I just read every single comment, and not one person mentioned Typepad. Perhaps I'm the only one still using it. I started my blog there in 2004 and have been posting many times/day 7 days/week since: over 30,000 posts, all instantly accessible by anyone in my Archives sidebar. I haven't changed a single thing about the look or format since it began. I know nothing about coding, RSS, etc.; reading the comments, all the techie stuff washed over me like an invisible medium (no pun intended).
Medium is a poor choice for blogging
341–350 of 396 posts
Re: Medium is a poor choice for blogging
#342It's funny, because some years ago when Medium blogs were starting to be posted left and right, people were praising the interface, and nobody listened to the few who objected. Now, we need all kinds of tricks, add-ons and blocks to just read five-minute posts during our commute. It's 2018, and there are a gazillion ways to get yourself in control of your stuff. The next free framework that comes, which promises a cl…
> It's 2018, and there are a gazillion ways to get yourself in control of your stuff. But zero ways to get people to read it. I only read his post because it's on HN. And I read Medium stuff regularly on Medium. The chances of most people discovering some random blog? Not so much. Whereas Medium has concentrated eyeballs and knows their preferences to serve them stuff that's close to their tastes...
Isn't that what search engines used to be for?
Re: Medium is a poor choice for blogging
#343Pissing off the user creates an opportunity for competitors to kick in.
Re: Medium is a poor choice for blogging
#344I stopped writing on Medium because I don't want claps and statistics and incentives to add stock photos and so on. I don't want my writing gameified. Other than that, it's pretty nice. More here:
https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/01/04/The-Well-Appointed...
Re: Medium is a poor choice for blogging
#345[deleted]
Re: Medium is a poor choice for blogging
#346Funny, medium suggested this message to me.
Re: Medium is a poor choice for blogging
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mostly like your design, a nice clean look, but I have a couple of comments and a suggestion that you are free to ignore completely. Firstly, I hate sites that use such a narrow column on the screen. The wall of text from the previous post is obviously too much and is far too difficult to read and keep track of where you are, but using only a third of the screen seem far too little. I'm sure you could double the wi…
Disagree slightly on the width. Perhaps a little wider, but I don't hate it. On the font size: Home page gets it, actual posts the font size is far too small IMO
I actually agree and want to increase my main body font size. It’s also probably time to go serif, as sans-serifs are best suited for low resolutions (like for body text on all computers and mobile phones up to ~8 years ago) and serifs shine in high resolution (like on the printed page); today high-density screens are more common. Even “1x” monitors are wide enough that the increased font size they make possible increases the number of pixels available per rendered character. In the mean time, browser zoom will work well!
Re: Medium is a poor choice for blogging
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
He took it way too far. Long lines are unreadable and 50 more bytes of CSS would fix it. I humbly submit my own blog as being pretty darn readable without bloat. It’s responsive and simple. https://alanhogan.com Edit: Here’s a relevant article: The problem with new blogging platforms https://alanhogan.com/the-problem-with-new-blog-platforms
I can't use the Reader Mode in Chrome or Safari on your website? If you added that in, I would agree with you. Otherwise, it's an "OK" experience.
Hmm, just on the home page, or on actual articles? I don’t know why it wouldn't work on articles. (Edit: Actual articles are compatible with Safari’s reader mode. I don’t think you will find index pages are generally compatible, on any site)
Re: Medium is a poor choice for blogging
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget that it also prominently features a large distracting photo that was just ripped from a royalty-free photo site and has nothing to do with the content.
It worked. Then someone wrote about it, and everyone did it. Then it became a negative signal. There seems to be a 5-10 year trend lag time on stuff like that where the least self-aware self-promoters don't realize it doesn't work. Eventually a new trend falls to their level, and the cycle begins anew.
A big reason everyone has the big, irrelevant image on top is that medium was designed to work best with that assumption. If you actually blog there, your index won't look good unless you have a header photo for each post.
Re: Medium is a poor choice for blogging
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mostly like your design, a nice clean look, but I have a couple of comments and a suggestion that you are free to ignore completely. Firstly, I hate sites that use such a narrow column on the screen. The wall of text from the previous post is obviously too much and is far too difficult to read and keep track of where you are, but using only a third of the screen seem far too little. I'm sure you could double the wi…
> Firstly, I hate sites that use such a narrow column on the screen. FWIW most professional typographers recommend a column width of 30-40em. Much more than that seriously increases the distance the eye has to travel from the end of one line to the beginning of the next, and makes it harder to keep track of where you are. The max-width of this blog's main column is... 40em. And now you know why so many sites do this…
You’re exactly right. I have heard typographers express the maximum readable width as "two and a half alphabets," which is roughly 40em. A max-width of 40em is extremely responsive, making the most of your screen (on mobile) without overextending and compromising reading comfort (on desktop).