Hacker News Reader

> You’re not an expert in your field, otherwise you wouldn’t be publishing in a blog, but writing papers and giving interviews.

This is a thought I had before I read many papers. After getting over my fear of reading papers (mostly) and actually starting to read them I've realized their quality varies greatly.

Taking a step back from the glamour of academia. The random blog without ads is written out of love. The published paper is written as part of a job, and probably to meet externally imposed deadlines (and there might be some love in the paper too). Judge for yourself which you want to read.

Sometimes, as a beginner I want a beginners perspective. We imagine that we only gain through study, but we lose our fresh perspective, and no amount of study can restore that fresh perspective, which does have some merit.

I have found a lot of blogs, often written by people who are or could be professors, which are much higher quality than the average academic paper.

Papers are honestly just a lot of work, and unless you want to be cited by other academic papers, putting your work in a blog just lowers the friction of publication.

Author here. Tbh I don't actually believe all the cons, these are things I was telling myself to stop writing. It doesn't mean I believe they're right, but these were just excuses I was making to stop writing. The list of pros are the ones that were useful for me to continue writing on my blog :)

So basically, as the old saying goes, you were "merely pretending"?

The point about providing ur own perspective is what makes blogs so (sadly) refreshing.

I’ve stumbled onto so many random blogs and read a post on a topic I’m already familiar with because I hope to find a different perspective on it.

I got that from reading it. I enjoyed the article. Nobody cares about comments from people reading things too literally ;)

Looks like a lot of people read first list, got triggered started writing comment and did not think about full scope of the text.

> Looks like a lot of people read first list, got triggered started writing comment and did not think about full scope of the text.

In other words... nobody cares about your blog. ;-)

If they’re triggered and writing angrily, they care.

They just care about it for the wrong reasons.

Reasons that can be eliminated by adapting the structure of the content to a modern audience.

> If they’re triggered and writing angrily, they care.

They may care about the subject matter of the blog post, but they don't care about the blog post, which is just an excuse for them to rant about the subject matter.

> Reasons that can be eliminated by adapting the structure of the content to a modern audience.

c/modern/lazy

> they don't care about the blog post, which is just an excuse for them to rant about the subject matter

This kind of framing/sweeping generalization doesn’t make sense to me. There will always be people who will rant for the sake of ranting, but this isn’t universal, nor should it be the base assumption about a reader/commentor.

> c/modern/lazy

This carries the problematic generalization further. The modern media environment has drastically impacted people’s attention span.

There are plenty of critical things to be said about the effects of this trend, but painting this as just a matter of laziness misses the bigger picture.

Especially important if you want to create content that encourages people to cultivate attention and stop consuming attention-destroying content.

Writing for a “modern” audience isn’t about catering to lazy people, but recognizing what people are up against in an information landscape that increasingly churns out bad information, making it necessary as a reader to assess the content quickly enough to know if it’s time to move on, because there isn’t enough time or attention in a day to give every post a full read.

I’m not saying lazy readers don’t exist, but that’s not why I think it’s useful to think about content structure.

My comment "In other words... nobody cares about your blog. ;-)" was intended to be joke, with the wink emoticon, riffing on the title of the blog post. It wasn't intended as a serious sweeping generalization.

Nonetheless, many good jokes have a grain of truth. Such commenters who rant for the sake of ranting obviously do exist, as you admit, and they are pervasive.

> making it necessary as a reader to assess the content quickly enough to know if it’s time to move on, because there isn’t enough time or attention in a day to give every post a full read.

It's interesting that you said "move on" rather than "comment", which is precisely the distinction I discussed in another comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36746673 Moving on is fine. The problem is staying and commenting without reading carefully.

That is interesting take.

But I still don’t understand how come people feel like it is worth to spend time writing comment on something they don’t have time to read through.

You don't understand how people rather want to read some short comments and share their thoughts than to spend a lot more time reading a long blogpost?

Yes, blogpost we discuss here isn’t even that long. For any meaningful discussion there is context required. Writing out thoughts without context might be funny or might be silly but that is disrespectful to everyone.

I also don’t fully accept the premise that not reading is why people are commenting critically.

Personally, I read the whole thing, kinda scratched my head about the framing of it all, and came here to find what apparently seemed like agreement with my reaction.

It became more clear what the author was going for when he clarified, and in that light, the post makes more sense.

But I think someone lacking that context or familiarity with the author’s style and taking the content a bit too literally at first (like me) is another source of the critical commentary.

Things got a bit off track when this became a thread about people refusing to read, or lacking comprehension. From my perspective there are two ways to read it, and I think this pretty much guarantees some confusion.

