How To: Write for the web

Discussion in 'Copywriting' started by RuDeDoGg, Jul 5, 2006.

  1. StuartL

    StuartL Peon

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #21
    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.
     
    StuartL, Jul 13, 2006 IP
  2. old_expat

    old_expat Peon

    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #22
    There is sort of a contadiction to the "25% slower" argument here http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/jan99.asp
     
    old_expat, Jul 13, 2006 IP
  3. digitalhaven

    digitalhaven Peon

    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #23
    That was helpful thanks, I'm considering writing an e-book, do you think this applies to e-books to?
     
    digitalhaven, Jul 16, 2006 IP
  4. StuartL

    StuartL Peon

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #24
    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.
     
    StuartL, Jul 16, 2006 IP
  5. JEET

    JEET Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,832
    Likes Received:
    502
    Best Answers:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    265
    #25
    Good read, although sounds very familiar...
     
    JEET, Jul 16, 2006 IP
  6. TigerGreen

    TigerGreen Peon

    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #26
    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.
     
    TigerGreen, Jul 17, 2006 IP
  7. freestuffpage

    freestuffpage Peon

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #27
    Hi,

    Thanks for the useful article. Sometimes, it is easy to forget how different the users will read online than on paper.
     
    freestuffpage, Jul 18, 2006 IP
  8. energydude

    energydude Peon

    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #28
    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.:)
     
    energydude, Aug 2, 2006 IP
  9. marketjunction

    marketjunction Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,779
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    183
    #29
    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.
     
    marketjunction, Aug 3, 2006 IP
  10. glennhefley

    glennhefley Peon

    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #30
    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.

    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, Aug 5, 2006 IP
  11. glennhefley

    glennhefley Peon

    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #31
    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.
     
    glennhefley, Aug 5, 2006 IP