3 ms·

> The exact opposite is the case in my experience. Unfortunately the actual substance is often in a PDF and all the web pages pointing to it are superficial, co

> The exact opposite is the case in my experience. Unfortunately the actual substance is often in a PDF and all the web pages pointing to it are superficial, copy and pasted and/or clickbaity fluff. That's entirely cultural crap, and has little to do with either format. Or do you think that this HN comments page would be better distributed in PDF form?

smoe 6y ago
I'm not saying one format is better than the other, or it having to do anything with the format. The word "Unfortunately" is there on purpose. I often have to sift trough PDFs were it doesn't make sense to have the information only there. What I'm disagreeing with is that PDFs unlike web pages lack substance. In my opinion the substance is often in the PDFs not because of the format, but how the information is produced. E.g. within a government or enterprise the content could come from anywhere within the org structure, often multiple intermediaries away from the people putting stuff on the website. Everyone knows basic MS Word. On-boarding potentially hundreds or thousands of employees to a CMS and send them to a "how to craft effective digital content" which is what the Nielson article is ultimately selling is not always feasible. Only select pieces get a web treatment the rest gets summarized if not just linked. News papers have pipelines from Word to digital publishing tools to print / online because of this. But also this setup is not easy. I just recently needed some specific information about traveling to and quarantine in Switzerland. The news sites where useless, the linked government web page was useless. Only the original PDF at the end of the link chain contained the information. I'd prefer having this information more easily accessible/searchable. But as it stands, the substance is often in the PDFs, not the web pages.

smoe 6y ago

I'm not saying one format is better than the other, or it having to do anything with the format. The word "Unfortunately" is there on purpose. I often have to sift trough PDFs were it doesn't make sense to have the information only there. What I'm disagreeing with is that PDFs unlike web pages lack substance. In my opinion the substance is often in the PDFs not because of the format, but how the information is produced. E.g. within a government or enterprise the content could come from anywhere within the org structure, often multiple intermediaries away from the people putting stuff on the website. Everyone knows basic MS Word. On-boarding potentially hundreds or thousands of employees to a CMS and send them to a "how to craft effective digital content" which is what the Nielson article is ultimately selling is not always feasible. Only select pieces get a web treatment the rest gets summarized if not just linked. News papers have pipelines from Word to digital publishing tools to print / online because of this. But also this setup is not easy. I just recently needed some specific information about traveling to and quarantine in Switzerland. The news sites where useless, the linked government web page was useless. Only the original PDF at the end of the link chain contained the information. I'd prefer having this information more easily accessible/searchable. But as it stands, the substance is often in the PDFs, not the web pages.