To this point, I’ve been letting blog posts find their own lengths. I haven’t checked all posts, but based on some spot checks the typical length is 600-700 words. That’s a bit long for most websites–the target for most of the tech-oriented and “educational” sites that I’ve looked at seems to be 300-400 words.
I could insert a joke here about short attention spans, but I think I’ll refrain. It’s really not an attention span issue, but a different focus.
I’ve been treating the blog posts as something more akin to a newspaper column than a news story, and my word counts do align pretty well with that paradigm. However, since one of my specific goals with the blog is to build up a portfolio of writings that can be used for a variety of potential employment opportunities, it seems like it would be a good idea to have some shorter pieces.
So, for the rest of this week, I’m going to target my posts to that 300-400 word range. The tricky part will be to provide useful information while still leaving some room for my “signature snark”.
You might ask why would I include snark at the possible risk of losing information. Go ahead, ask. [pause] OK, even if you didn’t ask, I’ll explain. If I don’t include the snark, there’s nothing to distinguish my posts from any of the others on the same subjects. As an example, without the snark, yesterday’s post on HP’s super-hyper-jumbo-mega-tablet wouldn’t have had any content that wasn’t available in the other (literally, according to Google) 275,000 reports. Why would you come here when you could get the same information from all those other sources?
As you read the rest of this week’s posts, please consider the balance of information to snark, and let me know how you think I’m doing.
PS: 308 words, not counting this sentence.