Fandango Provocatively asks:
Do you have a preference with respect to the length of blog posts you read? Does the number of words in a post affect how you read it or even if you will read it? What is your average post length?
I prefer to read posts, the shorter the better. This is in part because of my eyesight. But also I don’t like to read posts which ramble.
People are taking time to read the posts I write, so the least I can do is to make them as efficient as possible. By that I mean editing, condensing, fixing typos, listening to make sure everything sounds correct etc. Anything that makes them easier to read. I’m not perfect but I will put a good deal of effort into making my posts as good as possible.
So, it’s a big turn off when other people don’t do the same.
That said, I will read longer posts, if they are engaging enough. A lot depends on the author. If they have a track record of writing good material, I will read. With a few people I will read whatever they put out, regardless of length. But if not, I’ll skip. It’s an investment of my time – I’m more likely to read if I think I’m going to get a good return.
I like prompt responses to be a minute or two, tops. Because if somebody writes a ten-minute response, say, and there are twelve responses to get through, say, does that contributor really think I want to spend 2 hours just reading responses to that one post? It seems to be assuming that I have nothing better to do, which is untrue (there are other words but this is the kindest one I can think of).
For that reason I stopped using flash to answer prompts, because a decent flash is of the order of five minutes at least, which is too long to expect people to read.
Incidentally, this response was a 2-minute read, 339 words including the spiel at the top. My average is 110.