ONE Kind of Blog Post That Makes Me Mad
May. 11th, 2009 08:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
In all of the on-line guides to "improve your blogging and increase your audience," there is the "list of kinds of blog entries." This list says that there are X kinds of entries, and using them will help drive traffic to your site: The Leading Question, The Scare Tactic, The "I will make your rich/sexy/healthy" Entry, The How-To, and finally The List.
Yes, the list recommends itself.
And normally, I like lists. Since I do web development and design, lists are good for me: "15 sexy footers," "10 trends in graphic design for 2009," "12 javascript techniques every developer should know," "6 CMS frameworks that real web developers use."
You know what lists I hate? There are two kinds:
"3000 Fonts Every Designer Should Own!"
Okay, that's just obviously stupid. A designer should have a stable of maybe 300 fonts he or she really likes, and suitcases of styles for specific genres, but 3000 fonts is more than anyone can be asked to carry around in his or her head. There's no point to that kind of list: either we already have the font sets we enjoy, or we don't have time to filter through 3000 fonts to pick out ones we need for any immanent projects.
But even more blazingly stupid, in a similar way, is this one:
"95 resources to make you more efficient and productive!"
That's the height of ridiculous: reading 95 separate articles just to find the three or four techniques that might appeal to you to make you more productive is a waste of your productive hours. A thoughtful blogger would have pared this down to "Four techniques for maintaining your productive day," and under each technique, "Three tools for maintaining this technique," with commentary for each. A blind list, especially of 95 different articles, tells me that the writer probably hasn't read them all and is just trying to drive traffic.
I can consume 10 to 20 graphical examples, and when it comes to development techniques a well-written headline will help me filter through 15 or so to find the two I don't know yet. But lists are supposed to help reader acheive some goal, and these super-long, super-fat lists without descriptions or guidance from the writer are just a waste of time.
Yes, the list recommends itself.
And normally, I like lists. Since I do web development and design, lists are good for me: "15 sexy footers," "10 trends in graphic design for 2009," "12 javascript techniques every developer should know," "6 CMS frameworks that real web developers use."
You know what lists I hate? There are two kinds:
"3000 Fonts Every Designer Should Own!"
Okay, that's just obviously stupid. A designer should have a stable of maybe 300 fonts he or she really likes, and suitcases of styles for specific genres, but 3000 fonts is more than anyone can be asked to carry around in his or her head. There's no point to that kind of list: either we already have the font sets we enjoy, or we don't have time to filter through 3000 fonts to pick out ones we need for any immanent projects.
But even more blazingly stupid, in a similar way, is this one:
"95 resources to make you more efficient and productive!"
That's the height of ridiculous: reading 95 separate articles just to find the three or four techniques that might appeal to you to make you more productive is a waste of your productive hours. A thoughtful blogger would have pared this down to "Four techniques for maintaining your productive day," and under each technique, "Three tools for maintaining this technique," with commentary for each. A blind list, especially of 95 different articles, tells me that the writer probably hasn't read them all and is just trying to drive traffic.
I can consume 10 to 20 graphical examples, and when it comes to development techniques a well-written headline will help me filter through 15 or so to find the two I don't know yet. But lists are supposed to help reader acheive some goal, and these super-long, super-fat lists without descriptions or guidance from the writer are just a waste of time.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-11 03:22 pm (UTC)(Out of the 35 standard PostScript fonts, I have a fondness for New Century Schoolbook, personally.)
no subject
Date: 2009-05-11 03:34 pm (UTC)rational analysispopular tolerance, but despite this, but it's a clean, well-designed font, and does not belong in this list.no subject
Date: 2009-05-11 03:42 pm (UTC)I was trying to come up with old, overused, or ugly serif, sans serif, and monospace fonts, and my mind blanked on a serif font for the collection.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-11 04:13 pm (UTC)Bad idea for the web, tho'.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-11 05:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-14 05:04 pm (UTC)But hey, I still like Avant Garde Gothic and Palatino a lot.
Some day I will get around to doing a 'Free the PostScript 35!' t-shirt.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-14 05:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-11 03:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-11 03:39 pm (UTC)Typography designer geeks are a little weird. (I should know, I came close to being one. I've even built a few complete typefaces. They weren't good, but the process was highly illuminating.)
appropriate lulz
Date: 2009-05-11 04:12 pm (UTC)That's so like trying to find a restaurant with translators
Date: 2009-05-11 04:22 pm (UTC)You can get real hungry, real fast that way.
Re: That's so like trying to find a restaurant with translators
Date: 2009-05-11 06:34 pm (UTC)Re: appropriate lulz
Date: 2009-05-11 05:09 pm (UTC)