
A blogging style guide - mbaytas
https://robertheaton.com/2018/12/06/a-blogging-style-guide/
======
vaer-k
> 29\. Be sparing with pronouns in technical writing. It's better to repeat a
> noun than have it be unclear what "it" refers to.

This is the most valuable piece of advice I hope most readers will take from
this article for their technical writing.

~~~
ergothus
This advice ("avoid unspecified pronouns") also applies to communicating in
text, period. SMS, IRC, Slack, in all of them you can avoid a lot of confusion
by being clear in your nouns.

BAD: "We're hooking up the refresh token to the API next week. It was broken
by a bad commit, but that is fixed" GOOD: "We're hooking up the refresh token
to the API next week. The token was broken by a bad commit, but that commit is
fixed"

This advice is one of the two most important tips for clear communication in
text I know of. The other tip is: don't ask an A or !A question - you'll just
get "yes" or "no" as an answer. Instead, ask to confirm A and not B.

BAD: "Are we releasing this week? Or next week?" GOOD: "We are releasing this
week, not next week, right?"

This second tip, however, requires a lot more work to make natural.

~~~
tunesmith
The A or !A thing never fails. But it's more a hack to work around other
people having poor communication skills. It's also good advice to pay
attention to the question being asked of you, and actually answer it. So if
someone asks you, "Are we releasing this week? Or was it next week?", don't
reflexively answer "yes" or "no".

------
zabana
Non native English speaker writing: I have perfect understanding of the
language and I can even differentiate between different accents, but one of
things I struggle with the most is written communication. I don't seem to be
able to express my thoughts as fluidly as I can orally. My brain just freezes
out whenever I try to write "complicated" sentences which I find extremely
irritating. I don't know why this is and would love some pointers on how to
improve my (and others in the same boat) writing skills.

~~~
toofy
In my freshman creative writing class at university, my professor recommended
using stream of thought and it seemed to work very well.

Just literally start writing everything you think, as you think it,
everything, just write it. Don’t fret over spelling or even bother with
punctuation, no matter how disjointed, just stream and eventually you begin to
somehow fall into focus and the words will flow much much better.

Once you’re finished and have gotten your point across, just go back and edit.

We all kinda looked at each other and rolled our eyes because it sounds so
strange, but it really does seem to work.

~~~
csa
For those interested in learning more about this method, Peter Elbow is the
relevant author. His books _Writng without Teacher_ and _Writing with Power_
go into more details.

~~~
dri_ft
> _Writng without Teacher_

Feel like you might have taken the "don't fret over spelling" part of the
method a bit too literally here.

~~~
thecatspaw
I have to admit I am a little bit disappointed that its not the actual title
of the book

------
bovermyer
I love that the second point is basically:

"No, what you write won't matter, but nothing else does either, so go ahead
and write."

Curiously, that makes me want to write more.

~~~
chris_mc
Do a thing for yourself, not others, and most of the reasons not to do the
thing seem to fade away. If I truly want to write another Scheme interpreter
for fun I just do it now, instead of thinking "several thousand people have
already done this, it's useless to do again."

~~~
derangedHorse
There's only so much a person would do for themselves though. I'd like to
think most people eventually would want to work on something that has an
impact on at least one other person. I would say having a balance of projects
for oneself and projects that provide utility to other would be optimal.

------
graystevens
Well timed – I’ve been trying to get back into blogging, as a way of sharing
and giving back, as well as improving my personal ‘brand’.

I was never really happy with the visual format of my site, which I think put
me off writing at times - “if it were me, I’m not sure I’d read this in this
format, it’s too visually taxing”. However with a quick style change to
something much more basic, I’m feeling much more confident.

I think my final hurdle, which this article may help with, is my writing
style. I get the impression that my ‘style’ changes fairly regularly, or
depending on the topic or post I write for a different audience. This likely
doesn’t matter too much for those visitors who come for a single post and move
on, but anyone who would like to peruse around may get a slightly jarring
experience.

~~~
CM30
This is a similar issue to my own one; I'm way too easy to distract with the
promise of neat tech or extra features, so end up spending longer coding the
site than actually writing anything on it.

Wonder how many other developers end up falling into that trap?

