I always passed off Jakob Nielsen as simply a UI geek. No more — the man knows his stuff about blogging and writing, too. This latest essay of his is one I find very relevant in light of my own background as a blogger, and my previous considerable background as a published writer. I find it very hard to disagree with the case Jakob is making here. Reminds me of a piece I wrote a few years ago, for IDG’s Darwin Magazine, putting forth the notion that blogging was not soon going to be adopted by most mainstream businesses — which some in the blogosphere immediately (in the typical knee-jerk reaction it’s become known for) took as a negative attack on blogging. Of course, it wasn’t; for one thing, I said I felt blogging was great for certain kinds of businesses, both large and small, and gave examples.
Now, I feel an echo of sorts happening. Blogging is not a panacea, this essay also reasons — meaning blogging as most people know it: short posts that aren’t very well thought out. However, what will never go out of style, he says (and I wholeheartedly agree), is good writing. That is, lengthier articles actually based on thinking, preparation, and research — and, not unimportantly, that exhibit a real voice.
Here’s what the submitter on Digg (“spinchange”) had to say in his summary of Jakob Nielsen’s great piece….and do read the full piece if you’re at all interested in the topic of blogging :
“To demonstrate world-class expertise, avoid quickly written, shallow postings. Instead, invest your time in thorough, value-added content that attracts paying customers. Warning – this is a long article, stuffed with charts and statistical concepts – like standard deviations and utility functions – it flies in the face of guidelines for web writing.”
What are your thoughts on this topic?
I think Jakob should at least try blogging before he knocks it. There are plenty of people who are able to prove their expertise writing what one would consider blog posts rather than articles. Marc Cuban, Seth Godin, and Jason Calicanis are three names that come to mind off the top of my head.
Graeme,
This is funny since I agree with you fully on 99% of everything you write about and that we talk about…but not with this post! This has hit a hot button as you’ll be able to tell by the time you finish this… 😉
In the same way that John C. Dvorak “baits” Mac users to build up readership for his columns, I submit that Nielsen does exactly the same thing and I think that he’s simply full of sh*t and is irrelevant (and to prove-the-point I suspect he’ll soon have an article entitled, “Why the iPhone interface is horrible” or something like it).
Why do I think he’s a windbag? Back in 2003, Nielsen pontificated about “PDF: Not fit for human consumption” which I railed against. The publisher for PDFWorld picked it up and you can read about it here: http://www.planetpdf.com/enterprise/article.asp?ContentID=6360
His web site looks like it was developed in 1996 for the Lynx browser….what’s up with THAT? For a so-called usability guru, his stuff isn’t usable for anyone but another academic and screams to the world that he completely doesn’t understand design (and probably owns a Zune and drives a tan Buick LeSabre).
What he writes about blog writing is so obvious that it’s barely worth reading. It’s nearly like someone saying, “When you go on a job interview, don’t have food stains on your clothes and greasy hair.” Of COURSE anyone wishing to be taken seriously needs to write in-depth. I’ve often agonized over my own writing thinking I should devolve into sound bites…but then think, “Why bother if you’re going to be minimalistic with it?”
What Nielsen misses with his charting of people’s writing is that the *world* and everything in it is a bell curve: sports; academia; business; education; there are always 4-5% of people at the top, the majority in the middle and the laggards at the end.
What about the Long Tail though? My belief is that it’s the *cumulative* conversations, perspectives and opinions on a topic that augment and shape ideas and knowledge. I’ve read several posts from thought leaders and developers in Web 2.0 that completely dismiss Nielsen as a stuffed shirt, old blowhard that has never shipped anything in his life. Add to the Long Tail argument my belief that experts don’t exist — including self-proclaimed ones like Nielsen — and you can see why I don’t take him seriously.
~Steve
P.S. I’ll await your email that says, “So Steve…tell me what you REALLY think willya?”
Jacob’s talking about a client (supposedly the top expert in his/her field) that wants to make money “from” his/her writings. A lot of blogs are more about making money “because” of your writings. Two different scenarios and both appropriate for a stated purpose. So, I don’t think Jacobs advice applies at all to “most” writers or bloggers. And, it might not necessarily be the right advice for his client. The client may be able to make more money “because” of his writing through consulting and speaking.
Of all people, Prince has figured this out. He’s giving away his new album stuffed in British newspapers. He makes money via concerts and swag. He makes money “because” of his CDs, not “from” his CDs.
well, I sure got a rise out of three of my smart colleagues there! and they all commented within minutes of one another, too
guess I’ll have to ask for comments more often 🙂 either that, or I’ll have to keep finding such controversial topics/people to write about…
—–
PING:
TITLE: An Administrative Consideration: Splitting the Blog
URL: http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/archive/2007/07/16/285
IP: 208.113.206.154
BLOG NAME: Enfranchised Mind
DATE: 07/16/2007 06:27:32 PM
After comparing the number of comments on technical articles versus fluff articles on this blog, I spent some time considering if the blog wouldnt be better off split into two: one purely technical blog, and one for more personal/fluff pieces. …