Yesterday I read about how to make one's weblog more popular. It was an interesting article, but contained one major flaw.
Not all blog audiences are the same.
If I began making my posts easy to scan, as the article recommended, using bold sub-headers, liberal application of italics, and lists, I would undoubtedly displease those who come here for lyrical musings (sorry, there haven't been many lyrical posts lately ... soon, I promise!)
And if I offered advice and solutions, rather than talking about my own life, I would certainly displease many of my readers.
On the other hand ...
Internet reading has destroyed my attention span. At least insofar as it pertains to reading on a screen. I struggle to read lengthy blogposts (although obviously not to write them!) Sometimes I even struggle to read short blogposts. I am never interested in lists. I delve into the posts of those I consider my friends, or whose writing is reliably excellent, but otherwise I scan.
The main reason I subscribe to weblogs is because I like their photographs.
However ...
If you have small, snapshot photos, I won't be interested.
If your photographs are too big for the screen, I won't be interested.
If you mainly have photographs of people I don't know (ie, clients), I won't be interested.
If your photographs are too colourful, too perfect, too fake, I won't be interested.
If you have nothing but photographs, I won't be interested.
Obviously, snappy titles, bold subheadings, and important points made in italics aren't going to attract me as a reader.
(Oh, and I don't scan a post from top to bottom as apparently most people do. Usually I'll start reading right in the middle of a post and then work my way to the edges.)
I am a unique reader. Just like everyone else.
I know what I like.
What I like is highly individual and rather diverse. You won't win me as a blog reader by following someone else's rules. You'll win me by being yourself, and if I happen to like your style, then I'll subscribe to your weblog.
If I don't like your style, it doesn't mean you're a bad person or a bad blogger. It doesn't even mean we wouldn't be friends if we met in real life.
All it means is that my visual attention style doesn't gel with your visual presentation style.
Or possibly I have technical problems with your blog, time issues, or other biases. For example, I probably won't read your weblog if ...
You have a shortened feed in my Reader (even though I appreciate why you'd do that)
Your weblog crashes my computer for some reason
I can't leave comments for some reason (and I won't sign in with Facebook to do so)
You play background music (except for Kerrie, because I'd tolerate anything for her sake)
Your weblog is too business like
Your weblog is too homemade.
That's just me. And you read here because something I do attracts you visually or intellectually. That's just you. We are human. Very few rules apply.
I agree with a lot of what you wrote. Also I would add (thought I hesitate) obvious blogging ambition kind of puts me off. The blog posts become very calculated and less authentic. I am going to stop myself here. ;)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYes, well, ahem, I wasn't going to say that myself but ... yes, exactly. I agree. It's all about authenticity to me.
DeleteHa! You're so right. There is no perfect way. I'm definitely a picture person, but with the same qualifications that you stated. I think that some people just click with particular styles and personality. When I feel that connection, I start to care, and that's what keeps me coming back. I read a few "big" blogs, but I usually just scan those and rarely comment.
ReplyDeleteYes, same with me.
DeleteOkay, the funny thing is, I find this post actually really easy to read. Damn it.
ReplyDeleteSo funny! Last night I posted a recipe without a single photo, and it felt sooo wrong. It's practically mandatory these days to do beautiful step-by-step cooking photos, showing the butter melting in the pan. ;) Then again, no one will ever mistake me for a real cooking blogger. I'm pretty sure you have to actually like setting foot in the kitchen to qualify for that. :)
ReplyDeleteI have a love-hate relationship with photos in blogs. As a reader, I LOVE them, crave them. You and Jenn McG in particular woo me daily with your gorgeous images. (The second photo above, with the flowers, the gate, the low green hills? Sarah, I swear to you it was like my soul recognized the place: my reaction was like 'oh THERE it is, that place I've been looking for all my life.') :)
But as a writer, the feeling that 'I ought to have a nice photo to go with this post' sometimes inhibits me. My photos are so hit and miss. Lots of times I give up the quest for a lovely image and just go with the words. :)
I do think bold subheadings make an article or long, informational blogpost more readable--but they also make it feel like formal writing, not one friend chatting to another. I like the chatty blogs best--the ones (like yours) where you feel like you're sitting at a friend's table, not in an audience. Pass the scones, please?
Lissa, you would have loved that house and its gardens. It was on one side of a valley, so you had hills rising infront of it (you saw those photos recently but the house itself was halfway up another mild hill, and the garden climbed into a private sky. A lush, half-wild garden, populated by hens, butterflies, birds, and two old dogs. All that was missing were children running and dreaming.
DeleteI should have clarified about the photos thing that its what attracts me initially to blogs. But I stay for the content. I liked your recipe alot ... but I wouldn't make it, because I am allergic to the kitchen, and can only spend ten minutes in there at a time before breaking out in an hysterical rash. However, I can give you a scone recipe ...