~~~
Tallain
I did, and realized that I'd spent all this time that was meant to be for
writing on coding / finding cool tools / setting things up. Guilt overpowered
the fun in this and I threw it all away and just installed Wordpress. I still
play with the tech, but in a different time block, away from the writing
itself.

------
adtac
So I used to have a blog, but I felt this pressure to publish stuff regularly.
And that showed in the quality of posts I wrote; shitty, unsolicited articles
about nothing. And when I didn't have enough content (whatever that means), I
just filled it with random garbage. I've deleted that blog entirely since
then.

I've also come to the conclusion that there are two kinds of posts - regular,
essay-like blog posts and just random thoughts. These random thoughts could
just be 1-2 lines or just a paragraph. You don't need to develop them into a
full article. Twitter is designed for this, but Twitter is also suitable for a
lot of other things, so you shouldn't feel like you can't have these in your
blog.

Maybe I should write a blog post about this lol. I've been collecting topics
to write in a text file so that I won't run out of stuff to write. But I now
think it's perfectly fine to go 3-4 months without an article, until you feel
like writing one that's worthy. I know this is a bit contradictory to point
2/39 in this post, but I just thought I should share.

~~~
justinator
I remember when you could just throw just anything you'd like up on a site and
call it good. Curating was (or could be) part of it, but if you wanted to say,
"fuck curation" you could. It was YOUR website; it's not a curated exhibit in
a museum. Just be an amateur at something. Make a lot of noise!

~~~
wenc
I think that's ok if you're writing for yourself or for a bunch of friends.

But good blogs with steady readership generally curate. Readers gravitate
towards quality (because time and attention span are precious) and lose
interest fast if the quality is all over the place.

Most bloggers write more posts than they actually publish. The published ones
are the ones that pass muster. We don't see the stuff in their drafts folder.

------
Entalpi
Slighty off-topic but I find (as a non-native English speaker) the whole deal
with ”he/she” to be super annoying when reading. Especially when the gender is
basically not important such as when talking about what the dentist said (or
w/e). Is there any trick so to speak to avoid such situations?

Also, in Swedish we have ”he/she/* = han/hon/hen”. Which is soo useful and I
am still kind of amazed that the term ”hen” is a relative modern invention. I
wonder how in earlier days people referred to other people when the gender was
not the main focus. Maybe it was always more important before? Or was perhaps
the use of titles (the Dentristess..?) a way to denote gender an important
communication tool?

~~~
paulnechifor
Just use the generic he[1]. It's classic and has the benefit of not injecting
politics into an unrelated issue.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
person_pronoun#Generic_h...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
person_pronoun#Generic_he)

~~~
egypturnash
So the problem is that there’s no way to disguish the “generic” he from the
“gendered” he, and it is very easy to read everything that uses the generic as
being gendered, and then you suddenly have a world where only guys exist,
which is probably some sort of political statement.

The singular they[1] has precedent going back to the fourteenth century. Just
use that.

[1]:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they)

~~~
azangru
> and then you suddenly have a world where only guys exist, which is probably
> some sort of political statement.

I wish people who felt about that strongly and wanted to make a political
statement just used the gendered she creating the fictional world where only
girls exist. That would have been so much simpler and avoided so much
pointless arguments over the grammatical number and gender of pronouns.

------
Hard_Space
> Many articles begin with a human framing, even those about highly technical
> topics. Having established a relatable hook, the author quickly moves on to
> the general point of the piece, before returning at the end to the mid-
> Western accountant they opened with.

Radically disagree with this. Starting everything from recipes to teardowns
with a story about your first dog is getting to be a real curse of the
internet lately.

