3 ms·

I find a commonality between many articles I read online: 1. An interesting headline that draws me in. 2. A long setup/history which I start reading, then ski

I find a commonality between many articles I read online: 1. An interesting headline that draws me in. 2. A long setup/history which I start reading, then skimming, then just scrolling past 3. And finally, the meat of the article. But by 3. I've decided that the article doesn't contain any interesting info - otherwise, why would I be scrolling past the first 2/3s of it? I'm aware this is a subconscious decision, a bad heuristic. But in a world filled with info, I rarely fight against it. I didn't read this article, for instance. My coffee break is over, it's time to get back to work. Maybe it's time for blogs to start doing something similar to what the better recipe sites do, and provide a link at the top to skip the setup and get to the real article.

TheCleric 3y ago
I don’t mean this rudely, but the common factor there is you. Could it just be you don’t enjoy this style of writing?
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  As someone who agrees with the parent commenter, I don't think (at least for me) it's individual style, but it's what my goal is and what the content is. I think the main problem is blog posts, which basically contain a single main thesis, that are written like short stories. I think that if, as an author, your goal is to get a primary point across, and you're publishing on the web, for the love of God, get to the point. There is a near infinite amount of content online vying for our attention, and if I'm reading for information, I don't want to spend a ton of time just figuring out if your point is worth my time. On the other hand, if you're telling a story, I'm fine getting drawn in with elaborate prose. But at least for me, most of the time I'm looking for this style of writing in a book, or at least something like a magazine article that is positioned as a short story. I don't often look for this type of content on the web, and I almost never look for it in blog posts.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >I think that if, as an author, your goal is to get a primary point across, and you're publishing on the web, for the love of God, get to the point This. There is a reason TL;DR became a proper word.[1] [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/TL%3BDR https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/TL%3BDR
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
  I thought the same. I thought the title was hinting at a path to bring back the old web, not building up to "we can do it if we want".
- esperent 3y ago
  No offense taken, of course the common factor is me! That was the entire point of my comment. I don't enjoy articles like this. I was wondering if other people have the same feeling. It seems like many do, to the point that there's an actual rule of journalism (inverted pyramid) stating that you should avoid crafting articles this way.
ranger_danger 3y ago
or HN could have an AI-bot to summarize the article at the top of the comments.
- djbusby 3y ago
  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kb5_hIuEk8g https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kb5_hIuEk8g
- aworks 3y ago
  I use HackSnack to generate an RSS feed for this. https://www.kadoa.com/hacksnack https://www.kadoa.com/hacksnack
  - ranger_danger 3y ago
    Whoa this is cool. If only it were open source... I'd like to do this for other sites as well.
idle_zealot 3y ago
The point of this post is the feel, the narrative, in service of strengthening the central metaphor of internet as untilled land dominanted by fortresses (social media). The tl;dr is: don't use Facebook, make websites. Maybe make a decentralized search/discovery protocol (or something?).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Turing_Machine 3y ago
What you describe almost the opposite of the classic "inverted pyramid" style of writing journalism. I agree it's a bad style if you want to have busy people reading your site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism) Cut to the chase, and put the interesting-to-some-but-not-all stuff at the bottom, or better still, behind a link. We have hypertext, guys. That's what it's for. > I'm aware this is a subconscious decision, a bad heuristic. I don't think it's a bad heuristic at all. There are far more web pages than anyone could possibly read in their limited lifespan. It makes sense to optimize for sites that get to the point right away. Note that I'm speaking here of purely informational sites, not "literary" sites where the beauty of the prose is intended to be part (or even all) of the purpose. Different rules apply there.

TheCleric 3y ago

I don’t mean this rudely, but the common factor there is you. Could it just be you don’t enjoy this style of writing?

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
As someone who agrees with the parent commenter, I don't think (at least for me) it's individual style, but it's what my goal is and what the content is. I think the main problem is blog posts, which basically contain a single main thesis, that are written like short stories. I think that if, as an author, your goal is to get a primary point across, and you're publishing on the web, for the love of God, get to the point. There is a near infinite amount of content online vying for our attention, and if I'm reading for information, I don't want to spend a ton of time just figuring out if your point is worth my time. On the other hand, if you're telling a story, I'm fine getting drawn in with elaborate prose. But at least for me, most of the time I'm looking for this style of writing in a book, or at least something like a magazine article that is positioned as a short story. I don't often look for this type of content on the web, and I almost never look for it in blog posts.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >I think that if, as an author, your goal is to get a primary point across, and you're publishing on the web, for the love of God, get to the point This. There is a reason TL;DR became a proper word.[1] [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/TL%3BDR https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/TL%3BDR
8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
I thought the same. I thought the title was hinting at a path to bring back the old web, not building up to "we can do it if we want".
esperent 3y ago
No offense taken, of course the common factor is me! That was the entire point of my comment. I don't enjoy articles like this. I was wondering if other people have the same feeling. It seems like many do, to the point that there's an actual rule of journalism (inverted pyramid) stating that you should avoid crafting articles this way.

ranger_danger 3y ago

or HN could have an AI-bot to summarize the article at the top of the comments.

djbusby 3y ago
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kb5_hIuEk8g https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kb5_hIuEk8g
aworks 3y ago
I use HackSnack to generate an RSS feed for this. https://www.kadoa.com/hacksnack https://www.kadoa.com/hacksnack
- ranger_danger 3y ago
  Whoa this is cool. If only it were open source... I'd like to do this for other sites as well.

idle_zealot 3y ago

The point of this post is the feel, the narrative, in service of strengthening the central metaphor of internet as untilled land dominanted by fortresses (social media). The tl;dr is: don't use Facebook, make websites. Maybe make a decentralized search/discovery protocol (or something?).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Turing_Machine 3y ago

What you describe almost the opposite of the classic "inverted pyramid" style of writing journalism. I agree it's a bad style if you want to have busy people reading your site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism) Cut to the chase, and put the interesting-to-some-but-not-all stuff at the bottom, or better still, behind a link. We have hypertext, guys. That's what it's for. > I'm aware this is a subconscious decision, a bad heuristic. I don't think it's a bad heuristic at all. There are far more web pages than anyone could possibly read in their limited lifespan. It makes sense to optimize for sites that get to the point right away. Note that I'm speaking here of purely informational sites, not "literary" sites where the beauty of the prose is intended to be part (or even all) of the purpose. Different rules apply there.