"TLDR" is unnecessary

TLDR is a pragmatic device; it's a written discourse marker. Calling it "unnecessary" is just like saying that "well...", "y'know", "so...", "like" and all those other little "filler words" that your high school English teacher doesn't like are "unnecessary". In formal prose, where all that's supposed to matter is textual semantics, sure, they're not necessary, and I wouldn't use them there. But in informal discourse, they're essential; not for conveying propositional information, but for negotiating social discourse information.

I don't think this is generally true. The purpose of long form writing is to make the reader draw a conclusion that they may not agree with at the beginning of the article. Studies have shown that once we form a conclusion, we're much less likely to change our minds, so if an article lead with a controversial point we'd internally say "no!" and stick to it rather than letting the article make its point. By not knowing exactly what an article is arguing, we're more receptive to things that could go against our intuition.

I do agree that TL;DRs can be elided for articles that simply state facts or uncontroversial ideas.

The US military frequently uses the abbreviation "BLUF" (Bottom Line Up Front) for the same purpose as TLDR at the beginning of an email. It's not like the idea of tldr is some perversion born of the Internet.

A TLDR already has a name, a "summary". Not only a mere extra 4 characters, it's not an acronym for a phrase but a word that says what it is. Amazing, really.

The biggest problem I find with TLDR is that people that use it do so incorrectly. You don't put your summary at the end of the article. You put it at the beginning.

I also find many writers who use TLDR explicitly are rather poor writers. Lots of spelling and grammar mistakes, and the inability to make concise, cogent points. And not knowing what cogent means.

From a UI/UX perspective: "TL;DR" improves scannability.

As a reader, prefacing that first line/paragraph with "TL;DR" means that all I'll have to read is just that part. This is useful because not everyone uses their first paragraph or sentence to outline the general idea of the article. For example, there might be an anecdote, or a quote, or whatever else to start the article.

TLDR mostly shows up in places like Reddit. The communication that happens on Reddit is unlike anything we've ever had, millions of people all gathering to casually talk with each other. There is no expectation of depth (anymore, anyway), nor do people put much stock in Reddit comments. Thus TLDR helps people's ideas get across and also probably improves readership of comments (people read the TLDR, and then realize they should go back and read the whole thing). It's a new construct that has evolved for a new form of communication.

I agree in principle, but I feel like the author might be missing the point; the reason "tldr" is used is because it has evolved as an efficient speech marker.

If you think about forum posting as a medium, then a "tldr" makes sense -- generally, you scroll down a list of messages. When you encounter a wall of text, you can either start reading (to see if you'll want to read the rest), or keep scrolling past until your eyes reach the "tldr" symbol, which draws you to the main "point" of the post without requiring you to mentally invest in reading the whole first paragraph.

I don't agree with the Douglas's interpreting an author's own writing of a TL;DR as answering the question of whether the author himself read it -- rather, it is pre-empting the question that might be asked by readers.

While it is true that it is entirely possible (and common practice) to provide the content of a TL;DR in the first sentence, it might not always be there. The reader can only know if the first sentence was a summary by first reading it (see the Halting Problem).

TL;DR is an elegant solution to this problem because it only requires five (minimally four) characters to be read to identify the summarizing statement, and then consume its content. And with the immense amount of content begging for my attention on the Internet, I for one appreciate being able to quickly determine if reading the article in question is something I will likely want to do.

TL;DR: TL;DR != opening sentence

I disagree. While something that is well written shouldn't need a tldr, it does service as a device for people who consume a lot of text. Its a standard shorthand indicating the author did in fact write a summary

TLDR: Write like Hemingway, not like Faulkner.

I find this a pretty weak argument against the tl;dr. "tl;dr" has become a noun, that means one-line / extremely short summary. Language sometimes grows like that.

A better argument against the tl;dr would be that the piece you're writing it for becomes redundant, provided it's an accurate tl;dr. The term tl;dr wouldn't be needed then, because the tl;dr itself becomes your piece.

