Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 25th Dec 2008 16:07 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Consider the following a little Christmas gift. Some of you may have already noticed, but for a few months already OSNews has seen a shift in content. Not necessarily in the subjects we cover, but more in the way we present our news. We've experimented for long enough now - we have settled on a definitive change in our content type. Read on for the details.
E-mail Print r 3   · Read More · 49 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 341703
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: Regular posts
by joshv on Sun 28th Dec 2008 13:42 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Regular posts"
joshv
Member since:
2006-03-18

On the actual changes I don't really care much either way. I like longer commentary, but I tend to find the longer articles here are of a lower quality than say Ars Technica - but I will grant that they are getting better.

What I was trying to get through your head is that your long winded post didn't do a very good job of communicating those changes in a clear manner. You buried most of the major changes in the middle and end.

This appears to be a common theme with you Thom, you like to force people to read all the way through something (by for example burying the links in the "read more" section, a practice now finally abandoned, but originally heavily defended by yourself).

You will become a better writer if you learn how to summarize at the top, and leave detailed expository for the end. You might not like that style, but it's the way things a best done on the web. I am a busy person. I want to be able to decide if I want to read on into the detail quickly - and if I don't read on, I want to at least come away with some useful information.

Take for example Kroc's post on Ruby. I had no idea what the hell it was talking about until I read 4 paragraphs into the "read more" section. That's just broken. To be honest I wouldn't have read the article if it had been properly summarized. But I read it just to figure out what the hell it was about.

If this is by design, it's extremely wrong-headed. Don't coerce your readers into reading things they wouldn't have otherwise - use your noggin to succinctly summarize the story well enough that the discerning reader can decide for themselves.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[11]: Regular posts
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 28th Dec 2008 14:19 in reply to "RE[10]: Regular posts"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This appears to be a common theme with you Thom, you like to force people to read all the way through something (by for example burying the links in the "read more" section, a practice now finally abandoned, but originally heavily defended by yourself).


This only happened during the first few DAYS of the first longer items, MONTHS and MONTHS ago. We stopped doing that right away when we received our first complaint, and NEVER did it again. You are exaggerating.

You will become a better writer if you learn how to summarize at the top, and leave detailed expository for the end. You might not like that style, but it's the way things a best done on the web. I am a busy person. I want to be able to decide if I want to read on into the detail quickly - and if I don't read on, I want to at least come away with some useful information.


Dear lord, and I thought I was arrogant.

I will not write in a staccato information style where I will cater to people who are not willing to spend time reading articles. It are people like you that make all those pointless comments asking questions that were perfectly answered within the article - but you missed it, because you were too busy to read the actual article - yet you seem to have enough time to write comments with questions in them that everybody else had already answered by reading the article.

How quaint.

You have made it clear now that the article itself wasn't bad or incoherent (as evidenced by everyone else here who had no problems understanding it), it's just that you didn't want to spend time to read it. Which is fine, but please don't confuse your own unwillingness with bad writing on my part.

Reply Parent Score: 1