The Problem With TL;DR

TS;DS Too short; didn't satisfy.

Seriously, though. I think people don't give enough space to ideas. Not that everything needs a thousand or ten thousand words, but if we're going to talk about a major thing like "how the nature of news consumption is changing," why not really think it through, ask other people for their opinion, present multiple viewpoints, make references and so on? Like this post, there are some ideas, but they're just sort of thrown on the table like a handful of notes on napkins.

The reflection of TL;DR (not the opposite, above) is TH;DW - too hard, didn't write. It takes time and effort to flesh out and explain an idea or point of view. It's hard to do sometimes when you know a lot of people are just going to skim it, but I think a well-presented idea is its own reward. I look back on some of the pieces I've written with pride, even though some of them received very little traffic precisely because they were long and, in a way, in-depth.

I went to a reddit meetup a few years ago after moving to the bay area on the suggestion from someone at HN. I knew what reddit was at the time, what I didn't know was tl;dr.

While I was telling a story, someone told me "tl;dr"

I had to ask what that meant, and people started laughing.

I soon realized I wouldn't be hanging out with anyone who identifies as a redditor on a regular basis.

I disagree. People consume and care about information on different levels. Perhaps you just don't care but some people do care and only want a brief overview.

Some people don't need the details of a story, for whatever personal reason. It could be limited time, limited interest or they just want the gist of the story so they can jump into the comments of a site like HN. I often read the headline of a story here on HN and go straight to the comments to see what the community has to say.

TL;DR is also a valuable way to find out if this story is actually interesting. Sometimes the headline (especially link bait) is so misleading that it's helpful to have a quick summary before taking the time to dive into a story.

Personally, I like summarized stories because articles tend to be written for search engines instead of humans. Repetitive content, long introductions, useless speculating and unnecessary back-story annoy me.

Of course, I'm biased. I created a news summarizing website[1] but I did that because I was tired of reading long-winded stories.

[1] http://SkimThat.com

The problem with TL;DR is people saying it and expecting to be applauded for their keen ability to lose focus after five lines, whereas they actually appear like some kind of idiot child presenting a truly godawful crayon scribbling.

TL;DR as used by a producer of content should be used as a summary. Tag your article with the details you feel are most important; if they pique the interest of a reader they'll read the whole thing.

TL;DR as a consumer should be used to indicate the content you are reading isn't written well. "I got this far in and it hasn't kept my attention. Abandoning the effort". A user calling tl;dr can be rude, but it does mean whatever you've posted is not engaging the reader's interest.

What exactly is wrong with writing "Summary" at the top of an article, rather than "TL;DR"?

We live in a multi-lingual world, using real words, correct grammar and avoiding slang should be standard in most posts/article. Throwing buzzwords and acronyms around is self-indulgence at the expensive of non-native English speakers.

I find it hilarious that this post basically ends with a TL;DR:

Information isn’t consumed by quantity but by interest. We really don’t need to read more, faster.

I flatly refuse to use TL;DR. I am not aiming to talk to anyone who asks for TL;DR. Those people are not my audience. Oddly, I feel that those that ask for TL;DR are the very ones who should be reading the entire article, but that is likely my own hurt talking.

I do understand where the request comes from. Over the past few years, the web has been proliferated by writers who need 3 paragraphs to open up their essay (usually with no admirable content), 5 paragraphs beating around the bush, another paragraph of cliff-hanger, and maybe, after reaching the bottom of the page, the final point is made. This is not good writing, and I won't bother reading anything in a similar format. If there is no content in the first 2 paragraphs, I doubt that there will be much worth reading later on, thus I seek the respite of the back button. Each writer has his or her audience, and that audience who asks for TL;DR is not the audience of the writer.

I have an implicit contract: I offer to my reader a promise of concise and provocative writing. I suspect that by the time he or she is done reading what I write, he or she will have something to ponder, something to argue against, and/or gained new knowledge. My implied contract also states that, at the time of the writing, I created a piece that uses the least amount of words that I could have used. If that happens to be a 1500 word essay or a 3-word tidbit, my point was made, and my reader should not feel resentment towards me after reading it. If they do feel resentment and wish for a TL;DR, I have failed my end of the bargain. I took the time to write a piece I am proud of. I let the piece sit in my computer for days and edited past the point of pain. After all this work, I want my reader to spend 5 to 10 minutes with my article.

This reader/writer relationship is a two-way street. Good writing requires cutting out all the prolix bullshit. At this point, I can ask my reader to respect my words and my effort.

Brevity facilitates content selection.

You're clearly wrong: if using TLDR didn't deliver some sort of value, nobody would do it. Your argument is similar to how my parents argue about texting - you just don't get it, and because of a cultural mismatch, you probably never will. But as an entrepreneur, you need to be able to notice when you don't understand something, and you need to be above disregarding trends because you don't understand them - you should be trying to understand rather than just giving up and saying "this is stupid".

Separately, there are several reasons why people read tons of news articles they don't really care about. In general, they fall within rewards of the self (desire for mastery, completion, etc). For more info, check out http://www.nirandfar.com/ and pay attention to his explanations of the different types of random rewards that drive behavior.

The problem is, I care about what I chose to read. I care what the author had to say in this blog post. Since it was nice and short, I read it all but if he wrote a 1000 word essay, I would have liked a nice brief tl;dr. If there wasn't one, I'd just save the article and read it when I have time or can be bothered.

Though I agree with the premise that information isn’t consumed by quantity but by interest, I don't think there's anything wrong with providing a "tl;dr".

In fact, it can be useful in most cases. I think it helps me establishing wether an article is worth my time or not, wether it interests me or not.

Is better to not care and at least have some abbreviated idea about a topic, or better to not care and no idea?

"It is important to know what is going on in the world around you. But to know every detail, every update, every little thing that happens? No."

tl;dr Says there is a problem with tl;dr, arguments reveal why we need tl;dr more than ever.

Since when were summaries bad?

Content should be revised until there's no way to summarize it with a TL;DR.

TL;DR: Don't bother :)

This is why your first few statements should convey the overall message of what follows. It's just effective style. Then you don't need a TL;DR.

The problem with techie ppl posts about the problem with x