~~~
sacado2
If it's too artificial, that's right. But, answering the question "why am I
blogging about that? Why is that important?" is a great way to start an
article. And, most of the time, you can do it with a story-like setup.

~~~
belorn
I think doing so is a major mistake. The reader found the text through either
searching or reference (like a link on HN), and thus the answer "why am I
reading this" is already provided before they even loaded the site. It is much
better to hook the reader with what makes the text unique, confirming the
decision to continue reading, and then further down explain why this is
important, the history, and why the author is writing about it.

~~~
sacado2
Indeed, but IMO that's the role of the "chapô" (not sure about the English
word there; abstract? leading paragraph? I mean the short first paragraph,
sometimes written in a different font, that's here to engage the reader). So,
in an article titled "is blogging still relevant?", that first paragraph could
be something like

"Contrary to popular belief, blogging is still a viable economic activity
nowadays. Finding readers may be harder than before, and require some more
efforts from the reader, though".

And, then, have your article start as a pure story :

"You're in front of your computer, facing the blank screen. Finding ideas is
hard, today. You start asking yourself "Does it even make sense? Bah, nobody
will read my prose anyway". Then, you close your word processor and look for
the new cat video, thinking it's a better use of your time. Well, you couldn't
be more wrong. Blah blah..."

OR, after the leading paragraph, you could still use a narrative stucture
(setup, problem, attempts to solve the problem), but in a low profile version,
ie without the made up character:

"Numbers don't lie: there are 10 times more blogs nowadays than 5 years ago,
and people spend 5 times less time on blogs, since they spend most of their
online time on facebook or instagram. One might wonder if starting a new blog
today still makes sense. Well, first, blah blah..."

------
azangru
Do people write (blog) for themselves any more? This blog post frames the
whole experience as an extroverted attempt to please the audience that is not
yourself. Which is totally fine if you regard blogs as a medium directed
primarily outwards, at others. I am just curious whether anyone writes
primarily for themselves (in order to better organise their thoughts, or leave
a reference for their future self), where any readership is purely accidental,
not the raison d'etre? I know that I do.

~~~
palmy
If time allows it and I want to ensure I understand some concept, explaining
it to someone tend to be very useful. Writing a blog post is then a great way
to do so without requiring one of my friends to listen!

I do this without even publishing the posts. As mentioned in one of the other
comments, I am vary of making these accessible for the public due to lack of
"oversight". I feel like there's a responsibility when sharing information,
and if I'm not 100% sure what I've written is correct, I don't want to mislead
people. And even if correct, one should really ask themselves if it actually
adds something to the topic which is otherwise not easily accessible. I think
this is especially important to ask today when there is so much information
already available.

Hence I actually think writing blog posts as means of understanding is a
really goof approach; whether or not the piece should be made public is
something that should then be judged case-by-case.

~~~
chrisweekly
vary -> wary

goof -> good

:)

~~~
palmy
Cheers :) Autocorrect got me real goof!

------
Veen
This is great, although I'd suggest people steer clear of Strunk and White --
it's ancient and full of nonsense.

Instead, try Steven Pinker's "The Sense of Style", "Artful Sentences" by
Virginia Tuft, and a new favorite, "First Write a Sentence" by Joe Moran.

~~~
okl
> This is great, although I'd suggest people steer clear of Strunk and White
> -- it's ancient and full of nonsense.

Could you provide an example?

~~~
Veen
This is a good place to start, and you'll find some defences on the same page:

[https://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/happy-
bir...](https://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/happy-birthday-
strunk-and-white/#geoffrey)

This is a more complete set of criticisms.

[http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/50years.pdf](http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/50years.pdf)

Also see Language log, which has many posts on the wrongness of S&W.

EDIT: If you're not familiar with Pullum, he's the co-author of the Cambridge
Grammar of the English Language and probably the most respected grammarian
alive today.

~~~
okl
I found the comment section on the NYT blog more intriguing than the article.

The arguments brought forth by Pullum (I don't appreciate your appeal to
authority) are completely ridiculous, examples:

> .. both authors were grammatical incompetents.