Not really, it's a feature of modern times.

A long long time ago, before the Internet and the wide availability of electronic content, I used to read books and would even send physical letters.

Once I entered the corporate world and email, I had people telling me that I have to change my writing style. Pre-modern world and me included would use what I would call the "epistolary" style (long, detailed text). I was taught it by the literature I read or enforced in school by the style of writing I was expected to write. Essentially a bottom-up approach where you start with the premises and gradually build up your conclusion, presented at the end of the "novel".

Well problem's in the modern world nobody has the time to read your novel. I think reformulating "Nobody cares about your blog" to "Nobody has time to read your novel" would be closer to the truth.

It's not that people don't read novels anymore, it's that the quantity of content has increased 100x. Literally there's no time to go in depth over each and every wall of text you are confronted with.

So better adjust your writing style to modernity and use a top-down approach. Start with the conclusion and gradually build up the premises that led you there. Some people might read the whole content if it captures their interest but 99% will just read your summary and skim through the high level part of your content (assuming you stick to the top-down, so it gradually breaks into more and more complex parts).

I'd say there's nothing wrong with the approach and gotta keep up with the times we're living.

> Some people might read the whole content if it captures their interest but 99% will just read your summary and skim through the high level part of your content

If people don't want to read everything you wrote, that's not inherently a problem.

The problem is that people want to comment on things they haven't read, and that's a problem the writer can't solve. Lazy, superficial commenters are a pox on all writing, and the internet has enabled them. It's a feature of modern times because the internet has given superficial, super lazy commenters a platform they never had before. Anyone in the world can sign up for a social media platform and start spewing text with practically no effort or ability.

This reads like a cheap shot at people don't have the patience to deal with walls of text that can be summarised in a couple of well constructed sentences.

Long form speakers often do so to obfuscate the content. It's a hiding place.

The only long form I read is fiction.

> This reads like a cheap shot at people don't have the patience to deal with walls of text that can be summarised in a couple of well constructed sentences.

No, it's a criticism of people who make cheap shots in comments.

Again, if one doesn't have the patience for reading something, that's fine. But just walk away from the article, don't proceed to comment on something one doesn't have the patience to read. That's a disservice both to the author and to the people who did read the text.

"There's too much stuff to read on the internet" is a reason to walk away. It's not a good reason to stick around and comment.

I had a similar awakening as I got older. Mine was mostly driven by reading non-fiction books, where the author drags a concept that could be adaquitly explained in 10 pages into a 350 page book. It just feels disrespectful of the reader: learn how to make your point in the fewest words possible.

Compared to a few decades ago, far fewer people "contemplate" issues - and instead immediately go into "knee-jerk reaction" mode. Gone is the subtle art of "thinking things over."

Sure - times have changed - but not necessarily for the better.

Another "con" against the blog then: there'll be people who only flash scan the blog then pick out a bunch of fairly incorrect conclusions they jump to without considering. Which supposedly is a wide number of time starved people in the world.

And the "pro": you don't care what modern times are like. This is a blog. You get to pick who you write for. If time-short people who only want maximally-concise hand_holding business text are not your target, that's fine. You get to pick how you want to write. You can pick to ensure only better classes of readers.

Lack of any comprehension. It’s amazing. It’s a good reminder that most people commenting here read the headline, and react, rather than put any thought into what was written. They believe that because they “read the comments first” or are posting here is indicative of their intelligence.

Shameful.

Yeah I sensed something like that. But I don't just think that the pros outweigh the cons, I think the cons are all wrong. :-)

> these are things I was telling myself to stop writing

I think some of the feedback here is because that’s not how you explain the cons in the post:

> Here’s a list of why nobody cares about your blog

While you do go on to tell people they shouldn’t care about these cons, I’d go a step further and say these aren’t even real things most people who encounter your blog will think.

Your framing sets this up as a current of negative sentiment out there against which you must steel yourself to write.

A different framing is that this negative sentiment primarily exists in your own mind (mine too), thus not a problem.

I think there’s a meaningful difference between the two, especially if you’re not writing due to anxiety about reception.

The overarching message is great. I just worry that your list kind of reifies the notion that those are real reasons.

Honestly, I think it’s the failing of the readers. It’s clear he doesn’t believe this list of cons, and rather, it’s illustrative of the things some people believe or say about writing a blog. These are all real things I’ve heard people say about creating.

This is a perfectly acceptable style.

This is a problem in comprehension. People aren’t thinking.

“these aren’t even real things most people who encounter your blog will think”

But these are real things real people think about a lot when they think about writing or creating and sharing it.

