Imperfect

adaptive blogging

I think I get why Sam admits to keeping entries around a few hundred words in My approach to blogging..

I find writing at multiple scales valuable. Readers including myself have different preferences for content length. Switching things up appeases not only my dynamic self but any remote audience I have too. However useful it can be, breadth of scale might not be the best north star. I think that what and how often you write shines much brighter.

More reps can mean more variance, more hooks, and more links. All that can result in a much denser map. More reps also increases the chances of someone cherishing something you wrote. That special someone could be yourself. What other positive outcomes could you enable?

While long-form content can sometimes be a treat, delivering short-form content has its benefits. Publishing shorter pieces make managing quantity, cohesion, and consistency easier. They also align with more accessible, digestible content that I enjoy reading, bookmarking, and remixing elsewhere. It's imperfect like many other modes, yet I think it's worth exploring as a deliberate pattern.

Too many questions? Emails too long? Readers feel their limited time is disrespected? While hefty messages can be welcome, I wonder if my words do my thoughts justice. Even if they don't, my ratio of appreciation to criticism satisfies me thus far. I hope that you enjoy more of not only my work, but work from those I link to and beyond. If you do, I encourage you to share what you find worthwhile and connect with me about it.

Even if you don't play the game yet, you almost never know when your final post will be published. You might as well post as much as you can. Leave yourself behind such that others can pick up from where you left off.


Want to reach out? Connect with me however you prefer: