I think you should write what and how you want to, rather than trying to conform to some (supposed) internet ideal. I get sick of hearing that writing for the net always has to be short and snappy - I frequently read long opinion pieces online, and stories, and I appreciate the writers who write them.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. There does seem to be an increasing pressure for brevity on the internet, the most obvious manifestation of which is the growth of microblogging platforms like Twitter. Doesn't it flow, at least in part, from the nature of digital content as a network, in which each node is, first and foremost, a connector to something else? So there's an inducement, in the actual form itself, to constantly move, to skip from link to link to link. Most of my favourite bloggers write long posts, but I do think the medium is more suited to brevity. Which is one of the real challenges for literature as digital formats become more prevalent.

Well, I've just finished reading this – all the way to the end – haven't I? So there are people prepared to read 'long' blog posts.

And I am one of those bloggers who can't seem to write short, snappy posts (as often as I'd like, anyway). I've often wondered if that is to the the detriment of attracting readers to my blog. But I still like writing - and reading - long, thoughtful pieces. I think one key is short paragraphs!

I hate Gen Y. They're such terrible know it alls. If I wasn't Gen Y myself I'd never even listen to them. I'd just, like, tell them to go watch MTV or something. Totally.

People use the internet differently. Often, I only have time to read shorter blogs. I use a newsreader so that I can read over a hundred newsources at once. It can be exhausting. But once in a while I'll indulge in something longer and it's the equivalent of reading the Sunday paper: done for enjoyment rather than information gathering.

I think the 'keep it short' rule acknowledges that a lot of the time people are overwhelmed by the amount of content out there to trawl through. But if what needs to be written requires extra length, I really don't see what the problem is with letting it be longer.

Surely people will read it if they want to, and if they're interested, and if it's good. Regardless of length.

I believe what you want to say chooses its own form and length.

The whole idea of the Internet and blogging is freedom of expression and a democracy you couldn't claim otherwise.

I work very hard on some of the pieces I put up on my blog. Will people read it? I don't know. I'm just proud to put it out there.

I hate the assumption about gen Y being all the same and having anything apart from the most vague of changes in trends in common. Likewise the sayings that everything online must be short and catchy. If you want to catch as much as possible of the broadest and most general of audiences it might be true, but the great thing about blogs and online content is that you cherry pick the best and most specific content that you actually like, which if you want in depth content will include longer blogs. If you have a short attention span or just way to much information coming in it might not include longer blogs. Or it might but you might just can for content you care about the same way you would scan newspaper headlines and articles when you are reading a paper and choosing the 10% or so of the newspaper that you actually care about.

every time i hear a Gen y make an argument it involves the logic along the lines of "i dont read blogs of more than a paragraph - so therefore nobody does"

like whatsisname on the punch the other week announcing that he doesn't like to read books or use the library - so nobody in gen y does!

int he words of paul simon"

"got a short little span of attention, what if i die here? who will be my role model now that my role model is gone gone?"

As long as the post is engaging, I don't think length matters.

However, I did try reading a lengthy post on the phone once; I lost interest halfway down the page.

It's great reading all these comments! Seems that instinctually, people are more drawn to shorter pieces online, particularly when browsing, but if following a blog or a writer or a topic of interest, we're happy to read longer pieces. Which isn't too different from how people read traditional media.

Maybe the trick is the old journalistic rule of engaging people from the get-go, with the title and opening lines, and putting the most important or compelling information up-front. And, as Mark says, short paragraphs. (Not saying I necessarily do all of these things, but ideally I probably should.)

I also think that part of the problem with online as a medium as opposed to print is that most blogs and websites are constricted when it comes to formatting and layout (many online writers post via templates) and therefore can't use some of the tools print uses to make reading longer pieces more attractive - ie. breakout quotes to draw the reader in. (Though of course, reading onscreen is a big part of the problem in itself.)

That said, I do still think that one of the fantastic things about publishing online is the space to say what you want to say. And immediacy.

I have to say, though I agree with Jeff that the medium is set up to encourage following links - thus taking the reader away and encouraging reading in bursts - the link element also helps writers to draw in a readership, often quite a specific one (sometimes for a blog/online publication generally, at other times for specific posts on particular topics). In my experience, this has more than made up for the handicaps when it comes to posting long pieces online.

PS. I wasn't trying to be facetious about Gen Y ... I included the reference because I do think there is a (broad) generational difference in the way people use and think about online communication. Maybe because platforms for online communication have become ever briefer as they evolve, and younger generations are (broadly, again) more up with the latest platforms. (Blogs to Facebook to Twitter)

Pressure for concision is always a feature of writing. We want sentences that are potent. That tell us clearly their intentions. There are two vital components. The intro; sound-bite; quote; the essential fragment. Which gives us what we need for a handle. The explanation follows. It goes all the way back to Shakespeare, who would often write an intro into a play three times so that people coming in late would know what was happening. The attention span for a mostly illiterate audience might have been about the same as a twittering audience. The ratio stays about the same. Many people who are nominally literate don't actually like words or complicated chains of reasoning. They grab bits of useful data and move on to more bits and pieces. So I think we write for those that love to read, and for them we let the sentences open up, make space for them and their own thoughts in what is essentially an exchange of understanding.

Hi bro. I the first day here. Probably, it is interesting,news Blog

http://audrinapatridgenude.cz.cc/

Hi bro. I the first day here. Probably, it is interesting,news Blog

http://audrinapatridgenude.cz.cc/

Hi bro. I the first day here. Probably, it is interesting,news Blog

http://audrinapatridgenude.cz.cc/

Hi bro. I the first day here. Probably, it is interesting,news Blog

http://audrinapatridgenude.cz.cc/