Honestly, the lack of comprehension is a gentle reminder to me that HN isn’t any smarter than any other place. It just tends to lean toward topics I’m interested in, but the people making up the discussion aren’t necessarily smarter.

> Honestly, I think it’s the failing of the readers.

I'd argue that it's a failing of the engagement-driven information economy.

The Internet is full of posts with lists of hot takes that are completely literal. It is in this landscape that a reader finding a post like this must decide how to interpret what the reader is trying to say.

> It’s clear he doesn’t believe this list of cons

For the reasons outlined, this was not clear at all. It was clear that the author felt someone shouldn't care about these cons, but that is quite different than concluding that the cons aren't even worth believing.

There are times that cons are true, and those cons are outweighed by the pros. There are times when the cons win.

This is a time when the cons are false. Mentioning that would be helpful. This is my primary point.

> But these are real things real people think about a lot when they think about writing or creating and sharing it.

Yes, and my point was that the issue can be very easily solved by just framing it as such with almost zero change to the overall content.

"None of these are true" vs. "You shouldn't care about these cons". It's a small change that completely shifts the meaning of the list and brings more readers onboard.

> Honestly, the lack of comprehension...

And let's say for sake of argument that the primary problem is one of comprehension. That implies a broader trend that requires corrective behaviors, and concluding that "that's just their problem" doesn't seem to be very useful for anyone involved either. If this is the new state of readership, authors have some choices to make.

I deeply support the underlying message the author is trying to convey: write stuff, and don't listen to bad reasons for not writing! I don't want my comments here to be misconstrued otherwise.

Here's the thing: many people here had no trouble comprehending the blog post. We understood the author's intent just fine, despite living in the same "engagement-driven information economy" as everyone else.

Most blog posts are unpaid labor. It's not blogger's job to explain everything to everyone, because blogging is not their job. As a frequent blogger myself, if I had to dumb down my blog posts for the dumbest, most inattentive readers, then that in itself would be a good reason not to blog at all. I'm just not interested in that crap. I write for an "intelligent" audience, and I don't care if that sounds elitist.

If you paid for a product, then you have the right to complain. But with blog posts, you're consuming text for free. You can choose not to consume it fully, and that's fine, but pedantically telling bloggers to change their writing style is stepping over the line. Bloggers have no obligation whatsoever to cater to the inattentive, or whomever you believe they need to cater to.

If everyone was missing the point of a blog post, that would indicate a problem with the writing. But that's not the case here.

I agree with almost everything you wrote here, and as a blogger, I'm sensitive to the same things you're calling out. I just argued something similar re: 'don't complain if you didn't pay' in an unrelated thread.

I shared a piece of feedback earlier in the thread based on what I saw to be the source of confusion.

I'm not arguing that bloggers have to explain everything to everyone.

I'm not arguing that bloggers have an obligation to cater to the lowest common denominator.

And I'm not arguing that everyone is missing the point.

To bring this back to where I started, in a meta-discussion about people getting confused about the meaning of the words written, the only point I was trying to make was that this is happening for an understandable reason, and this reason goes away entirely with a slight reframing without fundamentally changing anything.

I'm not even arguing that my specific reframing is the best way to do it or that the author must go change anything.

I think my perspective may make more sense if you imagine that I'm trying to understand why people are misunderstanding, and that I find it interesting to explore those reasons. I find this interesting for admittedly selfish reasons: like most bloggers, I want people who care enough to read my stuff to understand the words I write. Discussions like this help clarify where the pitfalls exist.

In a post about writing blog posts, such an exploration seems appropriate.

> this is happening for an understandable reason,

I agree.

> and this reason goes away entirely with a slight reframing without fundamentally changing anything.

I disagree, because I disagree with your diagnosis of why it's happening.

I think there are many good reasons for people to write, even if they're not at the cutting edge of a field, or doing something totally original:

* Information that's derivative of cutting edge knowledge, but not worth the bother for the academic researchers to work on, especially in the area of turning it into practical things.

* Stuff that can't be documented by the experts because they can't write, unless it's for an audience of fellow experts, or they feel no reason to. Virtually all technical documentation is impenetrable without supporting commentary or explanation, often written by non-experts.

* Practical projects, that might have only one interested user (myself), but whose pieces might be of interest to others. This is most of my blogging.

* Keeping old arts and obscure techniques alive.

* Invitation for critique. Am I wrong? Show me. Make my day.

So far as writing papers or giving interviews, some folks might feel that the "overhead" of doing those things does not justify the benefits. For instance I have no academic career to advance.

