COMMENTS
Interesting. This is the first advice I have heard in a long time that didn't tell me to write my copy at the eighth grade level.
I'm not actually capable of writing at the eighth grade level, I haven't been in eighth grade in so long I've forgotten that language.
My audience is small business owners, so I never felt the need to "dumb down" my copy to the recommended degree, but I do take care to use language that's easily "scannable".
So write to your audience, yes, but you still have to keep it short and to the point, and above all interesting!
Thanks for the interesting, short, direct post!
- Lisa
Hey, good post. I think 2nd time I have found about writing quality only on your blog.
Still this writing quality of the web content needs to have more focus. All the web users cant develop a good web copy or afford it.
So there should be some guidelines on level of English used.
The other question is also arise on internet about content writer who is having English as native language or not.
Anyways, I also believe be natural when you are writing and write for human not for machine.
What the heck does that graph show? What are the percentages? The graph makes sense overall, even without knowing exactly what numbers are involved, but that graphic on the side (Old Media more readable, Blogs more readable) confuses things.
Please explain.
@Allison I'm sorry if I did not make this clear enough.
The graph shows the percentage by which the old media were more readable than blogs. If the blogs were more readable, then this would be in the negative % range.
Far too much content on the web is written at too technical a level. In fact, web content needs to be at a lower level than much of the mainstream media to which you compared the blogs. The reason is that attention spans are shorter online, meaning that processing of words is done more quickly. We cannot process complex language in the short times we scan web pages. Even PhD scientists have trouble on their own subjects online - not because they are stupid, but they have reduced attention times online compared with reading the same material in a printed journal.
In other words, language needs to be even simpler online.
It's an interesting idea, but I'm also a bit confused about the methodology.
Did you use the same "readability" criteria for both new and old media? Does that mean you used Website Grader on the old media websites too? If not, how did you measure their "readability"?
Also, there are plenty of niche, targeted old media publications out there as well, which probably use different language than the "iconic old media outlets" you chose to focus on.
It may have made more sense to compare the language used in general interest blogs vs. niche blogs, rather than making it a conversation about old vs. new media.
@Graham @Sarah Thanks for the feedback.
@Graham Just to clarify, I'm a big fan of KIS (Keep it Simple). However, our Google-fueled world allows consumers of niche content to find what they're looking for more easily. Niche content can involve specific language and key terms, which to the general reader is ‘complex language’. And someone should be there to be make this content!
@Sarah I used the same text analysis algorithm on both old media and blogs – it’s the one that Website Grader uses. Also, thanks for the suggestion - but I do believe that blogs are better
built to target niche audiences, just because people find them online rather than on the magazine shelf.