If it isn't an accurate tl;dr, there's no reason for providing it in the first place, except maybe for giving a rough idea of what your piece is about. OP rightly points out, though, that conventions already exist for just that. A descriptive title or an introduction clearly distinguishable from the rest of your piece, for example.

If you really need a TL;DR, you failed to fulfill your promise to the reader. Writing should be concise, accurate, and to the point, and we as writers should always strive live by the wisdom of Strunk: "Use less words."

When someone opens your webpage, they are entering into an implied agreement with you. They are seeking information and you are supplying it to them. If they are unwilling to uphold their end of the bargain by demanding a TL;DR from me without giving me the chance to read my words, I don't feel any obligation to satisfy them.

The other half of this implied bargain is that I simply offer what they came to find, and if I fail them in that regard, then I should be required to post a TL;DR because all 2000 to 3000 words I blathered out should be in 50 words or less. If I was able to offer a 50-word summary, then I would have simply tacked on an extra 25 words and eschewed the TL;DR.

If you don't like my attitude, that is fine. You probably aren't my target audience, and this is fine. The World Wide Web is a very large place.

But how does the reader know you are one of the authors that summarise succinctly at the beginning of every article? Especially as they reader may read many articles of differing quality a day. tl;dr to me, is like statically typed English, it improves readability if you know to look for it.

TLDR is just a warning to the reader that the rest of the text might not be worth his time. It also helps to make explicit that the paragraph following it is a summary of the post.

It's the same basic principle as newspaper articles, or the essay format you were taught in school: summary first, details later. Or make your points up front, then prove them.

That only solves a part of the problem, though. Highly upvoted long comments on Reddit are particularly frustrating because so many of them have content that's weak or just plain wrong. I'm convinced that only a small fraction of voters actually read them.

I'm not taking style notes from anyone who uses the word "leverage" instead of "use"

TL;DR is for people who forget "statement, explanation, example". Usually, they write some poorly formed paragraph and put a "TL;DR" at the end. Often, that TL;DR is simply the "statement" part of the paragraph that should have been at the very beginning anyway.

TL;DR: most people can't English anymore.

Didn't tl;dr start as an insult? What the article is describing is a response to the insult that is tl;dr.

Pedantic, but: tldr existed well before reddit.

TL;DR, summary, critical précis, abstract, thesis statement, inverted pyramid and similar rapid summation styles are both useful and have a long tradition.

TL;DR is an inherent criticism of writing that lacks sufficient discernable coherent structure to rapidly assimilate meaning, whether by want of language, typography, or simply cogent thought. There's a lot of sloppy writing on the Internet (and off).

TL;DR is a recognizable convention that serves a purpose. It can be tagged on by others (the way I first saw it used), or be added by the original author, usually in self-deprecating jest, with the meaning of "do you find this too long to read, here's my summary" . Better if people would write clearly in the first place. Surely that's a simple technical problem, no?

TL;DR: Essay misses origins, benefits, and use-conventions of this hack.

TL;DR is, however, remarkably ineffective when it happens to begin every paragraph of an essay. Please avoid this use case.

This post is poorly argued in my opinion. The author fails to provide an example of the "tools to summarize and communicate your thoughts" which he speaks of. As a result, the specifics of his argument are left to conjecture of the readers, producing an unfocused discussion.

My take on 'TLDR'. It isn't typically equivalent to a well structured opening paragraph. As others have mentioned, it's more akin to an abstract, as used in academic writing.

It denotes that the author will most likely use brief text to summarise and, for the sake of efficiency, it may be in a completely different writing style to the rest of the text.

TLDR is a useful tool for allowing readers to make a rapid decision as to whether the following content is relevant to them. In some ways I see it as a courtesy to the reader.

I think this a great point. If you're in the habit of writing a TLDR for articles, maybe you can try writing the TLDR and then afterwards removing the 4 letters "TLDR" and leaving the sentence there. It's great to summarize in the first sentence.

