Seriously, though. I think people don't give enough space to ideas. Not that everything needs a thousand or ten thousand words, but if we're going to talk about a major thing like "how the nature of news consumption is changing," why not really think it through, ask other people for their opinion, present multiple viewpoints, make references and so on? Like this post, there are some ideas, but they're just sort of thrown on the table like a handful of notes on napkins.
The reflection of TL;DR (not the opposite, above) is TH;DW - too hard, didn't write. It takes time and effort to flesh out and explain an idea or point of view. It's hard to do sometimes when you know a lot of people are just going to skim it, but I think a well-presented idea is its own reward. I look back on some of the pieces I've written with pride, even though some of them received very little traffic precisely because they were long and, in a way, in-depth.
It's true that this is just a short synopsis of my thoughts on the subject. A more in-depth piece may be worthwhile and I'll definitely explore further--thanks for the suggestion!
The problem with TL;DR is people saying it and expecting to be applauded for their keen ability to lose focus after five lines, whereas they actually appear like some kind of idiot child presenting a truly godawful crayon scribbling.
I went to a reddit meetup a few years ago after moving to the bay area on the suggestion from someone at HN. I knew what reddit was at the time, what I didn't know was tl;dr.
While I was telling a story, someone told me "tl;dr"
I had to ask what that meant, and people started laughing.
I soon realized I wouldn't be hanging out with anyone who identifies as a redditor on a regular basis.
Only a small fraction of whom, the self identified or self evident redditors, he would avoid.
Chances are many people I hang out with use 4chan, but I avoid people that I can tell use 4chan. The reason is that these classifiers, unlike so many others, can be used as indicators of behaviour or attitude.
I think the issue is with self-identifying redditors.
I've been merrily using Reddit since 2007, but I wouldn't go to a Reddit meetup. Why? Because the "Reddit" culture is one I don't particularly find interesting. It centres around bad in jokes, immaturity and sexism.
There are definitely interesting parts of Reddit, but for me (and I'd imagine others) the culture which some users (unfortunately the loudest) identify with as being "Reddit" is quite immature and tedious.
Perhaps at one point Reddit was a shared interest which could lead to interesting conversations, but for quite some time the size of the community (and its spread in topics) means that the only shared interest of redditors (judging from the front page right now) is memes and funny pictures.
TL;DR The millions of Reddit users you'd actually want to hang out with probably wouldn't turn up to a Reddit meetup.
FWIW, I agree with you about the reddit culture, but the reddit meetups I've been to have been great. (I've been to a few in Bristol and recently two in London; admittedly the latter of those was not at a good venue for talking to people, and the former was supposedly an event which isn't much like many other London reddit events.)
Presumably it varies a lot from region to region. Like subreddits, but harder to subscribe to.
The trick is to filter out Reddit and start subscribing to the better sub-reddits such as TrueReddit and any other ones that you might find interesting e.g. I'm learning Java so I subscribed to the Java sub-reddit, the programming one, computer science one, computer science jobs etc. All really interesting sub-reddits with lots of serious conversations and a healthy lack of cats and sexism.
"Reddit users" is akin to saying "internet users"... Sure many people think of steve urkil, but anyone with depth realizes that the "culture" is wide and varying.
There are myriads of ways to make your pain known without being rude, dismissive or just plain stupid. Assuming, of course, that listening to the boring story really is painful - it can be viewed as a challenge for you to guide the person telling this story to do this in a way that will be enjoyable. Lastly - if you can't do this, you can just leave - I think it would still be much better that uttering "tl;dr".
I like summaries. I find the attitude conveyed by the recent onslaught of "tl;dr" to be more dismissive in nature than simply summarizing, implying that the content is not worth your time even if you have the time to spend on it.
TL;DR as used by a producer of content should be used as a summary. Tag your article with the details you feel are most important; if they pique the interest of a reader they'll read the whole thing.
TL;DR as a consumer should be used to indicate the content you are reading isn't written well. "I got this far in and it hasn't kept my attention. Abandoning the effort". A user calling tl;dr can be rude, but it does mean whatever you've posted is not engaging the reader's interest.
