, each page containing a riot of banners surrounding a lonely paragraph in the middle... well we just skip to "conclusions".
Too long, didn't read
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Think of how disappointing it feels when you're searching for something and get directed to short postings in the middle of a debate that occurred years before, and is thus irrelevant
..."
If you want recent materials and not articles created years ago, you hit the "News" link in Google.
Talking about outdated content, this page was linked straight from Jacob's index page. I'll quote:
"Why This Site Has Almost No Graphics:
Download times rule the Web, and since most users have access speeds on the order of 28.8 kbps, Web pages can be no more than 3 KB
Posted by DoofusOfDeath, 6:24 a.m:
Today I woke up and had some coffee. It was gross - they used that artificial creamer that they get cheap from SysCo.
Took a shower. Nothing eventful. I'm getting back hair in new places. Yuck.
Decided that in depth articles SUCK!
OK, time for breakfast - I think I'll have a bagel.
Comments:
1) By HoosierFan2006, 6:40 a.m.:
I just wish my hair would come back! LOL!
2) By Canonball25532, 6:51 a.m.:
No, in depth articles rock. You're an idiot.
3) By CatLover, 6:53 a.m.:
Anyone know where I can get a discount air conditioner? It's *hot* this week!
I didn't read your post, but "sound-bite society" is a catchy sound-bite.
The enemies of Democracy are
News has differing time constants and levels of abstraction. A blog entry can communicate things with less detail far more quickly than an in depth article. Secondly, the comments within a blog can provide useful insight on the topic. But even this varies considerably from blog to blog. While Atrios provides quick snippets, Digby and the late Steve Gilliard provided extended essays that often exceeded in-depth articles in both size and sophistication.
In depth articles, on the other hand, have the luxury of time and editing but are often obsoleted by blogging. Secondly articles often lack an effective feedback mechanism such as the comments within blogs.
Wiki's can straddle the two mediums, with a body of written and reviewed content allowing for in depth content while providing up to the minute content as well.
Reviewed scholarly articles are on the far end of this spectrum. Slow to come out, but often authoritative.
As a result, my position is that blogs and RSS feeds of blogs allow for one to get a handle on large amounts of breaking news. Wikis provide background. In-depth articles provide analysis. I.E. Blogs alert me to things, i then check Wikis for background and context, and if I deem the issue important enough, or the author credible enough I'll read the article.
He said: maybe
In depth articles contain more research than a few links to wikipedia or other similar minded blogs.
That's the difference. I don't think their briefness makes blog posts less valuable since while they are limited in scope they tend to be very focused on one or two issues. I have found the answers/fixes to some really vexing programming questions/problems/bugs in blog posts that would never have been addressed in an in-depth article. Both blogs and in-depth articles have their uses and comparing the two is IMHO rather futile.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Just to make a counterpoint, in-depth does not mean "long." A concise, well researched, and well referenced blog posting is better than a typical full length fluff piece by many a so-called science journalist.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
A short comment on a full article talking about how full articles are better than short comments on full articles...
I CANT TAKE IT!! ITS TOO META!!
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
One assumption in this analysis is that if you write an in-depth article the standard error of its quality will be very low, whereas if you write a blog, the postings will have a high standard deviation. This will in turn lead to a reduction in your perceived value as a source of information if you blog. This argument isn't at all obvious and it depends on assumptions about the quality of your different writings as well as what attracts readers and customers. It also depends on your business model: are you selling writing or services?
:-) that help separate wheat from chaff.
Let's say that the long piece you write has a standard deviation that's 1/3 that of the blog posting. (In other words, there's a chance you could write a single piece that damages your brand equity -- Nielsen assumes away this possibility.) If you then write 10 blog pieces, you'll have the same standard deviation for the average as a single long piece. Moreover, the maximum quality of your blog postings will on average be greater than that of your single pieces (because you're drawing from a distribution with a higher standard error). The basic point is that lots of observations may permit folks to infer your quality more accurately. It's not necessary that customers plow through all postings to figure this out --- there are content aggregators (like Slashdot
So what do people evaluate? Your best work? Your average work? The mean quality divided by the standard deviation?
I think Nielsen is correct that you need to think about the impact you're having with what you write, and he may have been correct regarding the advice he gave his world expert, but if you're writing only a few big pieces, you better get them right, or else!
As far as I can tell, Keen's more interested in sell books by stirring up controversy than actually covering the situation in an evenhanded way.
Take, for example, the claim that Craigslist is killing newspaper reporting. Craiglist is in no way shape or form a substitute for news. It has nothing to do with "amateurs." It's a freaking classified ads site. It's been the land of amateur advertising for decades. It is killing the classified ads section of the newspaper, and that may make running a newspaper harder, but it has nothing to do with "amateurs" and everything to do with a changing market. Expecting one particular revenue source to last forever, or complaining that you've lost a revenue source because technology has moved on it selfish and short sighted. Should we instead prefer a more expensive and less efficient advertising route just to support journalism? At that point it's charity work, and I'd rather have them be honest about.
As you note, the decline of newspapers has taken decades. The internet is shaking things up, but newspapers have already suffered hits from radio and television. To drive up profits newspapers were consolidating and cutting down on the number of reporters long before the web existed. In an effort to increase readership, all too many newspapers are pandering to masses, dumbing themselves down. With newspapers generally sucking more, is it any surprise that people look elsewhere for content. And it doesn't mean that nothing will replace the newspaper. There are several self-sufficient online news sources that do original reporting (Salon.com and Slate.com immediately leap to mind).