There are many ad hominems of this kind in the article.

> No force on earth can prevent undergraduates from injecting opinion. And
> anyway, sometimes that is just what we want from them.

Whether you should write subjectively surely depends on the type of text that
you are writing. Providing style advice based on expectations of which _urges_
undergraduates can't resist is laughable.

> "There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground" has no sign
> of the passive in it anywhere.

The book does not claim that this sentence is in passive form at all: "Many a
tame sentence of description or exposition can be made lively and emphatic by
substituting a verb in the active voice for some perfunctory expression as
_there is_ , or _could be heard_." (cited sentence follows)

Pullum also cites three works of literature from around 1900 that do contain
the phrase _none of us_ exactly once (?!) followed by a plural verb to make
the point that _none of us_ should be followed by a plural verb.

> "The copy editor's old bugaboo about not using \"which\" to introduce a
> restrictive relative clause is also an instance of failure to look at the
> evidence. Elements as revised by White endorses that rule."

I don't know where he found that rule; my edition of the book does not contain
it.

For that article Pullum gets no respect from me. He set out to bash the book
and its authors with ad hominem arguments, falsifications and far-fetched
proof.

~~~
freehunter
You asked for sources for an opinion on a subjective topic, you're not allowed
to pull the "appeal to authority" card for being given exactly what you asked
for.

~~~
okl
Of course I am allowed to! Pullum being a respected grammarian does not
substantiate the opinion that S&W is "ancient and full of nonsense."

------
firefoxd
Many years ago, i added a script to my blog to scan for certain words and
throw an error if I ever use them.

Earlier this year, i was having trouble publishing my article. No matter what
I did, it would simply refuse. I try locally with a sample text, it works
fine. I spent hours testing, and blaming technology until I reread the error
logs carefully:

> The word "Viviparous" is not allowed in this blog.

~~~
killaken2000
Why did you block "viviparous"?

------
julesie
As a female computer programmer called Julianne, I chuckled at point 18.

------
tpaschalis
Robert has an awesome blog! Stuff like this makes me appreciative, but also
jealous of people who can have the skill to put concepts and thoughts into
simple and eloquent words.

It's been almost two years since I've started my own little corner of the
internet and of course, it initially it was somewhat awful, but I'm also happy
to see my writing (and that corner) improve gradually. I'd recommend to anyone
to do the same!

------
chiefalchemist
Perhaps one of the more helpful / useful things I've read in the last few
weeks.

My personal rule of thumb, which arcs over a number of the finer points, is:

"It's not what you say, it's what they hear."

So when it comes to humor, pronouns, self-deprecation, etc. you have to step
back and crank up the empathy. Will they hear what you intended, or might you
be misinterpreted / misunderstood?

------
gizzlon
Good input and definitely worth considering. Bookmarked :)

I really do dislike #18 though:

    
    
      "If you need a quick name for a generic fictional character, 
      consider using one from a culture or gender that you usually wouldn't.[..] 
      the cost of sometimes calling your imaginary computer programmers Julianna is zero."
    

First of all, there's a often a good reason you usually wouldn't: It's not
realistic. And many readers will pick up on that and be annoyed. So the cost
is not zero.

More generally, I think truth matters, and talking about the world as _it is_
does not mean we don't want change. Pretending the world is somehow "better"
than it really is does not help anyone.

~~~
keerthiko
You're free to dislike it, but your conclusion "it does not help anyone" is
objectively false.

It actively does help many people. There's a reason why marginalized
communities care about "representation". Seeing people like themselves
represented in the mainstream helps a marginalized individual see the path to
an advanced level in an industry where they are a minority. It's inspiring. It
keeps them trying despite meeting a roadblock that their other peers may not
encounter. It may not be realistic, but representation is welcoming to
minorities, and not really harmful to well-represented folks.