> it does mean whatever you've posted is not engaging the reader's interest
Or not. It can well mean that the reader saw how much text you wrote and went away after reading the title (or not even this) because he just doesn't like to read or has attention span of 30 seconds at most.
In my experience "tl;dr" is much more often a sign of laziness and/or being impaired in the field of literacy than it is legitimate complaint about how well the text was written. It's so stupid I really can't stand it; not too long ago, when my colleague used the phrase in this sense, I had to ask him: "Why are you proud to be illiterate?". This is what "tl;dr" really means: that someone can't read efficiently, has no intention of changing this and is perfectly happy that all the knowledge he'll ever get will be shallow and fragmentary.
From what I see this attitude often spreads into other areas, like reasoning, arguing and even just chatting - in effect such a person is dull, uninteresting and frequently incapable of any deeper insight. I don't think there is hard scientific data on this, but I do think it's time to gather some. And to invent a cure, because - for me at least - it seems like a disease.
There are legitimate uses for that damned phrase, but they are few and far between. In your example - is it really that hard to write, as you wrote: "I got this far in and it hasn't kept my attention. Abandoning the effort"? Why would you like to replace these two sentences with a "tl;dr"? I can think of but one reason I would consider legitimate and it is the case of major disability which makes writing that much harder for the one commenting. There could be other good reasons, but laziness and illiteracy are not among them.
The problem is, I care about what I chose to read. I care what the author had to say in this blog post. Since it was nice and short, I read it all but if he wrote a 1000 word essay, I would have liked a nice brief tl;dr. If there wasn't one, I'd just save the article and read it when I have time or can be bothered.
You're clearly wrong: if using TLDR didn't deliver some sort of value, nobody would do it. Your argument is similar to how my parents argue about texting - you just don't get it, and because of a cultural mismatch, you probably never will. But as an entrepreneur, you need to be able to notice when you don't understand something, and you need to be above disregarding trends because you don't understand them - you should be trying to understand rather than just giving up and saying "this is stupid".
Separately, there are several reasons why people read tons of news articles they don't really care about. In general, they fall within rewards of the self (desire for mastery, completion, etc). For more info, check out http://www.nirandfar.com/ and pay attention to his explanations of the different types of random rewards that drive behavior.
What exactly is wrong with writing "Summary" at the top of an article, rather than "TL;DR"?
We live in a multi-lingual world, using real words, correct grammar and avoiding slang should be standard in most posts/article. Throwing buzzwords and acronyms around is self-indulgence at the expensive of non-native English speakers.
I see it as the sorrowful realization of authors who know they'll be brutally summarized by a hostile third party unless they do so themselves -- against their will.
Though I agree with the premise that information isn’t consumed by quantity but by interest, I don't think there's anything wrong with providing a "tl;dr".
In fact, it can be useful in most cases. I think it helps me establishing wether an article is worth my time or not, wether it interests me or not.
I disagree. People consume and care about information on different levels. Perhaps you just don't care but some people do care and only want a brief overview.
Some people don't need the details of a story, for whatever personal reason. It could be limited time, limited interest or they just want the gist of the story so they can jump into the comments of a site like HN. I often read the headline of a story here on HN and go straight to the comments to see what the community has to say.
TL;DR is also a valuable way to find out if this story is actually interesting. Sometimes the headline (especially link bait) is so misleading that it's helpful to have a quick summary before taking the time to dive into a story.
Personally, I like summarized stories because articles tend to be written for search engines instead of humans. Repetitive content, long introductions, useless speculating and unnecessary back-story annoy me.
Of course, I'm biased. I created a news summarizing website[1] but I did that because I was tired of reading long-winded stories.
I want headlines to provide me with a concise summary of what I can expect to find within an article, so I can decide whether it's worth my time.
But headlines don't always do this very well; sometimes they promise more than the article delivers, and sometimes they're just poorly written and miss the point.
