Comments on: Well, that was interesting http://blog.thomas-robertson.com/2006/10/02/well-that-was-interesting/ Inside the Mind of Thomas Robertson Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:38:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Rahvin http://blog.thomas-robertson.com/2006/10/02/well-that-was-interesting/comment-page-1/#comment-814 Rahvin Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:17:44 +0000 http://www.thesmerf.com/blog/81-well-that-was-interesting#comment-814 I suggest you use Victor's idea of posting a long summary article when you feel you've exhausted a topic. This not only allows you to summarize all of your thoughts together and provide a place that's easy to reference, but also allows you to include and incoprorate information from the comments on the various other smaller articles. Of course, don't forget to link the smaller articles at the end, so that people can see the individual discussions. I suggest you use Victor’s idea of posting a long summary article when you feel you’ve exhausted a topic. This not only allows you to summarize all of your thoughts together and provide a place that’s easy to reference, but also allows you to include and incoprorate information from the comments on the various other smaller articles.

Of course, don’t forget to link the smaller articles at the end, so that people can see the individual discussions.

]]> By: Gerald Cameron http://blog.thomas-robertson.com/2006/10/02/well-that-was-interesting/comment-page-1/#comment-813 Gerald Cameron Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:54:25 +0000 http://www.thesmerf.com/blog/81-well-that-was-interesting#comment-813 Why not take it on a case-by-case basis,doing what you feel serves the particular subject best? That aside, I did like the shorter, more frequent posts. Still, I can see cases where a single post would be preferable. Sorry, Thomas, but I just don't see why you're trying to artificially lock yourself into a single format. Why not take it on a case-by-case basis,doing what you feel serves the particular subject best?

That aside, I did like the shorter, more frequent posts. Still, I can see cases where a single post would be preferable.

Sorry, Thomas, but I just don’t see why you’re trying to artificially lock yourself into a single format.

]]> By: Ian Burton-Oakes http://blog.thomas-robertson.com/2006/10/02/well-that-was-interesting/comment-page-1/#comment-812 Ian Burton-Oakes Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:32:21 +0000 http://www.thesmerf.com/blog/81-well-that-was-interesting#comment-812 I have been much busier of late and had less time to respond to what feel like more dynamic discussions, but really like the short-form entries. That said, I did like the long entries, too, especially the way they allowed you to really break into some fine-grained analysis. I think Victor's suggestion might be very good: employ a dynamic series of small posts to get into an idea, explore some different aspects, get some feedback, then use those to spring into 'touchstone' long articles to which you can jump into fine-grained analysis as well as summarize and clarify. The touchstones could be free-standing but serve as pointers for those who want to see the process feeding into it. It also makes your blog a bit like a house with many doors--you can come in the main door, get the pomp, or circle round to the side doors, hear some of the off-th-cuff chatter which, while less impressive, often contains untapped nuggets of insight that don't show up in the final product. From either approach, it would be easy to move to the other... Maybe edit all the small, feeder entries to link up to the touchstones they inspire? I have been much busier of late and had less time to respond to what feel like more dynamic discussions, but really like the short-form entries.

That said, I did like the long entries, too, especially the way they allowed you to really break into some fine-grained analysis. I think Victor’s suggestion might be very good: employ a dynamic series of small posts to get into an idea, explore some different aspects, get some feedback, then use those to spring into ‘touchstone’ long articles to which you can jump into fine-grained analysis as well as summarize and clarify. The touchstones could be free-standing but serve as pointers for those who want to see the process feeding into it.

It also makes your blog a bit like a house with many doors–you can come in the main door, get the pomp, or circle round to the side doors, hear some of the off-th-cuff chatter which, while less impressive, often contains untapped nuggets of insight that don’t show up in the final product. From either approach, it would be easy to move to the other…

Maybe edit all the small, feeder entries to link up to the touchstones they inspire?

]]> By: Victor Gijsbers http://blog.thomas-robertson.com/2006/10/02/well-that-was-interesting/comment-page-1/#comment-811 Victor Gijsbers Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:41:01 +0000 http://www.thesmerf.com/blog/81-well-that-was-interesting#comment-811 I like the short posts. It works well on blogs. (This from a person who often posts very long articles on his blog. ;) ) Concerning three: you can simply write a "summary" post at the end of a block. Summarise what you said, add the links to the previous posts, and publish it as a seperate entry. There: the single link you can point people to. I like the short posts. It works well on blogs. (This from a person who often posts very long articles on his blog. ;) )

Concerning three: you can simply write a “summary” post at the end of a block. Summarise what you said, add the links to the previous posts, and publish it as a seperate entry. There: the single link you can point people to.

]]> By: Yehuda Berlinger http://blog.thomas-robertson.com/2006/10/02/well-that-was-interesting/comment-page-1/#comment-810 Yehuda Berlinger Tue, 03 Oct 2006 08:58:10 +0000 http://www.thesmerf.com/blog/81-well-that-was-interesting#comment-810 I prefer less and longer articles. Sorry. Yehuda I prefer less and longer articles. Sorry.

Yehuda

]]>