Does Shorter = Better?

I have converted Jason Salas into the a fan for the short blog post . Where do the rest of you stand? Would you rather have fewer posts with more depth or frequent short posts with high value information? It's hard to combine them (and maintain a life).

Comments

[William Stewart]

Because I read blogs for information, not literary inspiration, I prefer entries that write only what needs to be written.

I like entries short mainly because the original thought to number of words ratio is better. My experience is many entries that are longer do not contain more information than short ones. The writers have more time on their hands and want to be the next Keats, so they spend twice the number of words to say the same thing.

[Davy Sims]

In the end - it really does have to be a mix - information is sometimes too complex. My own choice (now you make me think about it) it lots of shorts (synopsys) with links to printable pages I can read on the train home.

[Justin Lilly]

Its all about your audience. If you have well-informed people who leave comments to discuss your articles (ie: a list apart) you don't need epic-sized articles. If you have a nearly non-existent community (ie: me) then you probably should write longer posts. Just a thought.

[Shawn Lea]

I agree...shorter is better. (But I'm 5'2" so I might be seen as prejudiced by some.) ;)

[Andrew Kaufmann]

I agree that a blog such as this isn't going to be read for its high literary value -- but I also think this blog is more valuable as a place of insight than a collection of posts. Anyone can collect posts on a given subject -- the insight into those posts is what makes a site unique. Don't give up valuable insight in favor of shorter posts. If you can get your points across in 15 words, that's fine -- but don't feel that you need to stay below some number.

[branden]

short and to the point. that's what i like.

either more bloggers need to keep it short (like you steve) or i've gotta cut some out. it's becoming too much!

which brings me to this point:

why don't newsreaders (ie. newsgator) give me clusters? like today for example: i don't care much for the google/sun announcement till it happens, but there was 20 bloggers announcing that it was going to happen.

please show me all the posts from MY feeds that reference this That way I can delete them and quicly remove some clutter. do they have this feature already? am i missing it? anyone?

[Jeremy Pepper]

What does length matter?

It's about content and quality of content. There are many blogs that are just barf-ups of Google News Alerts and rehashing of other posts - while waiting a week or two to see which way the wind blows. Do we need more blogs (or podcasts) like that, Steve?

[Nishi]

I like a blog that is detailed and provides me with resourceful information, as for the post probably short is better. But, sometimes I do like to read longer posts that have more volume and information in them. More over since I am an avid reader of blogs and visit various web sites. Some times getting as much information on a topic makes the read worth it.

[Derek Andrews]

My preference is for short posts. I have a real problem information overload. So I like short posts that make a point quickly and effectively.

While there is sometimes a need for long posts, an initial summary and a final conclusion may help determine if the rest is worth reading. With many long posts I am left with the impression that even the author doesn't know what the post is about.

[Barry Welford]

Well I'm a strong advocate of that phrase that Mark Twain didn't say, "I'm sorry this letter is so long, but I didn't have the time to write a shorter one." Actually Blaise Pascal said the same thing in French some centuries before. Whoever! I think a blog entry should be no longer than it needs to be. Too many are just a useless waste of bandwidth.

[Chris Desrochers]

I'm busy and my Bloglines shortlist is never as short as it should be. I prefer blogs which post a couple meaningful posts each week rather than those who post every five minutes. Wouldn't it be great if blogs offered two feeds? One high traffic feed which delivered every single post written by the author. The other would be a low traffic feed which would contain only the most important posts by the author. That way we don’t have to wade through hundreds of inconsequential posts to get to the real meat.

[choco]

Short is better for making the value decision as an audience whether to read or not, since then you can make more of those decisions (which has more value for me at least). Rss is my decision point, it has to be short.

Whether longer comes into discussion when i click on "more", I think really depends on how well informed both are of eachothers valuable knowledge [thus know what is necessary], planned conversation [your lurking acceptance].

[Shel Holtz]

Since when does length equal literary value? Analysis can take more words than simple reporting. If it's interesing or high-value, I'll read it if it's long. If it's not, I won't read it even if it's short.

[Mike Driehorst]

Like others have said, it depends.
If you (generally-speaking) are just going to reference and link to other blogs, keep it short. Add a comment or two, and move on.
If you are creating original content, then speak up. Gives us your insight.
To paraphrase a line from "Field of Dreams," ... If it's well-written and informative, they will read.
Mike

[bettergetter]

My days are usually filled with meetings, phone callse, etc., so I typically prefer shorter posts just because of the limited amount of time I have to read (links to more in depth information is good though ... in case I'm really interested in the subject being discussed). I usually browse a number of sites during the workday when I get a few spare minutes and will go ahead and read the shorter ones. Longer ones go in a reading file for when I have more time, so there's definitely a need for both ... just depends what audience you are going after.

[Miha]

I prefere shorter posts, like this one is ;-)

[beloml]

I think short posts on a wide variety of subjects account for Instapundit's tremendous success.

[btm]

I have to agree with Shel Holtz - if it's good, interesting, and/or thought-provoking I'll read it no matter what the length.

If it is a post that points to another post, a news article or some such thing I like seeing a brief clip and the link up top so I can evaluate whether it's worth my time, but I also really like to hear the authors opinion. I want the meat first then the commentary and I'm no great fan of blogs without any authorial character...

[alpha]

interesting

[EngLee]

I do agree that shorter post is better. But, short should also means quality information. :)

[B.L. Ochman]

I'm not a fan of the one-sentence post, but i like short no matter what the topic. I think you have a good mix.

Although it's not always easy, I try to keep all my posts under 300 words. And I still write up to 3000 words a day because I post often.

To tell the truth, I've never made it all the way through anyone's 1000-word-plus post. Who has time!?

[Curt]

I prefer conciseness. Say it well, and say it quickly. With so many blogs to read, I shy away from the long articles. In attracting readers, I don’t want them to skip over something because of its length. Short, pity, and pungent, that’s my perferred post.

[Paul Chaney]

Personally, it's not a matter of which is better, but of personal style and preference. For the life of me I can't write a short post except at Business Blog Consulting, and that's only because Rick prefers pithy to pontificating.

To each his own. Both are welcome in the blogosphere. Of course, I'd prefer a short post that says something any day over a long one that says nothing.

See, I can't even write a short comment!

[Andrew Denny]

No one here has mentioned the Typepad 'continue' feature (it's presumably on other blogging tools, I don't know). If I'm writing a long post, I try to get the salient facts into the first para and put the rest into a continuation.

It doesn't work on Bloglines (again, I don't know if it works on other readers) but it works on the home page, and I guess that's where it matters most. My feeling is that feed readers will already know me and thus forgive me!

[Jason Salas]

I like a nice mix...I like writers to be diversified. Having lots of shorter posts that point me to interesting places on the WWW is nice, with a longer piece thrown in for good measure every now and then. (I'm biased, being a writer, so I appreciate diversity).

But here's the real reason blogs rule: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/002864.php

The ad hoc lecture notes taken from an interview with Google's Sergey Brin at the Web 2.0 Conference above are hardly what even novice writers would consider a proper composition, but it's a documented, quasi-realtime experience of something a great deal of people want to know about. In MSM, this would take several hours to write, edit, print, and distribute.