The tl;dr convention exists, and thrives even on HN, because we recognize the value of our own and others' time and attention. As you say, it's a valuable way to find out if the story is actually interesting or worthwhile.
Indeed. In the course of running Skim That, I've heard people refer to TL;DR as a tool for the lazy or that it encourages people not to read and be ill-informed. I think it's just the opposite. People care, that's why they're there reading things in the first place. The TL;DR helps people get more done.
SkimThat is kinda neat. I too have made a (unfortunately unpopular) website, more of a wiki in my case, based on the idea of hiding details: http://www.bookvoid.com
I think it would be nice in SkimThat if the news summaries could be made visible without navigating to a new page (That's how I do it in Bookvoid). Readers would only need to go to the new page if they wanted to see the comments or source.
Thanks. I like the concept of your site. I'm also having trouble getting traction with writers. Several people have summarized stories but only a few return and summarize. Most of the content is created in-house. I'm looking into adding more Game features to encourage participation.
I experimented with having all the summaries on the homepage, (Headline, picture, summary, headline, picture, summary, headline, picture, summary, headline, picture, summary) Though it was more useful, it looked messy.
Each day the system sends out an email with all the summaries of the day. That allows people to read everything in one place.
I'm thinking about experimenting with an endless homepage for members. People who want to see all the articles in one place and visit the homepage and just read everything as they scroll down.
Yeah it's not easy getting people to create content. I hope you succeed! What I meant was to hide the summaries by default but have a button or 'more...' link that reveals them inline which is quicker than navigating to another page.
I see what you're saying but even with a summary, it's still a lot of area to slide down on the page. I have a hard time implementing that without it making the page feel cluttered.
"However, the focus on speed and efficiency is not a good interim approach until we solve that problem better. News is an endless consumable; there’s always more to be read, endlessly produced. Making it more efficent solves a problem on the wrong side of the equation: how can the journalists get readers more information, more quickly?"
"tl;dr" is the opposite of speed and efficiency. It's about getting less information so that we don't always have to be speedy and efficient readers. It doesn't get you "more information more quickly" it simply gets you _less information_ when you don't need to have it all.
"the question really boils down to: where can I read content that interests me, the reader, and avoid the cruft?"
Well that's where 'tl;dr' type summaries help you. you can just read the tl;dr, summary or headline and avoid the cruft by not reading the rest if it doesn't appeal to you.
I believe the tl;dr should actually precede the detailed version as a headline or abstract that helps guide readers and let them choose whether to read further. However I realise this can sometimes result in spoilage.
I flatly refuse to use TL;DR. I am not aiming to talk to anyone who asks for TL;DR. Those people are not my audience. Oddly, I feel that those that ask for TL;DR are the very ones who should be reading the entire article, but that is likely my own hurt talking.
I do understand where the request comes from. Over the past few years, the web has been proliferated by writers who need 3 paragraphs to open up their essay (usually with no admirable content), 5 paragraphs beating around the bush, another paragraph of cliff-hanger, and maybe, after reaching the bottom of the page, the final point is made. This is not good writing, and I won't bother reading anything in a similar format. If there is no content in the first 2 paragraphs, I doubt that there will be much worth reading later on, thus I seek the respite of the back button. Each writer has his or her audience, and that audience who asks for TL;DR is not the audience of the writer.
I have an implicit contract: I offer to my reader a promise of concise and provocative writing. I suspect that by the time he or she is done reading what I write, he or she will have something to ponder, something to argue against, and/or gained new knowledge. My implied contract also states that, at the time of the writing, I created a piece that uses the least amount of words that I could have used. If that happens to be a 1500 word essay or a 3-word tidbit, my point was made, and my reader should not feel resentment towards me after reading it. If they do feel resentment and wish for a TL;DR, I have failed my end of the bargain. I took the time to write a piece I am proud of. I let the piece sit in my computer for days and edited past the point of pain. After all this work, I want my reader to spend 5 to 10 minutes with my article.
This reader/writer relationship is a two-way street. Good writing requires cutting out all the prolix bullshit. At this point, I can ask my reader to respect my words and my effort.
