Angoel (angoel) wrote,

On IRC, it was suggested that if posting something was something that you would not be sure about talking to someone in the pub without them giving you a chance to shut up, then it should be put behind an lj-cut. I thought that this might be a sensible solution to the not-boring-people-with-revision thing, so I stuck them behind a cut. Discussion about what to do about people who didn't want to know about revision was clearly also something that the average reader wouldn't want to observe, so I stuck that behind a cut, too.

Now, looking back at the posts I've made in the past, I end up thinking that a goodly proportion of them should be behind cuts too, for containing games nargery, talking about boring 'today-I-did-this', for being unexplained rants.

And I start think to myself, why cut anything. Sure, if the post goes on for 2 pages, or it contains a picture that distorts the entire page, but otherwise?

When I read live-journal, what I do is scroll down my friends page, reading stuff as I find it. When I find a cut, I automatically open it, pretty much regardless of why it's supposed to be cutting stuff. [Admittedly, I'm a bit wary now with Emp's spleen pictures, but that's about it..]. All the LJ cut does is to make it more faff to read stuff that I would read anyway, forcing extra time to be spent openning windows here and there, destroying the narrative structure. Does it really serve a useful purpose?

In particular, if the post isn't interesting, I'm can't really see how sticking it behind a cut will really save the day. The casual reader will ignore the post anyway. The compulsive reader will read it regardless. It'll save a marginal amount of effort when re-skimming through posts, but is it really worth the initial cost?

On balance, I'm not sure that it is.

[Of course, since this is hidden behind a cut, I'm going to get a hugely biased set of readers ;)]
Tags: meta
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic