I pulled this sentence from this article:
"Below are ten social computing technologies that I believe will be actively developing or maturing this year and either worth exploring or otherwise watching closely for 2010 and beyond."
and cut it down to this:
"Ten social computing technologies that are worth watching."
Which one is more effective? Which one did you read?
In the days when information was in short supply, you did the world a favor by writing long. That's when you could pull a Melville and write a 30 page description of the ocean. But now that information is as close to free as it's going to be, you have to go short. Cut your words down mercilessly.
"Below are ten social computing technologies that I believe will be actively developing or maturing this year and either worth exploring or otherwise watching closely for 2010 and beyond."
and cut it down to this:
"Ten social computing technologies that are worth watching."
Which one is more effective? Which one did you read?
In the days when information was in short supply, you did the world a favor by writing long. That's when you could pull a Melville and write a 30 page description of the ocean. But now that information is as close to free as it's going to be, you have to go short. Cut your words down mercilessly.
Dave Greten Speaks!
Posted by: Brian | February 27, 2010 at 05:30 PM
The one thing that drives me nuts is when someone writes more than a couple sentence response to news articles on the web.
I skip anything written that is more than a few sentences.
What hubris?!?!
Posted by: Brian | February 27, 2010 at 05:32 PM
It is a little rant-y on my behalf. But I read a ton of sloppily written docs every single day. It's painful. Maybe I should have been an English teacher.
Posted by: Dave G | March 01, 2010 at 10:10 AM