Finally, how is this related to Nielson's article? Indeed, his entire point is: specialize, be knowledgeable, earn a reputation as being an expert in your area, and write solid in depth articles. He believes this will directly or indirectly turn into money for the author (in the form of selling related products or services, or advertising, or whatever. His core assumption is that you have a web site that you want visitors to. What you do with them is your problem.). This suggests that the situation will self correct, directly conflicting with Keen's fundamental premise.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Which is more valuable, a Brahms symphony which took twenty years to write and lasts an hour... ...a carefully crafted pop tune (Cole Porter... Paul McCartney... Lieber and Stoller), which nevertheless takes at most months to write, lasts a few minutes... ...or a jazz improvisation created in the heat of the moment?
It's a silly question. They're all valuable.
Blog postings should not be compared to "in-depth articles." They're not the same thing. They are more comparable to transcripts of bull sessions. A good online exchange is something like sitting in on a lunchtime conversations between a prof and his grad students.
Quite likely if you could listen on a tape recording of Socrates gabbing with his students in the groves of Academe, before Plato selected and polished and smoothed and delete expletives, it would read like blog postings.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I enjoy ACM Portal and AI journal articles - I am not knocking peer reviewed articles.
:-) standards will evolve from things that are simple and that work.
That said, I find useful "how to" information on web blogs very frequently.
I write what I call "web books" (a lot of care taken, some peer review and corrections), and I also blog a lot. I just looked at my own web logs to see which are accessed more often: it looks like the web books are accessed more than individual blog entries, but the 'home page' for the 2 blogs are hit much more.
I access web blog content in a way that I can't for papers: I have about 5 blogs that I read everyday because I know the other bloggers both have similar interests and I trust their opinions. It is rare that I run across someone's web site and enjoy it so much I download all their papers, etc.
Even more off topic, but: the important thing is that blogs and papers on the web "stick around" forever, hopefully with non-changing URIs. It seems like most search engines apply some reasonable bias towards new material (from trusted sites) so old material does not "get in the way". Web blogs have inherent time stamps - for regular web pages, papers, etc. RDF meta data would suffice for maintaining the time line of digital assets on the web.
I have been using the web since 1991 (and the Internet since the early 1980s), and my take is: we have "not seen nothing yet". I believe that we will see more progress of moving towards a shared knowledge commons on the web in the next ten years than we have seen in the last 15 years of the web. I have some skepticism about the Semantic Web, but I am optimistic that grass roots semantic web (notice the lower case
There exist in-depth well researched blogs.
There exist crappy, shallow articles.
What are we linking to here, again?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The article was a good demonstration on how much crap can be in an article. He makes up statistics, links to himself as an authority, and generally ignores a decent academic style of thought and reference. Did I mention he generally just makes up shit? Jeez, it's worse than TV commercials, at least there you expect fluff. In an article, you expect better.
g eID=1842567� being a classic example).
There have been discussions in the Oracle space about why there aren't any good Oracle blogs. Well, there are a few. They generally have useful examples of how to actually do stuff, rather than blowhard opinions. (google Jonathan Lewis blog for an example of how to do a technical blog right).
Personally, I think there are uses for usenet, BBS style fora, blogs, wikis, in-depth articles, and the traditional modes of communication. Stupidity ensues when people try to inappropriately enforce the rules for one communication medium in another. (And sometimes the converse, http://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messa
Oracle and unix guy.
Are books better than book reviews?
A-Bomb
This is sad, but true, I agree. Right now, the best way to get funding for relatively minor sites is by hosting advertising, and generating the page hits by writing little more than sound-bite cover articles that link to someone else's material. I don't think this will last, for two reasons.
The first is that I don't think purely ad-supported sites have a great future. You can't force people to see your ads on the web, and a significant number of people will actively avoid it by installing ad-blocking software. Right now, the number of people doing that isn't a huge proportion, but imagine if IE9 came with ad blocking enabled by default.
The other thing is that I think the web will involve a scheme for simple micropayments before too long, providing an alternative means of funding but only to those sites good enough to get people to read their material. Things like PayPal have started us down that road. In due course, I expect browsers to support a routine "Do you wish to pay 0.1 cents to view the linked page?" sort of concept. If and when that happens, I would expect people who write worthwhile content to start structuring their sites with introductions on the public site, and charging micropayments to read the rest. No-one is going to pay micropayments very often to sites that mostly just link to someone else's work, so there will cease to be much market for such sites. Meanwhile, those who produce genuinely interesting or entertaining material will carry on, funded by the large numbers of small payments they receive from their large readership.
None of this means that the good writers will only write long articles, of course. It's just that the short ones will still have to be worth reading and not vapour built on someone else's material, or they won't earn any money.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This posting is good for generating controversy and short-term traffic, and was definitely easy to write. But it doesn't build sustainable value.
add a meta tag to original content.
/. and engadget and the register. and linuxtoday.
all rss/atom readers should incorporate meta tags for original content vs blogged content.
I really find blogs completely pointless.
I find it a terrible waste of time to get stuck reading a 6th degree blog about an article whose source eludes me.
I don't subscribe to any blogs at all. except
They're using their grammar skills there.
No, but book reviews help you decide if you want to spend the time/effort reading the book. So, blogs can help pique interest in a story that may have otherwise gone unnoticed.