1 Untitled

I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestion that we write for one person. I’m in the radio business and just as in writing, the best broadcasters speak to only one person, the listener.

posted at 01:15 pm on August 08, 2006 by Jason Mayoff

2 Untitled

Amber, you say that online readers tend to have little patience; however, I had to read over 200 words of your article (not including the wonderfully vague title) to really understand what it is about.

My impression (rightly or wrongly) from this – especially given ALA’s audience – is that you are writing for yourself rather than your reader.

Overall, I like the theme of your article, although it was a struggle to get through it, largely because of presentational issues. One of your paragraphs is 10 lines and 175 words long!

As a reader I look at that and see a block of intimidating text and am inclined to skip straight to the next paragraph.

Much as I like the advice you offer, I would suggest that readers would be better off learning the basic rules of writing for the web before moving on to your ‘master class’.

As a suggestion, most news sites such as the BBC are a great place to learn how to write compelling content that is also readable.

Alternatively, I link to a number of good articles about writing for the web on my own site.

posted at 03:45 pm on August 08, 2006 by Christian Watson

3 Excellent Well, and Faith's a Fish...

What has especially touched me is your comment about “just one reader.” I was reminded recently of this idea when a friend who I’d not seen for over a year asked how my podcast was doing. “Not so well,” I glumly told him, “only about 800 listeners.”

He was dumbfounded. “When I saw you last year, when you were starting,” he said,”you were giddy because you had dozens of listeners!”

He was right. I had started it thinking that if I only had 5 listeners, I’d be happy. And when I do public speaking, it’s not to the audience, it’s in the engaging, conversational style I learned from my father. I’d not thought of applying it to writing, but I suspect the best writing I do does apply this idea.

Thanks—looking forward to reading your other work. And very jealous that you live in one of the coolest cities in the nation.

posted at 03:50 pm on August 08, 2006 by Gray Miller

4 Nice, but

I agree with Christian’s criticisms. Way too many words for web writing! Needs more Strunk & White.

Also, can I humbly suggest a global moratorium on the use of the ultra-cliche “at the end of the day”? Every time I read this phrase, I cringe, and I have to force myself to keep reading any further.

posted at 05:06 pm on August 08, 2006 by Jeff Atwood

5 snapshot

The snapshot blurb off to the right of the article is an excellent innovation. It’s also “faithful” by giving us readers an idea of what the article is all about before we begin. I suggest moving it into the main column, above the article, as a guide to readers.

Also, on the idea of writing for one reader… we use that on the site I work on but it’s tough to get scientists and researchers to write for a general audience. Practical ideas on how to achieve some of the ideas mentioned in your article would be helpful.

posted at 06:44 pm on August 08, 2006 by Joe Flood

6 Snapshot

The snapshot idea is definitely a good one – too bad it’s in the wrong place. I never even noticed it. Why can’t the summary or snapshot go at the beginning of the article?

posted at 07:25 pm on August 08, 2006 by Christian Watson

7 Untitled

While I agree the post was a bit wordy, I’m glad I read it. It’s an issue I’ve been struggling with myself. When I started my blog late last year, it was mostly for my family and friends. But somewhere along the line, I was seduced by the idea that I could write to attract “traffic” that could generate clicks and revenue. Not only had I lost sight of my reader, I wasn’t even thinking in terms of an audience. And it wasn’t long before I realized I just wasn’t enjoying it anymore.

I was reminded of why I started when my aunt asked why I hadn’t posted in so long. So, thanks for the reality check.

I have my reader.

posted at 02:59 am on August 09, 2006 by Bill Maslyn

8 Untitled

Perhaps using words like “zeitgeist” ( which your casual reader might have to take a time-out to go jaunting off to Merriam-Webster On-line to check the context of… ) in an informative article might want to be re-thought. I was doing great up to that point. ;-)

posted at 02:44 pm on August 09, 2006 by V. Berg

9 Me go to store now good.

Perhaps using words like “zeitgeist” … in an informative article might want to be re-thought. [sic]

Why? Is it so hard to look up a word once and a while—particularly when it is used in a context such that the meaning can be deduced by the reader?

If I know a date will be attached to my work, it is probably less important to place my writing in its proper cultural or historical context. On the other hand, it doesn’t hurt to remind my reader of the zeitgeist that shapes my work.

posted at 04:43 pm on August 09, 2006 by John Lascurettes

10 Gender Studies

So far, everyone who has commented on wordiness have been male, as best as I can deduce from the names provided.

As I read, I thought, “This is pretty feminine for an ALA article”. There was no value judgement in the thought, just a general observation.

Is it wordiness, or is it communicating ideas differently than we are accustomed, particularlay in a “technical” journal like ALA? Does this stylistic differencee have anything to teach us? Does it offer any additional food for thought in the context of the content of the article? Could it even have been a conscience decision on the part of the author?

posted at 05:40 pm on August 09, 2006 by Derek Pennycuff