This was rolling around my head, over the weekend. I’ve explained the point of the blog before, but It’s never been much in retrospect. I say that because it’s been since Halloween that I’ve last had something written. But here’s the debate:

The length of blogs is always a question because you want it to reflect the content you make. Countless blogs (if not every one)  post simple things 50 times a day, with the philosophy that they want you to keep clicking. They keep it short, and simple/vague. The idea is that the average internet user is a goldfish.

With idealoclast I figure, long form articles about conflicting subjects was a good change of pace from what is considered the standard blog. Focus on writing, focus on giving someone over the internet something to read than glance over. The idea is to start a conversation, but to have a conversation worth talking about, I always feel like there has to be a lot to say.

But the ideal blog length is actually pretty short. This is something I’ve learned. In a class. From a real journalist.

It makes sense… Half of the reason why I don’t write as  much as I should, is because I usually have other things on my plate, or other things that I need to write. The other reason is, when writing I feel like I need to have a lot to say. The Modern blog has conditioned me to think that there’s never enough on one post.  When someone makes a post that is just an image or a tweet, my complex forces me to think I’m over compensating for other people.

So here’s a question for you, the reader, as I cut this short. How long is too long for you? Vice-versa, how short is too short? What are things that annoy you about other blogs? What are somethings that some do better than others? If you’ve read enough of this site, where exactly does a blog like this fit into all of this?

In the meantime, I’ll keep writing. I’ll try to keep a pace. Together this could be a pretty learned place on the internet.