Make up scone dough. You know, bung some flour, baking powder, butter (not too much) and water together in a bowl and mix with a knife. Roll out a bit, spread with water, sprinkle with brown sugar and cinnamon, roll up like a tube (but don't ask me which direction - Rose does that part, I always get it wrong), then put in the oven at 200 celsius for um maybe ten minutes.
"You won't win me as a blog reader by following someone else's rules. You'll win me by being yourself, and if I happen to like your style, then I'll subscribe to your weblog." Ah yes. Me too. It really bugs me when I can tell that a blogger is really overtly trying to drive up their traffic by following the so-called "rules". The blog then loses its authenticity and character, I think.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand- I think I must have a short attention span, because I found your format in this post very pleasing to my eye. You know, the bold subheaders, italics, lists. Sigh.
As an aside, I'm trying to decide whether to thread my comments. I had a lot of complaints from folks when my comments were embedded that their comments weren't getting through. But I want to thread responses! But I adore comments and don't want to lose any! Have you noticed a change in how many comments you get since you made the switch?
Lol, I had the same experience - I thought the subheaders were really try-hard and not personal enough ... but the post was so much more comfortable to read! Actually pleasing to the eye, as you say.
DeleteAlso, firefox wouldn't load my weblog properly last night, and I just got the default Times New Roman text - and that was easier on the eye too. So I might just have to change back to that boring font ...
Threaded comments - it's hard to say whether people are commenting less or not. My visitors seem very arbitrary about when they comment. So it's hard to tell when they're missing. Embedded comments *are* a problem sometimes, and that has worried me a fair bit ... because I hate inconveniencing people ... and I hate thinking that someone has wanted to comment but couldn't (like when you run for the phone but miss it ... argh!) And infact I had a message from someone on the very first day saying the form didn't work. But I personally think being able to reply to people is worth any small troubles. I would say though that when I installed Disqus, I lost a lot of commenters. So I'm glad Blogger installed this feature.
I love your blog because it shows me the beauty of you who are.
ReplyDeleteWhat a nice thing to say :-) Thank you. I love your weblog, and your miraculous photographs.
DeleteThis was really interesting to me. I only have time to read a handful of blogs regularly, but every couple of weeks or so I "look around" at other blogs (usually by following links or searching by subject). I very seldom add a new blog to my regular reads. The blogs I like don't seem to fall into any particular pattern. As you said, they are diverse (I am humbled that you used Tea & Cake as an example of what you like; thank you :-). Like you, the internet has shortened my online attention span. If a blog post is long I tend to scan it; I'll slow down and read it if it's engaging, but move on if it's not. I'm not into pictures unless they are necessary for illustration, or are pure magic. (On my old blog I used to feel like I had to put up a picture with every post. It became an impediment; I'm not a photographer.) I'm more interested in words, but then again I dislike wordiness. I used to participate in a few blog play-alongs, but I don't really like them. I think they make blog posts too predictable, and that's boring. I like posts that that get me thinking, wondering, or inspire me to try something. I also like stories and poems :-).
ReplyDeleteThank you for joining the conversation. See, how could anyone make a rule which would sum up the kind of reader you are?
DeleteSo much truth in your last sentence, Sarah. I think we read very similarly.
ReplyDeleteWell I have to say you made me laugh at the end with the mention of blog music and that you will tolerate mine! I don't even read the 'how to's'...I don't care if I do it right or wrong in someone elses opinion. I don't care for any of the ones out there trying to teach us to blog or *****. I just want to 'be' and so far I have been able to 'be' and am accepted for who I am. If I were rejected then I wouldn't still be on the web. But I do listen to personal requests...I have recently learned to make my photos larger for my posts. Please do tell me if they are too big for you now. I am a visual person and that is why I post mostly photos with little words. I come here because I LOVE your photos, your words, and that you are you. I like the idea of laying in the sand with sea-drenched hair, barefoot and free like you wrote in your post today. I do have to say...you already are a photographer. But I'm guessing your dream would entail walking around with that big fancy camera and getting paid to do it?! I don't have a fancy camera either. Just a Canon powershot. I have a hard time spending money on such things for myself. I am trying to return to living 'without'...I'm always simplifying. I am planning a larger organic garden for our backyard this spring. I desire to live with less and thankfully my kids are returning to those values too. I gave up for a while. The teen years are so trying. The college years are bringing an educated awareness into their hearts that I have tried to raise them in all along, but they are finally learning themselves and understanding. Makes me so happy. They have hearts for the world. :)
ReplyDeletePS I did remove the beautiful song from the One Day movie that you and Rose liked. The feedback I have received is that most prefer the peaceful ocean sound rather than music. So I just added peaceful rain after the ocean. Have you listened? No more songs.
ReplyDeleteYes I love the ocean sound as much as the song. And it is so perfect for your space. I also love your larger photos. Your weblog is on my top ten list and has been for years, I don't care what you do with it, I just love its gentle and loving spirit.
DeleteI don't really want a big fancy camera, I just want to take pictures and sell them.
I can't wait to hear more about your organic garden. I hope you will write about it.