Another place my eyeballs scan is the right side of the browser so I can see how much is left in the story as I read it. I try to resist doing that, but it's almost automatic. It's like running on a treadmill, do I look at the distance or ignore it for as long as possible?
Happy to report that I was able to read through the full piece - I have some attention and focus left.
I got on the mailing list long ago, from reading a book or listening to a long podcast - not from IG or X. I wonder if in your niche using the F-pattern is of any use. If you ‘hook’ someone on IG, how likely is that they will read your books or your newsletter?
Same for me. I create apps and software, and as everyone else I have a distribution problem as I have no ‘audience’. I am trying to get better at distribution, and part of that effort is in trying to get engagement measures up, and no matter where I look for guidance, it comes down to the F-pattern approach, at best.
Skimming doesn’t seem to be a high-intent activity, though, and even if we capture a little attention, it will not ‘convert’.
In other words, while this might seem to be the only way left, it might not serve us even if it works.
Comparing the print age to the digital age, I would assume the author (or in these days, content creator), is getting feedback from a different slice of their audience, too. The kind of person who had read a book and then took the time and effort to compose and send a letter worth reading is, in the digital age, being drowned out by mass low effort feedback: a react button, or a brief typed comment.
Yes. This is very very true. The feedback loop distorts toward that. And increasingly, even those who leave reviews on review sites are different than the kind of feedback you used to get, even 10 years ago.
> And secondly, the disadvantage in comprehension showed up in expository texts but not narrative. Meaning, stories read fine on screens, but arguments and deep dives don’t.
As someone writing science-based deep dives about ultra endurance running, it is safe to say that I am fu**ed 😂
It does feel almost subversive these days to read real books, continue to write long-form, and publish pieces you know aren't meant for virality (I do hope this goes viral as a counter-example to the premise :)).
And yet, it does feel important to keep fighting the good fight, recognizing the positive impact it can have on us even if it doesn't go viral, and certainly the impact it can have on the people who do read it. All of the research on this topic has helped encourage me to return to doing more of reading physical books, and to physically writing by hand as much as possible. So hopefully the thoughtful sharing of this type of information does continue to impact others (the way it has with me).
Thank you for your thoughtfulness and your commitment to continuing to share in a depth-oriented kind of way!
Like some of your other readers, I'm happy to report I read the whole article. No skimming even though I'm on my phone. I do prefer using Substack on my old desktop computer! I struggle with this issue when I write posts here on Substack occasionally. They're always shorter than I'd like but I know that's what my readers want.
I am old. Give me a book over digital any day, no worry about power or wifi access.. I still read a printed newspaper and do the printed puzzles every day. Enjoy reading essays and non-fiction just as much as a god mystery. For me, it’s not so much content as it is having something physical in my hands. Plus I find ads copy words stick in my head longer than digital ones do. I did read your full post, word by word, and appreciate the effort and thought put into it.
Is instagram really inevitable though? What about chosing platforms to share your ideas that add depth, like Longford on YouTube? I personally don't get my updates from shortform, I don't enjoy it and feel like it's creating more harm than good. I prefer to consume (and publish) on Substack and YouTube.
If you write something publicly, it is because you want to share a piece of your mind. For you to achieve the "share" piece, you need to get eyeballs on it, and to do that, you need to go where the eyeballs are, and write in a way that the eyeballs will read an engage.
Mind you, in principle I agree with you, but reality is not so idealistic.
But there are an insane amount of eye balls on YouTube. Sure it takes more effort, but the connection is so much deeper. Are we not assuming that short form is the way? If we agree the platforms like instagram are degrading cognition shouldn't we put our energies towards the solution rather than engage in a race to the bottom?
YouTube is not much better. It HYPER focused on title and thumbnail (the things you can skim) and it screens good videos by engagement; how long you watch and, specifically, whether you watch beyond 30 seconds. 30 seconds! You can put hours of effort into a video, but if you don't have a clickbait title, thumbnail and a catch 30 seconds, you'll get no reach. These are analytics for long form, not short form.
Again, I agree with you. I love long form on YouTube. I watch a lot of YouTube and very little shorts, but the algorithm game on YouTube is just as hard as anything else. You really are a slave to the algorithm.
Most of the research shows that it's the decision making of scrolling that causes the problems, not the content itself. A study showed that watching a long video of lots of short content wasn't cognitively damaging.
Is YouTube hard? Yes. Of course. But remember the word algorithm can easily be substituted for the word people. If you create content that satisfies people, you will do well there. It's hard, especially in the beginning, but everything in life worth doing is hard.
