Within a few weeks of starting up a new blog, I'm already running out of problems to write about. So, in the increasingly popular meta fashion, this post is about my problem of coming up with new content.
Coming up with content is not easy for me. Most of my posts tend to be around 1000 to 2000 words long, although some stories do end up longer, and rants have been as long as 40k before. Even though I have hundreds of different topics I would certainly LIKE to post about, the problem arises when trying to come up with something that is 1) not done to death by every other blogger, and 2) interesting and deep enough to write 1000 words on 3) without needing to spend weeks going down a rabbit hole of conspiracies (like my recent drafts, most of which will never see the light of day). Some posts, like an upcoming one on Greenland of all things, I expect to be significantly longer, but these have the issue of retention: to get a proper expression of perspective on a fairly specific topic, you need a lot more words, but too many words leads to boredom, and that's something I try to avoid here (If you want to pay money to be bored, go to a private school).
I'm not even sure how I'm going to drag this out to a thousand words because, frankly, most things just aren't interesting enough to write that much about. Even this topic has been done to death by YouTubers and Streamers with access to GPT-3's content generation algorithm, so this post breaks all three of the fundamental rules. But the question becomes "why are those three things the criteria for what makes it to publication?". Fear not, an explanation is below.
Rule 1 is simple enough to understand: site rankings. A website like Wikipedia, BBC, or a blog with a larger userbase, will rank higher given the exact same content and text, simply because they are considered by search engines to be "better" sites (i.e. more reputable). By picking topics that are less frequently explored, or more controversial, it's almost guaranteed that a big media outlet won't spend the effort to cover it. On the other hand, I don't make money off this blog anyway, so it doesn't matter how much time or energy I expend doing research for a post. As a result, it's better for me to target more niche or obscure topics which I have an interest (fixation) in, because I get better rankings and let's be honest, the only reason I have online platforms is to get validation from strangers.
Rule 2 is actually for a very similar reason to rule 1. If a topic and perspective can be expressed in less than 280 characters, the top 20 results will all be from Twitter, Facebook, or any of the other major online social media platforms, because they have the CTR (click-through rate) and userbase for people to look for them. Anything that can be written about in 50-500 words is going to be a multi-post tweet, or a comments discussion, or a post on a news aggregation site like ArsTechnica or Reddit, or any of the billion other sites on the internet. My target space is that 800-1200 word void in which I can express a perspective on an issue while also being able to "objectively" explain the context and background of the issue, as well as my biases on the subject.
Rule 3 ties into this: longer than 1200 words and you get into academic territory. I don't claim to be an expert on any of the topics I write about, most of my research is a few Google searches, some YouTube videos, and maybe a look through Google Scholar or JStor if I deem it important.
Anyways, I can't drag this out any further, so I'm gonna cut it off at 700 words, one hundred short of the minimum and three hundred short of the target. Don't forget to like and subscribe.