„Modern Book Printing“, fourth sculpture (from...Image via WikipediaWhich do you think is the better approach – short blog posts or long ones? Some bloggers, like Rick Mahn, favor short blog posts. Others, like Robert Hruzek, go the long route. Others, like Cath Lawson, mix it up. Well, I’m probably the last person who could answer my own question, because I enjoy reading all three of these bloggers. Here are a few thoughts on the matter nonetheless.

Short posts are certainly more likely to be read. Whether a long post is read depends on many factors, chief among them being how busy the reader is at the time he or she encounters the post. If I’m trying to whip through 100 feeds in my reader, I’m going to skip that long post and hope to come back to it later. But if I have time, I’ll savor it.

Long posts are more likely to be re-read. Assuming it is well written, a long post is more likely to contain information worth reading twice or even thrice. Perhaps it explores an idea in unusual depth or with remarkable clarity. Perhaps it provides instructions on how to overcome a complex problem. Perhaps it tells a story in such a way as to reveal basic truths about the human condition. Very difficult to do any of these things in a sound byte.

The audience influences optimum post length. A technical blogger aiming at computer programmers would be wise to “go long” and provide plenty of specifics. Same for a legal or financial blogger. On the other hand, an entertainment blog or one offering sales tips may be better off keeping it short and sweet. So it’s a good idea to know your audience and your purpose.

Which brings me to the question of consistency. Does shifting back and forth from short to long posts endear you to readers or repel them? How important is consistency? I really struggle with this issue.

What are your thoughts? How do you decide how much to write?

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]