The point here isn't about whether getting that right is difficult or not. It's definitely possible. Rather it's about where we choose to create, and do we participate in types of content that have an net negative effect. I personally don't believe we have to. All one needs is 1000 true fans, right?
So why contribute to the social slot machine when one can do the slow burn of building relationship in a deep and meaningful way in other places?
It all shifts and changes. 10-15 years ago, Twitter and Newsletters were the best place to sell books. 7-8 years ago Podcasts and Youtube was the best. 3-4 years ago TikTok had the biggest bang for your buck. Now, Instagram probably is the best place for converting.
It will differ with everyone's audience. But the problem with the 1,000 true fans model is that while there is truth in it. The fans are responsive to the medium of the day. So a newsletter doesn't have the same impact as it did 15 years ago because they are getting inundated with emails and newsletters. A podcast doesn't have the gravitas it once did, because everyone sells books on podcasts and now thye think they can just get the gist of it listening to a longform one.
You've got the experience with that, I know nothing about selling books. All I know is I've bought plenty books after watching YouTube interviews, reviews, etc but none ever through shortform.
They all inevitably optimize for the same thing. Instagram, Twitter, Threads, TikTok, even Youtube.
It's can I catch your attention. And when attention is the commodity, it inevitably pushes you to the things that best catch attention: Short, declarative, emotion invoking content.
YouTube allows for more depth, but if the first 30sec don't do the above, your video is toast. And increasingly, shorts is the way to get attention. Before all of that, if you don't have a catchy thumbnail and title, you're done for.
Even on here, the way to get seen is to write a banger Notes. Which is the same short, punchy style describe above.
Any time attention is the main thing, it's going to go towards this style.
I agree with you, but isn't the issue the deterioration of cognition which comes down to shortform scrolling?
YouTube shorts... yes, I try to stay away from that. But I'd far rather watch a 15 minute video by Robert Greene for example then flip through a bunch of Instagram posts.
Needing to grab attention with thumbnails and titles went through a clickbait stage (headlines will always need to be punchy, think adverts, magazines, newspaper titles) but if the content doesn't deliver on the promise of the packaging people will bounce, and rightly so.
Based on what you've so eloquently written about here, I would still say that I don't want to be part of feeding the shortform machine. I'd rather build depth even if it means less eyeballs.
Another place my eyeballs scan is the right side of the browser so I can see how much is left in the story as I read it. I try to resist doing that, but it's almost automatic. It's like running on a treadmill, do I look at the distance or ignore it for as long as possible?
Good point. It really is the treadmill. That distance measure can drive you nuts.
Happy to report that I was able to read through the full piece - I have some attention and focus left.
I got on the mailing list long ago, from reading a book or listening to a long podcast - not from IG or X. I wonder if in your niche using the F-pattern is of any use. If you ‘hook’ someone on IG, how likely is that they will read your books or your newsletter?
Same for me. I create apps and software, and as everyone else I have a distribution problem as I have no ‘audience’. I am trying to get better at distribution, and part of that effort is in trying to get engagement measures up, and no matter where I look for guidance, it comes down to the F-pattern approach, at best.
Skimming doesn’t seem to be a high-intent activity, though, and even if we capture a little attention, it will not ‘convert’.
In other words, while this might seem to be the only way left, it might not serve us even if it works.
Thanks for taking the time to articulate this
Comparing the print age to the digital age, I would assume the author (or in these days, content creator), is getting feedback from a different slice of their audience, too. The kind of person who had read a book and then took the time and effort to compose and send a letter worth reading is, in the digital age, being drowned out by mass low effort feedback: a react button, or a brief typed comment.
Yes. This is very very true. The feedback loop distorts toward that. And increasingly, even those who leave reviews on review sites are different than the kind of feedback you used to get, even 10 years ago.
> And secondly, the disadvantage in comprehension showed up in expository texts but not narrative. Meaning, stories read fine on screens, but arguments and deep dives don’t.
As someone writing science-based deep dives about ultra endurance running, it is safe to say that I am fu**ed 😂
It does feel almost subversive these days to read real books, continue to write long-form, and publish pieces you know aren't meant for virality (I do hope this goes viral as a counter-example to the premise :)).
And yet, it does feel important to keep fighting the good fight, recognizing the positive impact it can have on us even if it doesn't go viral, and certainly the impact it can have on the people who do read it. All of the research on this topic has helped encourage me to return to doing more of reading physical books, and to physically writing by hand as much as possible. So hopefully the thoughtful sharing of this type of information does continue to impact others (the way it has with me).
Thank you for your thoughtfulness and your commitment to continuing to share in a depth-oriented kind of way!
Totally agree. it seeps into the writing of accounts I love as well.