Just because it doesn't help you, doesn't mean it doesn't help anyone, which
is a good thing to keep in mind in general.

~~~
gizzlon

      "You're free to dislike it, but your conclusion "it does not help anyone" is objectively false."
    

Well, you think that, but you don't actually know. Even if it helps in some
ways it could have downsides (for the individuals or the society at large)
making it a net loss.

    
    
      "Seeing people like themselves represented.."

Probably, and that's all fine and dandy. It's possible to do that without
pretending. It's the misrepresentation of reality id dislike, not the
diversity itself or even the highliting of it.

    
    
      "Just because it doesn't help you.."

That's very condescending. Also, I'm sure I'm in _some_ minority if I look
hard enough :P

~~~
patcon
Minority in any meaningful sense, which is what we're discussing here, is
something felt. Seeing reality distorted toward your representation is
something you can feel, because it's otherwise been off-kilter and absent
throughout the rest of your spacetime, in a million little ways.

If you don't feel it -- or think you have to dig deep and look, as you suggest
-- then, I love you, but you don't really understand what is being talked
about here. That's not a barb or a take-down, nor anything the you should feel
bad about, but it is a fact about the conversation you're trying genuinely to
have.

No pressure, but this is a really good read!
[https://sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/37/](https://sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/37/)
It was the very first thing I accidentally came across back when I used to
moderate a forum, before I realized there was anything to figure out about
these conversations. I'm grateful for any consideration or attention you've
given to this comment, as I know that we're all stupid-busy and distracted in
this world of our. Cheers :)

------
nickjj
I've been writing for a while (few years, 200+ technical posts) and I have to
admit, I don't follow most of the advice in that guide.

I pretty much go with:

Explain the why, show the how, make it as concise as possible, and whenever
possible share shorties from real world experiences to make it relatable to a
use case.

Also, up until writing this comment I didn't even realize I was doing the
above. In other words, I don't set out to do that for every post. It just
comes out like that naturally because most of my posts are based on
experiences instead of forcing or trying to invent a blog post.

------
k__
When I wrote one blog article a week I tried to write small pieces with
actionable content.

Explaining render props in React.

Explaining JavaScript promises.

Explaining Webpack's offline plugin.

Often with code examples.

------
dewey
Thanks for posting that, it sums up a lot of points I always have in my head
when I'm reading other blog posts but couldn't quite put my finger on it.

I really wish more people would especially take the advice of 11 and 12. Too
many articles (Main offender being posts on Medium) are just made unreadable
by using memes, gifs and swearing.

------
cafard
"""It's fine to use a thesaurus to look up an alternative word for "clever"
because you already used "clever" a few sentences ago. Just don't come back
with "meretricious"."""

Good grief. I don't have a thesaurus, but do they really give those as
equivalents?

~~~
endisukaj
They give many (all?) alternatives. It's up to the writer to pick the word
they want and usually inexperienced writers will pick a complicated word that
makes them seem clever.

------
fathead_glacier
The post provides useful set of rules to follow when writing text. I want to
add another one which I have found to be beneficial to my work: the write-good
linter for English prose ([https://github.com/btford/write-
good](https://github.com/btford/write-good)). Using linters for writing text
helps to systematically avoid transcribing everyday speech into written text.
A habit which is widespread among people who write infrequently and without a
peer review.

For me the best workflow is to pass a text document to the linter before the
build/deployment procedure (after finishing all writing work!) and modify the
highlighted entries. As a result I can see which sentences can be phrased in a
way which improves their structure and ultimately the quality of the text.

------
rubatuga
I see a lot of great tips, and I believe that anybody who wants to touch up on
their writing skills should bookmark this page, especially for later editing.
For the tips about humour, I have to strongly agree. Badly executed humour
just comes off as confusing or unprofessional (or both!).

------
davemp
My problem is editing. I’ll write an article, do a revision, then let it
collect dust.

I don’t really believe in posting a long form article that hasn’t been
reviewed by someone who understands the topic. I almost always leave out some
not-so implicit knowledge or don’t expound enough on the more interesting
points. It’s hard to address these types of issues without a fresh pair of
eyes.

Most of my peers don’t know how to effectively get through a 10 page pdf and
give only the most useful feedback. I feel like they are scared of being
overly critical or think I’m expecting they invest more than a single read
through and thoughts.

Maybe I’ll go back and give the third draft on some of these articles a try
anyways.

