How To: Write for the web

[RuDeDoGg]

Check it out, it's a new article I just got done writing. I think a lot of AdSense publishers don't know how to write for the web. Theres a HUGE difference between writing for the web, and writing for print. Copying Wikipedia articles doesn't work! :P

Writing content and articles for the web (http://www.discussitonline.com/Writing-Content-For-The-Web.html)

Digg: Digg It! (http://digg.com/design/How_to_write_content_for_the_web)
Shoutwire: Shout It! (http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/18633/How_to_write_content_for_the_web)

[energydude]

Dude,

Great article. I found it to be exactly what you say writing for the web should be. I "dugg" it...no literally! :)

Tom Z.
http://www.energyrefuge.com

[Danny]

Looks like a good link, Havent read it yet but cheers

[RuDeDoGg]

Thanks for the compliments you two :) I read all the information today before I wrote the article, and wow! I had no idea how to write for the web. I think my earnings and return visitors will definately improve from it.

[Padme]

Great article. I agree that writing for the web is actually very different than writing for print. Awsome information in your article RuDeDoGg, every web content writer should have that information in mind ;)

[RRWH]

A good draft!

but with ....

use words that make since to everyone

Your word didn't make "Since" to me.

[odradek]

Hi!

Even thought this was quite familiar for me, article was good and it had same "touch" as what it was all about, simple and easy to read. :)

So yes... I 'digg it'.

[jhmattern]

Nice article. I just forwarded the link to my Technology writers at Suite101 to have them take a look (the style we obviously want them writing in), and I passed it along to the other Suite101 Editors so they could share it with their writers if they'd like.

Jenn

[axemedia]

You neglected to mention keywords and key phrases. This is vastly important for web based content.

Think about the keywords and phrases surfers are likely to use in a search engine to find your article. Then make certain to use those specific phrases in the article. Add them to any headings and sub headings. Sprinkle them throughout the text. But do not over do it, as it will turn off your readers and may look like keyword spam to search engine bots that crawl the page.

In places where you might normally use a word like "the", or "it", in reference to a keyword previously mentioned, throw in that keyword. Do it just slightly more than you would write naturally. I say "slightly more" just so you get a few more occurences of the exact keyphrase in there without it sounding too contrived.

Write your article first, then think about the keywords and look for the ones that you already have in there. Then go back and reword headings and subheadings with those keywords and phrases, then look for a few more places in the body of text where you could "stuff" it in a few more times.

Or begin with keywords and phrases you have researched. Then write your article around them.

[slloyd]

Theres a HUGE difference between writing for the web, and writing for print.

If only my clients would get that. They think they can just hire a writer -- any writer -- to do the work. They don't see the huge difference. It drives me nuts!

Good article, but I agree with axemedia. You need to include keywords/keyword phrases.

[NewBeing]

Good article, I have just read a similar piece on zillionbits.com http://www.zillionbits.com/misc/how-to-write-good-web-content/

There is a link to Jakob Nielson - Writing for the web, http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/. He discusses similar points to your article. One interesting point, is the 'inverted pyramid' where you write with the conclusion first.

[marcel]

nice article

[old_expat]

Keep paragraphs shot, 5 sentences or less usually works well

Proof read. Every time you edit text, start at the beginning and read the entire article.

[ares82]

I've been writing content for the web for quite a while now. In fact, its now my full time business and I hire many writers.

We found the best response we get from content sites and Adsense is keeping articles around 350 words and use a lot of headings and dot points if you write more then that.

[MattUK]

Good read, thanks. A lot of those points apply to any kind of writing and I wish people would pay attention to them more.

[alexis]

A nice read, but the couple of typos here and there in an article about writing didn't look too well :)

[rubeina]

It takes 25% longer to read online than reading printHow you know it's 25% any proof? :D

Nice read really, thank you :)

[infonote]

From where did you get that statistic? 25%

[old_expat]

We found the best response we get from content sites and Adsense is keeping articles around 350 words and use a lot of headings and dot points if you write more then that.

When you have a subject that just can't be adequately covered in that approximate wordcount, do you go to multiple pages or organize it by subtopics .. and what is the result of each method?

[old_expat]

Theres a HUGE difference between writing for the web, and writing for print.

I wouldn't say it's "huge".

A good writer for print can adapt to the web easier than a terrible writer can learn to write good copy, IMO.

Also, I wonder if the comment from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html Tells the whole story.

People rarely read Web pages word by word; instead, they scan the page, picking out individual words and sentences. In a recent study John Morkes and I found that 79 percent of our test users always scanned any new page they came across; only 16 percent read word-by-word.

Consider this part:

... 79 percent of our test users always scanned any new page they came across

My method, if I am in a hurry, is to scan a page then bookmark it for a detailed read when I have time. If a page looks too skimpy, I usually won't go back. Why should I?

And while I can only speak for my own behavior, I will seldom click a link or ad in a superficial article, or an article with with questionable credibility. I will usually go back to the SE.

[StuartL]

For all those wondering about the 25% figure, it is quite a legitimate figure and not one that someone has plucked out of the air. I can't remember the research that found that people do read slower when reading from a computer monitor but I did read the original report a year or two ago.

