Blogging is not Cluedo
One of the most annoying traits of a certain kind of A-list blogger is the habit of saying something that sounds deep and mysterious, or not saying anything at all, but leaving it to the reader to read the "clues" and solve the "puzzle" of what your point is. Usually this is a teaser to a subsequent blog post where all is revealed.
Lest I be accused of being obtuse myself, I'll name names: Dave Winer, Doc Searls, and today Om Malik are the worst culprits I can think of. Om makes the outlandish statement that the current "boom" is half over, which is attributable in his mind to a "WHY OF THIS BOOM" which he asks readers to comb through two long, boring articles to decipher.
Let me make this perfectly clear. If you don't support your statements on your blog with easily comprehensible supporting facts and evidence, you're telling your audience that you don't know what you're talking about. The inference in readers' minds is that you don't have the ability to form a coherent, plain argument, so you have to hide behind obfuscation, subterfuge and weasel words. I have not seen a single instance where the idea unveiled by the author has not been a letdown compared to the hype preceding it.
The vast majority of ideas are worth nothing. If your idea's that good, it doesn't need tarting up. Just say what you mean and let your words be judged on merit.
Lest I be accused of being obtuse myself, I'll name names: Dave Winer, Doc Searls, and today Om Malik are the worst culprits I can think of. Om makes the outlandish statement that the current "boom" is half over, which is attributable in his mind to a "WHY OF THIS BOOM" which he asks readers to comb through two long, boring articles to decipher.
Let me make this perfectly clear. If you don't support your statements on your blog with easily comprehensible supporting facts and evidence, you're telling your audience that you don't know what you're talking about. The inference in readers' minds is that you don't have the ability to form a coherent, plain argument, so you have to hide behind obfuscation, subterfuge and weasel words. I have not seen a single instance where the idea unveiled by the author has not been a letdown compared to the hype preceding it.
The vast majority of ideas are worth nothing. If your idea's that good, it doesn't need tarting up. Just say what you mean and let your words be judged on merit.
posted by Paul Montgomery | 2:57 pm
7 Comments:
To see my response, turn to page 63. Read the first letters of every word that is left justified and not tabbed. Therein lies the key.
Well said. Although I love his blog, I would add Umair Haque to your list...
Good point Rick. Umair also refers to himself in the third person, which is another sign of a person being up themselves. Paul Montgomery would never do that.
Doc asks for other examples. I can't think of one immediately for Doc, but certainly Dave's whole "funky RSS" fiasco was a perfect example of leading the blogosphere on a merry dance, which ended up with everyone getting so pissed off by the lack of straight answers that they went and invented a whole new protocol.
With Doc, the reason I included him was the naming of the Cluetrain Manifesto. It was a great marketing ploy, no doubt, because it created a class of clued up insiders who had worshipped it, and the unwashed masses who hadn't. Its arrogance is part of its charm, but it is still arrogant to assume you have access to important insights that others have to catch a cluetrain to comprehend.
Thanks for replying, Doc. I admit it's less fair to use you as a target for my rant about puzzles than the others. Your post backs up the arrogance with substance, as always. :P
I still think your book is all about marketing, though, from the title on down. Who else is it primarily aimed at but marketing VPs and PR professionals? That's not a bad thing at all, of course, especially when it leads to nice consulting fees for some lucky clue-ticketmaster. If someone's going to tell them how wrong they are, that someone might as well get paid in full for doing it.
He slams Doc and Dave personally without any "easily comprehensible supporting facts and evidence."
Post a Comment
<< Home