>> You’re not an expert in your field, otherwise you wouldn’t be publishing in a blog, but writing papers and giving interviews.

>So there is no need for teachers and textbook authors, because they don't advance state of the art?

This. I have a web site that in places you might call a blog. It's got a section for work stuff, some photos, hobbies, and random pages like explaining how to drive off-road. Those off-road pages (specifically this single page - https://www.wittenburg.co.uk/offroading/Concepts/Gearing.htm...) gets more hits than all the other pages combined. I wrote it in 1998.

I'll be damned, back when I stared off roading like six years ago, I did read that page!

> You’re not an expert in your field, otherwise you wouldn’t be publishing in a blog, but writing papers and giving interviews.

I understand the point and why that could pop up in a blogger’s mind as a way to stop writing, but this is a wrong framing problem.

Academia for example is a gigantic citation game. The reason why you’re writing a paper is not necessarily because you’re an expert, but because you need to establish yourself as one in a very narrow field based on a self-reinforcing score scheme.

“Giving Interviews” also implies an objectivity that does not exist. Establishing yourself as an expert has a lot more to do with personal branding than actually being the best experts. Plus, especially fo TV, you don’t call the utmost experts of a field, you call someone who’s expert enough or prepared enough AND knows how to talk in front of a camera and for the tv interview format, which is a superficial medium.

Getting interviews or being perceived as an expert is a “business” that has its own marketing strategies. A blog could even be part of that strategy and it’s been in many cases, but it has to be structured as such. On the other hand, it’s ok to put your words out there without this specific agenda. In that case a blog and blogging shouldn’t be judged by the metrics of popularity, because it sits in a very different domain.

Blogs have value even if no one else ever reads them. The very act of publishing something to the world is an achievement and, I find, enforces a level of editing and quality beyond jotting notes.

>> There are hundreds of blogs out there, what makes you think yours is different?

Precisely this one. There are billions of people out there breathing, your own personal breathing is so unremarkable and trivial that since only being original at all costs matters in this world you should cease to breathe effective immediately!

There was a trend in the paper blogs, the diaries of 1930s [1], probably when they were at peak, of authors whining about authorship, perhaps due to an esprit du mal of the epoch: to whom does one write for? And the answers were usually, (i) one writes for the others of today to obtain worldly benefits, which is gauche in the eyes of the diary writer, (ii) one writes for the others of tomorrow, which is somewhat more acceptable, (iii) one writes for oneself, which is the pure form of the art.

However, a fourth option appears today: one writes for the language models. The language models will always care about your blog.

[1] Julien Green is probably the most famous for his Diary, 1919–1998 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_Green

> You’re not an expert in your field, otherwise you wouldn’t be publishing in a blog, but writing papers and giving interviews.

This one is especially far out there. Lots of experts in their fields write blogs or newsletters or articles for other publications, etc. Not every field is an academic discipline. And quite frankly, academics would themselves be far more impactful if they didn't only churn out academic papers, but also wrote in a blog-like format. And many of them do, and they increase the impact of their work by doing so.

> You’re not an expert in your field, otherwise you wouldn’t be publishing in a blog, but writing papers and giving interviews.

Woah strongly disagree with this as well as it showcase a fundamental lack of knowledge on different communication formats. Blog posts can give an laymans introduction to a paper, it can expand on a part of a paper etc - talks and presentations can be summarized in blogposts. Even though I am mostly working on papers I have so many ideas on blogposts about stuff that is not really relevant for my field (like detailed information on how I work with subset of data) - nothing that is groundbreaking or a wide enough topic to warrant a paper. I mean, you could even write blogposts about great papers you read. That can be so helpfull for others. (Yes you could also write a big literary review but thats a lot more work).

It's interesting to me how even covering well-trod ground with a blogpost can be useful because the long tail of unique experiences is so long.

Mastodon has a well-documented setup process. I'm still going to do a blog post about setting mine up because I used an unusual hardware configuration and an unusual server config that aren't covered in the mainline-supported tutorial. I was only able to succeed because other people had done the same at some point.

Exactly. Thanks to articles that have made it here on HN, I’ve met people in different states that remembered my blog.

And one more…I write because it helps me organize my thoughts. When something is on my mind for a couple of months, I often can’t stop thinking about it until I write it down. That’s the entire reason I blog.

I think this is the most important; I write because it organises me and I remember things I wrote. If I didn’t journal and blog, I would forget things.

>Because it's mine. My friends care. Recruiters and hiring managers have cared (in a good way).

Mines don't, because they don't understand it.

True. The cons are just insulting, really.

wow i enjoyed your counter-points

It’s good to see you agreeing with the blog.