TL;DR is not merely about summarizing. It's a way, especially in the Reddit community, to add something extra. TL;DR can be a summary, but it can also be a tool for sarcasm, smugness, or getting a certain tone across. Sure you can summarize yourself in the opening line, but you can also make a calculated choice to use TL;DR for some other motive. I often find TL;DR to be a cynical view of your readership because it's as if you're stating, "I know what I wrote is long, and you readers aren't taking the time my writing deserves! So I'm just going to put this summary at the end to shut you up."

TL;DR is a useful convention for busy readers, but it should be at the beginning, not the end.

Look at the lede (the first sentence or two) of any article in any newspaper. It's marked in bold face, and summarizes the whole story. It helps the busy reader decide if he wants to "drill down" by reading the rest of the article. TL;DR could do the same thing, if only people put it at the beginning.

I teach essay writing, so I have strong views about this. ;)

This is a bit ridiculous. Moving the summary to the beginning is no better. Simply write more concisely and elegantly.

My favorite illustration of this was in the movie "A River Runs Through It"—a young Norman brought his essays to his father, who would say always "Good. Now make it half as long." This was repeated a few times, then it was good enough. Would that more writers could follow this mantra.

As a cofounder of http://tldr.io I'd say that having a tl;dr separated from the main article is very useful for readability. Like ps for example it helps structure the text. tl;dr version of articles are essential to get directly to the point. As an heavy reader I like to have theses summaries detached from the article.

I like how the first sentence embodies the very idea it is espousing. If you read only that sentence and close the page, you've still have taken away 80% of the information of the piece.

An important UI component for this technique to land: the first sentence must be short, and on its own line. Do that well, and a "TL;DR" prefix is optional at best.

TLDR: Today's emerging conventions are tomorrow's traditions.

The tools that the English language now has to summarise and communicate thoughts most likely emerged as a convention after years or decades of use, just like any other part of linguist evolution.

I also disagree that having an acronym unfamiliar to someone would prevent them from reading on.

So the TL;DR of this article is:

- Author should summarize their idea in the first sentence of their writings.

- Prefixing this summary with TL;DR is useless and asinine as it stands for "Too Long; Didn't Read".

http://tldr.io/tldrs/50f34acc3ea2fa3e06001f25/tldr-is-unnece...

I like TLDR for being able to cmd+F to it quickly. In a well written article with an abstract or a good first sentence, I still have to find the first sentence. With a TLDR, I can jump to that section quickly. I know this sounds like the height of being lazy, but I assure you, it's not.

I think TL;DR; also serves an important role of sarcastically dismissing unreasonably long diatribes that go nowhere, say for a Steve Yegge blog post or something like that. Although, I agree for prefacing you're own work with TLDR, it is somewhat annoying usage.

I disagree, I'll often look for a TLDR to get a summary of an article if I'm unable to spend full time reading it, for example when at work.

I do agree that the acronym TLDR doesn't make sense, perhaps we need a new acronym?

Great point, although tl;dr works for short comments, whereas the "trick" of putting the summary in the beginning of a text needs some actual "body" before it works - otherwise it is just confusing.

"I'm sorry I wrote you such a long letter. I didn't have time to write you a short one." - Blaise Pascal

Editing takes time, much quicker to slap a TLDR on top I suppose.

"p.s." is kind of unnecessary too these days but you can still use it. I like "TL;DR". I think of it as a sub-headline.

TLDR is the common man's academic abstract.

or just accept that TLDR means more than what your narrow definition and current pet peeve would otherwise allow?

TLDR; TLDR has a higher visibility.

No

But how can I know if it's summory or just first sentence?

It means "too long; don't read." I'm not sure why the past tense variation sticks; but it's a label/post-it/card/sign/placard/billboard/sign-post/warning/caute!/message not to read the identified text for concern of irrelevance.

It's like a voting system. The ";" functions as the hash tag: "#tldnr", "#tldr", etc.

Don't bother reading this. You are not missing anything.

In academic writing, "TL;DR" is an "Abstract".

I'll start deriding TL;DRs as unnecessary when academic writing no longer uses the Abstract.