Are Tweets And Text Messaging Actually Increasing The Appeal Of Long Form Writing?
from the entirely-possible dept
To hear Nick Carr explain the internet these days, you'd think that it was killing off interest in long form reading. Of course, that's not actually true. Carr made a classic error in the thesis for his last book, not realizing that a large segment of the population used to do no long form reading at all -- and the fact that many of them are now reading something is actually showing increased readership, rather than decreased.Clive Thompson has now stepped into this debate (not directly naming Carr, but it certainly sounds like he's referencing him), suggesting that all this tweeting and texting has actually increased an appreciation for long form writing, though potentially decreased interest in middle form writing. His argument is anecdotal, so I'd really like to see some more data on it, but it does match at least some of what I've found. The crux of his argument is that people who just have a little bit to write now use things like Twitter to pass that along, rather than writing a short blog post, which are all almost always longer than your typical tweet. But, they do save up the "big ideas" and write much longer posts. And he notes that many bloggers have found that those longer, more in-depth posts, seem to get more attention.
To some extent, we've seen the same thing. While we still do have shorter "mid-form" posts, the posts on Techdirt are now a hell of a lot longer than they used to be a few years back, and the longer ones do seem to get more attention. For years, I ridiculously tried to keep to a rule that all Techdirt posts should fit within one paragraph. The idea was to keep them short and focused, but at times, when explaining deeper concepts, this got silly and made for exceptionally cramped blog posts (hello, wall of text). At some point I realized that was pointless, and switched to a style that went to what was appropriate. And it was about that time that Techdirt's traffic shot up and we actually started building a decent following. I can't say that there's direct cause-and-effect, but at least my experience seems to mesh with what Thompson suggests.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: attention, long form writing, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limits of most any kind are frustrating as hell and make people want to go beyond them; it's just human nature. Speed limits, 140 character limits, drinking age, copyright length limits, non-unlimited Internet plans, only enjoying as much media as you can afford to pay for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The game is one of the longest-running Collectable Card Games in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obligatory reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Long form writing
I've been involved in direct-response marketing for over 11 years now and this topic is often discussed in these circles under the guise of, "Which works better, long or short-form sales letters?"
And the consistent answer has always, and will always be, "The ones with the best content work better." If people are interested in what you have to say, they will read as much INTERESTING and compelling content as you are willing to provide.
The issue isn't whether or not there is too much copy - only whether the text is too boring or not. The problem with Twitter (which I never use, even though I have a presence there) isn't the 140 characters, it's the sheer lack of meaning and purpose of 99.9% of all the posts.
Nice post, thanks! Craig
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Long form writing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Long form writing
There's such a wide variety of content being posted to Twitter that your assessment just doesn't make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the most part, the modern world is a short attention span thing, we all run around in huge shallow pools of information, getting our feet wet and rarely being interested to go past that. In many cases, searching Google for information is meaningless, as Google is popularity based in much of what it does and quite simply, people tend to link to short stories.
If you are use to writing in 140 characters, perhaps a couple of paragraphs seems long.
Do we have any proof to support this one, or is this just the TD opinion about someone else's opinion again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do we have any proof to support this one, or is this just the TD opinion about someone else's opinion again?
There are like two or three points in this post where Mike admits that this is just some anecdotal musing based on small correlations he's observed, not any sort of firm assertion he's making based on data. You see, some of us come here because we enjoy reading and discussing interesting ideas - even ones in their early stages - not just because we desperately need to find a hole in every single post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So my comments are relevant, it's just an opinion, the term long form is being used to describe something that would have been considered a summary a few years back, and so on.
It isn't really informative, because there is nothing of substance. I didn't learn anything, except perhaps that it was a "slow news day" in the tech world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And when Techdirt refers to old posts, it always links to them. Perhaps there are times when the phrasing of the reference could be called misleading - though it has never struck me as intentionally so - but the breadcrumb trail is always there for anyone who wishes to delve deeper and understand the chain of facts and assertions. If you take the phrase "we've already shown that..." at face value, that's your problem - especially on an opinion blog where the full statement "we've already shown why we believe that" seems pretty implicit to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The idea is to create a sort of alternate reality, where actually digging down to find the true sources of these facts is all but impossible, because each step only points you to another, older, post, which in turn does the same.
Example would be the patent story that talks about the idea of a 5 year and then no more appeals limit. That is only a suggestion, a muse, by a single person who happens to be for more patent protection. The reply from the other side is from someone who is agressively ant-patent. The way it is shown on TD suggests that some great conspiracy to lock patents after 5 years was hatched, but was magically squashed by anti-patent crusaders. It is very likely at some point that the story will be referenced as "we have shown how patent maximalists tried to lock the patent system up" or some similar nonsense. The reality is it never happened, it was two opinion pieces tossed together to look like controversy, where little or none exists.
the full statement "we've already shown why we believe that" seems pretty implicit to me
It may seem implicit to you, but the omission is exactly how opinions are turned into quasi-facts that much of the TD realm is built on. Truthiness, I think it is called. Or perhaps the old "if you repeat something often enough, it becomes the truth".
Over time, people stop adding the "we believe" or "our opinion is" and start accepting it as fact. After that, it's all downhill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is, I don't buy it. Once in awhile there are situations which, I can understand, might raise that suspicion to a degree - but those seem rather incidental, unintentional and far from the norm.
Let's look at your example.
That is only a suggestion, a muse, by a single person who happens to be for more patent protection.
Well, that's just plain not true. The post espousing the 5-year limit was written by Dale Halling, a high-profile patent lawyer, and it begins by calling it "one of the best ideas [he has] heard" - then goes on to make a detailed argument, including case law. I'd hardly call that "a muse"
But more importantly, the "a single person" part is either a lie or a demonstration of the fact that you didn't even read the material. Dale Halling was commenting on an idea originally proposed by Gene Guinn of IPWatchdog, a popular IP law blog.
So already we have two influential lawyers supporting that idea. That hardly counts as a "muse" and, last I checked, two people are not "a single person"
The reply from the other side is from someone who is agressively ant-patent.
Now this is just silly. If Mike can be described as "aggressively anti-patent", then Quinn and Halling can definitely be described as "aggressively pro-patent". How come when they express their opinions it's simple harmless musing, but when Mike responds with his own it's an aggressive attack?
The way it is shown on TD suggests that some great conspiracy to lock patents after 5 years was hatched, but was magically squashed by anti-patent crusader
Where? How? Here's the quote from Mike's post:
"So it seems almost laughable, then, to hear a suggestion that things should move in the other direction. However, some of the patent systems loudest defenders are now proposing that patents should become incontestable after a period of five years"
Seems entirely accurate to me. It was a suggestion proposed by high-profile patent defenders. Where does this say, or even imply, otherwise?
I think you should shine your flashlight on yourself for a second, since your description of Techdirt tactics seems more like your own: you keep repeating the same few accusations over and over and over again in the hopes that people will start to believe them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Long-Form Techdirt
Congratulations on breaking through the one-paragraph barrier. You are truly on the cultural cutting edge.
Nick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Long-Form Techdirt
You have discovered basic sarcasm. You are truly on the comedy cutting edge.
Marcus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Long-Form Techdirt
Funny. For someone so against short-form, you would think you'd be able to come back with something more substantive than an ill-intentioned one-liner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worked for my son
[ link to this | view in chronology ]