Follow me on Twitter.
to get in touch or to call me, I'm in our Tech City office.
Drew named #1 most respected in the 2011 Reputation Online survey in New Media Age
Drew named #4 digital big guy in the PR Week Powerbook 2011
Drew in the BR200 top 50 of "the Web's most influential bloggers"
Old school! Finalist:
Best PR Blog at the Business Blogging Awards 2005
Me writing for
This is my personal blog and does not reflect the views of my company or clients.
« Second Life becoming the biggest web brand |
| Google confirms its purchase of YouTube for $1.65bn »
Blogusiasm or blogorrhoea? Or should I say, long or short?
Wolfman has said I'm blogusiastic. I say he has blogorrhoea. His posts are so long I get lost half way through. I wonder, what do people prefer. Long or short?
Posted on October 09, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cb1de53ef00d834bac4fd53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Blogusiasm or blogorrhoea?:
Personally, I don't mind long posts if they're interesting. But short is better, obviously, considering the average netizen's attention span (or lack thereof). Then again, short is also a perfect excuse for not having to come up with some original content.
Trouble is, if you want to be concise AND get your point across, you really have to understand the finer nuances of the language you're using - which is difficult for non-native speakers like myself. That's why I usually end up taking the long way around. Sorry for that, but you'll just have to put up with it, I fear :-)
Mark van der Wolf |
October 10, 2006 at 09:09 AM
Short. I haven't got the time or the attention span to read longer articles at my PC.
Stephen Waddington |
October 10, 2006 at 09:56 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.