48 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadSeriously, though. I think people don't give enough space to ideas. Not that everything needs a thousand or ten thousand words, but if we're going to talk about a major thing like "how the nature of news consumption is changing," why not really think it through, ask other people for their opinion, present multiple viewpoints, make references and so on? Like this post, there are some ideas, but they're just sort of thrown on the table like a handful of notes on napkins.
The reflection of TL;DR (not the opposite, above) is TH;DW - too hard, didn't write. It takes time and effort to flesh out and explain an idea or point of view. It's hard to do sometimes when you know a lot of people are just going to skim it, but I think a well-presented idea is its own reward. I look back on some of the pieces I've written with pride, even though some of them received very little traffic precisely because they were long and, in a way, in-depth.
Information isn’t consumed by quantity but by interest. We really don’t need to read more, faster.
While I was telling a story, someone told me "tl;dr"
I had to ask what that meant, and people started laughing.
I soon realized I wouldn't be hanging out with anyone who identifies as a redditor on a regular basis.
Chances are many people I hang out with use 4chan, but I avoid people that I can tell use 4chan. The reason is that these classifiers, unlike so many others, can be used as indicators of behaviour or attitude.
I've been merrily using Reddit since 2007, but I wouldn't go to a Reddit meetup. Why? Because the "Reddit" culture is one I don't particularly find interesting. It centres around bad in jokes, immaturity and sexism.
There are definitely interesting parts of Reddit, but for me (and I'd imagine others) the culture which some users (unfortunately the loudest) identify with as being "Reddit" is quite immature and tedious.
Perhaps at one point Reddit was a shared interest which could lead to interesting conversations, but for quite some time the size of the community (and its spread in topics) means that the only shared interest of redditors (judging from the front page right now) is memes and funny pictures.
TL;DR The millions of Reddit users you'd actually want to hang out with probably wouldn't turn up to a Reddit meetup.
Presumably it varies a lot from region to region. Like subreddits, but harder to subscribe to.
Being forced to listen to a long boring story is painful.
TL;DR as a consumer should be used to indicate the content you are reading isn't written well. "I got this far in and it hasn't kept my attention. Abandoning the effort". A user calling tl;dr can be rude, but it does mean whatever you've posted is not engaging the reader's interest.
Or not. It can well mean that the reader saw how much text you wrote and went away after reading the title (or not even this) because he just doesn't like to read or has attention span of 30 seconds at most.
In my experience "tl;dr" is much more often a sign of laziness and/or being impaired in the field of literacy than it is legitimate complaint about how well the text was written. It's so stupid I really can't stand it; not too long ago, when my colleague used the phrase in this sense, I had to ask him: "Why are you proud to be illiterate?". This is what "tl;dr" really means: that someone can't read efficiently, has no intention of changing this and is perfectly happy that all the knowledge he'll ever get will be shallow and fragmentary.
From what I see this attitude often spreads into other areas, like reasoning, arguing and even just chatting - in effect such a person is dull, uninteresting and frequently incapable of any deeper insight. I don't think there is hard scientific data on this, but I do think it's time to gather some. And to invent a cure, because - for me at least - it seems like a disease.
There are legitimate uses for that damned phrase, but they are few and far between. In your example - is it really that hard to write, as you wrote: "I got this far in and it hasn't kept my attention. Abandoning the effort"? Why would you like to replace these two sentences with a "tl;dr"? I can think of but one reason I would consider legitimate and it is the case of major disability which makes writing that much harder for the one commenting. There could be other good reasons, but laziness and illiteracy are not among them.
It took being abandoned by a close friend to realize that there was a problem.
Separately, there are several reasons why people read tons of news articles they don't really care about. In general, they fall within rewards of the self (desire for mastery, completion, etc). For more info, check out http://www.nirandfar.com/ and pay attention to his explanations of the different types of random rewards that drive behavior.
We live in a multi-lingual world, using real words, correct grammar and avoiding slang should be standard in most posts/article. Throwing buzzwords and acronyms around is self-indulgence at the expensive of non-native English speakers.
