one

After so many years of technical writing, I sometimes wonder what valuable lessons could be shared that most people could use. Of course there may be many of them, but if I were allowed to pick just a few of them, what would my answer be?

However, these contents may not mean much to most people who have no creative experience, because these answers attempt to solve the pain points that only a few experienced creative people can relate to. Why don’t we try to answer some more practical and urgent questions, preferably for the benefit of even interested people? These questions have come up frequently in communication with other authors over the past few years:

  • How to ensure the effect of the article?
  • How to find an audience for content?
  • How to control the length of the work?
  • How can I get more exposure?

The digital shackles made the creative process difficult, and we were torn between being faithful to self-expression and avoiding the irony of numbers.

two

This confusion is not limited to text creators, but it is also true for creators of other forms of content, such as podcasts or videos. A closer look reveals that all these problems do not originate from the substance of the content itself, but the object of our anxiety is actually the transmission attribute conferred by the media twice. The reason for content alienation is that data grows naturally after seeding content, but when we unwittingly step into the digital trap, we painstakingly exchange points for approval of the first task of creation.

Pure numerical judgment is biased, because the Internet reflects only popular preferences. The paradox is that the system has no right to accurately represent any one person, but in the system everyone seems to be represented. If you define this kind of numerical judgment or algorithmic recommendation as efficient, it is precisely the efficiency that is built on laziness, where the real needs of individuals are repeatedly ignored, where three-dimensional people are crushed into flat data and then aggregated into labels. The bias of the Internet was predicted in Postman’s Book “The Technology Monopoly” : every tool has an ideological bias embedded in it that gives something a higher value in one way rather than another.

Another reason likes are popular is that attention equals potential revenue for both the platform and the creator. As a result, efforts to please the majority of content consumers, with the collusion of stakeholders, have become a reality, and more and more organizations are replacing individual opinions. While other people’s opinions are inherently alienating and allowed to be aggressive, organizations are actively catering to you, and they try to tease your positive feedback nerves from title to writing. The result is a further amplification of prejudice, as if what I see resonates with me. We expect to discover new things and connect with interesting people, but as Han Byung-chul asserts in The Terror of Homogeneity, digital full networking and full communication does not make it easier for people to meet others. On the contrary, it makes it easier for people to pass by strangers and others and ignore them… The terror of homogeneity sweeps through all areas of life in today’s society. People have traveled a thousand mountains, but have not learned anything. People look at everything and they have no insight.

It is unwise for indie creators to try to win every game of numbers they can. On the one hand, in the race for attention, the more sophisticated you are with the depth of your expertise, the more likely you are to turn readers away. Zero thinking, less pay, strong resonance, a needle is the most ideal form of this kind of product. When users are addicted to playing with reflections, when valuable content is losing ground, it’s an intriguing question who wins in this game. Consumers of course have the right to entertainment, but the power of choice can not be deprived.

On the other hand, it’s hard and you don’t have to cater to every niche on your own. Although Internet democracy has made it possible for all works to be viewed equally, the barrier of viewing has not disappeared. Johannberg points out at the beginning of The Way of Seeing that “the relationship between what we see and what we know has never been clarified… The way we view things is influenced by knowledge and belief “– in short, seeing is not the same as understanding, and any content will naturally lack a part of the reader’s support, and even provoke opposition, as expected. It would be unfair to the creator if all points of view were brought down to the lowest common denominator that everyone could understand. I am not criticizing the ignorance of the public, but reminding you that no matter how the carrier or medium of content changes, knowledge barriers have never been removed, and two-way screening between content and audience is naturally justified.

Escape from digital games, won’t make you, embrace priority content, at least, is the creation of a simple self-consistent way, your professionalism can not only for you to create a new track, different brougham eyeball for your content to build a even insurmountable moat algorithm, and you gain the attention of the person also will be more higher vertical loyalty.

Such creations are not easy either. The barriers to creation are low and an exhausting process. No matter what stage of your life you are at now, what you have learned and felt will always yield several insightful paragraphs or episodes of high-quality podcasts, but after those thousands of words or dozens of minutes? How do you ensure a steady flow of output for months or even years? I don’t see the real thing until after the honeymoon.

three

A more pointed question arises: If I can make a fortune from traffic articles, does it make sense for me to write quality articles? The flip side of this question is, what’s the point of writing a high-quality article if I go to all the trouble of writing a highly professional article and it doesn’t get a lot of recognition?

Although popularity and popularity are not opposites, it is difficult to achieve double effect in the same work. Take movies, for example, which can be measured by box office, and which are rated by professional or academic awards, which belong to different evaluation systems. If all works are ultimately quantified in numbers, it’s a utilitarian trap: Can we convert all the value of our content into a single currency, and make sure we don’t lose anything in the process?

If you’re passionate about making people happy, then I’m 100 percent behind you doing what you love. Business is better than art. Also, if you’re not getting results for your efforts, consider adjusting your evaluation frame and being more patient.

As for my personal opinion, I would like to quote a quote from director Jiang Wen to answer you:

In a talk show, Jiang wen was asked a similar question by the host, who raised two questions: one is that movies are just used to satisfy people’s vulgar needs; the other is that fastitiousness in movies really matters to the audience.

Jiang wen’s answer was: “The laity wants to go to the top… Give someone something nice to eat and he’ll remember the respect you used to have… I am a very positive person, an optimistic person, and I think he doesn’t get it today, he will get it someday. And so he understood that day back to think, ginger really worthy of me… Give someone something nice to eat, he’ll remember the respect you used to show them. Every day you want to be down to earth, take money out of people’s pockets, people also make progress, look back, grandson, you made me what bad movie to see.”

This passage needs no comment, the attitude conveyed from the original lines is best interpreted.

I’m still rooting for creators to get as many followers as possible, after all, it’s a win-win to spread valuable content further. But to be utilitarian, and at the same time to go beyond utilitarian, is an ideal state, not the norm. For creators with limited energy, deciding which channel to prioritize is a must. This is where you start, no matter how skilled you become.

The beginning of the article are most suitable for the problem of existential philosophy to answer: existence precedes essence, that is my nature to be shaped by my choice, I always my first one step, edge, edge build my post – your style or your audience is not you can set in advance, but need to be created by your works to create.

This article is also published in Zhihu column, welcome to follow