Like some of your other readers, I'm happy to report I read the whole article. No skimming even though I'm on my phone. I do prefer using Substack on my old desktop computer! I struggle with this issue when I write posts here on Substack occasionally. They're always shorter than I'd like but I know that's what my readers want.
I am old. Give me a book over digital any day, no worry about power or wifi access.. I still read a printed newspaper and do the printed puzzles every day. Enjoy reading essays and non-fiction just as much as a god mystery. For me, it’s not so much content as it is having something physical in my hands. Plus I find ads copy words stick in my head longer than digital ones do. I did read your full post, word by word, and appreciate the effort and thought put into it.
Is instagram really inevitable though? What about chosing platforms to share your ideas that add depth, like Longford on YouTube? I personally don't get my updates from shortform, I don't enjoy it and feel like it's creating more harm than good. I prefer to consume (and publish) on Substack and YouTube.
If you write something publicly, it is because you want to share a piece of your mind. For you to achieve the "share" piece, you need to get eyeballs on it, and to do that, you need to go where the eyeballs are, and write in a way that the eyeballs will read an engage.
Mind you, in principle I agree with you, but reality is not so idealistic.
But there are an insane amount of eye balls on YouTube. Sure it takes more effort, but the connection is so much deeper. Are we not assuming that short form is the way? If we agree the platforms like instagram are degrading cognition shouldn't we put our energies towards the solution rather than engage in a race to the bottom?
YouTube is not much better. It HYPER focused on title and thumbnail (the things you can skim) and it screens good videos by engagement; how long you watch and, specifically, whether you watch beyond 30 seconds. 30 seconds! You can put hours of effort into a video, but if you don't have a clickbait title, thumbnail and a catch 30 seconds, you'll get no reach. These are analytics for long form, not short form.
Again, I agree with you. I love long form on YouTube. I watch a lot of YouTube and very little shorts, but the algorithm game on YouTube is just as hard as anything else. You really are a slave to the algorithm.
Most of the research shows that it's the decision making of scrolling that causes the problems, not the content itself. A study showed that watching a long video of lots of short content wasn't cognitively damaging.
Is YouTube hard? Yes. Of course. But remember the word algorithm can easily be substituted for the word people. If you create content that satisfies people, you will do well there. It's hard, especially in the beginning, but everything in life worth doing is hard.
The point here isn't about whether getting that right is difficult or not. It's definitely possible. Rather it's about where we choose to create, and do we participate in types of content that have an net negative effect. I personally don't believe we have to. All one needs is 1000 true fans, right?
So why contribute to the social slot machine when one can do the slow burn of building relationship in a deep and meaningful way in other places?
It all shifts and changes. 10-15 years ago, Twitter and Newsletters were the best place to sell books. 7-8 years ago Podcasts and Youtube was the best. 3-4 years ago TikTok had the biggest bang for your buck. Now, Instagram probably is the best place for converting.
It will differ with everyone's audience. But the problem with the 1,000 true fans model is that while there is truth in it. The fans are responsive to the medium of the day. So a newsletter doesn't have the same impact as it did 15 years ago because they are getting inundated with emails and newsletters. A podcast doesn't have the gravitas it once did, because everyone sells books on podcasts and now thye think they can just get the gist of it listening to a longform one.
You've got the experience with that, I know nothing about selling books. All I know is I've bought plenty books after watching YouTube interviews, reviews, etc but none ever through shortform.
They all inevitably optimize for the same thing. Instagram, Twitter, Threads, TikTok, even Youtube.
It's can I catch your attention. And when attention is the commodity, it inevitably pushes you to the things that best catch attention: Short, declarative, emotion invoking content.
YouTube allows for more depth, but if the first 30sec don't do the above, your video is toast. And increasingly, shorts is the way to get attention. Before all of that, if you don't have a catchy thumbnail and title, you're done for.
Even on here, the way to get seen is to write a banger Notes. Which is the same short, punchy style describe above.
Any time attention is the main thing, it's going to go towards this style.
I agree with you, but isn't the issue the deterioration of cognition which comes down to shortform scrolling?
YouTube shorts... yes, I try to stay away from that. But I'd far rather watch a 15 minute video by Robert Greene for example then flip through a bunch of Instagram posts.
Needing to grab attention with thumbnails and titles went through a clickbait stage (headlines will always need to be punchy, think adverts, magazines, newspaper titles) but if the content doesn't deliver on the promise of the packaging people will bounce, and rightly so.
Based on what you've so eloquently written about here, I would still say that I don't want to be part of feeding the shortform machine. I'd rather build depth even if it means less eyeballs.