[old_expat]

For all those wondering about the 25% figure, it is quite a legitimate figure and not one that someone has plucked out of the air. I can't remember the research that found that people do read slower when reading from a computer monitor but I did read the original report a year or two ago.

There is sort of a contadiction to the "25% slower" argument here http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/jan99.asp

[digitalhaven]

That was helpful thanks, I'm considering writing an e-book, do you think this applies to e-books to?

[StuartL]

That was helpful thanks, I'm considering writing an e-book, do you think this applies to e-books to?

I think it applies even more so to ebooks because many ebooks are read on a much smaller screen than the monitor on your desktop.

[JEET]

Good read, although sounds very familiar...

[TigerGreen]

Nice short article and to the point. Once I got in the groove of writing for the net, I found it easier to write more content...though probably not as good as most in this forum subsection.

[freestuffpage]

Hi,

Thanks for the useful article. Sometimes, it is easy to forget how different the users will read online than on paper.

[energydude]

I agree about the 25% theory. People have such short attention spans....
<energydude starts drooling and forgets what he is writing>
People like to see white space....a lot of content can be intimidating. Keep it short and simple. I would agree about adding some keyword discussion to the article, but that is a really good article from just having done the research in one day.:)

[marketjunction]

heres a HUGE difference between writing for the web, and writing for print.


You do know that the techniques people are using for writing that they think are new and special came from print journalism right? (write on a 6th grade level, people scan headlines, inverted pyramid writing, bite sized pieces, short sentences and so forth)

Whether a journalist and media source use them on a piece is another matter.

[glennhefley]

I'm a full time writer for the web as well. Have been for over a decade. I've been fortunate enough to build up a client base that has allowed me to freelance for over 5 years.

I have no idea where the 350 word thing comes from, but that's just silly.

For product copy, perhaps. For articles? you must be joking. This sounds like one of those little factoids someone says which seems to make sense, but has no real basis in fact. Like everyone knows that Humphrey Bogart said "Play it again Sam." Only he didn't. That isn't a line Humphrey ever said.

We found the best response we get from content sites and Adsense is keeping articles around 350 words and use a lot of headings and dot points if you write more then that.

What does that mean? You get more traffic? More clicks? What response is best from a content site? And who is it best for?

It bothers me a great deal as a professional web writer to hear the spillage of some SEO theories, which have no basis in any real testing, and lead people through expensive re-writing of their websites, hoping to press out a bit more traffic or sales. If there is a real third-party peer reviewed study out there for 350 word articles, I would like to see it. Seriously. I've search around for that and I can't find it... and I'm a damn good hunter.

The only reason stuff like that seems to be true is because SEO people keep trying to say it is...

[glennhefley]

Oh, the article.. that's what we are talking about.. sorry.

Nice regurgitation of some very simple, basic ideas that float around like dust bunnies. The visualization of vomiting dust balls seemed appropriate. (light humor to ease the burden of reading this post).

"Educated adults read at 200-350 wpm, at best 400 wpm for full comprehension. Research has shown that speed reading at 600 wpm can achieve about 70% comprehension, and 50% comprehension at 1000 wpm."
-- wikipedia

A general idea of computer reading speed can be found on this study done at Wichita
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/72/LineLength.htm

Interesting read for those who truly believe reading speed has any correlation with how much you should put on your article. I have to say; the logic of that is really warped.

The reason people read slower is CRT eye strain. The same condition that causes dry eyes. When reading on the screen, the eyes tend not to blink as much, causing strain resulting in eye focus speeds to be slower.

Why you would suggest that; since my reading speed is physically slower on the screen, you should write "50%" less, is not congruent (oh... sorry for those of you without a vocabulary ... "does not add up").

The size of an article should be as long as it needs to be to get your point across. The use of bullets should be as required to put across points, and summary, not mandatory because of the idea that people don't want to read, or take the time to understand your writing.

The web is text based. I think most people understand that they are going to have to read when they go on the web.

Other than that I found it to be very unoriginal (boarding on plagiarism), uneffectual (bored me to tears), and with no hyper links or references to back it up (ignoring its own advice).

I found the spelling errors to be congruent with someone who didn't really care about the subject matter or the art of writing; just wanted hits on the Google Ads.

Too harsh? Perhaps, but when I see a post that says someone wrote an article about how to write on the web, I expect to see something that is different from the advice that has been published on the web for the last 15 years. I also expect that someone to have some idea of what they are talking about, with an educated understanding about reading, writing, language and communication.

For example, the idea that you write at a low vocabulary level is just plain silly. You write at the level of your audience. The two are not the same at any stretch of the imagination.

If you are writing copy for the Lexus website, you don't use the same vocabulary level as you would use for the Reader's Digest submission page, or the About.com makeup hints. This is not because one place has better readers than the other (which is probably true as well) but because your readers are different, and expect a level of communication which is parallel to the subject (even if the reader happens to be the same woman at all three places).

This "dumbing" down of theories on how to write web content can only be produced by someone who has not taken the time to seriously consider the subject matter, and wants to pretend he understands the skill set required (and of course get hits on his Google ads).

All of which is fine, and I commend it highly. It is this exact level of understanding regarding web content which keeps me in business and people very happy to pay my outrageous fees. They just can't understand how I can do something so simple, so much better than everyone else they have tried. Must be because I have natural talent, they say.

Sweet.