Readers: what is your preference

Well, I read some of your stuff, and it started with like, 3 sentences for a lead in, and then a huge comment. When you have a hugantic article I can understand splitting it up, for sure, and you often do. But when it's a itty-bitty article with a huge comment, some of that comment should've been up top.

I'm still going to read your stuff anyway, Terp, so don't make decisions based on me. Like you said, it's a personal preference.

your blog, your rules, do what pleases you terp. screw the nay sayers.

Your style never keeps me from commenting but I would rather have the entire article in the blog. Otherwise it kind of tricks me into thinking someone is already commenting on your article and I am just as much about comments from other Joeusers as I am about the original article by the OP.

I'll follow up here just a little more to say this...

There are times when the article is very short.  As an example: Coke or Pepsi, or that article complaining about the baseball announcers on FOX (for the World Series).  To me, those articles are best done in one spot with no push to get the readers to jump to the comments area.

On the other hand, many times in writing reviews of games or things like that, the article gets long, especially if I add pictures and such to it, or want to do quotes with it.  In those cases, it makes the most sense to me to use the jump.

Finally, on the issue of quotes -- the quotes are very easy to add and format when adding replies (comments) to articles, where they take more effort to include in the main article.  I normally cheat, edit the HTML of a reply somewhere that has a quote in it, then cut and paste as necessary to get the formatting right for quoted materials I'd have in an article.  If I put that material into a reply (comments area), it formats up nice and neat, and I'm done writing -- neatly formatted and all -- in no time flat.

I hope you take my comment as good-natured ribbing, BTW . . .

I, myself, prefer for the body of the article to be in the main article. I, too, add sometimes to the comments section as I think of things - or, occasionally, I'll put a comic, video, or music file that relates to the article, rather than post it on the (already usually too long) article.

But there are some that, without exception, will not post if someone forum bumps like that. For example, I know it's one of BlueDev's greatest pet peeves - so even if he thinks it's a relevant article, he'll abstain from commenting on principle alone.

I'm not like that - I think that forum bumps are excessive, but not a mortal sin. In fact, I read the majority of your articles, because I'm usually interested in the tech news you post, and thoughts on gaming systems (as a complete non-gamer) and HD DVDs and the like; I just don't comment often, due to my lack of knowledge in the areas.

Otherwise it kind of tricks me into thinking someone is already commenting on your article and I am just as much about comments from other Joeusers as I am about the original article by the OP.

Thanks for your comments TW.  I had to re-read your comments here a bit to figure out what I think you are saying, as for a minute there it was reading to me that the number of comments that an article had was some sort of trigger as whether or not you read it or not, but upon re-read I think I understand your point here.

Thanks for the comments so far, I do appreciate them and will take them under consideration.

As I said in the original article here,  I'm not personally a big fan of having to scroll up and down the page to find the various articles.  If I hit my home page for my blog, I like to think about what a reader will be presented with and figure that I only get a few seconds to hook a reader in on any one subject.  Especially readers that might be coming across the blog here compliments of Blogmad or Blogexplosion.  In clicking through those blog exchange programs, the people that are doing the clicking are presented with a page that may be cluttered (many of the blogs I've encountered are) and almost too busy to read.  On the other hand, when someone hits a page that has a long, long article, they may never even bother to scroll down the page to see what else that blogger was talking about.

Striking a balance isn't easy, but I've tried to some what balance what I included on what I consider the front page, along with what will be over in the comments area.

Actually, it makes me wish a bit for a feature in JU what would automatically condense articles with a nice 'expand' or 'more' button to show the rest of an article.

Anyway, again, I'll keep the suggestions and comments under consideration.  Thanks!

First off, it is your blog, do whatever the frell you want.

But as for me, when I come to one of your articles that continues in the comments, I immediately go away.  I refuse to read any of it.  It just comes across as a cheap way to get me to click on your blog more.  That might be entirely untrue, but it is the way I interpret it.  When I hit an article that isn't all there in the article section, I just click my way away from the page, never to read that article again.

I'm not a fan of forum bumping, honestly, terp. There was a time when it was essential to get an article published in the forums, that time is long gone.

I have had several of my articles bumped by forum bumping, and as you know, sometimes it's a matter of a few minutes between an article someone notices and one that sinks into the ether. Yes, I realize I could implement those same rules myself, but somehow to me it doesn't seem right.

But again, it is your blog, your rules. But I wouldn't rule out the possibility it is costing you readership.

But as for me, when I come to one of your articles that continues in the comments, I immediately go away. I refuse to read any of it. It just comes across as a cheap way to get me to click on your blog more. That might be entirely untrue, but it is the way I interpret it. When I hit an article that isn't all there in the article section, I just click my way away from the page, never to read that article again.

Definitely isn't my intention (to get people to click on the blog more), but you've got me wondering a bit what you expect when you hit a blog where there may be more than a few articles that have been posted in a day.  Do you really stick around on that blog and read them all *or* do you never actually go to the 'front page' of an individual's blog and instead only hit whatever articles show up in JU's 'front page'?

In my case, I'm looking at the site as I would expect a guest to see *my page*, not JU as a whole.  If someone is clicking through Blogmad or Blogexplosion and hits my page, my own expectation -- projected out onto what I'm thinking others think because I know how I feel when I hit another site -- is that if there's too much there to read on the main page, in the main column, that I've probably lost the reader and they are simply sitting there waiting for the countdown timer to pass so that they can skip on to the next site.

I'm normally happy when I hit a site where there's a 'more' button for articles and a few articles on various topics all there showing up in the approx. 640 pixels of depth that is available on my screen.  If I see a few article headlines there, I can start to determine what kind of writer I'm visiting and whether I feel a connection to that site or if I too just want to wait out the counter and skip on to the next blog.

Again though, I'm guessing that some people come to Joe User differently than others do and are likely not making the same assumptions I am (as evidenced by discussion here).

I don't like when there is nothing in the article itself for me to read. When I click on a blog, if it's not one of my regulars who I enjoy reading, it's because the title gets my attention. What keeps me there is what is talked about within the article. I get bored if there's nothing there, or if you present a point, but no counter point, or no actual views or opinions. I wonder what the heck is that? I move on. It's interesting to observe that many people want to be read, yet they don't read anyone else. [just a thought not directed at you but from something I read]

It's interesting to observe that many people want to be read, yet they don't read anyone else. [just a thought not directed at you but from something I read]

Great point, and I do make an effort to check what is new the day, review the article subjects, and then head off reading articles that looked interesting to me.  I may not add comments often, but I do like checking out what is going on and who's saying what.  On the otherhand, for me, if I check the new articles list and just don't see anything that inspiring, then I'm typically off another site that I tend to frequent where the messages and topics fly fast and furious and there's almost always something to get into a heated discussion about.

I may not add comments often, but I do like checking out what is going on and who's saying what.

Yeah, I do that sometimes too! I try to comment if it's something that yank my interest!

your blog, your rules, do what pleases you terp. screw the nay sayers.

Ditto on MM's comments.