3 ms·
Agree massively. This is one of the reasons why books are often still better than the internet: you're more likely to get some meaty information, rather than a
by IsaacL 17y ago
Agree massively. This is one of the reasons why books are often still better than the internet: you're more likely to get some meaty information, rather than a list of vague points. These kind of posts are like knowledge candy, fun to consume but don't provide much nourishment.
- IsaacL 17y agoShould add that the "Top n things" kind of posts are inordinately popular on these kind of websites (Digg is much worse). I wonder what the appeal is? Perhaps internet users are at the centre of a Venn diagram: geeky types, who like things organised in a logical way, and people with low attention spans, who like everything in bite sized chunks. Solution: everything's a list!
- mediaman 17y agoInteresting. Is what you might consider "real content" (i.e. longer form, more substance, not popcorn ideas) lost on the web? Or is there still a place for it? I notice that when I write shorter articles it's much easier to get coverage for it than longer, more detailed articles that I personally find more interesting. PG has postulated that it's an inevitable fate for communities like this because the short, easy to digest pieces are simple to view and upvote. Longer, meatier content is more difficult to digest, and thus receive fewer upvotes, even if the people who finish it find it more interesting.