Random Poll #5: How long is too long?

I hate reading on the computer. Hate it. Which, I will grant, is a bit ironic for a blogger. But I find I can’t concentrate on posts that go very long and I worry a lot about eye strain. I try to keep all of my reviews on here at more or less 500 words. For anecdotal posts I sometimes go longer. When I was on a different (now deleted) platform I used to write much longer posts but it was harder for me to write and organize them.

I have just started experimenting with Bloglines and following a bunch of new blogs but find I am already cutting back because some of the posts are just too long for me to deal with. And that has made me curious as to what my reading public thinks on the matter. Thus the new poll.

5 thoughts on “Random Poll #5: How long is too long?

  1. I couldn’t commit to one radio button. Generally, since I read the NYT online regularly, I’d feel comfortable saying my average is between 500 – 1,000 words/post. However, if it’s interesting topic and it’s coupled with an author I like, I’ll read any length. (As in, I do read some of the week in review and other articles that are 10 links long on the NYT site.)

    Of course, I read all your posts.

    (As this comment conveys my own verbosity probably lends to my ability/need to read longer pieces.)

  2. I usually skim… if I find something interesting (like your review of Falling through Darkness), I read the whole thing. Sometimes, I have to read lengthy posts (like the Fuse #8 review of “When you Reach Me”) even though I wish it was more succinct.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.