In fact, it can be useful in most cases. I think it helps me establishing wether an article is worth my time or not, wether it interests me or not.
Some people don't need the details of a story, for whatever personal reason. It could be limited time, limited interest or they just want the gist of the story so they can jump into the comments of a site like HN. I often read the headline of a story here on HN and go straight to the comments to see what the community has to say.
TL;DR is also a valuable way to find out if this story is actually interesting. Sometimes the headline (especially link bait) is so misleading that it's helpful to have a quick summary before taking the time to dive into a story.
Personally, I like summarized stories because articles tend to be written for search engines instead of humans. Repetitive content, long introductions, useless speculating and unnecessary back-story annoy me.
Of course, I'm biased. I created a news summarizing website[1] but I did that because I was tired of reading long-winded stories.
[1] http://SkimThat.com
But headlines don't always do this very well; sometimes they promise more than the article delivers, and sometimes they're just poorly written and miss the point.
The tl;dr convention exists, and thrives even on HN, because we recognize the value of our own and others' time and attention. As you say, it's a valuable way to find out if the story is actually interesting or worthwhile.
I think it would be nice in SkimThat if the news summaries could be made visible without navigating to a new page (That's how I do it in Bookvoid). Readers would only need to go to the new page if they wanted to see the comments or source.
I experimented with having all the summaries on the homepage, (Headline, picture, summary, headline, picture, summary, headline, picture, summary, headline, picture, summary) Though it was more useful, it looked messy.
Each day the system sends out an email with all the summaries of the day. That allows people to read everything in one place.
I'm thinking about experimenting with an endless homepage for members. People who want to see all the articles in one place and visit the homepage and just read everything as they scroll down.
tl;dr Says there is a problem with tl;dr, arguments reveal why we need tl;dr more than ever.
"However, the focus on speed and efficiency is not a good interim approach until we solve that problem better. News is an endless consumable; there’s always more to be read, endlessly produced. Making it more efficent solves a problem on the wrong side of the equation: how can the journalists get readers more information, more quickly?"
"tl;dr" is the opposite of speed and efficiency. It's about getting less information so that we don't always have to be speedy and efficient readers. It doesn't get you "more information more quickly" it simply gets you _less information_ when you don't need to have it all.
"the question really boils down to: where can I read content that interests me, the reader, and avoid the cruft?"
Well that's where 'tl;dr' type summaries help you. you can just read the tl;dr, summary or headline and avoid the cruft by not reading the rest if it doesn't appeal to you.
I believe the tl;dr should actually precede the detailed version as a headline or abstract that helps guide readers and let them choose whether to read further. However I realise this can sometimes result in spoilage.
I do understand where the request comes from. Over the past few years, the web has been proliferated by writers who need 3 paragraphs to open up their essay (usually with no admirable content), 5 paragraphs beating around the bush, another paragraph of cliff-hanger, and maybe, after reaching the bottom of the page, the final point is made. This is not good writing, and I won't bother reading anything in a similar format. If there is no content in the first 2 paragraphs, I doubt that there will be much worth reading later on, thus I seek the respite of the back button. Each writer has his or her audience, and that audience who asks for TL;DR is not the audience of the writer.
I have an implicit contract: I offer to my reader a promise of concise and provocative writing. I suspect that by the time he or she is done reading what I write, he or she will have something to ponder, something to argue against, and/or gained new knowledge. My implied contract also states that, at the time of the writing, I created a piece that uses the least amount of words that I could have used. If that happens to be a 1500 word essay or a 3-word tidbit, my point was made, and my reader should not feel resentment towards me after reading it. If they do feel resentment and wish for a TL;DR, I have failed my end of the bargain. I took the time to write a piece I am proud of. I let the piece sit in my computer for days and edited past the point of pain. After all this work, I want my reader to spend 5 to 10 minutes with my article.
This reader/writer relationship is a two-way street. Good writing requires cutting out all the prolix bullshit. At this point, I can ask my reader to respect my words and my effort.