~~~
barman
For editing, one thing that has helped me is learning sales copywriting and
direct response.

Copywriting forces you to trim the cruft and makes you take the reader's
perspective. Their time is valuable so you need to be entertaining and
engaging, AND you need to get to the point fast.

Tested Advertising Methods & Scientific Advertising are just some of the
classic books about sales copy.

I don't know what topic you're writing about, but sometimes you really just
need to get your work out there, despite it not being perfect.

I spent too much time writing and re-writing this article on procrastination
([https://medium.freecodecamp.org/procrastination-sucks-so-
her...](https://medium.freecodecamp.org/procrastination-sucks-so-heres-the-
eat-that-frog-way-to-powerful-productivity-543b07ecf360)) till I finally said
"f--- it, I'm going to write this last section about finishing and shipping,
then hit the publish button"

~~~
davemp
I’ll give copying writing a try! Letting an article sit seems like it might be
needed for self editing. At least for me specifically.

> I'm going to write this last section about finishing and shipping, then hit
> the publish button"

Fitting. Nice article as well!

------
proxygeek
There is some good advice in here, some which I myself stumbled across after
trial and error.

But 39 points?!

May be it's just me but whenever I see a list with over 10 items, I just get
so tired when thinking about it. Ultimately it just gets filed away, never to
be referred again.

I wish the post started out saying "9 things to get your writing style better"
instead of "...39 ways to make your blog..."

In fact, even 10 is a long list. These days I try not to make lists more than
5 items long. Even shorter when it comes to list of things to do. Of course,
each item can have some sub-items, if needed.

Edit: auto-correct mistakes and rewording

~~~
SyneRyder
I was about to criticize you for not strengthening your attention span, that
maybe sometimes you really do need 39 points... but on closer reading, I agree
this could have been trimmed down. At the very least, 34 - 36 are variations
of the same theme, and I'd simplify the entire section on humor down to just
point 25: "It's better to be clear than funny."

But it seems like this was written as 39 points that help the author when they
write, and it just happens that many of the points that help them are also
useful to others. There's a lot of really good stuff in here & I wouldn't
dismiss it just on length.

------
ncmncm
He should have said about the thesaurus: it's only for reminders -- don't use
a word from it you would not have used; your readers probably won't know it
either.

And, "Elements of Style" is a manual on how to lose confidence in your
writing. Read Geoff Pullum's essay on what he calls "the nasty book": "The
land of the free and The Elements of Style",
[http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf](http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf)

~~~
combatentropy
Let me just add my take here. You don't have to agree with it. But it seems
unrepresentative for this to be the only remark about the Elements of Style.

I started to read the PDF you link to, "The Land of the Free." I found myself
disagreeing with sentence after sentence. It doesn't help that he uses
Strunk's first edition, which is very, very different from the famous second
and third editions (my favorite). The edition he looks at is just Strunk.
There is no White.

\- Strunk and White did not write it together. Strunk was one of White's
professors. Strunk had a homemade textbook. Strunk died. Decades later,
White's publisher asked White to take Strunk's old handbook and rewrite and
add some stuff. White did. The second edition. I can't remember if I have read
this edition. I own the third edition and have read it over and over.

\- When I look at the first edition online, it is much less inspiring. It has
a lot more tedious tidbits and completely lacks the second half that White
added.

\- Even the third edition has stuff that I'm not sure is that important. But
for me the overall gist was groundbreaking. Things like shorter is better.
Don't try to be fancy and draw attention to yourself. Basically, writing is
not some competition for fanciness. Many people think it is, but if you are
trying to write for the sake of the reader --- instead of just to make
yourself look good --- you will try to write efficiently and clearly.

\- To me this was groundbreaking, because in not a single English class was
this book ever mentioned, the overall teaching of all my classes was totally
different, and the output by most of the world (blogs, textbooks, emails,
whatever) seems to indicate that they have never read Strunk and White at all.
"The Land of the Free" seems to say the opposite, that the Elements of Style
is oppressing everyone, that most people are following it. Maybe in his neck
of the woods, but not anywhere I have been.

