> 1. They are a detailed description of something the author actually did, and show a really cool solution or implementation of something This is certainly ent

> 1. They are a detailed description of something the author actually did, and show a really cool solution or implementation of something This is certainly entertaining, and feels insightful and informative. But usually it is inaccurate, subjective, or wrong, because it's an individual non-expert's experience. > 2. The author has been thinking about a problem for a while and brings a clear, informative, well-argued insight to the problem space Again, feels like wisdom, but an armchair expert is not an actual expert, and "I thought about it for a while" is not the same thing as "academics critically discuss at length and come to a consensus". In almost all cases, actual experts have actually studied a thing for a long time, or practiced it for a long time, and have actual evidence to go on. Blog posts don't - because real experts tend to publish in books and journals first (which are peer reviewed), not blogs. If the blog post isn't showing its work with a lot of evidence, critical study, and consensus, it's extremely likely to be bullshit. I say all this because in the 16 years I've been on this forum, I can count on one hand the number of front page blog posts that accurately portray my field. I'm guessing the real information is not clickbaity enough, or it doesn't validate the biases and expectations of readers. However, the number of posts full of bullshit has been endless.