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."

Comments

Balanced ecosystem

[Raindance]

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'.

Re:Balanced ecosystem

[tkrotchko]

"if *everybody* posts long, well-thought-out articles, it'd be hard to find 1."

Well, yeah, but that just means you have a lot of well-thought-out articles. It's hard to find a downside to that. More research is always better.

Blogs, on the other hand, are streams of consciousness. I don't see an "ecosystem" at work so much as just a bunch of people offering their opinions. It's like calling Bill O'Reilly a "verbal blogger".

My point is, there is a lot of value is well-thought-out articles. There is significantly less in offering opinion about the news.

Are in depth articles better than blog postings?

[cornjchob]

Yes.

Re:Are in depth articles better than blog postings

[CaptainPatent]

Too long, didn't read

You decide.

[DoofusOfDeath]

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!

Re:Depth and Reputation

[spun]

But Muffins was the first cat on the moon!

AND went on to become SeCATary of State, then fucked it up so badly they hung his tail from a plaque as a warning to others. It was a real cat-ass-trophy.

I... I can't believe I actually signed my name to that.

Re:Yes! In-depth is better

[spun]

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.

Re:Are in depth articles better than blog postings

[Bombula]

Are in depth articles better than blog postings?

Are books better than book reviews?