~~~
ncmncm
It is clear that you were not paying attention to what you were reading.

Pullum compared Strunk's edition to White's rewrites, and demonstrated White's
disgraceful changes to his teacher's better writing.

~~~
combatentropy
No, I just stopped reading after a while. At the beginning he says he used the
free edition, which is only Strunk. Your verbal abuse only reinforces my
opinion that something is amiss with the anti-Elements stance.

------
0xferruccio
Great tips on writing, made me want to read more from the author and I found
his post on WeSeeYou democratizing de-anonymization hilarious and thought
provoking [https://robertheaton.com/2017/10/17/we-see-you-
democratizing...](https://robertheaton.com/2017/10/17/we-see-you-
democratizing-de-anonymization/)

------
sideshowb
Can someone expand on this?

> There’s a three-way tradeoff between establishing credibility, being honest
> when you aren’t an expert, and sounding like a douche. For example: “No, I
> didn’t go to writing school. I learned my trade at the University of Life,
> the School of Hard Knocks, and the physics department at St Catherine’s
> College, Oxford University.”

Is the example meant to be douchey or not?

~~~
dredmorbius
False humility. "I'm unqualified, except that I'm extraordinarily qualified."

~~~
sideshowb
To me it comes across as self deprecating e.g. I am very qualified in
something but it isn't writing which is the relevant thing in this context.

Goes to show how tone can come across differently than you think.

Anyway aren't Oxford departments separate from colleges?

------
burnt_toast
Thanks for the post. I really like point 2: "If you’re wondering whether you
should write a piece at all, you probably should"

If the topic is something you've just learned, it can be helpful to write
about it right then versus a week down the road. The topic will feel more
meaningful, and your less likely to downplay your own accomplishments.

------
kapilkaisare
> 20\. Alternatively you can also alternate between "he" and "she" and toss a
> coin to see who goes first.

Please, don't. Pick a single pronoun and stick to it. The alternating between
he and she has left me confused for a minute on more than one occasion.

If you must be politically correct, why not use 'they' instead?

------
maaaats
> _Stay away from memes - they 're just cliches propagated at the speed of
> Twitter. Never do anything to "all the things"._

:tada: A standard technical post on Medium is a couple of meme-images with no
context throughout :ok_hand:, and emojis absolutely everywhere. :partyparrot:

\- Commented with :heart: by Mats

------
bigblind
Loved this style guide. As a non-native English speaker, I think it's even
more important to be mindful of your style, so you don't continuously use a
limited vocabulary or small set of idioms.

I would have liked some good/bad example sentences for some of these.

~~~
rubatuga
I think number 26 was an example of bad humour.

------
codingdave
One final item I'd add to this list: It is your own writing for your own
reasons. Feel free to ignore any rule that you disagree with or just don't
like, in particular if your write as a personal exercise, and not to try to
build an audience.

------
matt4077
I love Robert’s humanity shining through in this piece. “It doesn’t hurt you
in any way, so just do it instead of arguing” is both trivial and rare.
Today’s low-hanging fruits of moral advice, so to speak.

------
platz
> strengthened property rights appear to have been responsible

Economists do not universally agree on the root cause of 20-21st century
growth

~~~
pluma
That sentence really came out of left field.

"Here's how to write a blog post. [..] It's okay to poke fun at my particular
ideology but you still have to admit I'm right."

------
claudiawerner
>It's entertaining to poke fun at the downsides and pomposities of capitalism
without denying the fact that strengthened property rights appear to have been
responsible for much of humanity's progress in the last century or two.

What a bizarre ideological point to see in an article like this.

